Monster Employment Index Increases 4.4% in July
The Monster Employment Index for July was released yesterday with the following highlights:
- U.S. annual growth in online job demand was 4.4% in July, marking the 18th consecutive month of positive year-over-year growth
- The Index edged down 2 points on a monthly basis, in-line with seasonal expectations
- All metro markets tracked by the Index exhibit positive annual growth
- Transportation and warehousing recorded the most notable improvements as recruitment demand strengthens
- Public administration continued to register the steepest annual declines on a year-over-year basis
16 Comments:
so, for how long will this need to diverge from the actual job market before we dismiss it as irrelevant?
we have a skills mismatch.
if you are a semiconductoer engineer, there is huge demand for your skills.
if you are a homebuilder, there are not.
openings for the former do not help the latter.
"so, for how long will this need to diverge from the actual job market before we dismiss it as irrelevant?"
I disagree. The index is very relevant because it points to where the demand is. The actual job market is where the demand is.
Hmmm, the 'Monster Index"...
Gee! I don't know...
Monster is in the business of 'selling' the idea of jobs and whether jobs are there or not...
Obama Jobs Plan: President Pushes His Proposals For Growth
08/6/11
The steps the president wants Congress to take include extending payroll tax cuts for another year, passing three free trade agreements and enacting patent reform.
The GOP's jobs plan calls for a simpler and fairer tax code, a reduction in regulations and an expansion of U.S. energy production.
My comment: If creating jobs is the top priority, all the ideas above should be implemented ASAP.
S&P Downgrade: Ex-Obama Adviser Christina Romer Says U.S. 'Pretty Darn F**ked'
8/6/11
Christina Romer, former chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, didn't mince words when asked of downgrade's potential consequences:
The U.S. is "pretty darn f**ked," Romer said.
My comment: Even with tremendous help from the Federal Reserve and trillions of dollars of additional federal spending, Romer, the former chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, helped achieve the weakest economic recovery in U.S. history.
Now, she's teaching Economic History and Macroeconomics at UC-Berkeley.
buddy-
demand only creates growth is there is supply.
a 4% increase in software jobs when that market is already saturated does little if you have piles of unemployed homebuilders and folks with only a high school degree, but none that can do the work.
the actual job market is based on HIRING not demand.
Morganovich:
Then why is it that the employers are doing nothing while expecting everyone else to do everything to close that gap?
While there may be some talk about "trainable fit", employers have largely done nothing but ask more. Part of that is them using the world as a way to extract more sacrifices out of people than are made by the employer.
Morganovich:
Then why is it that the employers are doing nothing while expecting everyone else to do everything to close that gap?
While there may be some talk about "trainable fit", employers have largely done nothing but ask more. Part of that is them using the world as a way to extract more sacrifices out of people than are made by the employer.
"Then why is it that the employers are doing nothing while expecting everyone else to do everything to close that gap?"...
Well sethstorm do you expect employers to hire people when they're faced with a potentially expensive and ruinous business environment?
The economy is in danger of collapse. The governments can't get kick their addiction to spending yet you choose to look at data points that have no meaning? Come now Mark, what do you think happens when people are forced to adjust to the reality that you have been so good at ignoring?
seth-
i'm not even sure what it is you are trying to say.
companies exist to profit, not to create jobs.
the fact that they are listing large numbers of vacancies means they are willing to hire.
most will train to some extent. but to ask them to provide 3 years of training before someone is even rudimentary productive is ridiculous.
it's not their job to give you marketable skills, it's your job to acquire them.
if by "ask more" you mean, "seek to hire people who can do the job they need done" then i think your notions are absurd.
this is what employers have always, will always, and SHOULD do.
can you seriously expect to be hired for a job for which you are totally unqualified and have them spend 2 years training you?
"can you seriously expect to be hired for a job for which you are totally unqualified and have them spend 2 years training you?"
Well yes, as a matter of fact, he can, and he does.
Well sethstorm do you expect employers to hire people when they're faced with a potentially expensive and ruinous business environment?
That just indicates brinksmanship on the part of business. Whatever interest there was to recover is exceeded by the interest to score political points.
morganovich said...
For the large part, 2-3 years of someone doing nothing/little other than training is hyperbole. The current approach is based too much on regulatory avoidance/inertia and lazy HR versus anything else. If companies didnt have their bag of tricks and had to hire despite the perceived mismatch, they would find a way to train people quickly and effectively.
If companies are complaining so much about a skills mismatch, they should be doing more than complaining. They should be more willing to handle the people we have versus complaining about where our people should be.
That just indicates brinksmanship on the part of business. Whatever interest there was to recover is exceeded by the interest to score political points.
No. It indicates that businesses are looking after shareholders as they always should. Leave the political games to the parasites who have nothing to bring to the table.
If companies are complaining so much about a skills mismatch, they should be doing more than complaining. They should be more willing to handle the people we have versus complaining about where our people should be.
First, companies have spent a lot of money upgrading employee skills. Second, when skills are short and they are unable to bring in skilled foreign workers they have been willing to move the work to where the skills are sufficient and priced fairly.
No. It indicates that businesses are looking after shareholders as they always should. Leave the political games to the parasites who have nothing to bring to the table.
The problem with that is that the shareholders are asking for destructive political games to be played out.
First, companies have spent a lot of money upgrading employee skills
Only for existing people.
Second, when skills are short and they are unable to bring in skilled foreign workers they have been willing to move the work to where the skills are sufficient and priced fairly.
More excuses for regulatory inertia and demonstrations that employers largely want everything for nothing. Moving the work offshore is simply a threat carried out to remove it from the reach of a nation such as the US - when the company has no other choice.
The second part of that is the use of the world's population to squelch any single nation's upward demand.
The problem with that is that the shareholders are asking for destructive political games to be played out.
No they are not. The politics are played by the parasites and meddlers. Shareholders want to be left alone and to have the government stay out of their pockets.
"First, companies have spent a lot of money upgrading employee skills"
Only for existing people.
What do you expect? And why do you expect it?
More excuses for regulatory inertia and demonstrations that employers largely want everything for nothing. Moving the work offshore is simply a threat carried out to remove it from the reach of a nation such as the US - when the company has no other choice.
Correct. Most companies would rather do business in the US, where they were formed by men and women willing to work hard and take risks. But when regulations rob those people to feed a parasitic welfare/warfare state they look to protect their wealth as all reasonable people should. The productive choose to work less and generate income streams that have lower tax burdens.
The second part of that is the use of the world's population to squelch any single nation's upward demand.
Your writing is muddled, probably because it reflects your thinking. A 'nation' has no upward demand.
Post a Comment
<< Home