Well, that was disappointing. Unfortunately, Obama blames Congress for the wrong reasons.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-blames-congress-weak-jobs-report/story?id=16476623#.T8knpi3z4gg
Not that Romney, or even news reporters are doing much better:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipAvqXoUxFfrH91ahL1aykAAtXOw?docId=CNG.62d0f7886ec7a5611055131eca72feed.311
The problem, you idiots (I refer to the pols and the reporters), is that government is still bleeding jobs. We have now exceeded three years of declining government employment. Great, you say? Maybe not so great in the middle of an effing jobless "recovery" when it's hard enough to find private sector work! Money is flowing rather rapidly towards the federal government at negative freakin' real interest. Why, then, do we insist on kneecapping ourselves?
Oh, that's right, forcing government spending and employment down makes the economy look worse and helps Romney's chances of getting elected. And some folks didn't believe them when they said their primary goal was getting rid of Obama...
GOP economic sabotage...If Romney is elected (he won't be), they'll happily raise the debt ceiling 19 times like they did for Ronnie.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."-- Senate minority leader Mitch the bitchMcConnell, 2010.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 01, 2012, 03:50:55 PM
GOP economic sabotage...If Romney is elected (he won't be), they'll happily raise the debt ceiling 19 times like they did for Ronnie.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."-- Senate minority leader Mitch the bitchMcConnell, 2010.
You guys are funny. You would have laughed off such a claim in the run-up to the '08 election.
The real shame is no one is concerned about governing anymore, it's only about power.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
The real shame is no one is concerned about governing anymore, it's only about powerfunneling the public treasury into private hands.
FTFY.
Quote from: nathanm on June 01, 2012, 03:57:49 PM
FTFY.
I was going to say that but figured I'd leave it for someone else to fill in the blank. Couldn't agree more.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
You guys are funny. You would have laughed off such a claim in the run-up to the '08 election.
The real shame is no one is concerned about governing anymore, it's only about DISLODGING power.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/547685_420427657988502_174612345903369_1248814_1235371507_n.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2012, 04:06:39 PM
I was going to say that but figured I'd leave it for someone else to fill in the blank. Couldn't agree more.
At least we agree on one of the problems, if not the solution. It's a start. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on June 01, 2012, 03:45:45 PM
The problem, you idiots (I refer to the pols and the reporters), is that government is still bleeding jobs. We have now exceeded three years of declining government employment.
You miss the point. Well you miss many, but the point here is that this administration focused it's recovery efforts upon temporary projects, government contracts, failed Democrat spending initiatives, increased regulation, untested green initiatives, and not on private sector growth. They took every opportunity to position themselves as anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-banking, anti-investing, anti-energy, and pro-redistribution.
Had they spurred private sector growth and worked with free-market principals instead of promoting an agenda of selectivism, this conversation would not be necessary.
I don't know why I'm writing this. . .you hate us "free-marketers." The President has taken the exact corse of action you believe in. You should be proud.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 01, 2012, 04:31:00 PM
You miss the point. Well you miss many, but the point here is that this administration focused it's recovery efforts upon temporary projects, government contracts, failed Democrat spending initiatives, increased regulation, untested green initiatives, and not on private sector growth. They took every opportunity to position themselves as anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-banking, anti-investing, anti-energy, and pro-redistribution.
This is entirely delusional.
Quote
Had they spurred private sector growth and worked with free-market principals instead of promoting an agenda of selectivism, this conversation would not be necessary.
Apparently, you can't read, either. There is in fact private sector growth. The problem is that government shrinkage is offsetting it and then some. That is not helpful to a recovery, no matter how much money we pump into the economy. Did you forget that half of the stimulus was tax cuts and not spending? Given the way you talk about tax cuts as if you were talking about Jesus healing the lame, I would think that nearly half a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts would have done something. Somehow that doesn't count as a failure?
How much of the government job loss is federal vs. local or state? Income, property, and sales tax receipts falling would have far more to do with public sector job loss- a direct result of less spending, lower real estate values, and localized unemployment from the private sector.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2012, 05:42:41 PM
How much of the government job loss is federal vs. local or state? Income tax and sales tax receipts falling would have far more to do with public sector job loss- a direct result of less spending and localized unemployment from the private sector.
Federal employment is up slightly since 2006. That includes USPS and other quasi-governmental agencies. By slightly I mean 40,000-50,000. State/local employment is down a couple million. The government job/population ratio is back to where it was in 1984. It's actually quite interesting to see the dip at the end of the 70s and then the rise starting in the early-mid 80s.
Before the recession, there was 1 government job per 13.6 people in the US. There is now less than 1 per 14.25. The pre-recession number was slightly higher than the post-1980 norm, but only a hair. Generally speaking, government jobs increase vaguely in proportion to population, or at least have since the rise of the modern state after WWII. For all their grandstanding, Republicans haven't done smile about it, unless they are true Machiavellian geniuses, in which case they clearly engineered the financial crisis to force government cutbacks. ;)
nathan:
Based on your statistics it looks like most(all) of the government job losses have been and the local/state level. At this level, they don't have a choice. If it isn't in the budget it gets cut. State governments cannot borrow to fund it's operations, unlike the federal government. Not really sure what could have been done about it really. There are always going to be economic cycles.
Quote from: erfalf on June 01, 2012, 06:35:27 PM
Based on your statistics it looks like most(all) of the government job losses have been and the local/state level. At this level, they don't have a choice. If it isn't in the budget it gets cut. State governments cannot borrow to fund it's operations, unlike the federal government. Not really sure what could have been done about it really. There are always going to be economic cycles.
