dai media occidentali: l'economia USA vola

[agaragar]

In Origine Postato da Amati75
No, mi spiace... il PIL USA e' per oltre il 70% creato dai consumi privati interni.

Non a caso gl'analisti indicano il talgioalle tasse come il catalizzatore della ripresa.
Sicuramente le maggiori spese hanno aiutato, ma il maggiore impatto l'ha avuto il taglio alle tasse.

come ben spiegò keynes

[Oli]

Che significa disoccupazione al 5,4%? Viene calclata nello stesso modo con cui la calcoliamo noi?
Un dipendente assunto interinale per un mese è considerato occupato?

[Amati75]

In Origine Postato da Mr. Hyde
[B]Poverino dai, lo sai che molti comunisti non sanno contare e prendono i dati cosi' alla cazzo di cane...
Credo che cio' che intnedesse e' che dall'inizio della presidenza, il numero di posti persi rimane ben superiore di quelli creati (che e' vero, e mi pare graviti intorno al milione). Ma come giustamente hai ribaduto, e' un'analisisi miopica visto il precednete "over full employemnt" della bolla e tutti gli shock negativi (hai dimenticato di aggiungere Enron e WorldCom).

[B]

Quando hai un'attimo, da' un occhiata a questo articolo

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/

E' di un prof di Berkeley che lavorava sotto Clinton e discute appunto come supplementare l'interpretazione dell' "unemployment rate". Poi ne' discutiamo




Sono degli idioti vergognosi.

1-Si mi sono dimenticato Enron e Wordcome, che cmq hanno avuto un impatto piu' limitato rispetto a quello che m' aspettavo.

2-Si ho letto l'articolo, interessante, ma anche coe "teoria" ha delle sue limitazioni.
Non possiamo sapere perche' uno smette di cercare lavoro.
Il tempo medio di disoccupazione e' d 19 settimane, se non ricordo male.
Molti sono studenti, molto pososno decidere di restare acasa con i figli (negl'ultimi anni molti in USA hanno deciso cosi dato che molte volte lavorando in due oltre a meno tempo con i figli non si hanno reali vantaggi dato che lavorando in due significa asilo (CARO) babysitter, piu spese di benzina e macchine ecc.. a volte il secondo stipendio non giustifica i costi extra) ovvero, vi sono un infinita di ragioni oltre a quella che si pensa naturale che uno smette di cercarlo perche' non lo trova.
Quindi quantificare la totalita' di questi nel "smette-perche'-non -lo-trova" e' un po' supeficiale.

Ma prendiamo per buono questa teoria in toto, 62.2% resta pur sempre un livello superiorie, e di molto, al modello Europeo, quindi anche nel "worst-case scenario", non e' cosi negativo, specie, come ricordato considerando la totalita' dei fattori di questi anni.

Saluti

[yurj]

In Origine Postato da Oli
Che significa disoccupazione al 5,4%? Viene calclata nello stesso modo con cui la calcoliamo noi?
Un dipendente assunto interinale per un mese è considerato occupato?

Oli, il giorno in cui gli Usa sottrarranno dal Pil quanto rubano al resto del mondo (decidono il prezzo del petrolio e lo vendono dopo averlo comprato, un costo inutile di transazione , ad esempio...) allora potremo farci domande sull'occupazione...

[anton]

Poverino dai, lo sai che molti comunisti non sanno contare e prendono i dati cosi' alla cazzo di cane...
=====
SI DICE A MEMBRO DI VELTRO........
E I DATI LI HA RIPORTATI REPUBBLICA E IL SOLE 24 ORE.....

[FLenzi]

In Origine Postato da Oli
Che significa disoccupazione al 5,4%? Viene calclata nello stesso modo con cui la calcoliamo noi?
Un dipendente assunto interinale per un mese è considerato occupato?

Negli USA sono tutti cosi, e' infatti l'unico paese che ha il numero di poveri piu' alto del numero dei disoccupati, cio' significa che anche chi lavora non ce la fa a campare.

