Jobs data improves, but weak exports may hurt growth

Comments (44)
bertanderson wrote:

Unfortunately, it’s not about jobs right now, it’s about the plummeting earnings by major automotive companies like GM and Ford, big oil companies like Chevron and Shell, large retailers like JC Penny and Walmart and even technology companies like Twitter and Intel. With earnings and revenue slowing, jobs will be lost and unemployment will increase. Tomorrow may be another tell tale sign.

Feb 06, 2014 8:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Why I find these reports to be laughable – Just yesterday they were blaming the cold weather in January for the possible slowdown (though that article has since been revised to eliminate that contradiction) and today with better numbers (meaningless numbers btw) they say the weather did not affect anything. The “number” has become meaningless and economists and politicians will spin it to make it look good no matter what comes out. In less than 24 hours an entire explanation has changed concerning the labor market, the actual vs predicted numbers, and the reason and meaning of the numbers. The only thing that is certain is that there are millions of people out of work, millions who are unable to find work and have given up, and there is no real expectations that things will change for any significant improvement based on reality in the near future. Already today on NPR they are using the people losing UI as an excuse for high numbers for tomorrow’s Jan numbers, not admitting that people moving off UI gives a more realistic picture of things.

Feb 06, 2014 8:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
mountainrose wrote:

No firming for the 331,000 people who lost their jobs last week

Feb 06, 2014 9:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
bertanderson wrote:

The difference between the target and actual is likely not statistically significant. The result doesn’t tell use anything…especially not firming!

Feb 06, 2014 9:07am EST  --  Report as abuse

331,000 “seasonally adjusted” jobless claims “boosts the labor market & broader economy?” Are you freaking kidding me? Who writes this crap?

Feb 06, 2014 9:12am EST  --  Report as abuse

331,000 “seasonally adjusted” jobless claims “boosts the labor market & broader economy?” Are you freaking kidding me? Who writes this crap?

Feb 06, 2014 9:13am EST  --  Report as abuse

331,000 “seasonally adjusted” jobless claims “boosts the labor market & broader economy?” Are you freaking kidding me? Who writes this crap?

Feb 06, 2014 9:13am EST  --  Report as abuse

331,000 “seasonally adjusted” jobless claims “boosts the labor market & broader economy?” Are you freaking kidding me? Who writes this crap?

Feb 06, 2014 9:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

For a more accurate picture of U.S employment (mostly ignored by Reuters and the rest of the mainline media) see:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

Gallup’s chart shows that the percentage of the workforce employed continues to decline steadily as more and more non-workers discover there is a steady dole for them, probably for as long as Obama remains is in office. The decline for the last three or four months has been from 43% to 41.3%.

Feb 06, 2014 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse

331,000 jobless claims in one (1) month – and Reuters claims it will “boost the labor market outlook and broader economy”??? Who writes this stuff and who tells them to write it?

This is just another example of how the media creates the “news” as opposed to just reporting it.

Feb 06, 2014 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
seafloor wrote:

@bertanderson
That’s the secret of Germany success. Lower earnings lead to lower imports, which has significant impact on the trade balance. Politicians call the suffering structural reform.

Feb 06, 2014 9:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

For a more accurate picture of U.S. Employment (Mostly ignored by Reuters and the rest of the mainstream media) see:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

The chart shows percentage of the U.S.population employed steadily declining. – the last three months or so, from 43% to 41.3%.

Most of Obama’s agenda contains disincentives to work and that’s reflected in Gallup’s research, IMO.

Feb 06, 2014 9:23am EST  --  Report as abuse

So why do you suppose Reuters spews this garbage?

Two things:
1) I don’t think most people wake up in the morning feeling good about not having a job.
2) But, if you reside in CT, MA, NY, NJ, CA, OR or WA your WEEKLY UI benefit is between $400 & $600.

That’s nearly $30k for one person after-tax at the top end. Add food stamps, section 8 housing, educ grants, free healthcare, etc. and life’s pretty good.

Feb 06, 2014 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobinmo wrote:

This report looks so rosy yet in the un-real world I live in all I see are people who’re barely hanging on or worse yet loosing their jobs altogether. Something here just doesn’t add up???? Actually it does – the REAL numbers are so terrifying, that’s not exactly news our president wants the public to hear.

Feb 06, 2014 10:02am EST  --  Report as abuse

That’s ok. Reuters won’t even let me post a comment? Do you suppose they don’t want my midwestern opinion on joblessness that is destroying families, lives and dreams in my neighborhood. All b/c one community organizer shared his hopes and dreams speech – over and over again.

