Housing Bubble, credit bubble, public planning, land use, zoning and transportation in the exurban environment. Specific criticism of smart growth, neotradtional, forms based, new urbanism and other top down planner schemes to increase urban extent and density. Ventura County, California specific examples.
Monday, April 09, 2018
April Showers
10AM at the Dawghaus 76°F. I don't think that is representative this Spring so far.
I snagged both the PT for economic (PTE) and PT for non-economic (PTN) series from 1955. I grabbed the total employed since 1955 (TE)
I created a simple ratio: (PTE+PTN)/TE
So, this is the percentage of all employed who are working PT, (whether forced to, or by choice).
A quick jump from 13% to 15% at the end of the '50s. Gradual inching up to about 17% by mid-70's. BIG spike up to 20% during Reagan recession (10% unemployment era) VERY gradual drop back 17% (got back in 2000). Stayed at about 17% until the Great Recession. BIG spike back up to 20% (just like Reagan). Still on a glide path DOWNWARD, (not upward), back to 17%.
Actually dropped BELOW 17% from last September through February, which just ticked back up to 17.02% this past month.
This is a very noisy series from month to month, so I simplified, by simply comparing December readings. (I took a look at June, but the Series were nearly indistinguishable).
So - the reality is that the ratio of PT to FT rose slightly from the '60s to the '70s. But, since then, it has not moved much (outside of the economic crises).
Note: It took 15 years to erase the Reagan spike, and only 8 years to erase the Obama spike.
However, the notion that the current economy is historically over-saturated with PT workers (compared to FT workers) is not supported by the data.
However, this DOES shed a little more light on the avg. weekly hours stat. That series began in March of 2006. Other than a 34.2 reading the very first month, the rest of the year was all between 34.3 and 34.5, which remained the case until September of 2008, when it began dropping.
Though it is a noisy series, my Part Timer Ratio (PTR) bounced around the 16.5% area (plus/minus a third) for a year, and then began climbing steadily in April of 2008.
One key point here regarding the avg. hours worked. During the peak of the "W" years, the highest it ever got was 34.5 (Dec. of 2006 and June of 2007). The series actually set a new ALL TIME high in March of 2013 (34.6). It equaled that mark 7 more times though the end of 2015. Since then, it sat mostly at 34.4, (until November of 2017). The past 5 months, 4 of them have been 34.5.
IMO, if avg. hours worked had been tracked in the '70s and '80s, it would've been in the same tiny (worthless) range that it has been since the series began in 2006.
I repeat People talk about full employment, but nobody will say what it is. Brevard county is now 3.8%. It went down to 3.6%. There are some help wanted signs. It seems. To me that 3.3% is full, here. There are only a few black people or Hispanics in this county.
There are a fair number of well paid engineers supposed to be coming. Theu will mostly be imported ftom other states, but they will buy houses and spend money, and THAT WILL trickle down.
The avg. weekly hours is drawn from the BLS "Establishment Survey", which is a survey of businesses. So, it would be "per job".
Note: The businesses don't know or report if there employees are working somewhere else, so on the ES, a single person can be counted in multiple jobs.
However, my PT/FT data is pulled from the Household Survey, which is a survey of individuals, who DO know and can report how many total hours they work, and how many jobs that might cover.
Mixing the numbers from the two reports is less than ideal, but is the only option available for this particular bit of research.
The key word in the descriptor is *ALL EMPLOYEES*, (note this is NOT divided between FT and PT).
If you look at the sub-categories, however, some things jump out.
This is for PRIVATE (not public) employment:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm
Goods Producing: 40.5 Service Producing: 33.3 - Education & Health Services: 32.9 - Retail: 31.2 - Leisure & Hosp: 26.1
It is impossible to calculate with out apples to apples data. I don't know of any people of my generation that didn't have a full time job of less then 40hrs. I even had an Aunt working for Sears who was part time at 35 hrs. There is not establish hours for full time except the overtime rule of working over 40hrs. IMO.
