The World Socialist Web Site reports
The US economy continued to stagnate in April, creating a mere 160,000 jobs, far fewer than the 200,000 predicted by economists and the lowest number in seven months, according to the monthly employment report released Friday by the Labor Department.
Employment gains have averaged 192,000 a month so far this year, well below 2015's average of 229,000 jobs a month.
The official unemployment remained at 5.0 percent, while employment fell by the most since 2013. The labor force actually declined, with 362,000 people dropping out of the labor market. The labor participation rate--the share of working-age people in the labor force--dropped to 62.8 percent from the previous month's 63 percent. The employment-to-population ratio also declined, falling to 59.7 percent.
These dismal figures are consistent with recent data showing a sharp deceleration in US economic growth, which has slowed for three consecutive quarters. Last week, the government reported that the nation's gross domestic product rose by only 0.5 percent in the first three months of 2016, the weakest quarterly pace in two years. Of particular significance was a dramatic decline in business investment, portending more months of minimal job growth.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday May 09 2016, @02:27PM
The elections tend to siphon a lot of resources out of the system.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @02:29PM
To make sense of these numbers. I think one has to take a sharp look into how the numbers are measured and the educational level these people have and what industries they work in. On top of that cultural background also plays in, like white Americans are more likely to have a job, while Mexicans may be less so.
Perhaps more importantly, does the GDP grow without adding jobs? How is the innovation rate and business climate? do companies have to spend resources on distractions besides the bottom line? And then there's the comparison with other countries. Is the growth happening elsewhere?
System wide one has to take into consideration if there's a need to invent new ways to make things better. If the physical resources of producing food and housing goes down. Of course it likely translates into real value increase of any ones income. If the efficiency is the same and more people shall share what's available, then it will cost more etc. It's very easy to get completely lost in economic numbers and not have serious look at the underlying factors. They tend to be a way sharper predictors. And many numbers tend to be manipulated by those that has a vested interest.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @02:34PM
I don't know about all of that - but I do know that a Mexican is far more likely to be working, than your average young white males today. The economy is stagnant. We may not be losing tens of thousands of jobs to China any longer, but we sure as hell aren't creating new jobs. Being jobless means being jobless, no matter your education, culture, or whatever else you want to take into account. You don't have a job, so you depend on charity and/or government to support you. That life sucks. I can pretty much guarantee that the jobless don't give a small damn about "business climate".
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @02:39PM
Just about anybody can get a job in the USA, but it might not be the one you want, and you might have to commute or move to a big city.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @02:48PM
I suspect that may be true. The real question is, will that job provide you with food and shelter? Far to often, the answer is "NO". I can almost understand those people who give up, and settle into the welfare culture, because they can't make ends meet. Working three different jobs, and going without sleep for them might sound alright in theory, but when the rent is due, you still don't have the cold hard cash to hand to the landlord? Might as well live in government housing, get a good night's sleep, so that you can go shopping when your EBT card is loaded.
Business values labor so little, that they are happy to pay less than welfare pays. And, government values lazy bums so much that they are happy to pay a layabout more than he would get at an entry level job. Something is terribly screwed up in this country.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 09 2016, @02:48PM
old white male, here.
unemployed. trying my best, but not seeing any action over the last few months.
for the last 15 years or so, I've been in and out of work, like I'm some kind of rental agency. companies may ping me once a year and hire me for a short duration to get something done, then they throw me out like yesterday's trash (ie, they never offer me f/t; its contract only, and I never have a choice in the matter).
I'm trying to work on a project that might highlight my skills and maybe by posting that to github (etc) it might help get me noticed from all the noise out there (so many people looking for work, it really is noisy, in a way).
but every time I get close, they see I'm an older white guy who was born and raised here in the US and they immediately put me on the 'only if absolutely necessary' list. the first list is always ALWAYS the h1b 'guest workers'.
on one company in the bay area (where I live and really do prefer to stay), I went to the employee listing on linked-in and I could see ONLY indian names there. I'm not sure I saw one single typical western style name on the list. how blatant do you want this to be, guys? I mean, you are not even TRYING to hire a few token americans. its as 'in your face' as can be and the immigration dept simply smiles and does nothing. the lawyers have figured out what to say on every h1b form and they'd worked the system so well, they don't even bother with americans anymore.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Squidious on Monday May 09 2016, @03:12PM
Do you have a linked-in account? I am not looking for work, but the last 6 months I have been getting slammed by recruiters and HR types looking for senior developers. Most were for jobs out of my area. All of these found me through linked-in.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 09 2016, @03:45PM
LI is where I put most of my effort in my job search.
