And initial claims fell by 26K to a seasonally adjusted 350,000, which is good news, or it would be if it weren’t for the fact that there were fewer workers laid off at the beginning of July for the temporary auto factory shutdown four the new model year, but the seasonal adjustment knocked the number down. The unadjusted numbers actually rose by 70,000.
So basically, this week’s numbers are garbage.
It’s the cuts in government employment, stupid!
Yes, yesterday initial claims improved a bit yesterday , but today’s monthly job figures are horrible, with unemployment (U-3) staying at 8.2%, and only 80K jobs, less than needed to match population growth.
As Felix Salmon notes, the real problem is that government payrolls have been slashed for the past year or so, as people make invocations to the austerity fairy.
BTW, while the U-3 unemployment rate was flat, but the less conservative, and to my mind more representative, U-6 unemployment rate rose to 14.9%.
Not good news.
So, JPMorgan Chase loses $9 billion under the watch of their Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew, so they fire her, and they are letting her walk with millions of dollars:
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s decision to let Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew retire four days after the bank disclosed a $2 billion loss in her division allowed her to walk away with about $21.5 million in stock and options.
Drew, who resigned May 14, can keep $17.1 million in unvested restricted shares and about $4.4 million in options that she otherwise would have been required to forfeit if the New York-based bank had terminated her employment “with cause,” according to regulatory filings and estimates from consulting firm Meridian Compensation Partners LLC.
A 30-year JPMorgan veteran, Drew also had accumulated 661,000 unrestricted shares of common stock worth about $23.7 million based on the May 14 closing price, $9.7 million in deferred compensation and $2.6 million in pension pay as of Dec. 31, according to company filings. Altogether, Drew’s stock, pension and deferred pay come to about $57.5 million.
“She was with that company for a long time,” said Frank Glassner, a partner at Meridian in San Francisco. “She was an incredibly talented, well-thought-of employee, not only within the company but on the Street. A lot of this money had been earned over a great deal of time, not just yesterday.”
Obviously, part of this is money already earned, but unvested shares? For ordinary people, if you leave, the unvested shares are gone.
Seriously, am I the only one who thinks that this is hush money?
H/t Felix Salmon
Basically flat, so basically, sucky numbers, 386K.
And the numbers are not good, with initial claims rising 6K to 386000, the 4-week moving average rising to 382,000, though both continuing and extended claims were down.
It’s a crappy report, and it’s been the trending this way for a while.
Not good.
And initial jobless claim have fallen for the first time in over a month, by 12K to a still crappy 377K, but the 4-week moving average rose, as did continuing claims, though extended claims fell. (It should be noted that extended claims are being impacted by people running out their strings, so the drop is not necessarily good news).
I would note that we also have a slightly wonkish bit data point, where the yield curve has inverted, indicating that the markets think that the markets are expecting a deflationary environment:
One could argue that this is a positive development for the US consumer because it could mean price stability. However this move in TIPS certainly raises the risk of near-term deflation, driven by weak demand growth. And deflation is notoriously difficult to get under control. This feels (though only in the near term) a bit like Japan, a nation quite familiar with zero to negative inflation expectations.
Normally, the longer a bond, the higher the rate, because there is a cost to having your money locked up for long periods, but under certain conditions, like investors desperate for a safe haven, the rates drop as the term lengthens (up to a point).
In a not entirely not unrelated note, the Chinese central bank has unexpectedly cut its benchmark rate in response to their economy slows.
Not a good economic news day.
The latest monthly jobs report is out, and is sucks wet farts from dead pigeons. Only 68,000 new jobs were created, the March and April numbers were revised down to 78K, the unemployment rate (U-3) went up by a a tenth of a point to 8.2% (U-6 rose by .3% to 14.8%), and long term unemployment rose.
Note that while the private sectors payroll was a “Meh” +87K, but government payrolls fell by 19,000.
So, while we American governmental entities aren’t going austerity crazy like the Brits, we are kind of slow walking austerity. (Something that Obama’s campaign seems to be bragging about)
The Institute for Supply Management’s latest manufacturing index is headed in the wrong direction as well.
But at least we’re not Yurp which sucks a lot worseworse, with Euro zone unemployment climing to 11%. (Thanks Angela)
And initial claims are up, 1st quarter GDP is revised down, and the ADP job numbers are anemic.
BTW, the Indian economy appears to be slowing down too.
This seems to happen every summer.
For the past three years, there has been an apparent pickup in the Fall and Winter that sputters out toward the end of Spring.
I;m beginning to think that the seasonal adjustments need to be tweaked.
And basically it’s the same-old same-old with initial claims hanging around at the 370K doldrums.
Additionally, we have mixed news in other metrics, with capital equipment orders and the purchasing managers index falling, while consumer confidence and durable goods orders rose.
All the numbers were basically in a holding pattern.
So, not awful, but still in a kind of a sucky place.