I also remember jobs where counted as people not jobs. Part time jobs where pretty much for school kids, house wives and men who needed some extra income. Way different then today when adults need a fast food job and is supposed to support a family. A lot changes that data doesn't capture. IMO.
2% in Indiana due to the need for RV manufacturing. But boomers are fueling that industry.
When I was in school I was told 5% was considered "full employment". But, that was talking about the nation as a whole. There are individual counties in NC that managed to sustain numbers in the low 3s over time ... but that was isolated to the Research Triangle Park, and no longer appears to hold true.
Nationally, there was a brief time (early 50s) during the post-war retooling, when it dipped as low as 2.5%. But, since 1970, 3.8% is as low as it has gotten, (for 1 month in 2000). It's not a hard fast precise measurement - because you're capturing several different things.
1) Normal job friction (businesses fail, and for some period of time the former employees must search - so how long it takes to find something matters). Employees quit jobs they hate and look for something better. 2) Structural unemployment (industry collapses or changes - so education and training for new skills takes time) Think lots of unemployed coal miners, but not enough robotic technicians. 3) Cultural fluctuations (exit and re-entry into the job market due to life events or choice). Marriage/divorce. Having kids. Going to school. Taking care of parents. 4) The unemployable: Lack of social skills blocks entry into job market. Unrealistic expectations (self-pricing out of job market).
The unfortunate truth is that humans tend to simplify very complex realities into simple stories that support whatever belief structures they have: "The unemployed are just lazy bums" or "The unemployed are victims of corporate evils."
But, it's hard to create a simple story if the reality is that out of every 100 unemployed people, what you actually have is:
10 Lazy bums 10 Fired by idiot bosses 10 Fired for incompetence 10 Layed off due to down-sizing 10 Newly divorced housewives looking for work 10 New graduates 10 New Mom's re-entering the work force 10 Teens looking for PT gig 10 Trophy Wives pretending to look, but will never take a job 10 60+ year old Fortran programmers who don't want to learn JavaScript
EVERY beautician job was part-time. School bus drivers - part-time. Movie theatre jobs - part-time. (ah ... drive-in movies) Retail - a couple of full-timers, and mostly part-timers.
Of course, when I was a kid, the summer jobs were Full-time+ (working on the farm), it was sun-up to sun-down. So, as a kid I was working full-time, while half the women that worked were part-timers supplementing hubbies' income.
My Mom told me one of her first jobs was working "full time" for a lawyer ... but it was 9-5 with an hour lunch, so only 35 hours paid.
My grandmother only worked summers (sheeting up tobacco), which was full-time, but only 3 months a year - so how should that count?
According to last month's JOLT report, there were 6.3M job listings. According to the Household Survey, there were 6.5M unemployed. May or may not be the best yardstick, but I'm thinking if the number of open jobs is equal to or exceeds the number of unemployed, we are probably at full employment.
Rather than disrupt a good conversation I put up a retro-dated post with pretty pictures and the deck addition. That way you can see it without having to disrupt the comments here.
Based on what I've read, Mueller handed off whatever evidence he had of a crime to US Att. for the Southern District of NY , Geoffrey Berman. But, whatever crime is involved is about Cohen, (not Trump), and privilege still applies. Interestingly, Berman is a major Trump supporter, was appointed by Sessions, and personally interviewed by Trump. So, on the surface, whatever hand Berman was dealt was apparently too strong for him to ignore.
Of course, it's likely months (if ever) that this actually leads to an actual prosecution. But, best case, like the Clintons, it looks like you've got a whole passel of lawyers, all operating in the gray areas of the law, with a multitude of shady, morally and ethically questionable activities, but mostly staying within the legal boundaries.
We dive into our social bubbles and dismiss any data that is contrary to our established beliefs, and the partisanship grows on both sides like cancer.
