Nation At Full Employment, Folks Bringing Home More Of Their Paychecks -- Dems Say 'Who Cares?'...

[NightFox]

Using the definition that economists use, it's very close to full employment.

It doesn't however mean that we've solved the nagging structural unemployment problems that we have been experiencing for the last decade and a half.

Yes, many economists love to utilize specific jargon that doesn't approximate reality.

It's not "many economists" jargon it has a very specific meaning with respect to the state of the labor market and it does "approximate reality" pretty well with respect to the relationship of the state of employment and inflation .

Unfortunately too many people interpret it as "everybody has a job that wants one" which is NOT what it means.

Full employment means full employment in the real world..........

In economics full employment means the point at which demand for labor surpasses supply (supply as in workers possessing skills that are in demand by employers) thus causing the price of labor to rise due to competition for available labor at which point the standing "unemployment rate" reflects frictional unemployment (i.e. workers shuffling between jobs).

Unfortunately full employment doesn't and can't account for structural unemployment, i.e. those individuals who want a job but do not posses skill sets that are in demand by employers and thus are for all intents and purposes unemployable (often referred to as "discouraged workers"), which IMHO is not primarily a failure of the private economy but of the "education system" and government policy that tends to drive un- & semi- skilled work offshore.

I know what it all means in economics and could care less how economists chose to describe things.

You could care less how economists "chose to describe things" that relate directly to ECONOMICS ? Who do you listen to when it comes to "describing" economics,? botanists?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray N. Rothbard

 

[NightFox]

It's all about wage growth now. We need to get above 3% and stay there a while.

There was massive, historic slack in the economy, and that's the figure that will tell us how much slack remains.

What "slack" are you referring to?

Labor participation?
idle capital?

IMHO If you're referring to the labor market then accelerating wage growth won't tell you much about "slack" since it will be an indication of the competition for available (and marketable) labor, not the pool of structurally unemployed workers. Higher wages might entice skilled workers to come off the bench (e.g. retirees to come back into the job market) but it doesn't help those whose skills don't match what employers want. It's also likely to drive immigration for skilled workers or more specifically for employers to lobby the Washington Crime Syndicate to raise immigration caps.

Regardless of the definition of the term, bouncing around 2.6% to 2.8% just isn't going to cut it.

Isn't going to "cut it" for whom?

Although there are a lot of positive signs, markets aren't going to wait on strong wage growth forever.
.

Which markets?

It's not going to cut it for anyone who has a decent understanding of the nature of markets, how they react to data and expectations, and what that reaction ultimately does to the macro economy. Equity markets, fixed income markets, derivatives markets, money markets, exchange markets. This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Er… umm... those markets are nervous as hell regarding pace of wage increases as accelerating labor prices are often a harbinger of broader inflation woes and accelerated tightening from the Fed. The economy as it stands now has a non-inflationary growth potential that's just north of the current growth rate and part of the calculus for tipping things over the proverbial edge is accelerating labor price increases. We need productivity growth to justify higher wages not just employers bidding up prices chasing scarce labor and we're not currently getting enough of it because CapEx has been inhibited for so long, it's coming back now but as you already know there is most often a significant lag between investment and productivity increases.

I know that partisan Trump supporters will justify saying they're satisfied with pretty much any number, but those of us who have to take this stuff seriously have to look a little deeper and more honestly.
.

Are you attempting to imply I'm a "partisan Trump supporter" that's "satisfied with pretty much any number" just because I asked you to clarify your assertion?

 

[Mac1958]

It's all about wage growth now. We need to get above 3% and stay there a while.

There was massive, historic slack in the economy, and that's the figure that will tell us how much slack remains.

What "slack" are you referring to?

Labor participation?
idle capital?

IMHO If you're referring to the labor market then accelerating wage growth won't tell you much about "slack" since it will be an indication of the competition for available (and marketable) labor, not the pool of structurally unemployed workers. Higher wages might entice skilled workers to come off the bench (e.g. retirees to come back into the job market) but it doesn't help those whose skills don't match what employers want. It's also likely to drive immigration for skilled workers or more specifically for employers to lobby the Washington Crime Syndicate to raise immigration caps.

Regardless of the definition of the term, bouncing around 2.6% to 2.8% just isn't going to cut it.

Isn't going to "cut it" for whom?

