S&P 500 tops 1500, Dow hits another record... - Page 2

Stylerod · 05-04-2007, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Jobless rate rises as hiring slows - Yahoo! News

Labor Department on Friday showed that payrolls grew by just 88,000 last month

Still growing, just not as fast. 4.5% is still amazing.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-04-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Still growing, just not as fast. 4.5% is still amazing.

The new tally of jobs added to the economy was the fewest since 65,000 jobs in November 2004.

Help me understand...how is the worst performance in 2.5 years amazing?

ballz2wallz · 05-04-2007, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Help me understand...how is the worst performance in 2.5 years amazing?

It's a jobless rate. It doesn't mean it's reversed, it's just the rate has changed.

Publius · 05-04-2007, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Help me understand...how is the worst performance in 2.5 years amazing?

we added 88,000 jobs this month, versus whatever last month's total was. We've been adding jobs every month over the last 2.5 years, but this is the lowest # of jobs added in a month since 65,000 in November of '04. How is that BAD? Sure, it isn't as much growth as we've had in other months, but it is still growth. Things are BAD when the job growth figure is NEGATIVE. Hell, even adding 100 jobs in a month (while it would be a definite sign of something bad coming along) isn't in itself bad.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-04-2007, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

we added 88,000 jobs this month, versus whatever last month's total was. We've been adding jobs every month over the last 2.5 years, but this is the lowest # of jobs added in a month since 65,000 in November of '04. How is that BAD? Sure, it isn't as much growth as we've had in other months, but it is still growth. Things are BAD when the job growth figure is NEGATIVE. Hell, even adding 100 jobs in a month (while it would be a definite sign of something bad coming along) isn't in itself bad.

I just find it curious that is the worst job creation in 2.5 years, yet the Dow is making new highs. You'd think the two would go in lock step.

Publius · 05-04-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I just find it curious that is the worst job creation in 2.5 years, yet the Dow is making new highs. You'd think the two would go in lock step.

Not at all curious or odd. The two aren't particularly related, because the Dow responds more to productivity than it does to number of workers... Look at it this way:

Before the advent of the mechanical assembly line, let's say it took (just throwing out numbers) 100 workers 5 days to build a car on a manual assembly line. With the use of mechanical assembly line robots, let's say it takes 10 workers 2.5 days to build a car. That means with a 10th the work-force, the company is being twice as productive, thus that company can sell more cars and make more money for stockholders and thus is valued higher on the stock exchange.

Given that we aren't seeing any DECREASES in productivity as a result of adding fewer jobs (but still adding, mind you), there is no reason to assume the Dow would slump just because job growth deccelerate a bit (but is still growing at a positive amount).

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-04-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Not at all curious or odd. The two aren't particularly related, because the Dow responds more to productivity than it does to number of workers... Look at it this way:

Before the advent of the mechanical assembly line, let's say it took (just throwing out numbers) 100 workers 5 days to build a car on a manual assembly line. With the use of mechanical assembly line robots, let's say it takes 10 workers 2.5 days to build a car. That means with a 10th the work-force, the company is being twice as productive, thus that company can sell more cars and make more money for stockholders and thus is valued higher on the stock exchange.

Given that we aren't seeing any DECREASES in productivity as a result of adding fewer jobs (but still adding, mind you), there is no reason to assume the Dow would slump just because job growth deccelerate a bit (but is still growing at a positive amount).

Isn't that sort of ominous for the future? Jobs will be fewer and fewer, while that select few which own the company get richer and richer?

Stylerod · 05-04-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Isn't that sort of ominous for the future? Jobs will be fewer and fewer, while that select few which own the company get richer and richer?

You must have sung John Henry songs when you were a kid!

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

market tanks its bush's fault and the world is going to pot, market does great and it means nothing, nice try

The market tanks because of something Bush does, then yes, it's his fault. The market's natural course it an upward slope...that doesn't mean his actions are causing it. Look at it like Global Warming. The earth's temperature is rising naturally, whether or not man is really doing much to affect it is still up for debate.

ballz2wallz · 05-04-2007, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The market's natural course it an upward slope...

