Weather restrains U.S. private hiring, services sector growth

Comments (42)
Simplerman wrote:

Oh Lord, not the weather again.

Could it be our economic & political system is screwed up beyond repair??

Mar 05, 2014 10:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

Here is the ADP chart.
http://fidelity.econoday.com/showimage.asp?imageid=26136

Look at the bars. These show the actual monthly data (not rate of change as in other charts). Remember that trends are more meaningful than data from any one month.
January down from 175,000 jobs reported to 127,000.
February down from an expected 150,000 to a reported 139,000.
Could this month be revised down on the next ADP report? Yes. That is why looking at the headline is not enough.

Mar 05, 2014 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dd1075bBB wrote:

Any excuse will do for this Administration. I guess higher taxes and higher spending are not working. We could try a freeze on government hires, a cutback of 10% government employees and no corporate income taxes for two years?

Mar 05, 2014 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

Here is the chart for the non-manufacturing Institute of Supply Managers survey
http://fidelity.econoday.com/showimage.asp?imageid=26138

This is perhaps the scariest of these ISM reports. The trend is clearly down with portions of the index already in recessionary territory. Remember that below 50 is recessionary.

Mar 05, 2014 10:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
Simplerman wrote:

Takes money to make money (and jobs for that matter).

None of which the private sector has right now (except for the banks of course).

If all the private money is taxed and regulated away, what do you expect?? Waiting for the crash.

Mar 05, 2014 11:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
QuidProQuo wrote:

Hmm… don’t expect the service sector to be a fast growing industry going forward. Especially call center service centers. I have been closely viewing the trends in this area, and China has acquired a bigger share once again of our labor market, this sector most recently. If that doesn’t alarm you a little bit, it should. When Americans are not even thatt polished in phone service skills that more highly educated and better trained service workers in China are, we need to snap out of our stupor. This whole “oh, well, no big deal” attitude over the last few years is now catching up with us. When new sites can’t even take the time to proofread their articles before publishing them and typos and bad grammar are rampant, the negative affects of sloppiness and carlessness is obvious. When I go to foreign news sites and read english translated articles with NO typos and clearly well edited and error free articles, I shake my head in disgust at the prevalance of how low we’ve set the bar in some areas of our country.

Mar 05, 2014 11:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

@Dd1075bBB –

Nice try.

Mar 05, 2014 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse

@justProduce, you are right trends matter, but looking at chart I do not see any trend but up and down around a mean of about 100K jobs. And that is all the last few months have shown.

@dd1075bBB, what you are proposing is exactly more of the same that got us into this mess, ‘trickle-down’ economics. You would think that this recession and the slow recovery from it that can be directly attributed to ‘trickle-down’ policies (rampant speculation by investment firms/banks and income inequality) would have taught those like you that ‘trickle down’ is just a fallacy. In fact IMO it is an offshoot of the bigger overall conservative plan ‘Starve the Beast’.

Mar 05, 2014 11:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

Obama and maladministration, freezes hiring…. by Obamanomics and Obamacare….

Mar 05, 2014 11:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@USAPragmatist2
You are right. The ADP report is generally flat.
I share the charts so that others can build their own opinion.
To show success, the ADP chart should increase to reflect an increased employment activity to levels closer than the demographic demand. We need the number to be closer to 400,000 per month. Note that the dark blue line is only as comparison to the BLS report (a different report due later this week)

Now look at the ISM chart. A five month moving average (not shown) has decisively pointed down.

Mar 05, 2014 11:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

JustProduce talks about a trend… then tries to pretend that a few months is a trend…

A few years is a trend -> http://fidelity.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=461116&cust=fidelity&year=2014&lid=0&prev=/byweek.asp#top

See how the trend for civilian unemployment is clearly, solidly, unequivocally down? Enough with the silly FoxBot disater-just-around-the-corner scaremongering. It is really lame.

