Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses

US Job Openings Decline To Lowest Level Since January 2021 (yahoo.com) 53

US job openings fell in July to the lowest since the start of 2021 and layoffs rose, consistent with other signs of slowing demand for workers. From a report: Available positions decreased to 7.67 million from a downwardly revised 7.91 million reading in the prior month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, known as JOLTS, showed Wednesday. The figure was lower than all estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists. The decline in openings coincides with recent data that show the labor market is softening, which has raised concern among Federal Reserve officials. Job growth has been slowing, unemployment is rising and jobseekers are having greater difficulty finding work, fueling fears about a potential recession.

Policymakers have made it clear they don't want to see further cooling in the labor market and are widely expected to start lowering interest rates at their next meeting in two weeks. After July's disappointing jobs figures and a large downward revision to payrolls in the past year, Fed officials and market participants are paying close attention to the August employment data due Friday -- especially if another weak report could prompt an outsize rate cut.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Job Openings Decline To Lowest Level Since January 2021

Comments Filter:
  • Companies are no longer posting the vast amount of ghost jobs [slashdot.org] they once did. What we're seeing is closer to the true level of job openings, not the fake numbers BLS and the Fed keep putting out.

    • Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dpille ( 547949 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @11:34AM (#64761870)
      You'd be right if the JOLTS methodology asked for "how many jobs did you post" or the equivalent. Instead, they count job openings only if a specific position exists [bls.gov].

      Whether surveyed employers lie is an open question, but whether companies "post ghost jobs" is irrelevant.
      • Dumb HR just looks at their HR system and sees how many "postings" are in the system, they dont follow up with managers if they are "fake". Postings will just be filled in by HR for the report.
        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          So you think HR doesn't know the difference between their actual intended headcount and how many random job postings they have out, off the top of their head? They have no idea which actual, existing positions need to be filled? That they love bringing in candidates, interviewing them, then having to say "sorry, turns out there's no actual job, oops I mean we're going in another direction"?

          There are actual, competent professionals that take their duties seriously, even in HR.
          • We need to discuss the gap between entry level easier jobs (grocery store) and physically demanding jobs (loading boxes in a warehouse).

            With 50 years of stagnant/declining inflation adjusted wages, getting $1.25 and hour more for loading boxes on trucks for 8 hours a day versus working at a grocery story makes the physically demanding job a dumb idea.

            The economists conveniently ignore this that becoming arthritic, disabled or crippled at 45 years old is not worth a $2500.00 a year in more pay. $2500/yea

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by quonset ( 4839537 )

        Whether surveyed employers lie is an open question, but whether companies "post ghost jobs" is irrelevant.

        To a company, a ghost job does exist. It just isn't filled. Ever.

        The BLS and Fed numbers haven't been close to reality for decades. The Fed, in particular, is always late to raise interest rates and rarely raises them high enough to do any good based on inflation numbers. As I have said before, the Fed should have been raising rates back in 2019 when the price of everything was shooting up. Instead,

        • by Anonymous Coward
          I see. So you're contending they lie. And have been lying for decades.

          What makes you so sure inflation numbers are accurate, then? Retailers don't lie?
          • Retailer inflation numbers dont lie, you can track the price of gas/milk/housing. Companies that have fake postings month or year over year with no intent of filling them can easily skew JOLTS.
            • by Anonymous Coward
              Two methodologies in coming up with CPI: survey of businesses, survey of households. If businesses lie, how are the households overcoming that to yield accurate inflation numbers? More to the point, why wouldn't households be lying too?
              • I never said inflation was fake. Walmart cant fake a price on the shelf, they cant fake gross margins on an earnings report without legal or shareholder consequences. HR can fake a jobs opening count with zero consequences, aint no one ever get sued for "not hiring".
            • Retailer inflation numbers dont lie, you can track the price of gas/milk/housing.