interest != job_offer
interest is often just a show to say 'hey, we TRIED to find a local, but for this or that reason, he didn't meet our needs'.
calls, especially from offshore recruiters (lots of them in the last year; people who live in europe are calling me trying to setup a phone screen with a US company. very odd, but even recruiters are being offshored!)
even a face-to-face interview could just be a due dilligence to say 'yes, we REALLY tried to find a local'.
but you walk in, you see one indian name after another and you realize that they have their group all locked up and you KNOW what goes thru their mind.
I just wish I could understand the mentality of a guest worker, who is now a manager, and who actively does all he can to AVOID hiring the people who were born in the country he now lives and works in.
I try to turn it around, but it does not make sense to me. if I moved to india and I brought all my friends with me, and if I was allowed (this part would NEVER happen) to hire only americans, what would the locals think?
again, it could not happen in many countries other than the US. the US cares nothing about what happens to its own people. not really. people don't matter. after citizens united, companies now rate more respect than people and if hiring cheap foreign indentured servants helps the person known as CORP ABC, then by golly, no one is going to stand in their way. peo^H^H^Hcompanies have to eat, afterall!
I guess its a mental trick that guest workers play, when they come over here. they must know that what they are doing (actively avoiding locals) is horribly wrong and it would NOT FLY if done in their own country, and yet once they get jobs here, they seem to look 'right over' anyone who needs a job and is a US citizen. how they justify this lock-out in their minds, I just don't get that. they have to know what they are doing. they see that, yet another desi is being hired in their group and whitey, well he's still on the moon. what do they think when time after time, its only indians (and some other asians) that are hired? does this bother no one??
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @05:12PM
At least you are getting some interest in your account.
I am moving somewhere else to get a job. Where I live there are exactly 3 places that want programmers.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 09 2016, @07:27PM
this is what scares me about 'moving for a job'
I know people mean well, but when I relate my difficulty in finding work in my own area, I'm told, time and time again, 'just move out and go somewhere else!'
first of all, that's really a huge deal for many people. if you are fresh out of school, its not a big problem most likely, but as you get older, you are more rooted to your locale and moving away is not as easy as some may suggest.
second, you move for a job and then find it didn't work out. you are now worse off! and if you want to move back, you need relocation and good luck finding THAT in today's economy.
if I can't find a tech job in the center of tech jobs in the world, I guess I might just have to give up. and I'm trying my best to stay positive and not give up, but its really hard, week by week, and you see your savings decrease with no job in sight.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:21PM
you are now worse off
Yeah that is possible too. However, 'no job' is not exactly better either.
It was clear to me 20 years ago that the SF area was in serious trouble. The median rent and housing was 2x everywhere else. It is why I avoided it if at all possible. Unfortunatly my prediction is coming true and much worse than I had thought. Luckly you do not need to make 100k in the rest of the country to have a nice middle class living. That area has a serious problem with too much money. I have seen it time and again with people I work with. They get too much and suddenly they do not realize they are not much better than everyone else and start acting *real* snobby.
Ageism, racism, and sexism is rampant in our industry. Even in 'progressive' cities like SF. I see adverts for people that state H1B only. Some are not even bothering with the pretense anymore.
I am lucky I am not 'rooted' to the area I live in. So I will move. It is a risk though as you point out. But I am not really much worse off than I am now. I also saw the writing on the way for the last job I had here. I saved like mad (200k in the bank and 200k house paid off). So I should be 'ok' for a bit. But I am not sticking around here.
Remember the 'tech center' is not all that. A good 80% of that is 3-4 companies. The rest are left overs that are probably going nowhere.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @10:38PM
Remember the 'tech center' is not all that. A good 80% of that is 3-4 companies. The rest are left overs that are probably going nowhere.
SF area only has 3-4 real companies?
About housing costs. I have been thinking that if one can drop that. Then one will have loads of cash flow..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @05:28AM
My point was all the 'success' is concentrated in a small amount of companies. These companies are so large they swamp everything else out. It ends up making everything around it seem better than it is.
I did imply that was a bad thing. I apologize I should not have done that. It can have a nice halo effect on the other companies. But just beware of a cargo cult culture as it can happen easily. Where someone is successful therefore 'they must be right'. It is why you see lots of 'open office plans'. Not because it has actually been studied to be a good thing. But because one large company did it.
