Monster Index Shows Continuing Employment Gains
“Although we have seen the growth rate slow a bit over the last two months, it is encouraging that the Index continues to show positive year-on-year growth during 2010. This is a clear sign that employers are recruiting in greater numbers than they were a year ago and bodes well for steady, but continued improvement in the U.S. labor market,” said Jesse Harriott, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at Monster Worldwide."
Highlights of today's report include:
1. All major metropolitan markets tracked by the Monster Employment Index had positive annual growth in September.
2. Service related industries - health care and social assistance; and professional, scientific, and technical services rose in September.
3. Annual growth remains stable for manufacturing; and transportation and warehousing between August and September.
32 Comments:
Well if all these numbers indicate higher employment then what's with the increase in food stamp recipients?
What makes you think one has anything to do with the other.
People may be accepting employment that pays so little they cannot afford to eat.
It is possible to take a job and be worse off than without it. It is nice to believe that should never be the case, and we have no business providing the safety net that causes it, but even jackals will provide food to an injured jackal.
"but even jackals will provide food to an injured jackal"...
Then let the jackals feed these people...
BTW hydra I'm guessing the potential of food stamp fraud never crossed your mind or am I worng in that?
The fact that all major metroploitan areas tracked had positive job results for September is solid economic news.
Juandos asks why the increase in food stamp recipients? Maybe doubling your investment with every transaction is the reason! The feds knew about this scheme for three years but for some reason did not act until the day a KING-TV expose of the situation was aired.
if this number has been increasing, why are the ADP numbers still in such stubborn decline?
also, total separations remain very high as well, so we don't seem to be making up any ground with recent hiring. it's just churn.
"The feds knew about this scheme for three years but for some reason did not act until the day a KING-TV expose of the situation was aired."
Buddy, it appears that the investigators were more interested in snaring additional evildoers or collecting additional evidence than they were in saving taxpayer money. Sad.
"What makes you think one has anything to do with the other.
People may be accepting employment that pays so little they cannot afford to eat."
Well, Hydra, there you go: You have supplied an answer to your own question!
Do you have any evidence to support such speculation, or do you just enjoy making this stuff up?
If you actually gave it some thought before you began typing, it might occur to you that people who accept employment may start from a condition of unemployment where it's possible they already have trouble buying enough to eat, and were already receiving food stamps.
What you suggest is possible, as anything is, but how many cases do you think it would take to produce the increased numbers cited in the article juandos linked to?
If you have something, let's see it.
And yet, the recent ADP report suggests private nonfarm employment dropped by 39,000 with expectations of a gain. And now, Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September
Food stamp fraud is not the fault of food stamps, nor is medicare fraud the fault of medicare, any more than food fraud itself is the fault of food.
I'm glad to see that you still uphold your high standards of Darwinian civilization, competing with the jackals for bottom of the heap.
You are right, food stamp fraud seldom if ever crosses my mind, along with a lot of the other things you seem to be terrified of and paranoid about.
Buddy, it appears that the investigators were more interested in snaring additional evildoers or collecting additional evidence than they were in saving taxpayer money. Sad.
==================================
You don't suppose it is possible to save more money by capturing more evildoers?
Every system has rules that people will try to game. Reminds me of the elaborate electronic farecard system that users scammed on the very first day.
Sure, the ystem had a flaw. So did the people that scammed it.
Do you have any evidence to support such speculation, or do you just enjoy making this stuff up?
==================================
Ron, I assume from your comments you are not closely associated with any hardworking people on food stamps.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
people who accept employment may start from a condition of unemployment where it's possible they already have trouble buying enough to eat, and were already receiving food stamps.
They may. Do you just make this stuff up?
Or there may be other conditions, like they lost a better job some months ago and fianlly had to accept a lesser one.
All I said was there is no reason to associate job growth with a drop in food stamp use, and your argument supports that contention. Thank you.
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September
================================
% unemployment has almost as little to do with hiring as hiring has to do with food stamps.
Hydra, do you read the items that are linked to by others? If you do, do you understand what you're reading?