Mar 05, 2014 11:59am EST  --  Report as abuse

@justProduce, and we just had 3 months of the worst winter in years, OF COURSE service sector will be depressed. Please provide proof why we need 400K jobs a month to keep up with demographic demand?, that is WAY above what I have heard economists say that number is, ~250K but maybe lower with all the baby boomers retiring. I am starting to think you are the worst kind of tea party type, one who sounds all reasonable and open, but when you look at the details is just as far off the deep end as the rest of them.

@sabrefencer, there is ZERO proof that ‘Obamacare’ will hurt hiring. Secondly, please explain what ‘Obamanomics’, cause last time I checked neither he nor his party have had control of the one part of government authorized to initiate spending, the House, the last 4 years. The only thing you saw that was ‘Obamanomics’ was the ARRA, which was an unmitigated success.

Mar 05, 2014 12:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

Let’s say that my 400K number is way off. We closely know how many people enter the work force because we know when they were born. What we don’t know as well is when they leave.
Look at the following chart that shows new job levels during the 2006 full employment years. Consider that at the time, we did not need many jobs, yet the economy was moving fast.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/2/3/saupload_non-farm-payrolls-jan-2000-january-2012.jpg

Now, ask this question. Is it possible that all baby boomers are now gone? If so, then only millenials are entering the job force and the number we have is low but not as low. But if boomers are not gone, then new jobs need to be sufficient for full employment (like 2006) plus, the jobless who want a job, plus new millenials, minus employed boomers who will now retire.
In my opinion, we are very far from where we need to be. If you agree or not, at least you have a better way to know for yourself without any media filters.

Mar 05, 2014 12:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jason87 wrote:

Wait, I though people warning us about economic impacts of climate change were just alarmist.

Mar 05, 2014 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@Bakhtin
I will not answer your points. Besides being wrong, you are not even a tax payer. This discussion should be left to Americans who have skin in the game and not to foreigners who, besides not understanding our system, just want to get people angry.
So please stay out of the adult discussion.
Breath in… breath out… and say “someone lov…

Mar 05, 2014 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

just to be an a$$ to above post as it seems appropriate in this case “…negative affects of sloppiness…” should be …negative effects of sloppiness…

Affect being a verb and effect being a noun

Mar 05, 2014 12:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jason87 wrote:

We’re still trying to dig out of the worst recession to hit the US since the last time Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House, and here they are blaming Democrats for their mess. No news here. They did the same to FDR.

Mar 05, 2014 12:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Jason, you are so far wrong as to not even be able to see right from where you are. Please thank the DNC and their overt attempts at making everything fair for the recession, not the GOP.

Mar 05, 2014 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

Every month, the Census Bureau supplies data on births. I use this data to help businesses. I have used this data to predict economic trends over the years. As a result, I was able to predict the big recession.
The real estate crash was also evident in the data since we know the average age when people buy their first and second homes. Unfortunately, around 2004 I would tell anyone that they should sell rather than buy a house. Everybody thought that I was stupid. So, I sold mine and moved to a rented home. In 2009, I bought again.
In the same way, bought all my gold positions in 2000, when people were telling me that the new economy had made it obsolete.
I admit that the 400K number is rounded. No one really knows how many boomers have left the job market because they wanted to. What I can tell you is that even if they wanted to retire, they do not have the money for it. So, the number is in my opinion much higher than that from most economists. These are the same economists who told me gold was useless in 2000 and that the housing market was solid in 2006.
If you feel I am misleading, I too am OK with it. Unlike Bathking, I am quite confident on who I am and what I do. But I feel a responsibility to share what I know with others even if they call me names.
After you think on the issue, you may disagree that 400K is the number. I would love to see that you come up with your own number and that you share it with the forum. In any case, I am certain that it will highlight a terrible state of affairs; especially if we consider that every month short of where it needs to be adds to the problem. In employment, there is no such thing as a reset button every month. We carry problems forward.

Mar 05, 2014 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4sight2020 wrote:

next fall they’ll say that the summer heat caused slow growth. the only thing that has improved while obama has been in office is his golf game.

