Job Openings in the U.S. Climbed in May as Hiring Picked Up

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Lorraine Woellert - Jul 9, 2013

Job openings in the U.S. rose in May as employers grew more optimistic demand will strengthen as the effects of payroll tax increases and federal budget cuts wane.

The number of positions waiting to be filled grew by 28,000 to 3.83 million from a revised 3.8 million the prior month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The pace of hiring also increased.

Companies are taking on workers as stronger home and automobile sales signal demand will pick up in the second half of the year. Today’s figures follow data last week showing the economy added more jobs than forecast in June, giving Federal Reserve policy makers room to dial back record bond purchases aimed at spurring hiring and growth.

“This sets the stage for a stronger second-half outlook for consumption,” Neil Dutta, head of U.S. economics at Renaissance Macro Research LLC in New York, said before the report. “The improvement in employment and the improvement in wages suggest aggregate incomes are rising quite nicely.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-09/job-openings-in-u-s-rise-to-3-83-million-from-3-8-million.html

[heaven05]

1. yeah

at an hourly wage that is unlivable and NO benefits. Give me a break with these feel good obfuscations. in this week following the "freedom wallowing", I did decide to tell it like it is based on the reality of having to live on terra firma and not in the FUCKING clouds!!! Free thinking is in danger and free speech also. Wallow on muddlers your sheep like behavior will catch up to you.

[phleshdef]

2. What a bunch of poisonous, cart-before-horse nonsense.

Wages and benefits won't pick up until we are at or near full employment, which means a few more percentage points drops in unemployment. That's how it always works. Companies don't start offering more until they are put into a position where they are competing for workers. Any and all employment gains brings us a step closer to getting to that point. So no, you are wrong. This kind of news is not a "feel good obfuscation". Its solidly good news.

[heaven05]

4. no

I'm not. Wages WILL NOT go up. your Corporate Masters are not going to let that happen in any meaningful manner, EVER again. Come out of your dream world. You will be a better person for it..... gawd bless amerikkka, land of the free and home of the brave

[phleshdef]

7. Grow up.

Seriously, anyone who does the "amerikkka" thing isn't mature enough for me to pay anymore mind to. You act like someone who is giving a commentary on comic book villains.

[heaven05]

8. you

can call my maturity into question all you like. I didn't create the KKK, amerikkkan backwardness and ignorance did. Go spread your feel good to the THOUSANDS of walmart workers that have to supplement their pay with food stamps, ect. Please you're offensive to me trying to embarrass me. Your reply is comic. On edit. Yes please don't suffer me your replies anymore.

[DCBob]

3. Good grief.. you can always count on someone here pissing in the punch bowl..

and first response no less.

[heaven05]

5. that's right

like it or not, I DON'T CARE.

[DCBob]

13. Such bold statements in this thread.. complete with sufficient smilies.

[heaven05]

17. that's right!

Don't ever forget my smile. I smile like that at people when they don't have a clue about the real world of poverty, hunger, homelessness/hopelessness.

[Thor_MN]

29. It's a little confusing that you adamantly declare that you don't care...

For someone that doesn't care, you seem to care very much that everyone know that you don't care?

I'm not taking any side on the OP issue, just don't understand the definite maybe implied...

[dotymed]

6. WTF?

“The improvement in employment and the improvement in wages suggest aggregate incomes are rising quite nicely.”

How in the hell do they infer that?

Most jobs (except CEO's) pay less than they did 30 years ago.

Of course the average CEO salary is now about 400x larger than their highest paid employees actually earn.

Really a fair place ain't it?

[Igel]

35. Because employment is rising and wages are rising or holding steady.

I don't think people have a clue--which is all I have, and is more than sufficient--as to what "aggregate income" is.

It's different from personal income. It's different from household income. It's not GDP. Wages can go down and aggregate income can increase. It says nothing about hourly wages. It doesn't say anything, necessarily, about hours worked or employment figures. Although given some of those numbers it lets you say something about the other numbers.


