Now that the dust has settled, and "everyone" has had their chance to weigh in, it is generally agreed that the jobs report released on Friday was "disappointing" at best, and perhaps, "dismal" at worst. USA Today called it "disappointing" -- the second consecutive month with a "disappointing jobs report."
It's possible that we've seen the end of large monthly job gains -- something I've said for a long, long time. Technology is such, I don't see large waves of workers leaving or coming into the workforce in any given month.
At 5% or even 6% unemployment I think the US is at full employment.
I do feel strongly that a pro-growth administration in Washington could improve things a bit, but, at the end of the day, probably marginally. Even if every crude oil pipeline and every CBR terminal and every offshore wind farm was approved in the aggregate we would have a bump in jobs but the bump would be temporary.
I say all that as a preface to linking the article at The Oregonian with this headline: the era of big monthly job gains appears over, and economists say that's a good thing.
The era of monthly payroll gains of at least 200,000 appears to be over after the Labor Department reported that job growth was lackluster again in September, but economists said that's a good thing.
Although the 156,000 net new jobs added last month was down from August and a bit below analysts' expectations, wage growth was solid and the labor force continued to expand.
Those are signs of a healthy labor market as more people come off the sidelines to look for jobs and employers have to boost pay to lure and retain workers, experts said.The source of the article, the Los Angeles Times, seems to acknowledge that the magic number was 200,000. Until now, it appeared the Obama apologists had tried to re-set the goal-posts, suggesting that 150,000 was the "new" number that indicated economic growth, or at least stability.
The problem I have with this is that the Los Angeles Times, the most liberal national media outlet, is saying this. It sounds like the writers are lapdogs for the Obama administration. I can't imagine the LA Times writing this if a Republican were president. There would be no end to "Bush bashing" by the LA Times if monthly jobs gains did not hit the "magic" number.
It would be interesting to hear Alan Greenspan weigh in on this.
I do know that if oil spiked to $100/bbl and there was every indication it was going to stay there, the number of jobs added in the US would soar.
Later: the comments at the LA Times suggest that I am wrong on this one. Link here to see the comments.
**************************
Opportunity
I sure wish everyone had a chance to see all the activity -- economic activity -- north of DFW. It is truly amazing. Today I drove over to McKinney -- about a 40-minute drive -- 70 mph on the tollway -- even I was surprised at all the development in this area. It really reminds me of the sprawl of Los Angeles but a lot less traffic. And when they get the ten-lane highway south of Lewisville completed it will be truly incredible.
In Plano, along Texas Highway 121 I noted no fewer than a dozen cranes -- building high rise buildings. I said to myself, "I have experienced two booms: one here in Texas, north of DFW, and one in Boomtown, Williston, the Bakken, North Dakota.
It truly is incredible. Maybe more later.
**********************************
Olmsted
I don't recall when I first heard the name Frederick Law Olmsted but it was sometime during the four years that we spent in Boston. He was a fascinating man and his was a fascinating story. My hunch is that I first came across his name in one of my most "treasured" books: The Hub's Metropolis: Greater Boston's Development from Railraod Suburbs to Smart Growth by James C. O'Connell, c. 2013.
I happened to see the book at the Harvard Bookstore in Cambridge; it was an impulse purchase.
In this month's issue of London Review of Books, there is an essay by Christopher Benfey on the landscape architect: Frederick Law Olmsted: Writings On Landscape, Culture and Society, edited by Charles E. Beveridge. Olmsted, b. 1822; d. 1903.
I had forgotten that Olmsted was the mastermind of New York's Central Park. In addition, according to the essay: "Olmsted helped design Central Park and Brooklyn's equally magnificent Prospect Park, Stanford University and many other American colleges, and the public grounds at Niagara Falls, the US Capitol in Washington, and, late in life, the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago."
Truly amazing how much one man can do in a lifetime.
Later, a reader responded:
While in the area some years ago for a conference, I took a couple days vacation to see High Point Furniture and the Biltmore mansion. I stayed in Ashville one night so I could have a fresh start and a full day to see Biltmore. Driving up to the mansion from town, I enjoyed the winding road; a real vision of lush trees, myriad shrubs and blooming rhododendrons/azaleas - whatever. I had briefly compared the switchbacks on that road to going down to the Long X bridge on Highway 85 - a lovely view at each turn, although a much gentler terrain in NC.
If you haven't seen Biltmore, it's worth a trip - take the granddaughters. If I remember correctly:
- The Cecil family still lives there - one of the only big houses still in family hands
- From the patio you can see Mt. Pisgah. The estate originally comprised all the land you can see between the house and that mountain. I believe his widow had to sell something like 60,000 acres to pay the death tax.
- There are numerous family portraits painted by John Singer Sargent, just as though you hung your kids' graduation photos - but bigger and museum quality
- I believe the dining hall seats 100. They decorate for Christmas with 8 foot tall trees on the dining table.
- He built the house 5 years before marrying.
- The foyer is open to 3 stories - and one chandelier is suspended to light all 3 stories
No comments:
Post a Comment