Many states can and do run deficits for a time. Obviously, unlike the federal government, there are significant limits on their debt capacity. I wasn't necessarily saying that we should be having the federal government borrow more to give to the states, anyway. I don't think it would be a bad idea, but it's not something I think is worth spending political capital on at this point. To some degree they're doing it to themselves anyway. Idiotic development giveaways amounting to at least $70 billion a year are the rope they've used to hang themselves.
My point was more to communicate what I thought most news stories failed to make plain. Private sector job growth, while not fantastic, was up over 100,000 jobs on the month by the BLS numbers, while the ADP count was 133,000. Again, not great, but not the doom and gloom scenario painted by the press and by the Romney campaign. In the face of what is universally regarded as weak demand and the ongoing Euro turmoil dragging down the mood, those are pretty good numbers.
Imagine what we could do if we took advantage of low rates and committed to spend $100 billion a year on infrastructure repair for the next 4-5 years. That should be long enough to help fix the household balance sheet problem and give some confidence to employers that the new level of activity will not be short term. We can borrow that for effectively nothing. If we also set out to eliminate tax noncompliance we would gain enough revenue to pay for the spending. No need of a rate increase, just stop letting people get away with tax evasion.
Quote from: nathanm on June 01, 2012, 04:36:17 PM
There is in fact private sector growth. The problem is that government shrinkage is offsetting it and then some. That is not helpful to a recovery, no matter how much money we pump into the economy.
Source? Links?
This left-wing website says we lost 600,000 public sector jobs in the last three years. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460380/worst-ever-public-sector-job-loss/ A healthy private sector recovery would replace those jobs in 3 months or less. If that 600,000 jobs lost offsets private sector growth over the past three years, we are in a worse mess than we thought.
FRED (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/) is your friend.
Does this look significantly different than the last recovery, which came after a much milder recession and without the ridiculousness in the eurozone?
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7Es)
Edited to add: Note the difference between "since the recession began" and "in the last three years". Local governments alone have shed more than a half million jobs since the recession began and are continuing to do so.
I thought this was going to be another "Biden can't count" thread:
Anyway, I'm blaming Bush for this news, and of course the Republican controlled House.
According to the White House, the jobs problem will not be solved "overnight"
QuoteProblems in the job market were long in the making and will not be solved overnight.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may
No word yet on that "overnight" actually means, as Allah points out:
QuoteAnyone want to try defining "overnight" for me, just so that we have a rule of thumb going forward? On Inauguration Day, I would have accepted "2009″ or even "his first two years in office" as plausible answers. Instead, five months out from election day, somehow dawn still has yet to break. His braintrust is now actually on the cusp of arguing, in all seriousness, that it's unfair to judge him on what's happened in the jobs market over the course of his entire first term.
What do you do when America's just taken an economic gut punch, with a vicious European uppercut soon to follow? You hold six fundraisers, naturally:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/01/white-house-on-disastrous-jobs-report-problems-in-the-labor-market-wont-be-solved-overnight-you-know/
[
Emphasis] The last sentence is the dagger.
I'm not sure how going from losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month to gaining 100,000-200,000 private sector jobs a month is such a failure in your mind. Weren't you crowing about the Bush recovery at one point?
Quote from: nathanm on June 01, 2012, 07:56:53 PM
FRED (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/) is your friend.
Does this look significantly different than the last recovery, which came after a much milder recession and without the ridiculousness in the eurozone?
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7Es)
Edited to add: Note the difference between "since the recession began" and "in the last three years". Local governments alone have shed more than a half million jobs since the recession began and are continuing to do so.
That shows monthly changes in private sector employment. It does not show that the "government shrinkage is offsetting it and then some". Nor does it show that we have gained private sector jobs since the beginning of the recession (which is the time period you have now specified for the comparison)? Do you have a source or link showing either of those?
Here is what I can find in FRED. I don't know how to embed the graphs, but here are links showing that:
-- total private sector employment was approximately 115.5 Million at the beginning of the recession and is now 111 Million.http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USPRIV# (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USPRIV#) A reduction of 4.5 Million jobs.
-- total state government employment has dropped from approximately 5.14 Million to 5.075 Million, a reduction of 65,000 jobs. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=CES9092000001 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=CES9092000001)
-- total local government employment has dropped from 14.48 Million to about 14.08 Million, a reduction of 400,000 jobs. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=CES9093000001 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=CES9093000001)
-- total federal government employment has dropped from 22.41 Million to 22.025 Million, a reduction of 385,000 jobs. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USGOVT (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USGOVT)
Total government shrinkage since the beginning of the recession: 850,000 jobs.
So... we do not have growth in the private sector (from the beginning of the recession). We do not have a reduction of more than 500,000 jobs in local governments from the beginning of the recession. Since there is no private sector growth in jobs, it would be nonsensical to say that the government shrinkage has offset private sector growth.
Let's look at the numbers starting with the end of the recession (which seems like a more logical starting point):
The graphs linked above show:
-- Total private sector employment rising from 108 Million at the end of the recession to 111 Million for a gain of 3 Million jobs.
-- Total state government employment dropped from 5.17 Million to 5.075 Million , for a reduction of 95,000 jobs.
-- Total local government employment dropped from 14.575 Million to 14.08 Million, for a reduction of 495,000 jobs. (There is the "500,000 jobs lost" you were referring to... it is since the end of the recession, not since the beginning of the recession. Local government ADDED jobs during the recession, as did both the state and federal government as well.)