"Aggregate income" is the total amount of income by people, businesses, corporations in the country, minus any subsidies and (IIRC) any taxes.

If you have 20 people each making $300/week this week you get an aggregate income of $60 000. If next month you have 30 people making $200 a week, you have the same aggregate income. If the following month you have 70 people making $100/week, then aggregate income has increased.

[askeptic]

9. Thinking ppl should always look under the covers at the numbers

Regardless of the wage deflation in many cases, there is also a substantial number of part-time and temporary worker jobs included in this report. You can only make wise decisions if you know the real facts.

[phleshdef]

10. But that is to be expected until we are at full employment.

This is really just simple supply/demand economics. When there is a surplus of people looking for work, companies don't need to raise wages, offer more hours, offer better benefits etc to compete for workers. When there is a surplus of jobs and not enough people to fill them all, then the opposite is true.

Whenever the economy gets romped like it did in 08 and we get a huge unemployment number, the environment will expectedly favor the employer over the employees. But once a full recovery is realized and we are back to full employment, companies have to compete for labor and that favors the employee or potential employees. Every time we experience MORE job openings and MORE jobs filled, we are getting closer to the place we need to be for full employment. Any gains in that regard are good for the big picture and the long game.

[Enrique]

11. you're talking about the normal business cycle

but it has never taken this long, and there are some serious questions about whether your "full employment" will ever happen, or whether there is general agreement that it should happen. Notice that corporate profits are doing just fine right now.

[phleshdef]

12. The Great Depression took far longer to pull out of.

Even with all the New Deal programs, which unarguably were a tremendous help, we were still looking at unemployment that jumped to 25%, went down to around 14% and jumped back up to 19%. We were stuck in that cycle for a decade.

But aside from that, if we had a Congress that didn't play games with the debt ceiling, that didn't play games with tax certainty, that didn't reject almost every attempt at further stimulus, I believe we'd be a lot farther along than we are. And if we elect a Congress that cuts that kind of shit out, I believe we will fully recover.

Regardless, we've been to unemployment hell and back again before. Theres no reason for me to think that we can't get back to that magic number where workers have the negotiating advantage.

[heaven05]

15. Negotiating advantage?

who is going to negotiate for these workers? Oh that's right all those workers unions that are out there. What a dream world.

[phleshdef]

18. Its not a dream world. Its math.

However I know, in your rolley eyed "I CAN HAZ TYPING" spasms, such things aren't of interest to you.

[heaven05]

22. skewed

math. You're clueless as to what people in the trenches out here are facing. Clueless. Please spare me your offensiveness. Your kind of democrat thinking is what's helping the 1%ters continue to offer false hope of a livable wage happening in anything but IT. People are are having to find jobs in walmart, meijeirs, target, gas stations, 7-11. You're clueless or at the least ignore reality. I'm through with you.

[phleshdef]

23. "Your kind of democrat thinking"... well that reveals a whole hell of a lot.

[byeya]

28. Only 7% of the private sector is organized and has a contract. There is no bargaining w/o

a contract or a new bargaining unit, which has yet to happen.

[phleshdef]

32. There is, in a more indirect way.

Don't get me wrong. I'm unapologetically pro-union.

But what I'm saying is, whenever there are more jobs than there are people to fill them, what you get is an environment where companies compete with EACH OTHER for those workers. So they make better offers to potential workers in order to obtain them.

You need heavy consumer demand before you get to that point of course and you need full employment before you get to it.

[byeya]

33. I didn't think you were anti-union. It's just that the social situation you outline doesn't occur

very often and those who control the political economy have a vested interest in seeing it doesn't happen.

When half of the private workforce was organized, businesses felt pressure to keep up with the prevailing union wage(approach it really and not surpass it) because it would be attractive for their workers to try and get the high paying jobs and not accept the Wal-Mart wages. 7% doesn't exert that pressure especially since a couple of points are in the defense sector.

