People, I want 3 people to respond & tell me if I'm right, 4M quits means 1M jobs open at end of mo. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15195297
It seems to me that if a lot of people (4M) quit their jobs last month, that then the total of people with jobs would have gone down a lot. At least 1M of those jobs would still be open at the end of the month, either because the quit happened in the last week or the boss had not replaced the worker yet, by the end of the month.

In fact, the job number IIRC was just 194K more than for the last month. Not the IIRC 700K that MS economists expected. If we add those 1M quits to the 194K, we get 1.194M more jobs not the 700K that the final total was. I know that these are quite rough numbers. However, surely the number of jobs added to the economy that month was at least 890K jobs added if the last many quits are not counted, not the 700K reported. And yes, there are some quits in every month.

This was taken in the MS media as proof the economy was hurting and not coming back like it was hoped. I see this spin as just wrong. That people quiting sh!ty jobs as a good thing, not a bad thing. So, take out 70% (= 3K) of those who quit and the number doesn’t seem so bad (1,194K -300K =894K). Well, except for the owners who now need to hire a replacement, maybe for more money.

I remember a day, long ago, when the employment applications asked, “How much pay do you need?” Do they still? Maybe owners will have to increase the pay because nobody will accept those low paying jobs any more.

So, am I making any sense here? If I'm wrong tell me why or how.

.
#15195369
Steve_American wrote:It seems to me that if a lot of people (4M) quit their jobs last month, that then the total of people with jobs would have gone down a lot. At least 1M of those jobs would still be open at the end of the month, either because the quit happened in the last week or the boss had not replaced the worker yet, by the end of the month.

In fact, the job number IIRC was just 194K more than for the last month. Not the IIRC 700K that MS economists expected. If we add those 1M quits to the 194K, we get 1.194M more jobs not the 700K that the final total was. I know that these are quite rough numbers. However, surely the number of jobs added to the economy that month was at least 890K jobs added if the last many quits are not counted, not the 700K reported. And yes, there are some quits in every month.

This was taken in the MS media as proof the economy was hurting and not coming back like it was hoped. I see this spin as just wrong. That people quiting sh!ty jobs as a good thing, not a bad thing. So, take out 70% (= 3K) of those who quit and the number doesn’t seem so bad (1,194K -300K =894K). Well, except for the owners who now need to hire a replacement, maybe for more money.

I remember a day, long ago, when the employment applications asked, “How much pay do you need?” Do they still? Maybe owners will have to increase the pay because nobody will accept those low paying jobs any more.

So, am I making any sense here? If I'm wrong tell me why or how.

.


Wherea are you taking the data from? Give some links first. Then something can be discussed in the context.
#15195449
@JohnRawls,

OK, I see my error.

I was quite confused.

Still, I think that I'm on to something.
There was a record of voluntary quits in Aug. that was up 242K from July, and July was up also.
While net jobs added in Aug. was up 232K.
Now, I have no idea how many of the job openings created by the voluntary 242K quits were still open at the end of the month, but it might be over 50% of them.
If half the 242K were still open then we should add 121K to the net of 235K to get 356K.

In any case, if this is reasonable, it only slightly reduces the extent of the expected shortfall in net jobs.
OTOH, no info was provided on who and how the expected net job growth was set at 720K.
As you-all know, I have zero respect for all MS economists, so I have little faith in any prediction they might make in the current economy. This is because the current economy is always breaking new ground, so there is just no history to guide economists, and their theory totally sucks.
. . . Maybe the MS economists expected that after the plus-up for unemployment insurance was ended, that many workers would be forced to rush out to find a job, any job. This did not happen though. It seems many workers are looking to be self-employed on the internet or are waiting for a *better* job.

To my eyes these 2 facts are signs of an economy that is better for the workers, and I side with the workers over the 1%, every time. Therefore, Biden should not be blamed for the poor net growth in jobs numbers.


Reuters, Summary
Job openings drop 659,000 to 10.4 million in August
Voluntary quits increase 242,000 to 4.3 million
Hiring posts biggest drop in eight months
Link => https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-job ... 021-10-12/
________________________________________
Then US Jobs report from CNBC
Link => https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/03/jobs-re ... -2021.html

KEY POINTS
Nonfarm payroll growth in August increased by just 235,000 vs. expectations of 720,000.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.2%, in line with estimates.
Leisure and hospitality jobs were flat during the month after leading the way for much of the year.
Wages rose at a 4.3% year-over-year clip.
#15195457
Steve_American wrote:@JohnRawls,

OK, I see my error.

I was quite confused.

Still, I think that I'm on to something.
There was a record of voluntary quits in Aug. that was up 242K from July, and July was up also.
While net jobs added in Aug. was up 232K.
Now, I have no idea how many of the job openings created by the voluntary 242K quits were still open at the end of the month, but it might be over 50% of them.
If half the 242K were still open then we should add 121K to the net of 235K to get 356K.