Feb 06, 2014 10:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
ineeditbad wrote:

Total BS! I live in MA and have been FIGHTING for my Unemployment now since Dec 18! Phone System Disconnects Callers ALL the Time, tells callers the office is too busy and hangs up on you! The Government has made it Next to Impossible to file your Claim! BS! I’m out of money, can’t pay any bills…Constant Pushback…We are all treated like Worthless people because of job loss!

Feb 06, 2014 10:19am EST  --  Report as abuse

Reuters.com’s moderators are really nice people. They let everyone participate & share their opinions regardless of their viewpoints and political beliefs.

Feb 06, 2014 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

Did the labor participation rate also rise? If it didn’t then the jobless claims falling is more bad than good.

Feb 06, 2014 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

BioStudies: No.

See unionwv’s posts, above.

I’ll take this opportunity to add that Obama’s agenda also includes powerful disincentives for businesses to hire new people and incentives to limit the hours worked by their current employees.

Feb 06, 2014 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse

@BioStudies and unionwv, this report has NOTHING to do with labor force participation rate.

@unionwv, please prove your statement of ‘ powerful disincentives for businesses to hire new people and incentives to limit the hours worked by their current employees.’ there is no proof of this, for example the rate of forced part time work has been going down since the recession ended. A lot harder to prove something then to just state it, let’s see if you are just full of bluster, or if you have actual facts to back up your statement.

@gcf, we all know you will only be happy if the numbers look bad for Obama and if the analysis says that it all because of Obama’s policies. because we also all know you could careless about the future of the country, as long as Obama looks bad. With regards to your comment about people being forced off of UI, if anything that would lower the widely reported U3 unemployment number, because those 1 million or so would not count as ‘unemplyed looking for work’ which is what the U3 number is.

Now that I have shown the rightie/Obama haters for what they are here is my take on this report. Since productivity is going up and labor rates going down, this is not a good sign, this is the trend we have to reverse. If productivity is going up labor rates should go up. All this shows is that our corporate/rich masters are milking the American worker more and more. Far beyond time that we fix this with a few simple actions from Congress…

1. Raise the minimum wage to 10-12 an hour( I would prefer 12-14, but like Obama I am willing to work with the right if they are reasonable) and tie it to inflation.

2. Restore a Progressive tax system, as our tax system works now it is simply a transfer of wealth from the low and middle classes to the top 5-10%. After all the top 10% only pay 70% of the taxes, yet they have >80% of the financial wealth in this country. All the people I know that fall into this top 10% would not have a problem with this, in fact they think it would be healthy for he country.

both of those would fix probably the biggest fundamental problem with the slowly growing economy, income inequality. Putting more money into the pockets of more people equals more money flowing around the economy buying goods and services. When the wealth is concentrated in top this flow of money is not as strong.

Feb 06, 2014 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

The troubling aspect of government labor resource and pricing reports is that they’ve been heavily altered.

I find it hard to believe that inflation is running at 1.8% — for either individuals or business managers.

The current unemployment rate is also suspect — having been heavily modified, while not keeping abreast of changing trends. A troubling report released by the Federal Reserve Board, based on regional polling of business activities, indicated that labor markets were significantly tighter than reflected in BLS unemployment data. Another way to consider the FRB data … labor availability indicate an unemployment rate closer to 5 1/2%, give or take.

Policy decisions are being made based on government data. But, government data have been so perverted by modifying algorithms and obsolescence as to be useless … save the occasional political soundbite.

Feb 06, 2014 12:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

The troubling aspect of government labor resource and pricing reports is that they’ve been heavily altered.

I find it hard to believe that inflation is running at 1.8% — for either individuals or business managers.

The current unemployment rate is also suspect — having been heavily modified, while not keeping abreast of changing trends. A troubling report released by the Federal Reserve Board, based on regional polling of business activities, indicated that labor markets were significantly tighter than reflected in BLS unemployment data. Another way to consider the FRB data … labor availability indicate an unemployment rate closer to 5 1/2%, give or take.

Policy decisions are being made based on government data. But, government data have been so perverted by modifying algorithms and obsolescence as to be useless … save the occasional political soundbite.

Feb 06, 2014 12:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

Reuters/ Lucia Mutikani……..Come on. Please. How about some true journalism? Stick with the facts and exclude the opinions/polls of (especially) unnamed economists? Not sure why you feel the need to do so but……You are intentionally LEADING your readers seeking facts. Garbled exposure to meaningless opinions degrades your journalistic integrity. I come to your site expecting more.

["The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell MORE THAN EXPECTED last week, in a boost to the labor market outlook and the broader economy."