But yes, when the conditions you specify are present, workers benefit and the FED has the dual mandate to keep inflation low while providing for full employment. The second part of their mandate is often ignored, sad to say. Even now, the cutoff point for FED bond buying is an unacceptable 6.5%(which I admit looks good right now considering the U-3 and U-6 readings.)

[dotymed]

40. You are probably correct, but not for corporations.

Yes it took longer for America as a whole to "pull out of" The Great Depression.

However, because of the current lack of industry regulations, especially in regards to non-corporate people, The Great Recession
(I have other names for it) has taken much longer in relation to Wall Street for the re-employment of individuals.

Our *terrific* stock market rebounded very quickly compared to the employment of people. We have broken many records for financial growth without real people (95% of us) seeing any positive growth in in employment.
IDK exactly when "they" declared mission accomplished on ending the "recession", but it has yet to have a significant, positive effect on employment or wages for the majority of the American people.

That is why it has been called a "jobless recovery." The main people to benefit from this recovery have been the wealthy, while the majority have actually experienced lower wages, benefits and fewer working hours.

[heaven05]

14. another

one.

[phleshdef]

16. And another valueless response from yourself.

Note the other poster that responded to me. They disagree with me, but they have substantial discussion to add. That's how an intellectually mature person would respond. Take note of that. If and when you decide to grow up and clean the foamy spittle off your mouth, that's a good example of how you should communicate.

[heaven05]

19. I don't

discuss anything with people who start out clueless, stay clueless and will always be clueless about what people out here in the trenches are facing. When YOU decide to look at the real world I might have respect for you. But no. I don't take anyone serious who is part of the Trojan horse liberalism that is rife on this site among the usual suspects.

[phleshdef]

20. More like you don't discuss anything that you can't actually refute.

So instead you cower behind vague attacks and childish buzz phrases like "Amerikkka" and "Trojan horse liberalism".

[heaven05]

21. whatever

you say, oh wise one. You're clueless and I will waste no more time on you. BYE BYE!!!!

[phleshdef]

24. Yup. Thats what I thought.

Exactly the kind of cowardice I was expecting.

[heaven05]

25. not

cowardice. right. And I'd rather be my type of coward than your kind of democrat. Arrogant and clueless as to what people are facing out here in the trenches. Your numbers(math) don't reflect the truth of our present day corporate mentality. They want slaves, not workers with pride and a livable wage with benefits. If you don't understand that then okay. Stay where you are, that train is going to run right over you and now you can't say someone didn't try to school you. bye bye

[phleshdef]

26. More spouting off without actually saying anything.

First off, you don't know me and you don't know my life. I grew up poor. I borrowed every penny that payed for my college. And then spent quite a few years poor after that. I grew up in southern WVa, one of the poorest areas of the country. So don't pretend like you have the right or ability to lecture me on "what people are facing out here in the trenches". You just make yourself look ignorant by attempting to do so.

I'm by no means wealthy now. I have a good, middle class salary, but I still have to worry about bills. I'm not anywhere close to being in the top 1%.

But aside from all of that, you are doing nothing but propping up a whole field of fucking strawmen. I never once argued that corporations are generally interested in whats best for their workers or that the present day corporate mentality is anything to be happy about. As a matter of fact, if you'd pull your head out of your ass for a moment and read what I said, you'd realized I am saying the exact opposite of that.

When I argue that there has to be more jobs than people to fill them in order for businesses to start offering better deals to their employees, I might as well be saying that businesses won't do the right thing until they have to. And that is exactly what I'm saying.

Your problem is, you are so emotionally invested in shitting all over good news that you can't stop long enough to realize that fundamentally, I agree with your position on corporate greed whole heartedly. But I'm adding that once unemployment is low enough that corporations HAVE to give better incentives in order to obtain new employees or keep the ones they have, then we will see some of these wage, hour and benefit problems start to work themselves out. That's ALWAYS been the case in our economy. History completely backs me up on that notion and so does any economist worth the title.