Although there are a lot of positive signs, markets aren't going to wait on strong wage growth forever.
.

Which markets?

It's not going to cut it for anyone who has a decent understanding of the nature of markets, how they react to data and expectations, and what that reaction ultimately does to the macro economy. Equity markets, fixed income markets, derivatives markets, money markets, exchange markets. This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Er… umm... those markets are nervous as hell regarding pace of wage increases as accelerating labor prices are often a harbinger of broader inflation woes and accelerated tightening from the Fed. The economy as it stands now has a non-inflationary growth potential that's just north of the current growth rate and part of the calculus for tipping things over the proverbial edge is accelerating labor price increases. We need productivity growth to justify higher wages not just employers bidding up prices chasing scarce labor and we're not currently getting enough of it because CapEx has been inhibited for so long, it's coming back now but as you already know there is most often a significant lag between investment and productivity increases.

I know that partisan Trump supporters will justify saying they're satisfied with pretty much any number, but those of us who have to take this stuff seriously have to look a little deeper and more honestly.
.

Are you attempting to imply I'm a "partisan Trump supporter" that's "satisfied with pretty much any number" just because I asked you to clarify your assertion?

My opinion is that wage growth will give us the clearest view of what's coming. Since there are many in my industry who feel the same way, I'm very comfy in that opinion.
.

 

[Ringel05]

Yes, many economists love to utilize specific jargon that doesn't approximate reality.

It's not "many economists" jargon it has a very specific meaning with respect to the state of the labor market and it does "approximate reality" pretty well with respect to the relationship of the state of employment and inflation .

Unfortunately too many people interpret it as "everybody has a job that wants one" which is NOT what it means.

Full employment means full employment in the real world..........

In economics full employment means the point at which demand for labor surpasses supply (supply as in workers possessing skills that are in demand by employers) thus causing the price of labor to rise due to competition for available labor at which point the standing "unemployment rate" reflects frictional unemployment (i.e. workers shuffling between jobs).

Unfortunately full employment doesn't and can't account for structural unemployment, i.e. those individuals who want a job but do not posses skill sets that are in demand by employers and thus are for all intents and purposes unemployable (often referred to as "discouraged workers"), which IMHO is not primarily a failure of the private economy but of the "education system" and government policy that tends to drive un- & semi- skilled work offshore.

I know what it all means in economics and could care less how economists chose to describe things.

You could care less how economists "chose to describe things" that relate directly to ECONOMICS ? Who do you listen to when it comes to "describing" economics,? botanists?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray N. Rothbard

Botany and economics are two completely unrelated disciplines, economics is primarily a mix of existing and theoretical with definitions designed to fit explanations. Botany is a physical science based in the real world.

 

[NightFox]

What "slack" are you referring to?

Labor participation?
idle capital?

IMHO If you're referring to the labor market then accelerating wage growth won't tell you much about "slack" since it will be an indication of the competition for available (and marketable) labor, not the pool of structurally unemployed workers. Higher wages might entice skilled workers to come off the bench (e.g. retirees to come back into the job market) but it doesn't help those whose skills don't match what employers want. It's also likely to drive immigration for skilled workers or more specifically for employers to lobby the Washington Crime Syndicate to raise immigration caps.

Regardless of the definition of the term, bouncing around 2.6% to 2.8% just isn't going to cut it.

Isn't going to "cut it" for whom?

Although there are a lot of positive signs, markets aren't going to wait on strong wage growth forever.
.

Which markets?

It's not going to cut it for anyone who has a decent understanding of the nature of markets, how they react to data and expectations, and what that reaction ultimately does to the macro economy. Equity markets, fixed income markets, derivatives markets, money markets, exchange markets. This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Er… umm... those markets are nervous as hell regarding pace of wage increases as accelerating labor prices are often a harbinger of broader inflation woes and accelerated tightening from the Fed. The economy as it stands now has a non-inflationary growth potential that's just north of the current growth rate and part of the calculus for tipping things over the proverbial edge is accelerating labor price increases. We need productivity growth to justify higher wages not just employers bidding up prices chasing scarce labor and we're not currently getting enough of it because CapEx has been inhibited for so long, it's coming back now but as you already know there is most often a significant lag between investment and productivity increases.

I know that partisan Trump supporters will justify saying they're satisfied with pretty much any number, but those of us who have to take this stuff seriously have to look a little deeper and more honestly.
.