-- Total federal government employment dropped from 22.52 Million to 22.025 Million, for a reduction of 495,000 jobs.
Total private sector gain since the end of the recession: 3 Million jobs.
Total government loss since the end of the recession: 1.085 Million jobs.
So... government shrinkage is NOT offsetting private sector growth "and then some". Partially offsetting to be sure. But it does not full offset "and then some" as was earlier reported to us.
BTW, cool site. Thanks for introducing me to FRED.
Oil Capitol...you have the correct information on jobs, but you do realize that your research is "from the start of the recession?"
That is what the republican party is trying to do to Obama. They claim it is all his recession, even though it started more than a year before he took office.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 06, 2012, 11:39:19 AM
Oil Capitol...you have the correct information on jobs, but you do realize that your research is "from the start of the recession?"
That is what the republican party is trying to do to Obama. They claim it is all his recession, even though it started more than a year before he took office.
But it
is all his because it's an election year.
Anyone know if the massive hire and fire from the temporary census jobs is included in the federal employment figures?
I got crappy Christmas gifts last December. It must be the next President's fault.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 06, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
I got crappy Christmas gifts last December. It must be the next President's fault.
Nope, it's the last President's fault. You have to remember, blame Bush. I'm surprised at you for forgetting it's all Bush's fault.
No. I am not blaming Bush for 2011. But you republicans are blaming Obama for 2008.
The last year of the Bush presidency was brutal. You don't get to pin it on Obama.
Tell us about how GW was one of the greatest presidents Conan, that is a funny story!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 06, 2012, 11:39:19 AM
Oil Capitol...you have the correct information on jobs, but you do realize that your research is "from the start of the recession?"
That is what the republican party is trying to do to Obama. They claim it is all his recession, even though it started more than a year before he took office.
Yeah, I realize it. I specifically stated as much. I did that because that is the time period Nathanm referenced, as I also stated.
And... did you realize there is more to the post? I also covered "from the end of the recession."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 06, 2012, 12:55:39 PM
No. I am not blaming Bush for 2011. But you republicans are blaming Obama for 2008.
The last year of the Bush presidency was brutal. You don't get to pin it on Obama.
I'm blaming the Democrat-led House & Senate for '08. Certainly can't blame any candidate I backed since you guys can't seem to.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2012, 01:17:49 PM
And... did you realize there is more to the post? I also covered "from the end of the recession."
Yes. I liked your post. I just wanted to use your words to say it again to the others on the forum.
Thanks.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 06, 2012, 01:37:43 PM
I'm blaming the Democrat-led House & Senate for '08. Certainly can't blame any candidate I backed since you guys can't seem to.
Wasn't there a guy in the Senate during that time we all know who I guess is entirely blameless for what is happening today?
Quote from: guido911 on June 06, 2012, 04:07:43 PM
Wasn't there a guy in the Senate during that time we all know who I guess is entirely blameless for what is happening today?
I believe you are correct. I believe he was "present" at that time.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 06, 2012, 11:44:54 AM
Anyone know if the massive hire and fire from the temporary census jobs is included in the federal employment figures?
Yes, if you look on FRED for USGOVT you will see the 2010 spike from the census employment. OC, I'm not sure what relevance your figures have. Nobody has claimed that the US has had a full employment recovery. If they have, you might look at them a little funny and wonder if they're slow. Since the bottom of the recession, however, we have had what would normally be considered good employment growth in the private sector. The depth of the hole we're in means that good employment growth isn't enough. That's what happens when you have a depression level employment shock.
Oil Capital, the 1,036,000 government jobs have been lost since the peak of government employment during the stimulus (excluding the census worker peak in May 2010). I derived that by looking at the data listings for CES9091000001, CES9092000001, and CES9093000001, finding the absolute peak, and measuring from there.
To embed, you can just click the link titled 'link' above the graph and it'll pop up a box from which you can copy the image URL.
BTW, here's a graph of the percentage change from the previous year for both government and private employment. (absolute change produces a crappy graph because there are so many more private sector workers than public sector employees)
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7Ob)
Ex-census, government employment has been dragging down the numbers since early last year. That was and remains my simple point. Private sector growth is within the range of what is considered reasonable, especially for a depression level event. Let's not forget that much of the rest of the world is actually having a worse recovery than they did after 1929. We're well ahead of that, thankfully.
The blame should be directed at both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are too busy worrying about what their donors think to actually alter course. Do keep in mind their donors are mostly quite happy. After all, post-tax corporate profits are up over 10% (adjusted for inflation) since the Bush peak in 2006, or about 20% since the pre-recession plateau. The donor class is doing fine. It's the rest of us that are hurting. I suppose this is why Mitt seems to think more of the same is the answer. More government cuts, more tax cuts, just more of the same. At least Obama is asking Congress to do some other stuff, even if they refuse.
Quote from: nathanm on June 06, 2012, 04:18:46 PM
OC, I'm not sure what relevance your figures have.
The relevance (as I stated in my post) is to show the falseness of your statement that public sector shrinkage is offsetting private sector employment growth "and then some".
Quote from: Gaspar on June 06, 2012, 04:10:31 PM
I believe you are correct. I believe he was "present" at that time.
