1. In 2011, U.S. manufacturing companies increased employment by 237,000 positions, which was the largest annual increase in manufacturing jobs since a 302,000 gain in 1997.
2. Of the 237,000 new jobs added to manufacturing payrolls last year, 44,300 jobs, and almost 19%, of the new factory jobs were added in the state of Michigan, even though Michigan's overall share of U.S. manufacturing employment is only about 4.3% (504,700 jobs out of 11.81 million nationwide). Stated differently, Michigan has only about 1 out of every 23 manufacturing jobs in the country, but the state's manufacturers added almost one out of every 5 new factory jobs last year.
2. Of the 237,000 new jobs added to manufacturing payrolls last year, 44,300 jobs, and almost 19%, of the new factory jobs were added in the state of Michigan, even though Michigan's overall share of U.S. manufacturing employment is only about 4.3% (504,700 jobs out of 11.81 million nationwide). Stated differently, Michigan has only about 1 out of every 23 manufacturing jobs in the country, but the state's manufacturers added almost one out of every 5 new factory jobs last year.
3. As I reported in an earlier CD post, Michigan's jobless rate in December at 9.3% was more than a full percentage point below the 10.4% unemployment rate in the District of Columbia. The last time Michigan's jobless rate was 1.1% below the District of Columbia's rate was back in August 2001, more than a decade ago.
4. Government payrolls shrank last year by 271,000, with most of job cuts taking place at the local level (-158,000), followed by reductions in state employees (-77,000) and federal employees (-36,000). The last time government payrolls fell by that much in one calendar year was 1981, when government contracted by 300,000 jobs.
Quick question: Do we have any stats on the average pay for the new jobs in manufacturing?
ReplyDeleteWe do know that many of the new UAW auto jobs are at $14/hour instead of the old wage of $28/hour, but beyond that I'm not sure we can get more specific than that on wages for new hires?
ReplyDeleteFrom Zieminski's Reuters blog: Friday’s government report showed a gain of 237,000 jobs outside the farm sector in January, well above expectations of 150,000 new payrolls...
ReplyDeleteAgain, why are massaged BLS numbers acceptable?
Is Rick Santelli just blowing smoke up our collective _ _ _ _ _?
Good news all around then. Employment is up, government is shrinking. Everybody wins!
ReplyDeleteHow sad that we cannot reduce federal government payrolls.
ReplyDeleteBelow is list of largest federal agencies financed by income taxes (payroll taxes finance Social Security and Medicare).
Where should we cut?
Defense 3,200,000
Veterans Affairs 240,000
Homeland Security 200,000
Treasury 162,119
Justice 124,870
USDA 100,000
DOT 100,000
Health and Human Services 62,999
Interior 57,232
Commerce 41,711
NASA 19,198
EPA 18,879
State 18,000
Labor 16,818
Energy 14,000
GSA 14,000
Most likely, federal employees present a too-large voting bloc. Senators and Congressmen cannot vote to cut these payrolls, without inviting fatal voter backlash. A Peronist situation.
"How sad that we cannot reduce federal government payrolls.
ReplyDeleteBelow is list of largest federal agencies financed by... "
Yawn...
[skip]
Ron H-
ReplyDeleteEvidently, cutting federal parasites off from your wallet is a yawner.
Are you in the modern-day GOP?
UAW members now make only $14 an hour, yet McDonald's workers in the "Bakken" make $15, with no dues:
ReplyDeletehttp://money.msn.com/investing/unemployed-go-to-north-dakota-cnbc.aspx?gt1=33002
I wish working people would wake up and ask Obama and his ilk why they don't want us to produce our own oil in this country.
Most likely, federal employees present a too-large voting bloc. Senators and Congressmen cannot vote to cut these payrolls, without inviting fatal voter backlash. A Peronist situation.
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on, Benjamin. No politician would want to shrink the Federal Government. I mean, who really wants to be seen as the president who put people out of work? The only time Federal jobs are cut are when the situation requires it (shrinking budgets). Even then, it's just temporary.