[Mr. Hyde]

In Origine Postato da Amati75


Ma prendiamo per buono questa teoria in toto, 62.2% resta pur sempre un livello superiorie, e di molto, al modello Europeo, quindi anche nel "worst-case scenario", non e' cosi negativo, specie, come ricordato considerando la totalita' dei fattori di questi anni.

Ciao, sto' lasciando l'ufficio, ma vorrei postarti anche questo per poi poter discutere piu' in dettaglio (sempre di DeLong, lungo ma molto approfondito)

THE ECONOMIST'S DUTY TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF THE DEBATE
Greg Mankiw is allowed out of his secured bunker:

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Not a Hooverville in Sight: By N. GREGORY MANKIW: This is "the worst economic recovery period in terms of job creation that the nation has experienced since the Great Depression," said Laura D'Andrea Tyson, who was chairman of President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. So many other pessimists have echoed her in drawing analogies to the 1930's, you might think that millions of Americans are living in Hoovervilles. Nothing could be further from the truth....

Note that the "nothing [that] could be further from the truth" is not Laura's statement that this is worst business-cycle recovery in terms of job creation since the Great Depression. That Mankiw agrees with, and dares not contradict. The "nothing [that] could be further than the truth" is Mankiw's own statement that millions of Americans are living in Hoovervilles. But Mankiw's hope is that his carefully-crafted rejection of the claim of Hoovervilles will be taken as a refutation of Laura.
Let's go on:
The [u]nemployment [rate] has fallen, [pessimists] say, only because the economy is so bad that people have become discouraged and given up looking for work. But that also does not square with the facts. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a little-publicized alternative measure of unemployment, called the U-4, which includes those discouraged workers. And what does it show?... [I]t peaked in June 2003 at 6.6 percent and has since fallen to 5.9 percent....
Here we need to do a little data analysis. The seasonally-adjusted U-4 unemployment rate started 2001 at 4.4%, rose to 6.0% by the end of 2001, continued a slow rise to 6.6% by June of 2003, fell back to 6.0% by the end of 2003, and since then has stuck at 5.9%-6.0%. At the same time, employees on nonfarm payrolls fell from 132.4 million in January 2001 to 130.7 million by December 2001, continued a slow fall to 129.9 million by June 2003, were still at 130.0 million in December 2003, and have risen to 131.3 million since.
Given the trend growth of the population and other more detailed demographic patterns, we would expect a constant unemployment rate to be associated with about 125,000 a month growth in payroll jobs. And we would expect each 100,000 fall (or rise) in payroll jobs relative to that trend to be followed by an increase (or decrease) in unemployed+discouraged workers of 75,000 or so, and by a further decrease (or increase) in the labor force of 25,000 or so, as people who have lost (or gained) their jobs drop out of (or enter) the labor force--but without giving the state of the labor market as reason for doing so. No economist believes that the U-4 measure captures all the "discouraged workers". The rule of thumb is that a 100,000 change in payroll unemployment has about an 0.05% change in the opposite direction in the unemployment rate.
Thus if you'd told us in January 2001 what was going to happen to the U-4 unemployment rate over the next eleven months, we economists would have predicted a change in payroll employment of -1.8 million: a 1.4 million gain from trend growth, minus a 3.2 million loss that corresponds to the rise in the unemployment rate. Since the actual change in unemployment over those 11 months was -1.7 million, we would have been dead-on.
Then from December 2001 to June 2003 the unemployment rate creeps up by a further 0.6% over 18 months. Our economists' prediction would be that payroll employment would have grown by 1.1 million: 2.3 million from trend growth - 1.2 million from the rise in unemployment. But payroll employment did not grow by 1.1 million from December 2001 to June 2003: it shrank by 0.8 million. Our prediction of what employment should do given what the unemployment rate was predicting was thus off by nearly 2 million.
Since June 2003 the unemployment rate has fallen by 0.7%. 13 months of trend employment growth should boost employment by 1.6 million. The fall in the unemployment rate should boost employment by another 1.4 million. Under normal patterns, we would have expected to see 3.0 million payroll jobs created over the past thirteen months--but we've only seen 1.4 million. Here's another 1.6 million shortfall relative to our expectations.
Add them all up, and discover that since 2001 our two main labor market indicators--the unemployment rate and the payroll employment count--have been giving us contradictory readings. Given where the unemployment rate is now, we would under normal conditions expect payroll employment to be 3.5 million higher than it is. Given where payroll employment is now, we would expect the unemployment rate to be 1.7% higher than it is now. The unemployment number is the number we would expect to have with a 134.8 million job economy (but we actually have a 131.3 million job economy). The payroll number is the number we would expect to have with a 7.6% U-4 unemployment rate economy (but we actually have a 5.9% U-4 unemployment rate economy).
Now, everything Mankiw says about the number of jobs and unemployed in the labor market,* up to the culminating invocation of George W. Bush as an independent expert on the state of the economy--"President Bush is exactly right when he says the economy is strong and that his policies are making it stronger"--hinges on the unemployment rate being the right statistic to look at in assessing the state of the labor market, and on the payroll employment number being the wrong one.
What reasons does he have for thinking this?