As for housing. Unless you 4x (minimum) the amount of housing available and crash out all the equity people who own property nothing will change (in fact it will get much worse). Remember the people who own most of the property in that area already control the zoning board. Do not think for a second the housing crunch there is not manufactured. That is creating a perception of value. One that is built upon the gov controlling the amount of housing built. That could easily change. Do not rely on it. When I see, what in the rest of the county a ~100k - 150k (and that is being very generous) house going for millions. Something is out of wack. Given a real market the natural reaction would be to build more (lots more at those rates). That the building is not happening tells me someone or a group of someones is price fixing. The usual way is a combination of zoning laws, environmental studies, and section 8 rules. I have seen it many times used to scuttle smaller projects. But nothing on the scale that is happening there. Probably the most amusing FU that I have ever seen is what George Lucas is doing with skywalker ranch.
I personally feel I am successful (nearly 1 million in equity, cash, and stocks). However, I do not believe I could live there long and not pretty much lose everything I own. I am not the right age, color, and ethnicity. Right sex though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @05:38AM
Here is an example for you: Melbourne and Indialantic, in Florida.
It's nothing, right? Not so for a nerdy US citizen!
There's a Raytheon facility that does offensive cyberwar, and they hire as many people with low-level (assembly) skills as possible. There are several startups formed out of there, such as Vector35. There are NASA contractors. There is Harris, with thousands of people doing... stuff... for the military and NASA.
They all demand US citizenship. They are mostly not doing web/phone fluff; they want real programmers and even true engineers.
If one job doesn't work out, there are the others. Houses within a mile of the beach go for 80,000 to 200,000 usually, and lots cheaper if you buy in Palm Bay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @04:54AM
Fail 1) Focusing your job search on LinkedIn. There are newspapers, company sites (they really suck but apply through them anyway), other job sites, poster boards in local stores, word of mouth (ask a librarian for help), walking in the front door and handing over your application, etc...
Fail 2) Assuming you won't get the job for any reason. You're mentally setting yourself up to fail so you're probably making mistakes you otherwise wouldn't do and aren't noticing. You're looking at people's race and using it as a reason to fail instead of succeed. You think all H1B1 workers are shit? Then prove it to them by Acing the interview they give you. Even fake interviews give you the chance to practice your interviewing skills. Try/say something different if you're going to falsely believe you've already been selected out and that everyone in the process is wasting their time dealing with you instead of saving their time and lying that an interview took place.
Fail 3) You sound aggressive/angry/annoyed and depressed. Would you want to work with a person like that? Fake being cheerful in all your forms of communication.
Fail 4) You said you don't way to live the bay area but your only other choice is to leave the country. That's bullshit. The bay area is bullshit. There are so many better places in the country. Apply to places outside of the bay area. Once you pass the phone interviews, many companies will pay to fly you out there for an annoying day of in-person interviews. Then after they want to hire you, tell them you need assistance relocating. Are your current set of friends worth starving for? Do they not use phones or email? Is your social anxiety too high to leave a place you're familiar with?
Fail 5) You're only thinking of putting together a portfolio. You should absolutely have a portfolio and you don't even need to start any new projects. What about all your contracts? Did you ask for letters of recommendation? All you allowed to show off the work you did? If not can you add that into your next contract? How did that work improve the company, why did the company pick you over their internal employees? Are you leaving those on good terms? Have you asked them what you could do better or if they knew anyone who might need you?
Fail 6) You're limiting yourself to only positions in your current field. If the field is drying up for you, you need to find a better pasture. Don't be stubborn, learn something new instead of trying to show off your current skills. This new thing could be in a different field. You might have to go to community college to learn it. Ever wanted to give massages? It builds strong arms.
I got laid off in under six months from my first job out of college. No one wants someone who lost their first job so quickly. Couldn't find a job for 13 months and attempted suicide. You sound like you're frustrated and have basically given up in your job search. That is hurting you more than you realize. You're not getting hired with your current approach, you might as well try a different one. The worse thing that might happens is that you also won't get a job, but you already know your current approach isn't working, why stick with it? I found Glassdoor (and Bugmenot to login) very helpful when preparing for interviews with companies.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 09 2016, @05:35PM
Same here. I'm seeing fewer openings than I did at the start of the year.