So, we end up with a pair of candidates for President that make Nixon look like an ethical paragon by comparison and blame the other side for their blindness to the evil before them.
We gobble up and tune in for the most sensational, prurient, and scandalous stories, and revel in the entertainment value even as our brain cells die.
It doesn't matter what the message is anymore, because we'd rather spend 4,000 hours dissecting the messengers than 20 minutes attempting to educate ourselves about anything of import.
My suspicion is that Mueller tumbled upon some criminal activity by Cohen via illegal surveillance and then passed the "tip" on so the Southern Manhattan District could go in and collect it legally. There's been a lot of that.
Pretty hard to investigate with out bumping into other irregularities. White Water never went anywhere but old Bill got caught lying about his affair. The Russia investigation is no different except none of the Stormy Daniels accusations took place while in office. Pretty small potatoes as I see it. The media is crazy with analysis as the political system is a sports game between two rivals wanting to win and control at any cost. Government has never been our friend and can't be trusted, No matter what happens Americans lose.
I'm inclined to agree with LBD, that the Stormy Daniels thing is itself a pimple, and one REALLY unlikely to have (by itself) initiated the search warrant on a lawyer. But, Cohen has some personal connections to Russia, (wife is from Ukraine and speaks Russian - plus Russian immigrant childhood friend Felix Sater, so there is some reasonable cause for Mueller's team to have taken a look at Cohen beyond Stormy.
That said, I've always been more inclined to think if anything actionable is ever found, it will be finance related -- money laundering, bribes, etc. We know Trump as general practice loves to play fast and loose with valuations, (claiming inflated values when using stuff as collateral, and lowballing when looking at tax liability, etc.).
Knowing how reluctant lawyers are to attack other lawyers, I've got to believe there are some yet to be made public revelations about what they are actually going after Cohen for.
I think it is a mistake to assume that whatever it is "must" be Trump related. Cohen had a checkered history even before snuggling up to Trump. But, the pattern thus far has been uncovering financial malfeasance that was NOT directly linked to Trump. The charges so far are all bank fraud, tax evasion, and lying to the FBI.
My first best guess is that in looking into the paper trail for paying Stormy, (any Russian ties?), the Mueller team stumbled upon some financial crime that may (or may not) have anything to do with Trump or Stormy and turned over that evidence, since it is out of the Mueller mandate.
There has long been the narrative on Mueller that he's going to keep turning over rocks, finding dirt on the people around Trump, and eventually one (or more) of them will trade their freedom for Trump.
I don't think anyone who marries Trump expects fidelity as a condition of the relationship. I am personally uninterested in Stormy Daniels other than the possible campaign finance violations.
In 2016, I really wanted to like Paul Ryan, but I ended up being very disappointed. I keep looking for the next McCain. Someone I can disagree with, but still respect.
52 comments:
On PT vs. FT history:
I snagged both the PT for economic (PTE) and PT for non-economic (PTN)
series from 1955. I grabbed the total employed since 1955 (TE)
I created a simple ratio: (PTE+PTN)/TE
So, this is the percentage of all employed who are working PT, (whether forced to, or by choice).
A quick jump from 13% to 15% at the end of the '50s.
Gradual inching up to about 17% by mid-70's.
BIG spike up to 20% during Reagan recession (10% unemployment era)
VERY gradual drop back 17% (got back in 2000).
Stayed at about 17% until the Great Recession.
BIG spike back up to 20% (just like Reagan).
Still on a glide path DOWNWARD, (not upward), back to 17%.
Actually dropped BELOW 17% from last September through February, which just ticked back up to 17.02% this past month.
This is a very noisy series from month to month, so I simplified, by simply comparing December readings. (I took a look at June, but the Series were nearly indistinguishable).
So - the reality is that the ratio of PT to FT rose slightly from the '60s to the '70s. But, since then, it has not moved much (outside of the economic crises).
Note: It took 15 years to erase the Reagan spike, and only 8 years to erase the Obama spike.