"Initial claims for state unemployment benefits declined 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 331,000, the Labor Department said. THAT WAS A BIT LOWER THAN ECONOMISTS' EXPECTATIONS for a fall to 335,000 in the week ended February 1."

"Hiring IS EXPECTED to have accelerated in January after being held down by unseasonably cold weather the prior month."

"Nonfarm payrolls LIKELY increased 185,000 last month, up from December's tepid 74,000 count, ACCORDING TO A REUTERS POLL OF ECONOMISTS. The unemployment rate is FORECAST to hold steady at a five-year low of 6.7 percent."

"ECONOMISTS POLLED BY REUTERS had FORECAST productivity, which measures hourly output per worker, rising at a 2.5 percent rate in the last three months of 2013."

"ECONOMISTS POLLED BY REUTERS had EXPECTED unit labor costs to fall at a 0.5 percent pace in the fourth quarter."]

Feb 06, 2014 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

“For all of 2013, productivity increased 0.6 percent.
That was the smallest gain since 2011 and compared to a 1.5 percent rise in 2012.
Unit labor costs – a gauge of the labor-related cost for any given unit of output – fell at a 1.6 percent rate in the fourth quarter, showing weak wage-related inflation pressures in the economy. Unit labor costs fell at a 2.0 percent rate in the third quarter.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected unit labor costs to fall at a 0.5 percent pace in the fourth quarter.
Labor costs were down 1.3 percent from the year-earlier period. They were up 1.0 percent in 2013, the weakest reading since 2010.”

No wonder jobs are coming back. We are becoming a sweatshop just like them.

Feb 06, 2014 12:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

@gfc1965

I so agree.

Feb 06, 2014 12:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

USA – To clarify, NPR was saying that the change in the numbers could be large, they did adddress that the jump could be due in part because of people losing benefits. The overall focus was on the expected good numbers, with little attention to why the numbers are expected to be good. My frustration can cause my posts to be muddled at times.

As for the future of the country, I want the best, it just isn’t ever going to happen with the current king of failure, that amateur in the white house, the pied piper leading his rats to destruction.

Feb 06, 2014 12:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

USA – as a second point, you state “as our tax system works now it is simply a transfer of wealth from the low and middle classes to the top 5-10%” Tell me how it is that the top 10% (reference given a couple days ago) who pay >70% of taxes, much of that going directly to social welfare programs for the low and middle class as well as to programs that are used more heavily by low/middle class like law enforcement and fire/rescue, how is this a transfer from low/middle to the top? It is just the opposite. Unfortunately, the number of low/middle class people who see this as an opportunity to use this “forced charity” to improve themselves is very small and so the drain from the wealthy to teh poorer continues.

Feb 06, 2014 1:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@gcf, with regards to income disparity/taxes collected, did you even read my post, here is the pertinent part again ‘Restore a Progressive tax system, as our tax system works now it is simply a transfer of wealth from the low and middle classes to the top 5-10%. After all the top 10% only pay 70% of the taxes, yet they have >80% of the financial wealth in this country.’

Let me see if I can put this simply for you, the top 10% pay less of a percentage in taxes then the % of financial wealth they have, 84%(from memory, looked it up yeasterday, cant remember if 83 or 84%) is greater then 70%. In other words the top 10% are getting a ‘free ride’ of about 14%. When in actuality they should be paying MORE then the % of wealth, if it was a truly Progressive tax system. What we have is a regressive tax system, and this just makes the income inequality problem worse.

Feb 06, 2014 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@USAPRAGMATIST2 “..Since productivity is going up and labor rates going down, this is not a good sign, this is the trend we have to reverse.”

Agreed. But “taxing the rich” has been a proven failure. It destroys middle class and pushes them into the poor. What’s the meaning of $100 minimum wage for people who don’t have a job?

IMHO the key to reverse income inequity is job creation with small business. It helps on multiple fronts.

First, when small business is thriving, big corps won’t have pricing power to milk consumers at sky high margins and feed CEOs outsized paychecks.

Next. When more people are on the job, more resources can be freed up from UE pools to support on job training, boosting their skills to command higher income.

Last but not least, when burdens of welfare systems reduce we can reduce size of the government, and put more resource to productivity improvements, which is the fundamental pillar supporting higher incomes.

Sadly, the administration exploited people’s fear and drove us in the opposite direction. By sinking the country deeper into socialism we are creating a huge government at the name of “wealth redistribution.” While the GDP pie is barely holding up, more and more of the pie is spent for the sake of dividing it. The demand of growing the government is so high, that people started celebrating when the deficit is looking to reduce from $1T a year level.