What has helped is reformatting my resume. It seems application tracking systems were garbling the information in my prior version because I listed the total time at one company along with each job there and the dates for each.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday May 09 2016, @06:14PM
What was your previous job title? I've been changing mine randomly and "Code Wrangler" is by far my favorite. No more headhunters : ) Software Engineer drew less than Software Developer, btw. I have no idea how linked-in connects jobs to people but the job title must be a huge piece of it.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 09 2016, @10:02PM
Join the SN staff. We're an honest to goodness, tax-paying company. It won't put food on your table cause we don't get paid but it will look better than being unemployed for extended periods on your resume.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @10:40PM
Can't you go full in for contracting? have some real deep knowledge edge and charge by that standard too. Or sell something using your skills?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @05:03AM
Fuck off, you and all the other trump supporters with victim mentality. You are being screwed because you are old, not because you are "white male".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @05:23AM
Out of about 300 nerdy/hacker/engineer types, I think we have less than a half dozen people of East Asian origin. All are US citizens. We even have a mix of ages.
Want that? Accept that you really do need to leave the bay area. Hey, I was born there and I have relatives there, but it's no place for you or I. It's young Asians doing web and phone apps in Java, Swift, and JavaScript. Accept that you don't fit and move on.
Pick a defense contractor that is willing to sponsor security clearances. (this excludes the H1B visa holders) Choose a place you can afford, like Texas or Florida.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @03:03PM
> I do know that a Mexican is far more likely to be working, than your average young white males today
Like most of the things you "know," the facts say otherwise:
Bureau of Labor Statistics - Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population [bls.gov]
TL;DR for all ages 20 and up, white men have lower unemployment rates than latino men.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @03:50PM
Male Hispanics in the US clearly work more than white males, almost 10 percentage points more. It's true, they work as hard as they seem to.
You want to look at labor force participation rates or at employment rates, but not at unemployment. Unemployment is mostly a cyclical measure, it's not made to look at such a long term demographic trend. Unemployment is only counted among those in the labor force, not the whole population, so it does not tell you how many have a job, but instead it gives you an idea how hard it is when you try to get one, month to month.
Same source, correct table [bls.gov]
-Apologies from an economist
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 09 2016, @03:50PM
"20 and up" is not a useful stat.
break it down by age.
lets see how many tech workers who are over, say, 40, are employed and the better stat is, how long do they tend to hold jobs and do they even GET benefits or are they treated as only contractors for most of the rest of their lives?
the details like that matter. and I suspect the data is hidden or not easily available.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @04:04PM
As your fellow AC points out - Hispanics are more likely to be employed than almost anyone. There's a REASON for that. Most Hispanics are raised with a work ethic - something we seem to have lost in this country. I've met very few lazy Mexicans, and those I have met are despised by their brethren. Petty criminals are respected more than a lazy person. You have to get into some pretty serious, heinous crimes before Mexicans detest you more than they detest a lazy person.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 09 2016, @05:06PM
They work hard in general, but carefully avoid working hard at learning English, which is the only significantly annoying thing about them as a race.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday May 09 2016, @05:49PM
There are plenty of lazy Latino workers, I once did some digging on a construction site with two Latinos and every 10-15 minutes they'd stop for 5-10 and just chat, except when the boss came by. I think you are confusing desperation and hope with a hard work ethic, because working long hours for shit pay (except for the exchange rate which means they're making serious bank once they send it home) is way better than living in fear of execution from cartels. Also, they are so easily replaced that only the hard workers tend to get picked up. Its a less structured version of corporate efficiency, bust your ass or your busted broke.
I keep hearing about the new generation's laziness, but I see it as a side effect of the lie which is the American Dream. Of course no kid born and raised in the US is going to want to do hard labor for minimum wage (might be a tiny bit higher) and overly long days. If telecommunications were reasonably priced and money was not being siphoned up to the top of the pyramid, then food could cost more and farmers could afford to follow labor laws and provide good work environments (conditions, hours, pay). If picking grapes paid decently more than working in a fast food chain you'd see a lot more white kids in the fields.
I will admit that a lot of kids grow up without any physical labor, so the concept is probably scary for most of them
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:50PM
There's a big f-ing difference between working hard and workmanship. Every mexican my previous employer hired cut corners to the point of being dangerous. The employer didn't give a shit, it was more profit for them because they were pumping out more productivity. They would regularly hire the cheapest labor possible but have one quality worker (me for one) per location to fix all their f-ups. This is a major worldwide business folks, that I can't name because of an NDA!