However, the notion that the current economy is historically over-saturated with PT workers (compared to FT workers) is not supported by the data.
However, this DOES shed a little more light on the avg. weekly hours stat. That series began in March of 2006. Other than a 34.2 reading the very first month, the rest of the year was all between 34.3 and 34.5, which remained the case until September of 2008, when it began dropping.
Though it is a noisy series, my Part Timer Ratio (PTR) bounced around the 16.5% area (plus/minus a third) for a year, and then began climbing steadily in April of 2008.
One key point here regarding the avg. hours worked. During the peak of the "W" years, the highest it ever got was 34.5 (Dec. of 2006 and June of 2007). The series actually set a new ALL TIME high in March of 2013 (34.6). It equaled that mark 7 more times though the end of 2015. Since then, it sat mostly at 34.4, (until November of 2017). The past 5 months, 4 of them have been 34.5.
IMO, if avg. hours worked had been tracked in the '70s and '80s, it would've been in the same tiny (worthless) range that it has been since the series began in 2006.
Average hours worked per employee or per job?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8ak
and
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=179157&rn=5262
I repeat
People talk about full employment, but nobody will say what it is. Brevard county is now 3.8%. It went down to 3.6%. There are some help wanted signs. It seems. To me that 3.3% is full, here. There are only a few black people or Hispanics in this county.
There are a fair number of well paid engineers supposed to be coming. Theu will mostly be imported ftom other states, but they will buy houses and spend money, and THAT WILL trickle down.
The avg. weekly hours is drawn from the BLS "Establishment Survey", which is a survey of businesses. So, it would be "per job".
Note: The businesses don't know or report if there employees are working somewhere else, so on the ES, a single person can be counted in multiple jobs.
However, my PT/FT data is pulled from the Household Survey, which is a survey of individuals, who DO know and can report how many total hours they work, and how many jobs that might cover.
Mixing the numbers from the two reports is less than ideal, but is the only option available for this particular bit of research.
The key word in the descriptor is *ALL EMPLOYEES*, (note this is NOT divided between FT and PT).
If you look at the sub-categories, however, some things jump out.
This is for PRIVATE (not public) employment:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm
Goods Producing: 40.5
Service Producing: 33.3
- Education & Health Services: 32.9
- Retail: 31.2
- Leisure & Hosp: 26.1
It is impossible to calculate with out apples to apples data. I don't know of any people of my generation that didn't have a full time job of less then 40hrs. I even had an Aunt working for Sears who was part time at 35 hrs. There is not establish hours for full time except the overtime rule of working over 40hrs. IMO.
I also remember jobs where counted as people not jobs. Part time jobs where pretty much for school kids, house wives and men who needed some extra income. Way different then today when adults need a fast food job and is supposed to support a family. A lot changes that data doesn't capture. IMO.
2% in Indiana due to the need for RV manufacturing. But boomers are fueling that industry.
When I was in school I was told 5% was considered "full employment". But, that was talking about the nation as a whole. There are individual counties in NC that managed to sustain numbers in the low 3s over time ... but that was isolated to the Research Triangle Park, and no longer appears to hold true.
Nationally, there was a brief time (early 50s) during the post-war retooling, when it dipped as low as 2.5%. But, since 1970, 3.8% is as low as it has gotten, (for 1 month in 2000). It's not a hard fast precise measurement - because you're capturing several different things.
1) Normal job friction (businesses fail, and for some period of time the former employees must search - so how long it takes to find something matters). Employees quit jobs they hate and look for something better.
2) Structural unemployment (industry collapses or changes - so education and training for new skills takes time) Think lots of unemployed coal miners, but not enough robotic technicians.
3) Cultural fluctuations (exit and re-entry into the job market due to life events or choice). Marriage/divorce. Having kids. Going to school. Taking care of parents.
4) The unemployable: Lack of social skills blocks entry into job market. Unrealistic expectations (self-pricing out of job market).