This is what gives Romney the edge on "Bush's economy" argument. Mittens was not a part of the government apparatus when all the crap that caused the collapse took place. At worst the left can accuse of him of "agreeing" with certain things, but it was not HIS economy like Bush and present.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 06, 2012, 01:14:48 PM
Tell us about how GW was one of the greatest presidents Conan, that is a funny story!
George Washington?
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2012, 05:19:57 PM
The relevance (as I stated in my post) is to show the falseness of your statement that public sector shrinkage is offsetting private sector employment growth "and then some".
You're right. I exaggerated in my third post or something. It was really only (about) a quarter of private sector job growth offset by the decline in direct government employment. I'd have to find figures on the effects of the budget cutbacks on indirect employment (contractors, suppliers, etc) to make a stronger statement.
So, speaking of jobs, this New York Times article (https://www.google.com/search?q=More+Young+Americans+Out+of+High+School+Are+Also+Out+of+Work) (link to Google search so everyone can click through and read the full article) claims that only 16% of 2009-2011 high school graduates have full time jobs compared with 37% before the meltdown. Seems to me like saddling them with long term unemployment is worse than saddling them with more federal debt.
Does anyone know of any figures that might confirm/refute this reporting?
Quote from: nathanm on June 06, 2012, 09:11:58 PM
So, speaking of jobs, this New York Times article (https://www.google.com/search?q=More+Young+Americans+Out+of+High+School+Are+Also+Out+of+Work) (link to Google search so everyone can click through and read the full article) claims that only 16% of 2009-2011 high school graduates have full time jobs compared with 37% before the meltdown. Seems to me like saddling them with long term unemployment is worse than saddling them with more federal debt.
Does anyone know of any figures that might confirm/refute this reporting?
I noticed that the article only considered high school and 4 year college degrees. There are other alternatives like Tulsa Tech. They are considerably less expensive than a 4 year college and can provide training needed beyond high school to get a decent job. Still no guarantee but a better probability.
Quote from: nathanm on June 06, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
You're right. I exaggerated in my third post or something. It was really only (about) a quarter of private sector job growth offset by the decline in direct government employment. I'd have to find figures on the effects of the budget cutbacks on indirect employment (contractors, suppliers, etc) to make a stronger statement.
YEAAAAHHH, THAT'S THE TICKET!!!
(http://snl.jt.org/caps/characters/JoLo-Tommy%20Flanagan.jpg)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 06, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
I noticed that the article only considered high school and 4 year college degrees. There are other alternatives like Tulsa Tech. They are considerably less expensive than a 4 year college and can provide training needed beyond high school to get a decent job. Still no guarantee but a better probability.
Huh? The article was talking about kids who don't have a college degree and aren't going to college for whatever reason. Even so, there have been plenty of stories in the news about the plight of recent college grads and their also very high un/underemployment rate, which in a way is even more of a crisis, because kids graduate with so much debt these days, thanks to both a lack of employment opportunities during school and the rapidly rising cost, even at public institutions.
Nursing is pretty good right now, though. I don't think we can expect every young person to go into that field, though. I guess a few could go into accounting. The big firms have been hiring lately. I think pharmacists are also in relatively high demand at the moment. I believe that one takes six years, though. I guess I'm just not quite sure what fields these kids should be looking to get a degree in at a two year school, other than nursing, that is. It's definitely less of a problem if you end up not being able to find a good job after graduating, though. I'm pretty sure the average debt load of graduates from four year schools these days is north of $20,000.
Yes, Conan, cancelling a quarter of all the job growth since the bottom of the recession is such a great idea. We should definitely do it again.
Quote from: nathanm on June 06, 2012, 09:58:05 PM
Huh? The article was talking about kids who don't have a college degree and aren't going to college for whatever reason.
I guess I'm just not quite sure what fields these kids should be looking to get a degree in at a two year school, other than nursing, that is.
A few years ago, one of my friends' son was graduating from high school. I asked if he planned to go to college. The answer was no, he was going to Okmulgee Tech to become an auto mechanic. I don't remember if a "degree" was involved but he got the training and some experience in the work/school program that got him a job when he graduated from Okmulgee. The last I heard he was working full time at a Tulsa auto dealership.
I agree that high school doesn't really prepare anyone for a good job but there are other things out there that aren't considered college. If you only want to work with what you learned in high school, so be it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 06, 2012, 10:27:42 PM
A few years ago, one of my friends' son was graduating from high school. I asked if he planned to go to college. The answer was no, he was going to Okmulgee Tech to become an auto mechanic. I don't remember if a "degree" was involved but he got the training and some experience in the work/school program that got him a job when he graduated from Okmulgee. The last I heard he was working full time at a Tulsa auto dealership.
I agree that high school doesn't really prepare anyone for a good job but there are other things out there that aren't considered college. If you only want to work with what you learned in high school, so be it.
Personally, I think it is about time many of our institutes of higher learning (universities) should take a cue from vocational schools. Universities should be preparing young people for careers (so they can pay for said education), not to be "well rounded" or whatever.
Quote from: erfalf on June 07, 2012, 11:51:24 AM
Personally, I think it is about time many of our institutes of higher learning (universities) should take a cue from vocational schools. Universities should be preparing young people for careers (so they can pay for said education), not to be "well rounded" or whatever.
I don't disagree that vocational training is important, but so is helping people become "well rounded". Luckily, many schools already have some vocational training.
Quote from: nathanm on June 07, 2012, 12:44:55 PM
I don't disagree that vocational training is important, but so is helping people become "well rounded". Luckily, many schools already have some vocational training.