Well, it appears that he has none. The most he says is to hint that only politically-motivated pessimists distrust the unemployment rate: "Although economists have long viewed the unemployment rate as one of the best measures of the labor market, we are now supposed to ignore it." He doesn't say that the unemployment rate is the best measure of the labor market and that only politically-motivated pessimists distrust it--to say that would be to get a big black political-hack mark on his economist's union card. But implying it is OK, and his political masters hope that the implication is what the vast bulk of New York Times readers will remember.
So are there reasons to think that the unemployment rate is a better measure of the state of the job market than the payroll employment count? The answer to this question hinges on what has happened to the 3.5 million extra people who--surprisingly, given what the unemployment rate has been doing--don't have jobs. Do they lack jobs because they would not want jobs even if the labor market were in its normal full-employment configuration--because they would rather be raising children or going to school or traveling around the world or living the life of Reilly in some manner? Or are they people who would want jobs if the labor market were in its normal full-employment configuration, but who don't have jobs because the labor market is depressed and have decided to try to do something else with their time--in which case they are raising children or going to school or traveling around the world not as a free choice but as a second-best.
When the anomalous contrast between the unemployment rate and the payroll employment count first emerged in 2002 and early 2003, there were then two reasons to think that perhaps the unemployment rate was the correct measure. First was the fact that the payroll series had been wrong in the past because the Labor Department's adjustment for workers newly-hired in new firms was too low. But this proved to be a red herring: data revisions and closer looks have confirmed that, this business cycle at least, the Labor Department's new-firm adjustment has worked quite well. Second was the fact that the 3.5 million without jobs were not reporting that they were "discouraged workers"--if they had so reported themselves, they would have been in the U-4 unemployment count. But in past business cycles the number who reported themselves as "discouraged workers" had always fallen short of the reality: labor force growth speeds up when the unemployment falls and jobs become easier to get and slows down when the labor market heads south three or four times as much as it should if those calling themselves "discouraged workers" were indeed all the discouraged workers there were.
Are there reasons to think that the payroll employment count is the more useful measure? It is based on a much larger sample than the estimates of the unemployment rate, has much less statistical noise in it, and thus is more accurate (as long as the Labor Department's new-firm adjustment is working well). Financial markets jump in response to payroll employment news and not in response to unemployment rate news: if you are any sort of economist at all, the fact that people with their money on the line pay close attention to one number and not another is a powerful piece of evidence that the first is more important. Moreover, other measures of labor market slack like the average workweek and the average length of spells of unemployment are not at all what one would expect from the unemployment rate, but are close to the values one would expect them to have from what has happened to payroll employment.
Fourth, and most important, is the fact that the payroll employment numbers make sense of real wage trends in a way that the unemployment rate does not. The past four years have seen an extraordinary decline in the real wage share. Firms' productivity levels have boomed--have grown astonishingly fast. Thus how valuable workers are to firms (as long as the demand for goods is there) has grown by leaps and bounds as well. If the labor market were as healthy and near full employment as the unemployment rate is telling us, we would expect to have seen rapid real wage and salary growth in the past four years, as firms that can afford to pay run up against a limited number of trained and experienced workers who want to work.
We haven't. The past four years have seen a remarkable stagnation in real wages--consistent with low bargaining power on the part of workers, jobs that are hard to get, and a lot of potential competitors out there to whom your boss might decide to give your job if you ask for a raise.
It's for these reasons that I believe that the unemployment rate is--for reasons I admit I don't understand well--giving us erratic and misleading indications of the state of the labor market, and that the payroll employment estimates give a more accurate picture. And I, at least, would hold that view no matter what the party of the current president.
Now I wouldn't expect any appointee of this administration--in an op-ed vetted by White House Media Affairs--to give a full picture of the data. That as of the July survey week payroll employment was still some 1.2 million below its last business cycle peak, even though the adult population was some 5.1 million higher; or that as of July payroll employment was some 1.6 million below the level projected for July in a forecast released only six months ago, last February--these are not points we expect to see covered. (Although I would dearly, dearly love somebody at CEA to call me up and tell me just what extraordinarily bad unsuspected shocks to employment have caused us to lag so far behind their forecast; and I would dearly, dearly love to have a real press corps that would pin the administration to the wall on this.)
But surely one should not spread disinformation? Surely one should not try to trick readers into thinking that the only reasons for distrusting the unemployment rate are partisan political ones, or that employment growth since the last business cycle trough has not been lousy. At the CEA, especially, one's duty to raise the level of the debate is--or ought to be--a higher duty than pleasing one's political masters.