The unfortunate truth is that humans tend to simplify very complex realities into simple stories that support whatever belief structures they have: "The unemployed are just lazy bums" or "The unemployed are victims of corporate evils."
But, it's hard to create a simple story if the reality is that out of every 100 unemployed people, what you actually have is:
10 Lazy bums
10 Fired by idiot bosses
10 Fired for incompetence
10 Layed off due to down-sizing
10 Newly divorced housewives looking for work
10 New graduates
10 New Mom's re-entering the work force
10 Teens looking for PT gig
10 Trophy Wives pretending to look, but will never take a job
10 60+ year old Fortran programmers who don't want to learn JavaScript
I grew up rural.
EVERY beautician job was part-time.
School bus drivers - part-time.
Movie theatre jobs - part-time. (ah ... drive-in movies)
Retail - a couple of full-timers, and mostly part-timers.
Of course, when I was a kid, the summer jobs were Full-time+ (working on the farm), it was sun-up to sun-down. So, as a kid I was working full-time, while half the women that worked were part-timers supplementing hubbies' income.
My Mom told me one of her first jobs was working "full time" for a lawyer ... but it was 9-5 with an hour lunch, so only 35 hours paid.
My grandmother only worked summers (sheeting up tobacco), which was full-time, but only 3 months a year - so how should that count?
According to last month's JOLT report, there were 6.3M job listings. According to the Household Survey, there were 6.5M unemployed. May or may not be the best yardstick, but I'm thinking if the number of open jobs is equal to or exceeds the number of unemployed, we are probably at full employment.
"10 60+ year old Fortran programmers who don't want to learn JavaScript"
How do you know my uncle?
Ok.
The are raiding Cohen's office as we speak.
Climate Change link for RD:
https://www.caseyresearch.com/why-do-i-fail-to-believe-the-climate-scientists/
Swamp is bubbling
A reason to watch the fake news this evening
Hey, small ll things rented?
I hate to even say it, but no vacancies. (knocks wood)
I have plenty of other things to worry about right now, so I'm very thankful that isn't one of them.
Well, yay for this anyhow!
I've got my applicant vetting RE agency strongly hinting that there are a lot of good tenants willing to pay more than I'm charging.
Rather than disrupt a good conversation I put up a retro-dated post with pretty pictures and the deck addition. That way you can see it without having to disrupt the comments here.
https://exurbannation.blogspot.com/2018/04/springtime-in-davis-ca-and-deck-addition.html
So Stormy Daniels is a Russian spy? A bit off course for a Russian election meddling investigation. LOL!
True? I wouldn't kick out paying tenants at lease end. I might raise rent a little!
Good morning
Hinh? Who sez?
Lots of rain last nite and yesterday
Yay
Based on what I've read, Mueller handed off whatever evidence he had of a crime to US Att. for the Southern District of NY , Geoffrey Berman. But, whatever crime is involved is about Cohen, (not Trump), and privilege still applies. Interestingly, Berman is a major Trump supporter, was appointed by Sessions, and personally interviewed by Trump. So, on the surface, whatever hand Berman was dealt was apparently too strong for him to ignore.
Of course, it's likely months (if ever) that this actually leads to an actual prosecution. But, best case, like the Clintons, it looks like you've got a whole passel of lawyers, all operating in the gray areas of the law, with a multitude of shady, morally and ethically questionable activities, but mostly staying within the legal boundaries.
Good Morning!
My view of politicians and their ilk is about like data. Beware of what your lying eyes see.
Clinton Crime Family still needs their day in court but probably never happen.
Play day, have a fun one!
>Based on what I've read, Mueller handed off whatever evidence he had of a crime to US Att. for the Southern District of NY , Geoffrey Berman.
According to latest news, Berman recused himself from the procedure.
I can't keep the players straight.
Has democracy failed us? Or, vice versa.
Unclear whether he recused himself, or Rosenstein did it for him.
In any case, he clearly wasn't the one making the call.
