Jobs

[nathanm]

Anyone know if the massive hire and fire from the temporary census jobs is included in the federal employment figures?

Yes, if you look on FRED for USGOVT you will see the 2010 spike from the census employment. OC, I'm not sure what relevance your figures have. Nobody has claimed that the US has had a full employment recovery. If they have, you might look at them a little funny and wonder if they're slow. Since the bottom of the recession, however, we have had what would normally be considered good employment growth in the private sector. The depth of the hole we're in means that good employment growth isn't enough. That's what happens when you have a depression level employment shock.

Oil Capital, the 1,036,000 government jobs have been lost since the peak of government employment during the stimulus (excluding the census worker peak in May 2010). I derived that by looking at the data listings for CES9091000001, CES9092000001, and CES9093000001, finding the absolute peak, and measuring from there.

To embed, you can just click the link titled 'link' above the graph and it'll pop up a box from which you can copy the image URL.

BTW, here's a graph of the percentage change from the previous year for both government and private employment. (absolute change produces a crappy graph because there are so many more private sector workers than public sector employees)



Ex-census, government employment has been dragging down the numbers since early last year. That was and remains my simple point. Private sector growth is within the range of what is considered reasonable, especially for a depression level event. Let's not forget that much of the rest of the world is actually having a worse recovery than they did after 1929. We're well ahead of that, thankfully.

The blame should be directed at both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are too busy worrying about what their donors think to actually alter course. Do keep in mind their donors are mostly quite happy. After all, post-tax corporate profits are up over 10% (adjusted for inflation) since the Bush peak in 2006, or about 20% since the pre-recession plateau. The donor class is doing fine. It's the rest of us that are hurting. I suppose this is why Mitt seems to think more of the same is the answer. More government cuts, more tax cuts, just more of the same. At least Obama is asking Congress to do some other stuff, even if they refuse.

[Oil Capital]

OC, I'm not sure what relevance your figures have.

The relevance (as I stated in my post) is to show the falseness of your statement that public sector shrinkage is offsetting private sector employment growth "and then some".

[guido911]

I believe you are correct.  I believe he was "present" at that time.

This is what gives Romney the edge on "Bush's economy" argument. Mittens was not a part of the government apparatus when all the crap that caused the collapse took place. At worst the left can accuse of him of "agreeing" with certain things, but it was not HIS economy like Bush and present.

[Red Arrow]

Tell us about how GW was one of the greatest presidents Conan, that is a funny story!

George Washington?

[nathanm]

The relevance (as I stated in my post) is to show the falseness of your statement that public sector shrinkage is offsetting private sector employment growth "and then some".

You're right. I exaggerated in my third post or something. It was really only (about) a quarter of private sector job growth offset by the decline in direct government employment. I'd have to find figures on the effects of the budget cutbacks on indirect employment (contractors, suppliers, etc) to make a stronger statement.

[nathanm]

So, speaking of jobs, this New York Times article (link to Google search so everyone can click through and read the full article) claims that only 16% of 2009-2011 high school graduates have full time jobs compared with 37% before the meltdown. Seems to me like saddling them with long term unemployment is worse than saddling them with more federal debt.

Does anyone know of any figures that might confirm/refute this reporting?

[Red Arrow]

So, speaking of jobs, this New York Times article (link to Google search so everyone can click through and read the full article) claims that only 16% of 2009-2011 high school graduates have full time jobs compared with 37% before the meltdown. Seems to me like saddling them with long term unemployment is worse than saddling them with more federal debt.

Does anyone know of any figures that might confirm/refute this reporting?

I noticed that the article only considered high school and 4 year college degrees.  There are other alternatives like Tulsa Tech.  They are considerably less expensive than a 4 year college and can provide training needed beyond high school to get a decent job.   Still no guarantee but a better probability.