Socialism is nothing new and we all know what happened in the end. It’s a pity we invited China into WTO, bringing them freedom by exporting capitalism, yet we pick up socialism on our own.

We need a leader to restore America, don’t we?

Feb 06, 2014 1:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Trained economists consider joblessness claims to be like the official unemployment rate – absolutely useless as an indicator of the state and direction of the economy. Investors, journalists, and their editors would do well to read the version of Lindauer’s “General Theories..” which has been recently reissued in a non-technical version suitable for those who are not professional economists. It is entitle “Inflation, Unemployment, and Government Deficits.”

It is useful because it explains such things as which economic indicators are significant and which are not; how to identify false experts; and which monetary and fiscal policies will work to restore prosperity without inflation and which will not. If you read it through you will laugh at most of the comments on articles such as these – and make a heck of a lot more money with your investments.

Feb 06, 2014 1:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

USA, I have a significant amount of savings in the bank (credit union, actually) but I don’t pay taxes on that principal amount(held wealth) because I have already paid taxes on it when it came in. To want the wealthy to continue paying taxes on what they have already earned and paid taxes on is crazy. What you propose is a “holding tax” penalizing someone for holding on to what they have already earned and paid taxes on. There is no free ride happening. If you buy a 70″ tv this month, do you pay a monthly/annual fee just because you still have it? No. Same goes for wealth, don’t expect someone to keep paying txes on wealth they have, just because they “still” have it.

Feb 06, 2014 1:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 the 8x% number is what they have, not what they make. If I own a house are you suggesting I am taxed 30% of its worth every year? I guess every socialism lovers wouldn’t agree.

Feb 06, 2014 1:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@Whatsgoingon, here is the definition of Socialism…

so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Full Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So please explain how the government is taking over the production and distribution of goods. If you can not, then your whole point that Obama is turning the USA into a Socialist country is invalidated.

@gcf, please point out where I said we should tax your savings account? Have you figured out why the wealthy can accumulate such high net worth? I will tell you, because they are unable to spend the amount of money they make, so it then goes into some bank account somewhere, not helping the economy. Anytime you concentrate that much wealth in a few, the overall economy suffers. I am advocating for wealth redistribution through smart wage and tax structures, YES I AM, is this Socialism, no it is not. it is regulated capitalism and realizing that we live in a society of 350-400 Million people where we all need to work together to make our country strong.

Feb 06, 2014 2:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

USA asked – @gcf, please point out where I said we should tax your savings account?

He previously stated “Let me see if I can put this simply for you, the top 10% pay less of a percentage in taxes then the % of financial wealth they have…When in actuality they should be paying MORE then the % of wealth(they hold)”

Wealth you “have” is savings (or owned property), this is not the same as earnings which is where I argue the wealthy have already paid tax on what they “have”. So your entire 2nd paragraph is all about paying tax on savings/held wealth

Feb 06, 2014 2:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 “So please explain how the government is taking over the production and distribution of goods.”

Using ACA as an example. It takes ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of health care. You might argue that government doesn’t “own” hospitals, but its regulations effectively prevent new supplies getting into the market and create a de facto monopoly. Worse it even guarantees profit margin of the whole HC system. Even owners couldn’t have done that.

You might also argue that Obama didn’t start it. Yes I agree, the whole “bailout” game with automakers and banks is socialism. GOP has no right blaming others on this.

I have no interest playing a definition game, and I do agree we are not 100% like the Soviet Union yet. But I feel it’s crucial for US people to know where we are heading. Once 51% of people work for the government, every tax increase bill will pass, and we will play Les Miserables in our streets.

Do we have to hit the point of no return? I hope not.

Feb 06, 2014 2:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@whatgoingon, so predictable I knew you would try and fit the ACA into the definition of socialism, but what an utter failure. the ACA uses PRIVATE industry. There is not even a public option in the PPACA. Now yes if we went single payer, which is the right way to go, then yes that would be Socialism. and how can it be a monopoly when ANY private insurer can put plans on the Exchange?

For next paragraph reference https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

you say ‘Once 51% of people work for the government, every tax increase bill will pass, and we will play Les Miserables in our streets.’ so laughable, there is not even close to 51% of the workforce workign for the FEDs, in fact since 1962 government employment has dropped, while the population has risen. so the facts are we are going in the OPPOSITE direction of what you say. as of now there are about 4.5 million federal employees, and this even includes the military, the total USA population is 313.9 Million. so that makes 4.5/313.9 or 1.4 %, a bit different then 51%.