In any case, if this is reasonable, it only slightly reduces the extent of the expected shortfall in net jobs.
OTOH, no info was provided on who and how the expected net job growth was set at 720K.
As you-all know, I have zero respect for all MS economists, so I have little faith in any prediction they might make in the current economy. This is because the current economy is always breaking new ground, so there is just no history to guide economists, and their theory totally sucks.
. . . Maybe the MS economists expected that after the plus-up for unemployment insurance was ended, that many workers would be forced to rush out to find a job, any job. This did not happen though. It seems many workers are looking to be self-employed on the internet or are waiting for a *better* job.

To my eyes these 2 facts are signs of an economy that is better for the workers, and I side with the workers over the 1%, every time. Therefore, Biden should not be blamed for the poor net growth in jobs numbers.


Reuters, Summary
Job openings drop 659,000 to 10.4 million in August
Voluntary quits increase 242,000 to 4.3 million
Hiring posts biggest drop in eight months
Link => https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-job ... 021-10-12/
________________________________________
Then US Jobs report from CNBC
Link => https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/03/jobs-re ... -2021.html

KEY POINTS
Nonfarm payroll growth in August increased by just 235,000 vs. expectations of 720,000.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.2%, in line with estimates.
Leisure and hospitality jobs were flat during the month after leading the way for much of the year.
Wages rose at a 4.3% year-over-year clip.



Still not many numbers but I can point you perhaps in the right direction. Quiting a job doesn't necessarily mean that people are out of a job meaning that they moved to a better position straight away in another company. People don't just quit usually without finding a new job that is for one. So the numbers gets muddied in a sense that 1 company looses a job while another one gains a job straight away.

Also quitting doesn't happen instantly, when you quit then depending on your contract and the law of your country/state you still need to stay for 1-2-3 months before you are actually out a job which makes it a bit more confusing. You need to understand the specifics of a country or a state to get rough estimates of what is going on.

My conjecture would be that majority of those people quitting are just going to a different, better paying job basically. While some are still under their current obligations and would be moving on in the next 1-2-3 months. The decrease in open numbers perhaps is a sign of that because so many people are moving on then the different companies are looking on what can be done to optimise their previous jobs.
#15195460
JohnRawls wrote:Still not many numbers but I can point you perhaps in the right direction. Quiting a job doesn't necessarily mean that people are out of a job meaning that they moved to a better position straight away in another company. People don't just quit usually without finding a new job that is for one. So the numbers gets muddied in a sense that 1 company looses a job while another one gains a job straight away.

Also quitting doesn't happen instantly, when you quit then depending on your contract and the law of your country/state you still need to stay for 1-2-3 months before you are actually out a job which makes it a bit more confusing. You need to understand the specifics of a country or a state to get rough estimates of what is going on.

My conjecture would be that majority of those people quitting are just going to a different, better paying job basically. While some are still under their current obligations and would be moving on in the next 1-2-3 months. The decrease in open numbers perhaps is a sign of that because so many people are moving on then the different companies are looking on what can be done to optimise their previous jobs.

It was the US where 2 weeks notice is standard.
I also assumed that a quit is only counted when the person leaves, not when they give notice.
Also, some reports suggest that many quiters are then self-employed in some way.
Are they counted in the US system as having a job? I was self employed for years, and nobody asked me.
.
#15195465
Steve_American wrote:It was the US where 2 weeks notice is standard.
I also assumed that a quit is only counted when the person leaves, not when they give notice.
Also, some reports suggest that many quiters are then self-employed in some way.
Are they counted in the US system as having a job? I was self employed for years, and nobody asked me.
.


Self-employed and business owners are "employed".
#15195466
late wrote:It's a great thing, and I expect you are largely correct.

It's also interesting that while businesses are screaming for workers, those mostly low paying jobs could be gladly filled by people hoping to get in, at the Mexico border...

Problems have solutions.


Well yes, that was the usual solution but with the rise of the alt-right and so on, this process has been curtailed. Only Europe under de facto leadership of Merkel continued with this and that is why the Covid shortage and post-covid recovery is way easier for us while having the same or even larger wage growth.
#15195566
I would think a lot of people "quitting" is a good thing. If you can afford to quit, that means you are not hurting economically, people that need to work today to eat today cannot afford to quit. To me that signals a fairly confident worker which in turns is a fairly confident consumer which as far as I understand is the driver in this economy. The business will surely adapt, not too long ago I was sent an article of more companies using robots for services, this might eventually affect the economy, but we will get there soon enough.
Anyhow, not evidenced-based, or sourced, but that is my rough estimation.
#15195570
Steve_American wrote:It seems to me that if a lot of people (4M) quit their jobs last month, that then the total of people with jobs would have gone down a lot. At least 1M of those jobs would still be open at the end of the month, either because the quit happened in the last week or the boss had not replaced the worker yet, by the end of the month.

In fact, the job number IIRC was just 194K more than for the last month. Not the IIRC 700K that MS economists expected. If we add those 1M quits to the 194K, we get 1.194M more jobs not the 700K that the final total was. I know that these are quite rough numbers. However, surely the number of jobs added to the economy that month was at least 890K jobs added if the last many quits are not counted, not the 700K reported. And yes, there are some quits in every month.