              Lie, implies deliberate deceit. But there are all kinds of ways prices can be skewed and there are several different methods for calculating cost of living that arrive at different numbers. Safeway has the advertised price, the shelf price and the actual price which is higher if you aren't a member or if you had previously purchased the product. I don't know whether the feds measure prices on actual sale price or the stated price or how they make the distinction.

              Usually people are looking at the change i

      • Fewer jobs was the federal reserve's goal when they raised the interest rates. It was a key part of their strategy for fighting inflation. They even said so in more than a few public statements. The theory was that too many people had too much money, and that was driving prices up, so we had to pull that down. We have been reading stories about companies laying off workers in the hundreds or thousands ever since the rates went up. So, the plan worked.

        Of course, there was a better way. We could have ju

        • Re:Correction (Score:4, Informative)

          by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @01:23PM (#64762324)

          raising the taxes on the super-rich, but really the taxes are already quite high for them

          Counterpoint, no they are not, in fact in many ways they are some of the lowest rates in US history.

          Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen for The Top One Percent Since World War II [taxpolicycenter.org]

          Nevermind that the wealthy can hold their wealth in stocks and other assets and take out tax free loans against though, effectively skirting a large amount of taxation.

          The wealthy pay the most because they can affort to pay the most and by nature of their wealth they have benefitted from the system we all partake in the most.
            Marginal utility of money is in fact a thing.

          That's not to say taxing the rich solves all our problems, far from it, but a vast tax avoiding upper class reducing the velocity of money and investments has lot's of long and short term knock on effects.

  • If the economy is generating a bunch of minimum wage jobs that's not a good thing at all. If it's generating a bunch of middlin to high wage jobs, that's good.

    IMHO the government measures the wrong things. When the stock market goes up it's Wall Street that benefits and, typically, the average worker loses out. Yeah, you might get an extra % or two in your 401k, but at the expense of lower wages, layoffs, and higher prices. Because lets be honest, Wall Street typically doesn't do well because a compa
    • by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @11:52AM (#64761984) Journal

      > If the economy is generating a bunch of minimum wage jobs that's not a good thing at all.

      Better than no jobs at all, innit?

      Even if they're minimum wage, more jobs means lower unemployment. Low unemployment gives more power to the workforce. It means there are more workers than job openings, which means there are job openings left unfilled, which means businesses will try harder to fill those positions. It's easier to quit your shitty job, or demand better pay/conditions, when you're confident you can find a new job fairly easily.

      > IMHO the government measures the wrong things

      You might not understand what is being measured, then. In fact it's obvious from the rest of that comment. They do not, for example, bother with anything related to the stock market.

      Here's what they DO measure. [bls.gov]

      =Smidge=

      • > If the economy is generating a bunch of minimum wage jobs that's not a good thing at all.

        Better than no jobs at all, innit?

        Even if they're minimum wage, more jobs means lower unemployment. Low unemployment gives more power to the workforce. It means there are more workers than job openings, which means there are job openings left unfilled, which means businesses will try harder to fill those positions. It's easier to quit your shitty job, or demand better pay/conditions, when you're confident you can find a new job fairly easily.

        What if millions of those jobs are gig jobs like Uber drivers? I think those jobs don't affect the job market the same as non-gig jobs. These gig jobs aren't just relatively low paying; they also have few corporate benefits and produce workers that don't build social security or 401k equity.

        • > I think those jobs don't affect the job market the same as non-gig jobs.

          Gig workers are considered contractors by BLS so they are not represented in the JOLTS statistics.

          I agree they don't affect the job market the same way because they aren't really positions to be filled, but people signing up to a lottery in hopes of getting a task that pays a few bucks. The whole system is really a pox on society...

          =Smidge=

    • Huh? We care about having a job, minimum wage or not. The basic is to have a job, of any kind .. at least until we have enough robots to generate UBI without burdening workers with having to carry the load of abled deliberate non-workers.