This is only true when the economy is good. Bush's actions affect the economy.

A market's natural course depends on other factors that the President influences. It's not always an upward slope.

7960 · 05-04-2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Isn't that sort of ominous for the future? Jobs will be fewer and fewer, while that select few which own the company get richer and richer?

I really have no idea how you read that from what he wrote.

But your underlying message in this post (and other threads) is clear....... you want everyone to work and you want the govt (or someone) to redistribute money so nobody goes without. Please explain why you haven't moved to a socialist country yet.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-04-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

But your underlying message in this post (and other threads) is clear....... you want everyone to work and you want the govt (or someone) to redistribute money so nobody goes without. Please explain why you haven't moved to a socialist country yet.

He said that as time goes on, due to automation, fewer humans will be needed to achieve the same level of productivity. How do you not see how from that I could assume that as time goes on, there will be fewer jobs, but more profits for those who own the companies and don't have to pay workers? I mean, you could argue it's a flawed assumption for whatever reason, but you honestly cannot even see where it came from?

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This is only true when the economy is good. Bush's actions affect the economy.

A market's natural course depends on other factors that the President influences. It's not always an upward slope.

So if you admit that Bush caused all the dips in the market, we'll give him credit for the rising...(which is crap either way.)

Donkey® · 05-04-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You heard the man, GTFO of this glorious country if you want to believe anything than the norm.

Publius · 05-04-2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

He said that as time goes on, due to automation, fewer humans will be needed to achieve the same level of productivity. How do you not see how from that I could assume that as time goes on, there will be fewer jobs, but more profits for those who own the companies and don't have to pay workers? I mean, you could argue it's a flawed assumption for whatever reason, but you honestly cannot even see where it came from?

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that needing fewer workers to produce the same amount of stuff leads automatically to fewer jobs. If that were the case, our unemployment rate would be MUCH higher than it is, considering the level of automation these days.

7960 · 05-04-2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

He said that as time goes on, due to automation, fewer humans will be needed to achieve the same level of productivity. How do you not see how from that I could assume that as time goes on, there will be fewer jobs, but more profits for those who own the companies and don't have to pay workers? I mean, you could argue it's a flawed assumption for whatever reason, but you honestly cannot even see where it came from?

Seeing that automation started in the early 1900s and we've been (a) getting more and more automation, and (b) gaining more and more jobs, no, I can't see where it's coming from.

Automation has rarely led to a decrease in the number of workers needed. It's just as likely to mean they don't need to be as skilled, or that they can do more work, or that they're in less danger. But more often than not automation means more work, not less workers.

Stylerod · 05-04-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

He said that as time goes on, due to automation, fewer humans will be needed to achieve the same level of productivity. How do you not see how from that I could assume that as time goes on, there will be fewer jobs, but more profits for those who own the companies and don't have to pay workers? I mean, you could argue it's a flawed assumption for whatever reason, but you honestly cannot even see where it came from?

It is a flawed assumption. I guess my John Henry reference must have gone right over your young whippersnapper head.

People have been worried about automation taking their jobs for over a century, probably more. And really it hasn't been a problem and probably will continue not to be.

kinggovernor · 05-04-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It is a flawed assumption. I guess my John Henry reference must have gone right over your young whippersnapper head.

People have been worried about automation taking their jobs for over a century, probably more. And really it hasn't been a problem and probably will continue not to be.

that ain't nothing for a steel driving man

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-04-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that needing fewer workers to produce the same amount of stuff leads automatically to fewer jobs. If that were the case, our unemployment rate would be MUCH higher than it is, considering the level of automation these days.

Maybe outsourcing is the new "automation" since we don't have much manufacturing going on anymore, at least until computers even take over non manufacturing and white collar jobs...

Anyway, who knows...maybe unemployment isn't the result of automation or outsourcing. Instead a reduction in the quality of jobs is the result. Maybe we're becoming a nation of a few owning all the companies making lots, while the rest earn little in service jobs.