@TBPInvictus here:

David Rosenberg made a point in his note Monday that I don’t think went quite far enough, or at least needs a bit more color:

Screen Shot 2013-12-09 at 7.45.31 PM

 

Rosie then showed the chart below (the Haver Analytics version of it, anyway), which he dubbed “Employment Less Financials in Private Sector.” In St. Louis Fred-speak, that would be USPRIV – USFIRE:

 

usprivminususfire

 

We can probably agree with Dave that many jobs of the last cycle, particularly in finance, were indeed due to “obvious unsustainable credit bubble.”

Now, all that said, here are some numbers out of the above chart:

Trough was July 2003 at 100,230.
Subsequent peak was Jan 2008 at 107,393.
That’s an annualized growth rate, by my calculations, of 1.52%.

Subsequent trough was February 2010 at 99,126
We’re at the (ongoing) peak at 107,003
That’s an annualized growth rate of 2.02%

Point here being that we are currently running at a 2.02% more naturally, if you will, than the 1.52% rate which itself was inflated by artificial, credit-bubble-induced hiring, mostly in the finance sector. And we are indeed within striking distance of eclipsing the January 2008 high within the next couple of months.

 

Category: Data Analysis, Employment

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

18 Responses to “Comparing Private Job Creation Now & Then . . .”

  1. gloeschi says:

    Lots of construction jobs (= non-financial) also boosted by real estate bubble. And let’s not forget HEW (home equity withdrawal) up to 3% of GDP in certain quarters. Albeit which might have gone mostly to China (CNBC’s “Sunsetter retractable awning”) and Taiwan (60″ TV).

  2. mmp78746 says:

    “…we are currently running at a 2.02% more naturally, if you will, than the 1.52% rate which itself was inflated by artificial, credit-bubble-induced hiring, mostly in the finance sector.”
    “more naturally”?
    Barry, just a couple of days ago you yourself posted info on how many of these jobs are due to the gummint hiring.
    Not to argue for or against such hiring here, just to point out that it can hardly be called “more naturally”.
    Have I missed something? mmp

  3. ottnott says:

    That’s good to see.

    Now throw real-wage data into the mix and see if counting jobs is an adequate proxy for the degree of recovery.

    • Frilton Miedman says:

      Bingo!

      You can have full employment, but what good is it if they’re all low wage Walmart workers?

      Also, factor service cost for household debt that’s still @ a record high, you’ll find we’re barely treading water….and rates are climbing.

      This is why there is no taper, just observe Fred info on velocity. – http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/32242

  4. steveh18 says:

    add back the government jobs ( all levels; teachers too) and we’d be awesome !

    • willid3 says:

      or not. seems like a lot of states cut jobs. and barely rehired. in the mean time the Feds have just been cutting

  5. gman says:

    Median real wages in the US have been falling dramatically for men w/o a college degree and slightly for men with…for FORTY years..lets haggle about the details..

  6. jlj says:

    You could also take out some percent of the construction related jobs for the years 2110-2008. No way all those jobs can come back without another credit bubble.

    • Frilton Miedman says:

      Infrastructure, paid by taxing cap gains as Reagan wanted – at the same rate as income.

    • ByteMe says:

      This is the right idea. It’s not the financial sector that was the big employment winner in the credit bubble sweepstakes, it was construction and home builders. Where we are now is still nowhere near “normal” for them yet.

  7. DarthVader'sMentor says:

    Aside from the quality and compensation of the new jobs versus the lost prior ones,now instead of a finance industry rise in jobs because of a bubble it’s a rise in the number of government jobs due to a government growth bubble. It’ll come to the same ending, I’m afraid.

    • willid3 says:

      no rise in government jobs. the only bubble for them was that Constitutional mandated census thats done every decade. since then government jobs have been shrinking, and usually they are a minus instead of a plus when the monthly jobs figure comes out.

  8. Expat says:

    I don’t understand this article. What does the unemployment rate have to do with anything any more? What about median wage? What about employment rates? What about job security? savings? Insurance. The excerpt implies that we have gotten rid of all the bad, nasty bankers who existed only because of the bubble and replaced them with Joe America who has a real job making America great.

    Well, this is cute but the bubble has not deflated. QE is just hot air to keep it inflated. “Real” jobs are flipping burgers for minimum wage.

    I might have to go back and peruse my economics textbooks again, but I think the author is replete with excrement.

  9. willid3 says:

    the myth of the STEM crisis! seems like we hear all the time that we have a shortage. usually from employers, who really only want cheaper employees. cause we graduate more STEM bachelor graduates than we have opening in any one year. and that doesnt include the master doctorates graduates. or the 50,000 H1B visas awarded every year. little wonder that wages in STEM have been stagnant since 2000.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth#!

    • Frilton Miedman says:

      “Unintended consequences” – As we went full throttle into global trade, starting with NAFTA, no one gave thought to the effects of student debt or healthcare as our workers compete for jobs against countries with socialized college & healthcare, atop otherwise substantially lower costs of living.

      On the H1-B, I work in an area heavily populated with H1-B’s, last year for the first time in it’s history H1-B applications didn’t max the issuance limit.

      Several H1-B acquaintances have told me the reason, corporations are simply hiring foreign workers in their indigenous countries because costs of living are lower, therefore wages are lower.

      One of the biggest benefits to hiring H1-B’s has been that they retain their foreign citizenship, therefore they can fly home for expensive healthcare procedures and skip our costs almost completely.

      I know this first hand, one Indian coupe related a story to me that without insurance here, stomach surgery would have cost them $20K, back in India the same operation cost them $3K, a fraction what they’d pay for a year’s family coverage.