Some reality about the jobs report

|
(6)

The Obama Administration is thrilled with the new employment figures, and it's clear the president will use this as a key part of his campaign (as long as the recovery keeps going and doesn't sputter again). The Republicans, of course, are complaining that it's not enough, that "we could do better," but that sounds awfully hollow and fits into the narrative that the GOP doesn't want anything to improve this year because the entire goal of the party is to defeat Obama in the fall.

But really, while it's encouraging, the new unemployment figures are still bogged down by two things: The labor force is growing faster than the nation is creating jobs -- and layoffs in the public sector are still a drag on the recovery.

There's a pretty good analysis on DailyKos, talking about the labor force issue. But there's more: Among people without a college education, the jobs picture is still really bleak. Same for people who have been unemployed for a while now and for youth. I could go on and on about the failure of trickle-down spending, but the reality is that the economy is still far too top heavy to all for a real recovery. Income inequality isn't just a political and moral issue; it's an economic downer. The U.S. economy depends overwhelmingly on consumer spending, and since all of the new new wealth of the past 20 years has gone to the very rich, most consumers don't have enough money to spend enough to keep the economy buzzing. And a few new IPOs that make a few more people rich isn't going to solve the problem.

Note that the one sector of the economy that is still losing jobs is government. That's a result of low taxes that can't fund public services (and can't provide the generally decent unionized jobs, including jobs for people without college degrees, that exist in the public sector).

I was intrigued by the Congressional Budget Office report comparing federal and private-sector workers, which the Republicans (and, I'm sure, some of my beloved trolls on this blog) will use as evidence that government is bloated and public-sector workers are overpaid. But that's not exactly what the report says:

CBO found that those without a college degree fared better as federal employees, since their pay was 36% higher than that of private-sector employees–particularly when it came to benefits. Those with advanced degrees such as doctorates, however, were generally better off in private industry, strictly from a monetary viewpoint–government pay was 18% lower than that of comparable individuals in the private sector.

In other words, federal pay is a lot more like the private sector used to be, back before the United States became one of the most socially stratifed societies in the developed world. The folks at the bottom do better, and the folks at the top don't get as rich, and the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid is a lot smaller.

Which is one reason that Republicans hate public-sector unions and government employment -- it's better for the 99 percent.

Comments

then the solution is obvious. Get yourself educated!

But it's an encouraging sign that jobs are increasing in the wealth-creating part of the economy, while declining in the non-productive, non-wealth-generating part of the economy.

Sounds like we're on the right track . .

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

My son's school just sent around an email asking parents to please chip in an buy some paper because there's not enough to last the year. Seriously. "Get yourself educated?" You ever try to get into City College classes? You have any idea how much you have to borrow even to go to a public university?

Oh, unless you're already rich and have private schools that don't need paper.

Posted by tim on Feb. 03, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

What do you have to spend your money on that is more important than that?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 04, 2012 @ 9:16 am

I am so tired of having to buy products that are created in the USA but built or assembled overseas. Big companies like Apple or HP should be made to bring their factory work back to the United States. If they didn't comply, huge tariffs should be applied to the products that are sold here. These are the types of jobs that America needs. Not everyone goes to or graduates from college. Factory type work is what is needed now to give young people a quick start to having a successful life.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 03, 2012 @ 11:31 pm

As Laura Flanders points out, the January numbers represent what she calls a "man-covery" since men have won 92 percent of the 1.9 million jobs created since the "Great Recession" began in 2008. As she says, these figures are nothing to celebrate if you're young, old, a person of color or a woman.

In fact, around 40 percent of the working population fell off the jobs map altogether (1.2 million Americans in the labor force added to the "not looking” category). These are largely women and POC who have been left out of the latest employment figures. They are simply invisible.

Tim, you are right to point out that the one sector of the economy that is still losing jobs is government. This is a BIG problem for women and POC. As Flanders writes,
"..women represent 57 per cent of workers in the public sector (compared with 48 per cent in the private sector where the gains are.) They hold a disproportionate share of state and local government jobs– exactly those levels of government that have been shedding workers by the shipload.

"Let these statistics from the National Women’s Law Center sink in:

"While January brought job gains, women have only gained eight percent of the jobs added since the start of the recovery. Since the recovery began in June 2009, women have now gained 150,000 jobs – a positive change, but still not enough. Why? Because a gain of 150,000 jobs is equal to just eight per cent of the more than 1.9 million net jobs the economy has added in the recovery. Women’s shockingly small share of the job growth is because they’ve suffered a disproportionate share of the job losses in the public sector – nearly 70 per cent – and have enjoyed less than a quarter of the private sector gains.

"Women between the ages of 25 and 54 are no longer participating in the visible, paid labor force at higher rates than their predecessors. For statisticians, that’s a very big deal. It means that projections of “recovery” that are based on returning to anything resembling the labor force participation growth rate we saw from 1970 to 1990 are flat out fantasy."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/08/from-man-cession-to-man-covery/

Posted by Lisa on Feb. 08, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

Men laid off in greater number at beginning of recession because they work labor jobs in greater numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?pagewanted=all

"The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work. "

As the economy comes back the men who were laid off at the start go back to work welding and building things.

If certain groups choose to work in the public sector thats not racism or whatever crazy non sense you come up with. It's like saying vegetarianism is racist because Latinos work in the meat packing industry.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 08, 2012 @ 7:48 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.