The article juandos linked to indicates that nearly 7 million more people received food stamps this year than last. Do you really think some large number of them took low paying jobs that don't support them? If you do, let's see your evidence. Show us some references like others do.
This stuff you just pull out of your ass like "People may be accepting employment that pays so little they cannot afford to eat." isn't good enough.
Again: if you have something, let's see it.
"You don't suppose it is possible to save more money by capturing more evildoers?"
Didn't you read that article either? The scam went on for 3 years while taxpayer money flowed, including $2 million between June 2009 and June 2010. Most of that money won't be coming back. Add to that the ongoing cost of the investigation. They had already identified all the principal players, so no, it wasn't worth continuing.
You seem to enjoy questioning what others write for no particular reason, and then you offer nothing meaningful in response but your own naive opinions.
Where's the beef?
hydra says: "Ron, I assume from your comments you are not closely associated with any hardworking people on food stamps"...
So your answer is a resounding "NO", right?
Consider the following from Reason: Five Lies About the American Economy
The Obama team’s favorite slices of fiscal baloney
I'm opposed to scams and fraud of all kinds, but I do not blame them on the product.
Government has a lot of problems, no doubt about that, but as far as scmas and fraud goes the leading and most frequent perpetratores are private enterprise.
Government gets the awaerd for being the biggiest victim of scams primarily because it has more money to scam, and also because personal liability is low.
I'm not making any judgements conservative or liberal, just pointing out what I thought was a logical non-sequitur by Juandos, who seems to be an expert on that kind of thinking.
===============================
"The article juandos linked to indicates that nearly 7 million more people received food stamps this year than last. Do you really think some large number of them took low paying jobs that don't support them?"
++++++++++++++++++++
We are saying the same thing: there is no relationship between job growth and food stamp recipients. Thank you again.
I never said the stats Juandos offered are wrong. I never said the stats MJP produced are wrong. I merely objected to Juandos linking the two in a way that insinuates that there must be something wrong with the MJP data. In my book,that is sloppy thinking and lousy argumentation. I don't think such tactics promote the conservative cause or viewpoint.
Whether I beleive that a large number of food stamp recipients work low paying jobs makes no difference to the argument that job growth and food stamp use are only marginally related. However the fact remains that you can have a job and still qualify for food stamps.
My observation is that certain people are so desperate to have a bad economy to blame Obama for that they will invent one. I say that without offering any support to Obama, it is merely an observation of a common affliction.
Once people get an idea in their head (some of them) cannot get that idea out, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
My office mate came in with a glass of orange juice, and was immediately distracted by a phone call and visitors. I surreptistiously swiped the orange juice and took it out of the room.
Later, after his distractions he was looking for th orange juice. From his reality, he KNEW there was orange juice, and he could not accept there was none. It violated his most basic beliefs (that he is not crazy). Yet the more evidence he faced, the crazier he got: he even looked in his desk drawers and the wastebasket for it, before I let him in on the experiment.
It appears that in the reality of Juandos we have a recession and he is looking in the wastebasket for proof.
Consider the following from Reason: Five Lies About the American Economy
The Obama team’s favorite slices of fiscal baloney
==================================
To name your magazine "Reason" is to suggest that everything else is unreasonable. it is an argument of the sort that starts "Every right thinking American knows that [pigs have radar and fly like bats]. you can;t disagree that pigs fly without being wrong thinking or not American, and you cannot (by implication) disagree with Reason without being unreasonable.
So, when I "consider" an article like these (doesn't matter whether it is left, right, Architectural Digest, or Cement Truck Remanufacturing News) one of the things I consider is value laden words like "lies", especially when they are attributed to no one, as disembodied lies about the economy.
So when I "consider" this kind of baloney what happens is that I consider how much I'm going to discount the contents, based on bad usage in the titles.
If you want me to read something and take it seriously, don't give it a value laden title.
They had already identified all the principal players, so no, it wasn't worth continuing.
================================
If that is correct, it was bad judgement, but it has nothing to do with what is wrong with the original statement by Juandos.