Mar 05, 2014 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

From this page, you can navigate around.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm

Of course that as the geek I am I take all their data and enter it into my own database which is not online.

Mar 05, 2014 12:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Of course it was the weather, because everyone knows if the snow/cold keeps the HR people home or keeps the job seekers home Monday, there is no way they are going to do interviews/hiring on Tuesday, Wednesday, next week, etc. Isn’t it a law that if you miss one day you can’t do anything til the next month?

How gullible, or is it just stupid, has our society become that media/agencies are comfortable with putting out this garbage knowing people will lap it up like crazy?

Mar 05, 2014 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@USAPragmatist2
If we assume that (1) we are at full employment and (2) we then add 18 to 25 year olds and (3) deduct 60 to 67 year olds, then the data by other economists is close.
But if we just change the retirees to 63 to 70, then the number of new jobs needed goes up to 363,000 per month this year. Even this higher number assumes that we are at full employment. But if we aren’t, then the number would be higher.
What should be clear is that the number is far from where we are. In a year when we fall short just 20,000 jobs each month, the total for the year is 240,000; which would take too long to recover from.
I hope that I did not go too deep into the weeds with this one.

Mar 05, 2014 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

There’s something very wrong when a reader learn far more from the comments than an article stating opinions and unrevised stats as facts.

The majority of our “Recovery” is sitting in the stock market. Rising home prices matter only to those buying/selling their homes.

Only a fool would believe WEATHER deserves this degree of daily coverage. I consider it a lazy excuse for true journalism.

Mar 05, 2014 1:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

USAPragmatist2
Ha Ha Ha…told you so…and starve the beast? Yes Obama is a BEAST!!! So was Bush!!

Mar 05, 2014 2:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

You voted…for this…twice…

Mar 05, 2014 2:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sinbad1 wrote:

“the economy’s fundamentals were still sound”

McCain said exactly the same thing, the day before the crash of 2008.

Mar 05, 2014 2:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Bakhtin

“See how the trend for civilian unemployment is not clearly, not solidly, not unequivocally down? Enough with the MSN the recession is over lemming spew. It is really lame.”

How many have dropped off the un employment dole and are not being counted? You look silly now.

Mar 05, 2014 2:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Simplerman wrote:

I’ve come to the very sad conclusion that the US economy will never regain even a hint of its former glory.

The Republicans and Democrats are one in the same and only play the american public off each other. Nothing will get solved until a fiscally conservative tax reducing 3rd party emerges -aaaaand unfortunately that’s most likely a pipe-dream.

Enjoy the quick decline. It’s by design folks.

Mar 05, 2014 2:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

You lemmings never cease to amaze…an earth quake…a terrible flood…locusts…I swear to god it wasn’t my fault…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE

Mar 05, 2014 2:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

Every other month you are claiming Obama pulled us out of a recession and the economy is great thanks to his policies, and then every other month you are saying the bad economy is the GOP’s fault. I guess you don’t see the incosistancy and the fact that you have to be wrong with one of your stances as they directly oppose each other, or else you would be consistant no matter what the weather is.

Mar 05, 2014 3:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Love it Crash! A great movie.

Mar 05, 2014 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

Mar 05, 2014 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@TheNewWorld, I dare you to find my post where I said the economy is ‘great’ I have never said such a thing, because it is not. Please stop with the straw man argument. And Obama has not even been able to enact the vast majority of his policies, if he had then more then likely we would be in MUCH better shape economically then they are now. About the only real economic policy he was able to implement, the ARRA, was an unmitigated success and helped to avoid another Depression/worse recession.

I have always been very consistent, because this is what is going on, the GOP has decided to put party before country and will not do what is necessary to help the economy. They decided that in order to make Obama look bad (because he ran on bi-partisanship and they did not) they would oppose EVERYTHING he does not on principal, but because of political reasons.

@crash966, I know the subtlety of the difference will probably elude you, but there is a difference between a real reason and an excuse. BTW, your post to Bakhtin where you try to make him look ‘silly’ by mentioning labor participation rate just makes you look ‘sillier’ then you have made yourself look already on these boards as labor participation rate is not a factor in the graph he posted link to.