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @10:45PM
So they "work more" but when the quality is taken into account or for that matter how much value adding they provide. Things looks more into the favor of white people?
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @10:47PM
How is it with Asians, are they more employed with higher pay than Whites? is there any group that accomplishes that? I recall some statistics on Google. Someone claimed they had bias for White males (Caucasians). But once one had a look at the percent of Asians, it came to complete shame. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @05:11PM
The world economy is still recovering from the banking crisis, and our economy is heavily linked to the global economy. Many countries are spending resources paying off their debt instead of investing in growth. China was carrying a lot of the growth weight, but has stumbled since also.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @11:31PM
The one who is in debt is not free..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @05:28AM
If, by that, you mean "Joe Average is now better able to pay his bills than he has been since the giant flat spot starting in 2007", I'm going to say NO.
Virtually ALL of the "recovery" has gone to the people who are already very rich.
For Joe Average, it's been A JOBLESS RECOVERY.
Jobs are still a major export of the USA and any jobs that spring up to replace those pay less, with those typically described as poverty-wage jobs.
Real unemployment in the USA is over 23 percent.
That is about where the USAian economy was in 1932 when the USA voted out Hoover after he had sat on his thumb for 4 years following the crash of 1929.
Under FDR, when the economy recovered, Joe Average's lot improved.
The definition of "depression" needs to be changed--or we need to find a new word to describe what's happening in the economy.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @03:15PM
Keep in mind that the U.S. population is growing enough that even if ~200,000 new jobs come into existence each month, there aren't fewer jobless people. Solutions include longer prison sentences, eating the young, mass sterilisation, euthanasia chambers, and a radioactive berm encircling the country.
Oh and condom distribution in the schools, though I doubt the American public will stand for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @04:16PM
[...] and a radioactive beam encircling the country
That may increase unemployment at the national level instead of reducing it; it's not clear. Migrants also increase the labor demand [openborders.info] along with the labour supply, with an uncertain net effect.
-Apologies again
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hawkwind on Monday May 09 2016, @08:44PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 09 2016, @10:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @05:48AM
In no small part, that's because the "recovery" isn't going into the pockets of people who would spend it back into the economy.
It's going to the folks whose spending isn't proportionate to their incomes[1] but who illegally hide their wealth offshore without paying taxes on it.
[1] How many pairs of shoes can one person wear?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 10 2016, @08:07PM
At some point, if you want a working economy, you need to attract the wealth of people who don't spend it right away. If they were investing it rather than hiding it, then the US economy would be much better off. A key step would be to wean ourselves off of one-time strategies that don't help us.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Tuesday May 10 2016, @03:17PM
Considering all of the detail in the article plus links to additional sources I suggest checking it out.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 10 2016, @07:41PM
And the spin on this is remarkable. For example, the author touts a record run of job growth (see pretty chart, "A record run of job growth") ignoring the unusually low starting point and the anemic rate of job growth over the period in question. Some periods should actually count as negative job growth due to job increases growing slower than available workers grew. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, the US population was increasing at more than 200,000 people [multpl.com] a year over the period in question. More than half of the months of job growth would fall under a threshold of 200k per month.
And the chart "A blip or something more?" (share of adults working or looking for work) visually shows a blip not something more at the end of a steady long decline in labor force participation. Yet it is spun there and elsewhere as a "strong" job market getting "stronger".
What is most interesting here is a complete absence of any market-related analysis which is a usual 538 staple. Markets don't directly trade in any securities that measure unemployment rate or labor force participation. But traders wouldn't ignore the impact of present and future labor force improvement. So why isn't that analysis there too?
Finally, here's a chart [stlouisfed.org] which displays what I think is wrong with the 538 analysis. It shows employment versus total population for people aged 25-54. Even now, we're not yet back to the employment ratio of the 20 year period ending in 2008. The start of that period in 1988 was just at or above the current ratio of 77.7% last month, let us note. The author can wax poetic about all the recovering going on, but why wasn't it doing this several years ago rather than now? I think the whole period from 2000 on to now shows a sea change in US labor force participation that isn't for the good.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday May 11 2016, @01:08AM
Sorry but it's easy to find good or bad practically at any time. And outside of spending an hour or two a day with the Wall Street Journal or some other business oriented outlet I've found 538's weekly analysis to be a great source.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 11 2016, @02:31PM
I've found 538's weekly analysis to be a great source.
So what? I've already described serious problems with this particular analysis.