Being well rounded and unemployed can't be as satisfying as partly rounded and earning a living.
Oklahoma has too many "well rounded" people anyway. Haven't you seen the obesity numbers?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 12:51:51 PM
Being well rounded and unemployed can't be as satisfying as partly rounded and earning a living.
Sure, but the biggest obstacle to hiring at the moment is reported to be a lack of demand, not a lack of skill on the part of prospective employees. We're already thick with folks with training and degrees who can't get jobs in their field, even when that field is not underwater basketweaving.
As per vocational training, welders are in very high demand. There's currently about 6000 positions which continue to go un-filled in the Tulsa area.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
As per vocational training, welders are in very high demand. There's currently about 6000 positions which continue to go un-filled in the Tulsa area.
There is also a decent deficit of nurses, but neither changes the big picture that much.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
As per vocational training, welders are in very high demand. There's currently about 6000 positions which continue to go un-filled in the Tulsa area.
There sure seems to be a mismatch of training and job opportunities, underwater basket weaving not withstanding.
Quote from: nathanm on June 02, 2012, 01:08:08 AM
I'm not sure how going from losing 800,000 private sector jobs a month to gaining 100,000-200,000 private sector jobs a month is such a failure in your mind. Weren't you crowing about the Bush recovery at one point?
You keep forgetting.... "The Script"....
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 06, 2012, 09:35:17 PM
I noticed that the article only considered high school and 4 year college degrees. There are other alternatives like Tulsa Tech. They are considerably less expensive than a 4 year college and can provide training needed beyond high school to get a decent job. Still no guarantee but a better probability.
Tulsa Tech is a great place!! Excellent training and value!
And the cost is light years better than any of the private trade schools. (Sorry, private trade schools...)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
As per vocational training, welders are in very high demand. There's currently about 6000 positions which continue to go un-filled in the Tulsa area.
There is high demand - and the so-called shortage - for welders at $12 per hour. If there were valid responses to 'supply and demand', the hourly wage would go up, and the demand would go down because more people would be taking welding classes and getting jobs.
I bet if the average pay was $25 per hour, there would be a lot more jobs filled.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 10:05:37 PM
There is high demand - and the so-called shortage - for welders at $12 per hour. If there were valid responses to 'supply and demand', the hourly wage would go up, and the demand would go down because more people would be taking welding classes and getting jobs.
I bet if the average pay was $25 per hour, there would be a lot more jobs filled.
Shows how little you know. Entry wage is $22-$25. Experienced code welders and fitters can command $30-$40 an hour if they have a clean record and no bad habits which keep them from showing up for work every day.
Structural welders (i.e. non-critical oil patch skid building which anyone with minimal training with a wire feed can do) will make about $5 an hour less. The real shortage is people who can fit and weld on pressure vessels and piping systems.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 10:05:37 PM
There is high demand - and the so-called shortage - for welders at $12 per hour. If there were valid responses to 'supply and demand', the hourly wage would go up, and the demand would go down because more people would be taking welding classes and getting jobs.
I bet if the average pay was $25 per hour, there would be a lot more jobs filled.
$12/hr?
http://www1.salary.com/Welder-I-Salary.html
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2012, 10:10:52 PM
Shows how little you know. Entry wage is $22-$25. Experienced code welders and fitters can command $30-$40 an hour if they have a clean record and no bad habits which keep them from showing up for work every day.
Structural welders (i.e. non-critical oil patch skid building which anyone with minimal training with a wire feed can do) will make about $5 an hour less. The real shortage is people who can fit and weld on pressure vessels and piping systems.
Just what I said - there is high demand for $12/hour welders. And there is even a large demand for $13 - 21 per hour welders - as shown by 6 pages of the Tulsa World want ads.
I am curious about who is paying $20 for entry here in Tulsa. Must be all the other place (singular) that isn't advertising in the Whirled.
20 - 25 for entry would imply that my experience would bring 30. I may have to look into that...
Always been a shortage of fitter/welders. I have worked with a guy who was an underwater (offshore) welder and one who did specialty steels in a refinery in a refinery in Houston (was doing heat stress relief work at parent company of Western Stress - yeah, I know - long time ago.) Even back then, those guys took home over 6 figures - and none of them after the decimal point! Very specialized stuff.
Ex family patriarch was a regular old fitter/welder. Good money when he worked. Enough to bridge the gaps when work was scarce, plus quite a bit. Very good career.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
$12/hr?
http://www1.salary.com/Welder-I-Salary.html
Maybe a little high when take into account the overtime needed to get to $35k.
What I said was there is high demand at $12. Because many won't do that job for that little money. Hence, the demand - and the attendant required increase in wage to fill the position. But there is a better site than that to show wage offers.
http://tulsa.careers.adicio.com/jobs/rl-tulsa-oklahoma-united-states/?Category=trades&radius=50&sort=PostDate+desc%2C+score+desc
Saw range of 13 to 21 per hour. But only went through about half the pages, skimming quickly.
What is the average amount of overtime in the area per year? I don't know, but I would expect it could be maybe 4 to 8 hours (more??) per week for this area. Extra 10% time at time and a half.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 10:31:41 PM
20 - 25 for entry would imply that my experience would bring 30. I may have to look into that...
Looking for a side line when you "retire"?
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 10:38:32 PM
Looking for a side line when you "retire"?
I started out as an electrician and welder. If the pay was right, I could see going back full circle...