    • The focus on job creation is simple; because that specific metric is how society grades the current Presidential administration, and how they grade themselves. By bragging about how many jobs they “create”. Other than keeping us out of harms way, they don’t have much else to deliver to a country.

      Job creation was ironically highlighted in the most corrupt way when the reports showed over 800,000 jobs the Biden administration had been bragging about, never actually existed. They’re

    • If the economy is generating a bunch of minimum wage jobs that's not a good thing at all.

      Why don't you want people who have no special intellect or skills to be able to find work?
      What is the alternative. Permanent public assistance like across Europe, where millions of proles sit in cheap flats drinking and yelling at EUFA games on the TV?
      For the USA, how do we mathematically get a country with 300 million people to all have average or above-average jobs?

  • There's that R word. Bloomberg is a threat to democracy.

  • And those three years were a white-hot market.

    Maybe this means we're getting back to a more "normal" range?

  • Jerome Powell said so in a senate hearing. [youtube.com]

    We're all supposed to get fired and not be able to find jobs. Then we're forced to take much, much lower paying jobs. That lowers demand and so companies are forced to cut prices.

    It's engineering a recession in order to reduce inflation. Balancing the books on the backs of the middle class.

    It's also a great example of Banal Evil. The correct way to reduce inflation is to increase production and competition. And if the free market can't or won't do it the
    • The correct way to reduce inflation is to increase production and competition. And if the free market can't or won't do it then the gov't steps in and does it for them like we did in the 30s.

      Buy all the stuff made with increased production and "increased competition" with what money?

      Government interfering just makes it worse. The 1930's Great Depression wasn't ended by any of those programs in isolation, or in aggregate.

      What ended that fiasco was the Second World War.

      What ended the 1980's Recessions, brought to you by your freindly-friends Carter, Nixon and LBJ*, was getting government OUT of business and a couple of well-placed tax cuts.

      I think more of that is needed now, and less of what you

      • ... getting government OUT of business ...

        That didn't happen with the Bush tax-cuts or the Trump tax-cuts: The Trump tax-cuts were so irrelevant that corporations started buying 'themselves'.

        ... the blank check written ...

        I guess that explains the Bush tax-cuts too. They were so generous, the US government didn't have sufficient real revenue to 'pay' for the fake revenue: Obama had to cancel some of the tax-cuts.

      • by m00sh ( 2538182 )

        The correct way to reduce inflation is to increase production and competition. And if the free market can't or won't do it then the gov't steps in and does it for them like we did in the 30s.

        Buy all the stuff made with increased production and "increased competition" with what money?

        Government interfering just makes it worse. The 1930's Great Depression wasn't ended by any of those programs in isolation, or in aggregate.

        What ended that fiasco was the Second World War.

        What ended the 1980's Recessions, brought to you by your freindly-friends Carter, Nixon and LBJ*, was getting government OUT of business and a couple of well-placed tax cuts.

        I think more of that is needed now, and less of what you're selling. Didn't work in the 30's, or the 70's, and wont work now.

        * 1970's - 80's inflation was brought to you by the blank check written for the Vietnam War being cashed.

        Yes. 2008 recession was fixed by 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

        Every time Obama fired those drone missiles, it jumpstarted the economy. This is why it is no vital to get government out of interfering with the economy.

  • These graphs will tell you the truth:

    Civilian Labor Force - With a Disability, 16 Years and over
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]

    Labor Force Participation Rate
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]

    Not in Labor Force
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]

    Infra Annual Registered Unemployment and Job Vacancies: Total Economy, Unfilled Vacancies for United States
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]

  • There's also a worker shortage. It seems like every time I go out to eat at a restaurant, they're closed due to "staff shortage". Then when I was laid off of my job 4 months ago, it took me 3 months to find a job in the COMPUTER INDUSTRY!!!!

    Maybe I'll live to see the day when no one works, and there are no jobs. Wouldn't THAT be heaven....

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...