You guys seem to get "stuck" on the idea that I'm some kind of flaming liberal, just because I disagree with you.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but if we want to promote conservative ideas, they need to be good ideas, not illogical disconnected crap.
Hydra, the only one using the words "liberal" or "conservative" here is you. So what are you talking about? Are you imagining stuff again? Try to understand what you read.
If you won't read what people offer to you, how can you disagree?
The "Reason" article explains who in the Obama administration is lying and what they are lying about. Obama is one of the worst offenders. If you want to close your eyes & cover your ears & sing "La La La" when someone suggests that, you won't have the information you need to understand what's happening in the world around you, as you apparently don't.
I will pretend that you really don't understand what juandos original comment was about, and will attempt to explain it to you. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he will correct me on it.
I believe juandos was ASKING why, if there are so many more jobs, lots more people are getting food stamps. Although you are correct that there is no direct correlation between the two, One could reasonably expect that most people who had needed them wouldn't any longer if they are getting jobs. If you read the references you would see that the numbers tell different stories. Instead, you just started typing before your brain was engaged, and produced an inane comment about low paying jobs.
By the way, your cute jackal analogy is flawed. A jackal might help another member of its pack, JUST AS PEOPLE DO, but would likely kill an outsider. It certainly wouldn't allow food to be ripped out of its grasp to be given to distant others it knew nothing about as you seem to think should happen with people.
Frankly, I think it is kind of a sick outlook that argues our economy and society is failing unless we can make everybody work.
With the right attitude and the right plan, we ought to be able to get to the point where only 15 t0 20% have to work and we consider it a privilege to rotate in for our 20%.
That is almost how the Army works, isn't it?
"Frankly, I think it is kind of a sick outlook that argues our economy and society is failing unless we can make everybody work"...
That's right, none of that Aesop's version of the ant and the grasshopper for hydra, its got to be the new & improved version instead...:-)
"With the right attitude and the right plan, we ought to be able to get to the point where only 15 t0 20% have to work and we consider it a privilege to rotate in for our 20%"...
Hmmm, the so called rich in this country already pay the lion's share of keeping the others afloat...
Try to understand what you read.
If you won't read what people offer to you, how can you disagree?
=================================
Because they have entirely changed the subject and are talking beside the point.
I don't give a flying fig about whether the stats on foodstamps or fraud are correct because it has nothing to do with my argument that Juandos is making a very common intellectual failure, being so stuck on his reality that he rejects facts that distort it.
We can have job growth and a growing economy and still have static unemployment or even increasing poverty. They are not inconsistent.
That is a fact. But if you insist on believing that private enterprise and free markets solve everyithing and government is the source of all evil, then that fact is going to be uncomfortable, and therefore youwill strive mightily to reject it, or failing that, attack the messenger, change the subject or some other form of baby thinking.
==================================
Certainly, I never disagree with something I have not read, how could I? But if you expect me to read it, let alone I you expect to sell me an idea by reading it, then don't pepper the titles with value laden words.
If you are trying to sell me an idea then you are the vendor and I am the customer. I'm telling you how to sell me something, and you are the one not listening.
So I look at Juandos' first sentence and what I hear is that the last half is not connected to the first half. That idea is broken.
And, unfortunately, that idea or something very like it seems to be often repeated by people who seem to sound a lot like Juandos. "The Democrats last chance at even a respectable showing this election fizzled with today's jobs report."
Now if I see Juandos making that kind of mistake frequently, i pretty soon start to discount what he has to say. And to the extent I hear similar echos among others, I figure either they don't know how to think, or they are engaging in groupthink. The sad result is that I disount the whole group as I stereotype them.
What's worse is when i can see that they are trying to promote a good idea, and doing such a terrible job of it that they are making jambalaya out of prime rib.
Consider the Lou Dobbs kerfluffle. I beleive it is unreasonable for the "Nation" to insinuate that Dobbs is hypocritical because one of his minions may have hired a contractor who in turn used illegal laborers. That could very well have happened and happened in cotravention to his express wishes and orders.