Are you attempting to imply I'm a "partisan Trump supporter" that's "satisfied with pretty much any number" just because I asked you to clarify your assertion?

My opinion is that wage growth will give us the clearest view of what's coming. Since there are many in my industry who feel the same way, I'm very comfy in that opinion.
.

I think you missed my point....

All wage growth isn't created equal:
Nominal wage growth driven by labor scarcity in an environment of rising general prices isn't desirable to anybody.
Wage growth driven by productivity growth (i.e. non-inflationary growth in purchasing power) is desirable to everybody.

Currently (according to the capital markets and the Fed) we're getting too much of the former and not enough of the latter, thus the "inflation jitters" we've seen over the past couple of months..

 

[Mac1958]

Regardless of the definition of the term, bouncing around 2.6% to 2.8% just isn't going to cut it.

Isn't going to "cut it" for whom?

Although there are a lot of positive signs, markets aren't going to wait on strong wage growth forever.
.

Which markets?

It's not going to cut it for anyone who has a decent understanding of the nature of markets, how they react to data and expectations, and what that reaction ultimately does to the macro economy. Equity markets, fixed income markets, derivatives markets, money markets, exchange markets. This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Er… umm... those markets are nervous as hell regarding pace of wage increases as accelerating labor prices are often a harbinger of broader inflation woes and accelerated tightening from the Fed. The economy as it stands now has a non-inflationary growth potential that's just north of the current growth rate and part of the calculus for tipping things over the proverbial edge is accelerating labor price increases. We need productivity growth to justify higher wages not just employers bidding up prices chasing scarce labor and we're not currently getting enough of it because CapEx has been inhibited for so long, it's coming back now but as you already know there is most often a significant lag between investment and productivity increases.

I know that partisan Trump supporters will justify saying they're satisfied with pretty much any number, but those of us who have to take this stuff seriously have to look a little deeper and more honestly.
.

Are you attempting to imply I'm a "partisan Trump supporter" that's "satisfied with pretty much any number" just because I asked you to clarify your assertion?

My opinion is that wage growth will give us the clearest view of what's coming. Since there are many in my industry who feel the same way, I'm very comfy in that opinion.
.

I think you missed my point....

All wage growth isn't created equal:
Nominal wage growth driven by labor scarcity in an environment of rising general prices isn't desirable to anybody.
Wage growth driven by productivity growth (i.e. non-inflationary growth in purchasing power) is desirable to everybody.

Currently (according to the capital markets and the Fed) we're getting too much of the former and not enough of the latter, thus the "inflation jitters" we've seen over the past couple of months..

I said "clearest', not "only" or "perfect". We have to look at several data points for a comprehensive picture.

If I'm going to choose one first, that's the one I'll choose first.
.

 

[NightFox]

Isn't going to "cut it" for whom?

Which markets?

It's not going to cut it for anyone who has a decent understanding of the nature of markets, how they react to data and expectations, and what that reaction ultimately does to the macro economy. Equity markets, fixed income markets, derivatives markets, money markets, exchange markets. This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Er… umm... those markets are nervous as hell regarding pace of wage increases as accelerating labor prices are often a harbinger of broader inflation woes and accelerated tightening from the Fed. The economy as it stands now has a non-inflationary growth potential that's just north of the current growth rate and part of the calculus for tipping things over the proverbial edge is accelerating labor price increases. We need productivity growth to justify higher wages not just employers bidding up prices chasing scarce labor and we're not currently getting enough of it because CapEx has been inhibited for so long, it's coming back now but as you already know there is most often a significant lag between investment and productivity increases.

I know that partisan Trump supporters will justify saying they're satisfied with pretty much any number, but those of us who have to take this stuff seriously have to look a little deeper and more honestly.
.

Are you attempting to imply I'm a "partisan Trump supporter" that's "satisfied with pretty much any number" just because I asked you to clarify your assertion?

My opinion is that wage growth will give us the clearest view of what's coming. Since there are many in my industry who feel the same way, I'm very comfy in that opinion.
.

I think you missed my point....

All wage growth isn't created equal:
Nominal wage growth driven by labor scarcity in an environment of rising general prices isn't desirable to anybody.
Wage growth driven by productivity growth (i.e. non-inflationary growth in purchasing power) is desirable to everybody.