"Government payrolls shrank last year by 271,000..."
ReplyDeleteYes, we'll be getting less government services.
Also, we'll be getting oil at higher costs.
Moreover, we'll work harder and longer for fewer manufactured goods.
Are these really improvements?
And will the slow U-shaped recovery be completed before a recession, or will there be a double-dip? (the U.S. has never gone more than 10 years without a recession).
ReplyDeleteYes, we'll be getting less government services.
ReplyDeleteAlso, we'll be getting oil at higher costs.
Moreover, we'll work harder and longer for fewer manufactured goods.
The jobs shed does not mean less government services.
Oil is a globally traded commodity. No clue why you're talking about it in a post about job numbers, especially since oil employment is growing.
As for manufacturing: ????????? What numbers are you looking at? US MFG is at all-time highs.
Jon, you believe we'll get more government services with fewer government workers?
ReplyDeleteYou believe oil is becoming cheaper to extract?
And you believe manufactuing costs (e.g. labor, energy, raw materials, etc.) aren't rising?
The U.S. has never gone over 10 years without a recession:
ReplyDeleteLongest expansions since WWII:
1991-01 120 months
1961-69 106 months
1982-90 92 months
2001-07 73 months
Year next recession begins?
The longest U.S. economic expansion before WWII was the 1933-37 expansion (50 months).
ReplyDeleteThat, and no RTW law was needed - just cooperation between UAW and GM as well as those in other manufacturing interests.
ReplyDeleteYessiree, that little "cooperative effort" worked out really well.
ReplyDeleteIs Rick Santelli just blowing smoke up our collective _ _ _ _ _?
ReplyDeleteNo what he is saying is that the BLS knocked 1.2 million unemployed of the spreadsheet (because they gave up looking for work) to come up with this months number....
How sad that we cannot reduce federal government payrolls.
ReplyDeleteBelow is list of largest federal agencies financed by income taxes (payroll taxes finance Social Security and Medicare).
Where should we cut?
Defense 3,200,000
Veterans Affairs 240,000
Homeland Security 200,000
Treasury 162,119
Justice 124,870
USDA 100,000
DOT 100,000
Health and Human Services 62,999
Interior 57,232
Commerce 41,711
NASA 19,198
EPA 18,879
State 18,000
Labor 16,818
Energy 14,000
GSA 14,000
Most likely, federal employees present a too-large voting bloc. Senators and Congressmen cannot vote to cut these payrolls, without inviting fatal voter backlash. A Peronist situation.
2/11/2012 5:23 PM
Where should we cut, bull-crap, how about 2.5% across the board they are cutting (80,000 or 2.5%) that many troops from the army with out even blinking..... just freeze hiring and you could trim that many in plain growth.....
Benji
ReplyDelete"Evidently, cutting federal parasites off from your wallet is a yawner."
No, hearing about it one more time from you is a yawner.
"because they gave up looking for work"...
ReplyDeletethomas you know these people gave up looking for work, how?
Thomas says: "Where should we cut...how about 2.5% across the board..."
ReplyDeleteHere's where you really want the cuts:
According to "Government Spending - Wikipedia:"
U.S. Federal, State, and Local Government spending was 40.0% of GDP in 2010, or $5.79 trillion.
Major categories of government spending 2010 in billions of dollars:
Pensions $939.2
Health Care $1028.8
Education $887.3
Defense $848.1
Welfare $727.3
Interest $296.3
Or, Michele Bachmann had an idea.
ReplyDeleteShut off the lights and lock the doors.
juandos-
ReplyDeletei think you are misunderstanding thomas.
what he is saying is that the BLS took 1.2 million people out of the labor force. these people stop counting as "unemployed" because they responded to a survey that asked if they had looked for work in that last 2 or 4 weeks (i forget which) and they said no.
so "presto!" magically, they are no longer unemployed and the u3 headline rate drops to 8.3%.
i don't think he was trying to justify it.
regardless, doing so is deeply misleading. it makes the U3 figure a bit of a joke. all you need to do is get job seekers discouraged enough and voila, no unemployment!