Probably not. Just gonna keep my little mig machine working on small hobby projects. This is the inspiration for next 'big' project...
http://andersonmobileestates.com/home.php
This little project could have potential - in spite of the Obama connection - it just needs some decent paint....think "Furthur" and "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".
http://www.cityfarmer.info/2008/11/12/cross-country-ride-urges-white-house-to-add-organic-farm/
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 10:37:06 PM
Maybe a little high when take into account the overtime needed to get to $35k.
$12/hr is roughly $24K/yr for 40 hr/wk, 50 wks/yr (2 weeks vacation).
50 wks x [ (40 hrs x M $/hr) + (8 hrs x (1.5 x M $/hr)) ] = $35,000.
M = 13.46 $/hr for 40 hr/wk straight time and 8 hr/wk at time and a half for 50 wks.
All straight time, $35,000 is 17.50 $/hr for 40 hr/wk, 50 wk/yr
$12 is probably a little LOW.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 10:51:18 PM
This little project could have potential - in spite of the Obama connection - it just needs some decent paint....think "Furthur" and "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".
http://www.cityfarmer.info/2008/11/12/cross-country-ride-urges-white-house-to-add-organic-farm/
That bus reminds me of an Pitt Special airplane that was rigged with landing gear on top so the pilot could land inverted. Real plane, I saw it at the Haskell Airshow eons ago. The pilot landed inverted and lowered himself out of the plane with a built in winch. Later he winched himself back into the plane, took off, rolled right side up and landed again. Really different.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 10:52:16 PM
$12/hr is roughly $24K/yr for 40 hr/wk, 50 wks/yr (2 weeks vacation).
50 wks x [ (40 hrs x M $/hr) + (8 hrs x (1.5 x M $/hr)) ] = $35,000.
M = 13.46 $/hr for 40 hr/wk straight time and 8 hr/wk at time and a half for 50 wks.
All straight time, $35,000 is 17.50 $/hr for 40 hr/wk, 50 wk/yr
$12 is probably a little LOW.
I wouldn't do that job for that money. The Whirled shows higher hourly rates - averaging probably about that $17 range. So, start at 34k, then add 10% hours at time and a half, and it gets to be still fairly small money for a whole LOT of work! But on the plus side, you get to buy a lot of new clothes to replace the ones with all the little burn holes in them!
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 10:57:35 PM
That bus reminds me of an Pitt Special airplane that was rigged with landing gear on top so the pilot could land inverted. Real plane, I saw it at the Haskell Airshow eons ago. The pilot landed inverted and lowered himself out of the plane with a built in winch. Later he winched himself back into the plane, took off, rolled right side up and landed again. Really different.
Off the wall stuff like that is ALWAYS more interesting than more conventional things.
I do like the Anderson stuff, but I would feel more at home in "Furthur" than that thing.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 10:05:37 PM
There is high demand - and the so-called shortage - for welders at $12 per hour. If there were valid responses to 'supply and demand', the hourly wage would go up, and the demand would go down because more people would be taking welding classes and getting jobs.
I bet if the average pay was $25 per hour, there would be a lot more jobs filled.
I'm in the staffing business have been for 20 plus years, was a HR Mgr the 14 years before that all in manufacturing. So I do know what I am talking about.
$12/Hr is in the welder helper range. Actually it is $11 to $13 range.
Structural welders can expect $13 to $16 range.
Code welders can expect $16 to $22/Hr
Fitter Welders $18 to $24/Hr.
They should also expect lots of overtime. 50-60 hours per week are not unusual when times are good.
However, welding is a young man's game. Working conditions are not the best. Most welders are burnt out by 45-50 years old.
I encourage people that ask to become CNC Machinist. Working conditions are good, (shops are usually climate controlled) and clean working conditions. CNC Machinist can start out entry level at $11-$14/Hr and work up to $16 to $22/Hr plus and work as long as they can stand up.
CNC programers can make $18 to $30/Hr. Again good working conditions and work as long as they can drive into work.
CNC Machinist can also become QC Inspectors for more responsible jobs and better pay.
Welders can move into QC jobs but they usually require more training in x-ray, radiography, gamma ray and other non-destructive testing techniques.
Fluxcore is what most shops have gone too. Some mig, hardly any stick welding.
Good tig welders are in demand for aircraft and other specialty area's.
Most welders do not like to tig weld, it is hotter and harder to master.
Therefore, a good tig welder can usually command a premium.
I saw 6 pages of want ads on the Whirled site for welders. That tells me that the price being offered is just a little too low fill the jobs as fast as they would like. But when times turn bad, you can be off for a long time.
Haven't been by there in a few weeks, but Baker Hughes on the BA expressway seems to always have a banner up for CNC machinists.
Quote from: GG on June 07, 2012, 11:01:49 PM
I encourage people that ask to become CNC Machinist. Working conditions are good, (shops are usually climate controlled) and clean working conditions. CNC Machinist can start out entry level at $11-$14/Hr and work up to $16 to $22/Hr plus and work as long as they can stand up.
CNC programers can make $18 to $30/Hr. Again good working conditions and work as long as they can drive into work.
CNC Machinist can also become QC Inspectors for more responsible jobs and better pay.
I have always made a distinction between a machinist and a machine operator. To me, a machinist can take a drawing and some material and turn it into a product. A machine operator can put material into a machine that is set up and turn the "on/off" switch to the "on" position. If they remember to brush the chips off before putting the material in the fixture/vise, the parts turn out OK. What is today's proper nomenclature for that difference? It seems to me that "my old time machinist" is still a bit more than a CNC programmer.