So much for that ‘socialist takeover’, laughable!

Feb 06, 2014 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 laugh is good for your health. Thanks for helping HC cost down.

You said “how can it be a monopoly when ANY private insurer can put plans on the Exchange?” Think this way, if we can add supply so freely into the HC pool how could HC price skyrocket in recent years? If the root cause is greedy docs why don’t we force them to get minimum wage? As I posted over and over, HC cost reflects shortage on supply. Until supply issues are resolved a law forcing everyone to buy will only make it worse.

You seemed very confident that socialism is still far away. If you could spare some time reading a bit history about China in 1949, you’d be surprised how socialism took over literally overnight. The scare largely set tone for the cold war that last for almost 40 years. We barely let out a relief when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. How old were you then?

The data you shared is great, but don’t you think it’s naive that only federal employees would support tax increase? When 87% people supported WOT in 2003, did they all work in the army? No. Most of them thought it was a free ride. Quite some of them are thinking differently now because it’s spending their money.

Socialism is very attractive, exploiting human weakness of “others pay my bills.” Think 51% is hard to reach? I sincerely hope you are right.

Feb 06, 2014 3:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 “the ACA uses PRIVATE industry. There is not even a public option in the PPACA. Now yes if we went single payer, which is the right way to go, then yes that would be Socialism.”

What you said is true. But it just demonstrates how ACA represent worst of both worlds. It’s complexity and overhead make it less efficient than a single player socialism system, yet by forcing people to buy sub standard service it’s a total deviation from free market principle.

It reminds of of the super bowl ad “duberhuahua” – hope you laugh more…

Feb 06, 2014 4:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Whatsgoingon, while agree with much of your points, I don’t think that HC “costs” are high because of a supply deficiency. I use quotes because it is not costs, but rather charges that are high. Case in point. My wife recently had a $41,000+ hospital stay. We have a $3000 deductible. After submitting to the insurance and getting around 5K they wrote off the rest and we are now asking to pay around $750 instead of $2400. Most people don’t care what the charges for HC is because they don’t pay with their money, kind of why there is so much waste in government. The insurance companies don’t care so much because they simply tighten the risk pool or raise premiums. If you really want to stop dropping people from HC, start controlling and confronting the organizations that overcharge simply because they realize there will be little opposition to outrageous bills.

Feb 06, 2014 4:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Louieloueye wrote:

Most of these jobs are probably nonsense. We should all be working 15 hour weeks. There is reason to believe in technological terms that we are quite capable of this instead technology has been Marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people in the Western world spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

Feb 06, 2014 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

@gcf1965 agreed HC costs were driven by multiple factors. Overhead has been high before ACA.

The reason I highlighted supply issue because I think it’s more fundamental. In your example if we had true competition in the HC market providers who slack a $41K charge into $750 would simply close door.

Unfortunately regulations today effectively protected these deficiencies by preventing new providers from joining the competition. ACA further spoils them but guaranteeing profit.

Just as you said “If you really want to stop dropping people from HC, start controlling and confronting the organizations that overcharge simply because they realize there will be little opposition to outrageous bills.” If we have more suppliers into the system people WILL have opposition to outrageous bills. Are we on the same page now?

IMHO as a country we can’t afford “Cadillac” for everyone. Low cost alternatives with lower malpractice liability and higher risk tolerance is needed. I am willing to sign a limited liability and limited cost of death agreement if government can legalize one. This way I give up my chance of becoming a millionaire when losing a finger, but I don’t get frustrated to pay $500 to get an Aspirin pill, either. I’ll be happier when I need to die, because I know I am passing the savings to my grand children, giving them a better chance of thriving against the Chinese.

Yes it might be just me thinking this way. But I’d appreciate the government giving me this option, as opposed to forcing me to buy the same crap.

Feb 06, 2014 5:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
toonik_ph wrote:

Mathew Martoma aka Ajai Mathew Thomas found guilty on all charges. #insidertrading #SAC $SAC.. http://www.insidertradingwire.com

Feb 06, 2014 6:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
seafloor wrote:

@Whatsgoingon
Nowadays only the global “players” as for instance Boing, Apple or google are generating growths. The middle class dries out.
The meaning of $100 minimum wage for people who don’t have a job is, that under these circumstances probably they get a pay roll and not only a job creation scheme to keep them busy.

btw. The reuters market reports yesterday have been totally contradictory.

Feb 06, 2014 8:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RET_SFC wrote:

US firms often no longer make in the US what they sell, so lower exports, though harming the economy, may not correlate with how many employees they hire in the USA.

Feb 07, 2014 9:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.