This week, everything improved, but only marginally.
Meh.
And it’s good news, with initial claims falling by 27K to 365,000, beating estimates, and continuing and extended claims fell as well, though the less volatile 4-week moving average rose.
The real news on the economy though is the fact that Euro zone unemployment hit a record high:
Rising unemployment and plunging business confidence in the euro area revealed the increasingly fragile state of the region’s economy on Wednesday, as voters in France and Greece prepare to deliver their verdict on austerity in Sunday elections.
Official figures showed that unemployment across the 17-member single currency zone increased by 169,000 in March, for the 11th consecutive month, to hit 17.37m. The unemployment rate was 10.9%, the highest level in its history.
Even in Germany, which has so far largely escaped unscathed from the downturn sweep of the labour market, unemployment began to tick up in March, though it remained at just 5.6% of the workforce.
There was also evidence that businesses are being hit by what many analysts expect to be a eurozone-wide recession. The manufacturing PMI for the zone in April – a measure of confidence among businesses – registered a sharp decline, from 47.7 to 45.9, the lowest since June 2009, and well below the 50 mark which signals growth.
BTW, in the US, consumer confidence to a 2 month low.
To quote Bette Davis, “Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”
And the news remains bad, initial claims fell by only 1000 to a too-damn-high 388,000, with the 4 week moving average and continuing claims rising, though extended claims fell a bit.
Furthermore, we saw durable goods orders cratering. They fell 4% in March.
As I mused earlier, I think that a lot of the good numbers in the 1st quarter were economic activity moving up because of a historically mild winter.
Another disappointing week, last week was revised up, and initial claims this week were worse than forecast, 386K, down 2K from last week, only last week was revised up by 8K, with the 4-week moving average and continuing claim rising, though extended/emergency claims fell.
What I think we are seeing, and I think the fact that home sales fell in March reinforces this, is that the generally good economic news in the 1st quarter was (at least partially) an artifact of the unseasonably warm winter, which moved a lot of economic activity a few months earlier.
Basically, we saw time shifting, and thought that it was a recovery.
The editors at Bloomberg are calling for an increase in the minimum wage:
Here’s an unhappy observation about the minimum wage: Congress last increased the rate in stages in 2006, topping it out at $7.25 an hour in 2009, or $15,080 a year.
That amount, when adjusted for inflation, is actually lower than what a minimum-wage worker earned in 1968 and is too meager to offer anyone the chance to climb out of poverty, let alone afford basic goods and services.
About 10 states are now considering raising the rate, and Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, is proposing to increase the federal rate in three increments to $9.80 an hour in 2014. Many of the initiatives under consideration would smartly tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, meaning that those workers’ wages would finally keep up with inflation.
………
It’s also becoming clear that many Americans are being forced to take lower-paying jobs and that a low-wage bias is creeping into the economy, as Bloomberg economist Joseph Brusuelas recently put it. In many cases, minimum-wage work is all that’s available, which may explain why such workers are older and better-educated than they were three decades ago. In 2010, nearly 44 percent of minimum-wage workers had either attended or graduated from college, up from 25.2 percent in 1979, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank.
Raising the minimum wage won’t entirely solve the problem of anemic incomes, but it would help. Economists have long found that boosting the minimum wage can raise income levels for those earning just above the minimum. Employers, seeking to protect “wage ladders,” often bump up salaries for slightly higher-paid employees, too.
………
The editorial page of Bloomberg is not like the moon-bat insane Wall Street Journal‘s page, they don’t contract facts on the front page in the OP/Ed Section, but this is not a populist publication by any means, and they just called out the neoliberal consensus that calls for more suffering from the least of us.
I’m beginning to think that economic populism may be a winner this year.
I don’t mean that he is personally homophobic, there is no evidence that I know of about that, but that he is is politically homophobic, and so is unwilling to do anything for gay rights unless absolutely forced to.
Writing an executive order mandating that federal contractors don’t discriminate is literally the least that he could do, but for Mr. Hopey Changey, it’s a bridge too far:
A surprising new rift opened between the White House and the gay rights movement after White House officials revealed Wednesday that President Obama would not sign an executive order sought by activists to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Community advocates learned of the news during a closed-door meeting with two top Obama aides, Valerie Jarrett and Cecilia Munoz, who told the group that the White House would instead lead a multi-pronged effort to urge companies, federal agencies and others to oppose discrimination.
The Center for American Progress, which is Obama’s bitch among the think tanks called this “Disappointing”, and the HRC, another member of the Obama knee pad set was similarly pissed off.
It appears that Obama does not remember the, “Don’t ask, Don’t Give,” efforts, but my guess is that he will:
And, just to confirm that it’s not going to go away, we got this via press release;
Within hours of the White House announcement, the “We Can’t Wait!” campaign received a $100,000 cash infusion from liberal donor Jonathan Lewis, the son of major Democratic philanthropist Peter Lewis.