This was taken in the MS media as proof the economy was hurting and not coming back like it was hoped. I see this spin as just wrong. That people quiting sh!ty jobs as a good thing, not a bad thing. So, take out 70% (= 3K) of those who quit and the number doesn’t seem so bad (1,194K -300K =894K). Well, except for the owners who now need to hire a replacement, maybe for more money.

I remember a day, long ago, when the employment applications asked, “How much pay do you need?” Do they still? Maybe owners will have to increase the pay because nobody will accept those low paying jobs any more.

So, am I making any sense here? If I'm wrong tell me why or how.

.


What you and they say are not mutually exclusive. The analysts are simply saying the job market may not be as strong as initially believed.

Quits are usually a sign of a strong job market, however, I'd like to remove people who are quitting due to retirement from the figure (and series). With the boomers getting older, quits should go up due to demographics alone.

Likewise, the fact that there was a lower increase in the new net jobs may just be noise, or it could reflect (again) changes in the demographics. Employment will obviously decrease as boomers retire, even if the economy is growing. That's why a more useful series would be the employment rate (not to be confused with the unemployment rate) of people 15-64 years old.
#15195604
late wrote:It's a great thing, and I expect you are largely correct.

It's also interesting that while businesses are screaming for workers, those mostly low paying jobs could be gladly filled by people hoping to get in, at the Mexico border...

Problems have solutions.

So, why no like?

We need more 'likes' on this site.
How is anyone to know that people are agreeing if they never 'like' posts?
.
#15195607
wat0n wrote:What you and they say are not mutually exclusive. The analysts are simply saying the job market may not be as strong as initially believed.

Quits are usually a sign of a strong job market, however, I'd like to remove people who are quitting due to retirement from the figure (and series). With the boomers getting older, quits should go up due to demographics alone.

Likewise, the fact that there was a lower increase in the new net jobs may just be noise, or it could reflect (again) changes in the demographics. Employment will obviously decrease as boomers retire, even if the economy is growing. That's why a more useful series would be the employment rate (not to be confused with the unemployment rate) of people 15-64 years old.

MMT economists do look far more closely at the employment rate of the working age groups as the more correct and useful number. That is, it is less dishonest and less subject to worker discouragement.

It is claimed by many MMT economists and historians that the man who decided we should track the "unemployment rate" did it because he could define "unemployed people" to not include those who were not looking for work.
And, that he did this to make the number smaller, so it would not scare people. That is, he wanted to hide the truth. MS economists still want to hide the truth. And, not just this truth, they also are hiding the truth that most of the world's Govs. can create their own currency, so that they can deficit spend to make the economy better for the masses.
.
#15195610
Steve_American wrote:MMT economists do look far more closely at the employment rate of the working age groups as the more correct and useful number. That is, it is less dishonest and less subject to worker discouragement.


Most analysts do, as far as I'm aware. So why don't you share the figures broken by age group...?

Steve_American wrote:It is claimed by many MMT economists and historians that the man who decided we should track the "unemployment rate" did it because he could define "unemployed people" to not include those who were not looking for work.
And, that he did this to make the number smaller, so it would not scare people. That is, he wanted to hide the truth. MS economists still want to hide the truth. And, not just this truth, they also are hiding the truth that most of the world's Govs. can create their own currency, so that they can deficit spend to make the economy better for the masses.
.


Or maybe because there are those who are not participating in the labor market, and thus should not be counted as unemployed but simply as not wishing to work at the moment. It's useful because it then allows to use different rates of unemployment, considering different groups of workers not working (or not working as much as they want) to get a better view of the job market.

The employment rate for the specific age group 15-64 is a bit different in that regard, since we're at least removing children and retirees. Even more interesting would be the employment rate of people aged 25-64, to remove college students as well.
#15195628
Steve_American wrote:
So, why no like?

We need more 'likes' on this site.
How is anyone to know that people are agreeing if they never 'like' posts?



I said I agree with you.

I am 70, and a grouch, in most forums, this is my avatar:

Image

For some reason they have their knickers in a twist about that, here.

If you haven't seen that movie, you should, it's one of our favorites.
#15195632
JohnRawls wrote:Also quitting doesn't happen instantly, when you quit then depending on your contract and the law of your country/state you still need to stay for 1-2-3 months before you are actually out a job which makes it a bit more confusing. You need to understand the specifics of a country or a state to get rough estimates of what is going on.


This isn't true in the US. People can quit straight away with no notice. Employment is "at will" in the US.

Steve_American wrote:It was the US where 2 weeks notice is standard.

This is just a professional courtesy, not a requirement. Many companies will walk you out the door immediately even when you offer to stay on for 2 weeks. The lower skilled jobs are much less likely to accept 2 weeks and just drop you.

This is why they say, while you should offer 2 weeks, you should also fully expect that they will not accept it and just ask you to leave immediately.


Anyway, fuck all these asshole employers and their "no one wants to work anymore" bullshit. No one wants to be your fucking slave. Raise your fucking wages you cheap fucks. It's the free market bitch.
"Whether we like it or not"

The paleo record shows no significant difference […]

Bullshit. https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/inf[…]

Nope, or perhaps not in the sense of "you can[…]

Well, that's your problem because history goes […]