All he had to do was say so. But instead, he clumsily dodged the question asked and answered another one, then proceeded to change the subject.
In my book, both parties lost face, and both parties were essentially being dishonest. If I ever pick up the Nation or turn on Lou Dobbs, I'm going to be suspicious because of it.
If either of them wants to sell me an idea, they are going to have to do a better job of it than that.
"the so called rich in this country already pay the lion's share of keeping the others afloat..."
=============================
With the right attitude we could get beyond what I think you are trying to say.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your argument is a little vague. I take "the lions share" to mean considerably more than 50%.
I have no idea what you mean by the so called rich, but others must be everyone except the so called rich.
Maybe you can elucidate, otherwise I have no interest in flailing at the fog.
I'll throw you a bone. I've heard it said (as I recall) that the bottom 20% of taxpayers actually have a negative tax rate, considering the various kinds of support they get. I'm willing to believe that.
How do you get from there to your claim?
"I believe juandos was ASKING why, if there are so many more jobs, lots more people are getting food stamps."
=================================
If that's the case, then I apologize and withdraw all my remarks.
I read it as him throwing down the gauntlet and challenging "all those numbers". Might have had something to do with his logo and his usual pugnacious assertions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Although you are correct that there is no direct correlation between the two, One could reasonably expect that most people who had needed them wouldn't any longer if they are getting jobs."
Based on the first phrase, I would not reasonably expect the second. There is no direct correlation. Period, end of story, no further assumptions, don't expect any knd of repeatability.
And that is not even counting the fact that I know people with jobs or pensions that need food stamps to help get by.
What you are saying, for me, simply does not compute. All stop, you lost me. Next subject.
"By the way, your cute jackal analogy is flawed. A jackal might help another member of its pack, JUST AS PEOPLE DO, but would likely kill an outsider."
=================================
So right or wrong depends on how big your pack is and what your likely ROI is? Is this a primal form of trade restriction?
"Try to understand what you read"...
O.K. hydra, I'll bite...
What's to understand about neo-marxism (or reads like it from where I sit) that isn't already painfully evident in its world wide failures?
"If you won't read what people offer to you, how can you disagree?"...
Who or what are you talking about specifically? You?
Are you talking about your critique of the Reason magazine and the article or was it something else?
So far as I know you're the only one that has a problem with the name of that magazine and to be honest sir, I find your reasoning less than reasonable...
I tend to find Reason to be quite a bit more accurate in what the present as facts far more often than what's foisted off onto a lazy public by the lamestream media...
But hey! Maybe that's just me...
Now this was your comment I found well, truly mind boggling: "My observation is that certain people are so desperate to have a bad economy to blame Obama for that they will invent one"...
hydra what is it you have against history, even recent history?
Who in their right mind would want a crappy economy?!?!
I have a job that depends almost completely upon peoples' ability to have 'disposable income' (as many others do) and if they don't have that disposable income they don't need the service I work for, hence I won't have a job that I've done for thirty plus years...
Obama and the Dems are with their insane attempts at socializing medicine and instilling new and more harsh atmosphere in the business world are making that possibility less and less likely...
hydra have you bothered to look at what has been foisted off onto the American taxpayer in the first 20 or so months of this administration?
This speaks volumes to me both about your basic education and your life experiences: "The Democrats last chance at even a respectable showing this election fizzled with today's jobs report."...
hydra are you telling me you've never heard that old saying, 'people vote their pocketbook'?...
"Your argument is a little vague. I take "the lions share" to mean considerably more than 50%"...
Yes hydra that is exactly what I'm talking about...
Ask yourself this: 'when was the last time a poor person gave someone a job with a paycheck attached to it?'...
"I'll throw you a bone. I've heard it said (as I recall) that the bottom 20% of taxpayers actually have a negative tax rate, considering the various kinds of support they get"...
Consider the following three year old article from Stephen Moore: Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes
"How do you get from there to your claim?"...
Milton Friedman
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home