And yes, it is cowardice. You aren't emotionally mature enough to handle someone presenting a reasoned argument that puts a damper on your obsession with negative bullshit. So instead of facing what you ultimately fear, and that's the possibility that you are wrong, you cower behind a bunch of ugly rhetoric. Its exactly how conservatives tend to argue. And I strongly suspect theres a reason for that.

[heaven05]

36. oh please

I don't believe a word you have written about you being poor.. You know nothing about poverty, and by your arrogance verging on stupidity I do know what you are all about. Nothing. Yes I am emotionally invested in not believing the lies you lap up like a thirsty dog at the water bowl. Your corporate/ media masters have you trained well. Sheeple are easy to train. Your obsession with lapping up bullshit tells me who and what type of person you are democrat. If you say so. I don't believe. Please do not agree with me on any point. I do not need your type of approval.

[phleshdef]

39. LOL. You just sound drunk or something now.

But who am I to question your psychic ability to determine someone's income history based on a few forum posts.

Please proceed.

[penultimate]

27. What do you consider to be an average livable wage?

Also, what information are you basing your statements that most of these jobs are low paying service jobs? I'm not asking because I think otherwise, but rather so we can be on the same page. You and the person you're debating with just seem to be throwing words at each other without actually discussing why you believe things are the way you think.

I ask because I see a large number of job openings in the fields I work in (IT and Telecom) that pay a decent wage. I'm not concerned that if I lost my job today that I would be risking living on the streets or working a low paying service job... I may or may not have to take a slight pay cut, but there is also a chance it could lead to a pay increase. That's just my personal perspective though, and it's of course limited to my geographical area and my area of "expertise." It's also based on what I consider to be a livable/decent wage. Which may be different than what you consider to be a good wage. Hence why I asked for your opinion on that.

[heaven05]

38. hmmm

a livable wage is one where an average family, 2parents, two kids? can have a decent roof over their head, decent meals every day, can pay the usual utilities ect and even enjoy time out together once a month or so. Decent car, able to put fuel in it. I was making 25.00 an hour before I retired. In that economy that was decent. The prices keep going up and/or fluctuating. Utility companies charge an arm and a leg for their services. Coming from a family that in growing up sometimes had to depend on government food supplements, where I ended my working career was good. Decent today? The same wage per hour or 50,000 a year salaried as mentioned above or a little more for a family of four. My family was my wife and my step daughter. We made due. Yeah, IT and telecom are good paying jobs, but realistically a majority of people in this society now are in the lower paying jobs like, 7-11, meijers, target, walmart, gas stations. Mall type jobs, food service industry. A lot of older people working in McDonalds ect now. Never saw that before and they do not pay that well. Car factories, post office jobs pay well, but they are not doing a lot of hiring. I was blue collar, with a college education. Most people are not college grads. Some people here want to lament my negativity about america's businesses not offering it's citizens a livable wage but corporate mentality now, I repeat is slave wage and no health care, not livable wage. Control of the populace is much easier that way. Corporations own the world and have the control to keep us groveling. And it's getting worse. No rose colored glasses here, like some of the arrogant sheeple on here believing the lies of better job/wage outlook, it's just not true. But I don't have to prove anything to anyone, time will bear me out. It will only get worse, not better with the slave wages offered to a majority of current american workers. I hope I didn't belabor the point and that I answered your question.

[Brigid]

30. Wow.

When I clicked on this thread, I had no idea was going to be so entertaining.

[Purveyor]

31. You should have seen some of the responses when I posted positive econ news a couple of years

ago if you thought this to be fun.

Made posting worth the 'effort'...

[Blue Bike]

34. We needed a bigger stimulus

For a faster, bigger recovery.

[markpkessinger]

37. Hooray, more McJobs n/t