*Mankiw also talks about the "quality" of jobs that are being created, He says he doesn't know. It's a strange thing to be worried about: the fact that real wages and salaries haven't grown much is a much more important, relevant, and worrisome fact than whether the bulk of the jobs being created are in low-skill low-wage or high-skill high-wage occupations.
However, the fact that average wages and salaries are stagnant is very hard to make consistent with claims that new jobs are high-wage jobs.

[Amati75]

In Origine Postato da yurj
Oli, il giorno in cui gli Usa sottrarranno dal Pil quanto rubano al resto del mondo (decidono il prezzo del petrolio e lo vendono dopo averlo comprato, un costo inutile di transazione , ad esempio...) allora potremo farci domande sull'occupazione...

Ma yurj ma la cavolata che gl'USA decidono il prezzo del PEtrolio.. l'hai presa.. dove?

[Amati75]

In Origine Postato da FLenzi
Negli USA sono tutti cosi, e' infatti l'unico paese che ha il numero di poveri piu' alto del numero dei disoccupati, cio' significa che anche chi lavora non ce la fa a campare.

I working poor intende, che sono contabilizzati nei poveri, nel 2003 i lavoratori full-time poveri erano 2,636,000 o il 10.9% dei poveri sopra i 16 anni.

Considerando i part time il totale e' di 8,820,000 o il 36.3% dei poveri sopra i 16 anni.

Entrambi i numeri in calo, ovvero hanno un trend che indica una diminuzione di questi individui, tale trend dura in entrambi i casi dal 1998.

[Amati75]

In Origine Postato da Mr. Hyde
Ciao, sto' lasciando l'ufficio, ma vorrei postarti anche questo per poi poter discutere piu' in dettaglio (sempre di DeLong, lungo ma molto approfondito)

oK, considerando il sistema U-4 siamo al 5.9%, sempre sotto il livelo UE, ovvero prendendo anche il sistema piu' pessimistico, rimane sempre piu' eficcente, e ricordando nuovamente con i fattori di questi anni.