We get the government we deserve.
We dive into our social bubbles and dismiss any data that is contrary to our established beliefs, and the partisanship grows on both sides like cancer.
So, we end up with a pair of candidates for President that make Nixon look like an ethical paragon by comparison and blame the other side for their blindness to the evil before them.
We gobble up and tune in for the most sensational, prurient, and scandalous stories, and revel in the entertainment value even as our brain cells die.
It doesn't matter what the message is anymore, because we'd rather spend 4,000 hours dissecting the messengers than 20 minutes attempting to educate ourselves about anything of import.
My suspicion is that Mueller tumbled upon some criminal activity by Cohen via illegal surveillance and then passed the "tip" on so the Southern Manhattan District could go in and collect it legally. There's been a lot of that.
Pretty hard to investigate with out bumping into other irregularities. White Water never went anywhere but old Bill got caught lying about his affair. The Russia investigation is no different except none of the Stormy Daniels accusations took place while in office. Pretty small potatoes as I see it. The media is crazy with analysis as the political system is a sports game between two rivals wanting to win and control at any cost. Government has never been our friend and can't be trusted, No matter what happens Americans lose.
Good Morning!
On the run this AM. First shot at 80F today but the snow word possible this weekend.
Good morning everybody.
I'm inclined to agree with LBD, that the Stormy Daniels thing is itself a pimple, and one REALLY unlikely to have (by itself) initiated the search warrant on a lawyer. But, Cohen has some personal connections to Russia, (wife is from Ukraine and speaks Russian - plus Russian immigrant childhood friend Felix Sater, so there is some reasonable cause for Mueller's team to have taken a look at Cohen beyond Stormy.
That said, I've always been more inclined to think if anything actionable is ever found, it will be finance related -- money laundering, bribes, etc. We know Trump as general practice loves to play fast and loose with valuations, (claiming inflated values when using stuff as collateral, and lowballing when looking at tax liability, etc.).
Knowing how reluctant lawyers are to attack other lawyers, I've got to believe there are some yet to be made public revelations about what they are actually going after Cohen for.
I think it is a mistake to assume that whatever it is "must" be Trump related. Cohen had a checkered history even before snuggling up to Trump. But, the pattern thus far has been uncovering financial malfeasance that was NOT directly linked to Trump. The charges so far are all bank fraud, tax evasion, and lying to the FBI.
My first best guess is that in looking into the paper trail for paying Stormy, (any Russian ties?), the Mueller team stumbled upon some financial crime that may (or may not) have anything to do with Trump or Stormy and turned over that evidence, since it is out of the Mueller mandate.
There has long been the narrative on Mueller that he's going to keep turning over rocks, finding dirt on the people around Trump, and eventually one (or more) of them will trade their freedom for Trump.
Perhaps the purpose is to
Give him an anxiety related heart attack.but no, he gives them to other people.
Well, i tidied up to with an in of my life. For the maids.
Inch. Things are oppressively neat.
But I do have some people coming over Saturday. So it was have to stay that way!
Probably trying to find evidence that Trump WAS aware of the Daniels pay off
You wouldn't want the cleaning lady to know you have a dirty house
El Presidenta Harry Brown is sending 400 troops to the boarder ordered to do nothing! LOL!
Ryan is retiring.
They can look ferocious.
Ryan never wanted the job.
Ryan wasn't a Trump supporter exactly. He just dumped a big tax bill on us. Not my idea of a fiscal conservative.
I don't think anyone who marries Trump expects fidelity as a condition of the relationship. I am personally uninterested in Stormy Daniels other than the possible campaign finance violations.
In 2016, I really wanted to like Paul Ryan, but I ended up being very disappointed. I keep looking for the next McCain. Someone I can disagree with, but still respect.
Good Morning!
Seems as though nothing gets done due to the pursuit of hatred priority. Except waste more taxpayer money. Sad. :(
Nope
New post.
Post a Comment