Quote from: GG on June 07, 2012, 11:08:59 PM
Fluxcore is what most shops have gone too. Some mig, hardly any stick welding.
Good tig welders are in demand for aircraft and other specialty area's.
Most welders do not like to tig weld, it is hotter and harder to master.
Therefore, a good tig welder can usually command a premium.
I haven't got to do much tig (don't have a tig welder), but I always enjoyed it a lot. Have a neighbor who is doing stainless heat exchanger work in OKC area who does incredible work. He keeps busy at it, too.
I haven't seen a Lincoln cracker box in a serious shop for many years.
Quote from: GG on June 07, 2012, 11:08:59 PM
Most welders do not like to tig weld, it is hotter and harder to master.
I can gas weld a bit and TIG weld a bit because it is kind of like electric gas welding but I haven't done any for a while so mostly I make a mess. Plus, bifocals make seeing the work a bit challenging. I can join the electrode to the work with a stick welder.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 11:16:37 PM
I have always made a distinction between a machinist and a machine operator. To me, a machinist can take a drawing and some material and turn it into a product. A machine operator can put material into a machine that is set up and turn the "on/off" switch to the "on" position. If they remember to brush the chips off before putting the material in the fixture/vise, the parts turn out OK. What is today's proper nomenclature for that difference? It seems to me that "my old time machinist" is still a bit more than a CNC programmer.
The guy I learned my meager machinist skills from was a tool and die maker, who was basically wasted at the company he was at, but he was getting older, too and wanted a more 'casual' gig. Glad he was there. Amazing skills.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 11:19:59 PM
I can gas weld a bit and TIG weld a bit because it is kind of like electric gas welding but I haven't done any for a while so mostly I make a mess. Plus, bifocals make seeing the work a bit challenging. I can join the electrode to the work with a stick welder.
Gotta love the bifocal!!!
Gotta love the mig!!
My next big purchase tool toy is gonna be a plasma cutter! They look like SOOOO much fun!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 11:22:11 PM
Gotta love the mig!!
My next big purchase tool toy is gonna be a plasma cutter! They look like SOOOO much fun!!
A friend has a small MIG and a Miller 250 TIG (15 years ago) with a water cooled torch. Another friend was teaching us both to weld with the TIG. At the time, I had access to scrap aluminum. We made approx 2" cubes of aluminum. It was fun but I never did get consistent with aluminum. I could do a little vertical welding in steel but never got to overhead.
Plasma cutter does look like fun.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 11:20:55 PM
The guy I learned my meager machinist skills from was a tool and die maker, who was basically wasted at the company he was at, but he was getting older, too and wanted a more 'casual' gig. Glad he was there. Amazing skills.
I have been fortunate enough to work with some pretty good machinists over the years. They certainly helped me grow as a Mechanical Engineer.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 07, 2012, 11:31:25 PM
I have been fortunate enough to work with some pretty good machinists over the years. They certainly helped me grow as a Mechanical Engineer.
You are dangerously close to a point that is huge on my radar - the blue collar guy versus an engineer's attitude. I started out doing shop work, so I got a feel early on about what these guys can do. (Not even counting the sledge hammer trick that Clyde did!!**). Too many engineers go through school, making their grades in the math and technical courses, which is good, but it absolutely does not mean your s*** don't stink. Which is the attitude too many have. There is often an arrogance around shop guys that is not only unjustified, but stupid in a real world. Just because a guy wears chambray doesn't mean he is dumb. Anybody can learn calculus and diff eq, and thermo, if they just keep after it long enough. But to learn to be a machinist or a great welder is an art that not everyone can do. And while a good old fashioned FEA will give you an idea of whether a structure will survive, I have seen guys that could tell you within pounds just how much load an assembly could handle 'cause they learned it from a different direction - hands on.
New engineers should always be placed on a production line or in a model shop for many months - or even a year - before getting to do any engineering. Best way to learn the fastest.
** 14 lb sledge trick. Grab the end opposite the head of the hammer. Extend arm straight out, so that the head is straight above the hand holding the handle. Then, while keeping arm extended straight out, slowly bend the wrist back so that the head of the hammer comes down to touch the nose - without smashing the face - then return it to vertical.
Quote from: GG on June 07, 2012, 11:08:59 PM
Fluxcore is what most shops have gone too. Some mig, hardly any stick welding.
Good tig welders are in demand for aircraft and other specialty area's.
Most welders do not like to tig weld, it is hotter and harder to master.
Therefore, a good tig welder can usually command a premium.
I can TIG weld quite well, but have never gotten the hang of stick or wire feed. Mainly because TIG is what I learned first when I was 18.
I say that, but I haven't picked up a TIG "torch" in 7 or so years. I used it quite a bit when I had my own business.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
I can TIG weld quite well, but have never gotten the hang of stick or wire feed. Mainly because TIG is what I learned first when I was 18.
I say that, but I haven't picked up a TIG "torch" in 7 or so years. I used it quite a bit when I had my own business.
I can J-B Weld.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
I can J-B Weld.
How about Conley Weld. Support your local businesses.
I have never been able to figure out what the benefit of sub-arc welding is? Over the gas or other flux based systems... Can anyone here 'splain it to me?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 08, 2012, 12:52:55 PM
I have never been able to figure out what the benefit of sub-arc welding is? Over the gas or other flux based systems... Can anyone here 'splain it to me?