Currently (according to the capital markets and the Fed) we're getting too much of the former and not enough of the latter, thus the "inflation jitters" we've seen over the past couple of months..

I said "clearest', not "only" or "perfect". We have to look at several data points for a comprehensive picture.

Yes of course, you need to look at a myriad of data points to get an accurate picture but IMHO the wage growth number by itself doesn't tell you much, in fact it could be downright misleading since a positive wage growth number can in reality represent a decline in purchasing power (real wages).

Myself I tend to want to know what private capital investment is doing since that IMHO is the strongest indicator of both current business sentiment (about the future) and where future real wages might be headed, of course that can be misleading too when you're in an environment of massive mis-allocations of capital.

 

[Rambunctious]

You're fucking brain-dead. I can't help you there.

Who knows why you keep repeating the same failed point about the current state of the economy when no one but you is saying anything about the economy not being better today

So then you admit the economy is better under Trump but you give Obama credit for it...even a year removed from his presidency?
Okay if it makes you feel better...But all rib poking and name calling aside for a moment do you want to know what I really believe?
I believe Obama could have had a good economy before he left office...he could have had a growing economy but he for some reason wanted to tell America that this was the best we can do...that we are in a new normal...Faun that scared people...
Even people that voted for Obama twice were frightened into not spending...
People pulled back on that room addition or that new car or the big new house...
People didn't go on an expensive vacation or maybe they cut back on restaurants and picked the cheaper brand of cheese off the shelf...You can suggest it was racism or just unfounded fear but that is why the economy struggled so long under his leadership...They had the money but dared not to spend it...
Then 6 months left in his second term things began to turn around...I think people thought we would either end up with the Clinton economy again or a GOP president would correct the new normal and they started to spend and reinvest....that's when the economy took off...
I can't prove any of this but that is what I believe happened....People are all fine with electing a democrat as president but if truth be told they worry once he or she is elected and running the show....
Money is king and financial security is everything to Americans....
Okay now you can go back to name calling...lol

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help move our economy forward through a positive multiplier effect.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking brain-dead. I can't help you there.

Who knows why you keep repeating the same failed point about the current state of the economy when no one but you is saying anything about the economy not being better today

So then you admit the economy is better under Trump but you give Obama credit for it...even a year removed from his presidency?
Okay if it makes you feel better...But all rib poking and name calling aside for a moment do you want to know what I really believe?
I believe Obama could have had a good economy before he left office...he could have had a growing economy but he for some reason wanted to tell America that this was the best we can do...that we are in a new normal...Faun that scared people...
Even people that voted for Obama twice were frightened into not spending...
People pulled back on that room addition or that new car or the big new house...
People didn't go on an expensive vacation or maybe they cut back on restaurants and picked the cheaper brand of cheese off the shelf...You can suggest it was racism or just unfounded fear but that is why the economy struggled so long under his leadership...They had the money but dared not to spend it...
Then 6 months left in his second term things began to turn around...I think people thought we would either end up with the Clinton economy again or a GOP president would correct the new normal and they started to spend and reinvest....that's when the economy took off...
I can't prove any of this but that is what I believe happened....People are all fine with electing a democrat as president but if truth be told they worry once he or she is elected and running the show....
Money is king and financial security is everything to Americans....
Okay now you can go back to name calling...lol

It's not just me who gave Obama credit for the economy going into Trump's presidency. Most felt that way for his first few months in office. A plurality still believed that for his first year in office.

 

[Dschrute3]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

The nation is not at full employment. Sure, the BLS stats might say so, but true unemployment is another matter entirely.

Well, 3.9% is considered near or at Full Employment. But regardless, it's good news.

 

[Dschrute3]

I think most Americans care. Trump is on a bit of a roll. Will the hateful Democrat pessimism come back to bite em in upcoming Elections? What do you think?

Remember how every time the unemployment report came out while Obama was President, and it showed UE was steadily declining? Remember how you all responsed?

"B-b-b-b-b-but LFPR!"

Guess what?

The Labor Force Participation Rate is at the same level it was when Obama left office.

You know, back when you pseudocons and Trump were parroting Fox News that "real" unemployment was 42 percent.

So you're bummed the nation is at Full Employment? I guess you'd be happier if more Americans were out of work. Y'all really have lost it since your Hitlery lost.