Mar 05, 2014 4:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WiseOne2 wrote:

I am curious why is there no mention of U.S., and Global aggregate demand versus aggregate supply of each of those. THAT would actually change a lot of view points for those that can think.

Mar 05, 2014 5:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZ1811 wrote:

Blame the economy on everything EXCEPT the real culprit – a president who knows nothing about the economy and is doing his best to destroy it. WAKE UP media.

Mar 05, 2014 6:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

It isn’t just the snow and ice. In Texas we’ve had 18% of normal rain or 82% below normal. California wasn’t saved by its 2 days of rains, and Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico did not get that much. The snow and ice will melt and floods will work their ways slowly down the Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, and Tennessee rivers to join the Mississippi and wash topsoil into the Gulf of Mexico. Between the dry states and the flooded states, the US food supply is at serious risk this year. Expect food prices to rise for folks who don’t have that much money to spend, so they will spend less for everything else. More layoffs are likely coming to a business near you or with you in it.

Mar 05, 2014 6:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

Anybody looking at stock-market graphs since 1900 knows the extreme danger we’re in because of wall street’s smoke and mirrors practices.
Nothing’s based on anything anymore; not on assets, profits, nothing.
It’s all hype, and one day, will come crashing down like the house of cards that it really is. Nothing will be immune, not gold, not real estate, not energy, not cash; maybe water and food stuffs will maintain some worth, but who’ll be able to buy them? GOOD LUCK…LOL

Mar 05, 2014 6:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@carlmartel
You are not kidding. Pork futures are through the roof (up 25% in one year). Ham sandwiches will never be the same.

Mar 05, 2014 6:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

Let’s face it, the weather had zilch to do with hiring and growth.
Economists are worse than statisticians; they just make things up.
Bottom line is; “would you buy a used car off one of these guys?
Bad weather = more hiring of roof repair guys.
Good weather = more hiring of pool maintenance guys.
Normal weather = more hiring of weather forecasters.
UTTER FOOLISHNESS = GOP/NRA/TEA party’s smoke and mirror journalism.

Mar 05, 2014 6:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

JustProduce wrote:
“@USAPragmatist2

Let’s say that my 400K number is way off.”

It is way off. And I can show you exactly why it is wrong…

JustProduce wrote:
”We closely know how many people enter the work force because we know when they were born. ”

Wrong. You are assuming 100% labour participation. Big, obvious hole in your argument.

JustProduce wrote:
” I would love to see that you come up with your own number and that you share it with the forum.”

Easy. No need to b@llshit about being a geek or an analyst with a secret database (You are around the third rightie to make this claim. It must be taking over from “I’m an independent.)

US pop. x pop.growth x pop. working age x pop. participation rate / 12

which is:

317,297,938 x 0.9% x 63% x 65% /12 = 97,450 jobs per month.

US population from here: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb13-tps112.html

US population growth rate from here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW
It is 0.7% now. It was 0.9% in 2009.

Working age population from here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND
As above, my 63% is a bit higher than the current 61%, but I am compensating for higher figures in the past.

Work force participation from here: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
As above, my figure is higher that the current 63% , though there is a good argument that it should be 63% to reflect the current situation. That gives a figure of 94,451 jobs per month.

I am not hiding behind a magic database and claims of being a geek. My figures and method are right there.

Go ahead… tell me where it is wrong.

JustProduce wrote:
“In any case, I am certain that it will highlight a terrible state of affairs; especially if we consider that every month short of where it needs to be adds to the problem.”

It highlights that every month new jobs is above where it needs to be, which explains why unemployment is falling.

Simple common sense: if the economy needed to generate 400,000+ new jobs as required by your ‘analysis’, unemployment would be rising. It isn’t, so real-world observation also proves you wrong.

Mar 06, 2014 2:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Amazing…

Mar 06, 2014 9:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.