We have an automated sub-arc, it's great for seam welding thick vessels and saves a ton of time. The reliability of the welds is excellent.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2012, 12:56:15 PM
We have an automated sub-arc, it's great for seam welding thick vessels and saves a ton of time. The reliability of the welds is excellent.
How is the time saved? Is it just the dual wire or can you actually go at a faster speed? (Videos don't seem to go any faster.) Are they "dialing" in the metal with an alloying agent in the flux powder? (Good MIG should give at least the same reliability, I would think....??)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 08, 2012, 01:11:57 PM
How is the time saved? Is it just the dual wire or can you actually go at a faster speed? (Videos don't seem to go any faster.) Are they "dialing" in the metal with an alloying agent in the flux powder? (Good MIG should give at least the same reliability, I would think....??)
It doesn't experience fatigue, need a smoke break, etc. Really not my area of expertise as far as how it works, I just know it's a time-saver for us.
Whew, just heard Obama say that the private sector is doing fine. Glad that's over with.
Quote from: guido911 on June 08, 2012, 03:15:58 PM
Whew, just heard Obama say that the private sector is doing fine. Glad that's over with.
Great. Maybe we'll finally get some cooperation within the government. That'd be super.
Quote from: guido911 on June 08, 2012, 03:15:58 PM
Whew, just heard Obama say that the private sector is doing fine. Glad that's over with.
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7S5)
(after tax
nonfinancial corporate profits, inflation adjusted, in billions of 2005 dollars)
What do you think, bucko?
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2012, 03:23:08 PM
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7S5)
(after tax nonfinancial corporate profits, inflation adjusted, in billions of 2005 dollars)
What do you think, bucko?
Excellent! Private sector is fine, now we can turn our attentions to more re-distribution programs.
I knew all those unemployed folks were just joking around. Why is the president even giving a speech on the economy. Seems odd since we are all doing so well.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
Excellent! Private sector is fine, now we can turn our attentions to more re-distribution programs.
I knew all those unemployed folks were just joking around. Why is the president even giving a speech on the economy. Seems odd since we are all doing so well.
I'm not surprised you don't grasp the difference between companies and workers. After all, your political beliefs depend on not seeing it.
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2012, 03:33:49 PM
I'm not surprised you don't grasp the difference between companies and workers. After all, your political beliefs depend on not seeing it.
No. I get it. The economy is doing fine. Workers are sucking smile, but the economy rocks. We have recovered, and President Obama deserves praise.
Now it's time to bleed those evil rich folks who won't hire anyone.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
No. I get it. The economy is doing fine. Workers are sucking smile, but the economy rocks. We have recovered, and President Obama deserves praise.
Corporations, which make up much of the economy, are indeed doing fine. I don't think Obama or anyone else is saying we're all doing fine or that we have recovered as a whole. However, much progress has been made and the private sector has generally been stabilized. You can't possibly acknowledge that, though, because it would imply that not every Obama policy has been a complete disaster.
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2012, 03:23:08 PM
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=7S5)
(after tax nonfinancial corporate profits, inflation adjusted, in billions of 2005 dollars)
What do you think, bucko?
Oh wait, economy is not doing fine. Sorry about the inconvenience.
QuoteUnder fire from Republicans, President Obama clarified an earlier assessment of the health of the private sector, explaining that it's "absolutely clear" the economy is not doing "fine."
The president, in response to a question Friday afternoon in the Oval Office, backtracked somewhat on his comments his morning that "the private sector is doing fine."
"It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. That's why I had a press conference," Obama said.
Obama's original comment drew immediate scrutiny from Republicans; Romney, speaking in Iowa, said the comment showed that Obama was "out of touch."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12127428-obama-it-is-absolutely-clear-that-the-economy-is-not-doing-fine?lite?ocid=twitter
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2012, 03:54:53 PM
You can't possibly acknowledge that, though, because it would imply that not every Obama policy has been a complete disaster.
Not true. He's doing awesome in the war on terror, and he's successful in working with many of our foreign counterparts.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6821642120_af91c66389.jpg)
Guido, it's a mixed bag. Companies and management are generally doing fine, as is the wage growth of those who are employed, consumer credit utilization is back to something reasonable, and consumer spending is mostly back where it was before the implosion, and housing prices should be pretty near the bottom now that unsold inventory is declining. In other words, lots of bright spots.
That's cold comfort to the unemployed, I know. After all, they see bright spots but still have no job.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 07, 2012, 11:52:32 PM
You are dangerously close to a point that is huge on my radar - the blue collar guy versus an engineer's attitude.
I just got done sanitizing my keyboard and now I'm going to have to do it again.
Seriously, I have always found that a good relationship with the guys in the shop has been one of my most valuable assets.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 08, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
I just got done sanitizing my keyboard and now I'm going to have to do it again.
Seriously, I have always found that a good relationship with the guys in the shop has been one of my most valuable assets.
Why sanitize then?? We agree absolutely on yet another point...oh, yeah, that's why - because we agree! (How did you get so far off in the weeds on some of these other things? lol)
Maybe it's not the keyboard that's at issue....
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2012, 03:51:55 PM
No. I get it. The economy is doing fine. Workers are sucking smile, but the economy rocks. We have recovered, and President Obama deserves praise.
Now it's time to bleed those evil rich folks who won't hire anyone.
Wow! It's not that often that I get completely blind-sided, but you certainly have done it here. After advocacy of policies and approaches, for several years, that are directly against the interests of jobless workers, this note implies a concern for those same workers! For the first time in a very long time, I am truly speechless!