Quotes from Jonathan Lewis:
“This isn’t a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress. He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers. It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than principled leadership.”
“Over the past several years the LGBT advocacy groups have jumped through hoops for this administration, conducting extensive research and polling — more than has been done for any similar executive order — and now the only impediment is President Obama.”
“This is nothing short of craven election-year politics, a game Obama told us he would not play.”
Jonathan Lewis and his father, Peter, are major contributors to progressive causes. And, by major, I mean they give millions.
Another reason to give to specific candidates, particularly in the primary, as opposed to OFA, the DNC, the DCCC, or the DSCC.
But hey, a wing of the Talibaptists at the Focus on the Family liked that he dissed the LBGT community.
Below, you can see Jay Carney saying that “more study is needed”. I guess that the unspoken assumption here is that gays are just too icky to have equal rights unless we can make bigots feel better about themselves.
Seriously, Andrew Breitbart was better on gay inclusion that Barack Obama is:
Seriously, how about not being a coward on this issue. Not being a coward gets you votes.
And the news is not good, 380K initial claims, up 13K, from last weeks numbers, which were revised up 10K, with the less volatile 4-week moving average rising by 4,250 to 368,500, continuing claims falling 98K to 3.25 m, and emergency claims falling by 20.5K to 2.79m.
We’ve had some pretty good numbers since the beginning of the year, but we’ve also had an unprecedentedly mild winter, which has pushed a lot of “spring time” activities months earlier. See (Anthropogenic Climate Change)
The question now is how much did the good numbers in the first quarter of the year eat the economic activity now.
Unfortunately, the following is totally fictional, but I’d love to see some of the Facebook snooping employers get shafted like this:
One of the new terms is that every prospective new hire allow their manager to “shoulder surf” as they browse their Facebook or better still, to voluntarily log their manager into their Facebook account. If I recall correctly, she claims that we have the obligation to do a “background check” on prospective hires. I’m extremely vague on the correlation between faux-promiscuous sex or drinking and employee performance, but as she is a seasoned veteran, I have to trust her when she says that things like this overrule my judgment as to who is and who isn’t fit to be a programmer in our employ.
I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out. But today something went seriously wrong. I have been interviewing senior hires for the crucial tech lead position on the Fizz Buzz team, and while several walked out in a huff when I asked them to let me look at their Facebook, one young lady smiled and said I could help myself. She logged into her Facebook as I requested, and as I followed the COO’s instructions to scan her timeline and friends list looking for evidence of moral turpitude, I became aware she was writing something on her iPad.
“Taking notes?” I asked politely.
“No,” she smiled, “Emailing a human rights lawyer I know.” To say that the tension in the room could be cut with a knife would be understatement of the highest order. “Oh?” I asked. I waited, and as I am an expert in out-waiting people, she eventually cracked and explained herself.
“If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover that I am a Lesbian. Since discrimination against me on this basis is illegal in Ontario, I am just preparing myself for the possibility that you might refuse to hire me and instead hire someone who is a heterosexual but less qualified in any way. Likewise, if you do hire me, I might need to have your employment contracts disclosed to ensure you aren’t paying me less than any male and/or heterosexual colleagues with equivalent responsibilities and experience.”
I got her out of the room as quickly as possible. The next few interviews were a blur, I was shaken. And then it happened again. This time, I found myself talking to a young man fresh out of University about a development position. After allowing me to surf his Facebook, he asked me how I felt about parenting. As a parent, it was easy to say I liked the idea. Then he dropped the bombshell.
His partner was expecting, and shortly after being hired he would be taking six months of parental leave as required by Ontario law. I told him that he should not have discussed this matter with me. “Oh normally I wouldn’t, but since you’re looking through my Facebook, you know that already. Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you?”
What could I say? I guess we have another hire whether he’s qualified or not. Here’s the bottom line: My ability to select the best candidates for our positions has been irreparably compromised by looking into their private lives. I’ve been “tainted” by knowledge of their sexual orientation, illnesses, religion, political affiliations, and other factors that expose us to anti-discrimination legislation. We can’t even claim that the employee improperly disclosed these matters to us, as we are the ones initiating the investigation of their private doings
Worse, I cannot manage these people once they’re hired. I would be diffident about censuring them or passing them over for advancement for fear of incurring a lawsuit that would be a distraction to our business and damaging to our reputation as fair employers.
You know I think that this may very well be true.
If you look at someone’s Facebook page, you might very well determine that they are a member of a protected group (no discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual preference [in some states], etc.)
So in addition to having Mark Zuckerberg suing you for hacking Facebook, which is what coercing a password against their TOS is, you might very well have a discrimination suit on your hands.
Oopsie.
More good news on the jobless front, 357K initial jobless claims, which is a bit less than last week, though primarily because last weeks numbers were revised upward a bit.
Still decent numbers.