[Conan71]

You're right. I exaggerated in my third post or something. It was really only (about) a quarter of private sector job growth offset by the decline in direct government employment. I'd have to find figures on the effects of the budget cutbacks on indirect employment (contractors, suppliers, etc) to make a stronger statement.

YEAAAAHHH, THAT'S THE TICKET!!!

[nathanm]

I noticed that the article only considered high school and 4 year college degrees.  There are other alternatives like Tulsa Tech.  They are considerably less expensive than a 4 year college and can provide training needed beyond high school to get a decent job.   Still no guarantee but a better probability.

Huh? The article was talking about kids who don't have a college degree and aren't going to college for whatever reason. Even so, there have been plenty of stories in the news about the plight of recent college grads and their also very high un/underemployment rate, which in a way is even more of a crisis, because kids graduate with so much debt these days, thanks to both a lack of employment opportunities during school and the rapidly rising cost, even at public institutions.

Nursing is pretty good right now, though. I don't think we can expect every young person to go into that field, though. I guess a few could go into accounting. The big firms have been hiring lately. I think pharmacists are also in relatively high demand at the moment. I believe that one takes six years, though. I guess I'm just not quite sure what fields these kids should be looking to get a degree in at a two year school, other than nursing, that is. It's definitely less of a problem if you end up not being able to find a good job after graduating, though. I'm pretty sure the average debt load of graduates from four year schools these days is north of $20,000.

Yes, Conan, cancelling a quarter of all the job growth since the bottom of the recession is such a great idea. We should definitely do it again.

[Red Arrow]

Huh? The article was talking about kids who don't have a college degree and aren't going to college for whatever reason.
I guess I'm just not quite sure what fields these kids should be looking to get a degree in at a two year school, other than nursing, that is.

A few years ago, one of my friends' son was graduating from high school.  I asked if he planned to go to college.  The answer was no, he was going to Okmulgee Tech to become an auto mechanic.  I don't remember if a "degree" was involved but he got the training and some experience in the work/school program that got him a job when he graduated from Okmulgee.  The last I heard he was working full time at a Tulsa auto dealership. 

I agree that high school doesn't really prepare anyone for a good job but there are other things out there that aren't considered college.  If you only want to work with what you learned in high school, so be it. 

[erfalf]

A few years ago, one of my friends' son was graduating from high school.  I asked if he planned to go to college.  The answer was no, he was going to Okmulgee Tech to become an auto mechanic.  I don't remember if a "degree" was involved but he got the training and some experience in the work/school program that got him a job when he graduated from Okmulgee.  The last I heard he was working full time at a Tulsa auto dealership.  

I agree that high school doesn't really prepare anyone for a good job but there are other things out there that aren't considered college.  If you only want to work with what you learned in high school, so be it.  

Personally, I think it is about time many of our institutes of higher learning (universities) should take a cue from vocational schools. Universities should be preparing young people for careers (so they can pay for said education), not to be "well rounded" or whatever.

[nathanm]

Personally, I think it is about time many of our institutes of higher learning (universities) should take a cue from vocational schools. Universities should be preparing young people for careers (so they can pay for said education), not to be "well rounded" or whatever.

I don't disagree that vocational training is important, but so is helping people become "well rounded". Luckily, many schools already have some vocational training.

[Red Arrow]

I don't disagree that vocational training is important, but so is helping people become "well rounded". Luckily, many schools already have some vocational training.

Being well rounded and unemployed can't be as satisfying as partly rounded and earning a living.

Oklahoma has too many "well rounded" people anyway.  Haven't you seen the obesity numbers?

[nathanm]

Being well rounded and unemployed can't be as satisfying as partly rounded and earning a living.

Sure, but the biggest obstacle to hiring at the moment is reported to be a lack of demand, not a lack of skill on the part of prospective employees. We're already thick with folks with training and degrees who can't get jobs in their field, even when that field is not underwater basketweaving.

[Conan71]

As per vocational training, welders are in very high demand.  There's currently about 6000 positions which continue to go un-filled in the Tulsa area.