Wednesday, December 17, 2025

[NJFAC] November jobs report: the latest ominous sign

Yes, this headline is alarmist. But there are developments in play that demonstrate the society-destruction operation of AI, including on the level of human interaction. Admittedly, one vector of operation is long-standing, first outlined systematically in Karl Polanyi's 1944 classic The Great Transformation: that the operation of capitalism has been destructive to the societies in which it operates. But that activity has been made tolerable by "reforms" that have blunted the most damaging effects and allowed for corrective and coping mechanisms to develop.....

Highlights from the Journal lead story, Spooked by AI and Layoffs, White-Collar Workers See Their Security Slip Away

[If you can't access WSJ, use this link. Spooked by AI and layoffs, white-collar workers see their security slip away 

Tuesday's jobs report was the latest ominous sign in an era of big corporate layoff announcements and CEOs warning that AI will replace workers. The overall unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6%. Sectors with a lot of office workers, like information and financial activities, shed jobs in October and November.....

--
June Zaccone
National Jobs for All Network
http://www.njfac.org

--
This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to junez [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goodjobsforall/CAPV%3DhmAikL_e85JKB6r_CMDy9j5X8o3hzdRNy%3DVLDAwTSn0KMg%40mail.gmail.com.

Thursday, December 11, 2025

[NJFAC] Fed Chair Jerome Powell says US may be drastically overstating jobs numbers

Fed Chair Jerome Powell pointed on Wednesday to a job-market risk that economists have been worried about for months: Official statistics could be drastically overstating recent hiring.

Powell said that Fed staffers believe that federal data could be overestimating job creation by up to 60,000 jobs a month. Given that figures published so far show that the economy has added about 40,000 jobs a month since April, the real number could be something more like a loss of 20,000 jobs a month, Powell said.

"We think there's an overstatement in these numbers," Powell said.

Published data already show the labor market has slowed significantly this year, down from rapid hiring after the Covid-19 pandemic. This slower pace means big data revisions can more easily reveal the economy is shedding jobs, not adding them.

"It's a complicated, unusual, and difficult situation, where the labor market is also under pressure, where job creation may actually be negative," Powell said.

That concern provided some of the backing for the Fed's decision to cut interest rates at a third straight meeting, Powell said—despite a labor market that still looks healthy on the surface, with unemployment at a relatively modest 4.4% in September and a net gain of 119,000 jobs that month. Next week, the Labor Department will report fresh jobs numbers for October and November, as well as possible revisions for previous months.

Powell's concern involves a quandary that the Labor Department faces when measuring hiring: how to judge the number of jobs added or destroyed when new businesses are created or close down. Those jobs can't be surveyed directly because it's difficult for the government to reach out to brand-new companies or companies no longer in business.

Instead, Labor's data arm, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, must use a statistical model to make a guess. In the past few years, that technique, called the birth-death model—referring to the births and deaths of businesses—has overstated job creation by hundreds of thousands of jobs a year, forcing significant downward revisions later.

Last month, the BLS laid out a plan to change how it uses the birth-death model, which could make the real-time numbers more accurate starting in February. But for now, Powell suggested, the Fed is concerned that monthly employment stats have been too good to be true—part of the rationale for continuing to cut interest rates even though inflation remains above target.

The difficulty with the birth-death model is just one among a handful of problems the BLS has faced in delivering accurate economic statistics on time, and is complicating the Fed's job as it tries to steer an economy facing dual challenges of elevated inflation and rising unemployment.

A falling number of timely responses to the labor surveys has increased the scale of a different set of monthly job-stats revisions, required after some companies hand in their payroll numbers late. A yearslong budget crunch and staffing shortages have also weighed on the agency's capabilities. And, most recently, the extended government shutdown that ended in November set the agency's work back by more than a month.

The Labor Department's struggles have spilled into politics, prompting President Trump to blame data problems on what he called efforts to manipulate figures for political ends. He fired the BLS's commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, after sharp revisions in August ate into springtime jobs growth, leaving the agency in the hands of a nonpartisan career official who is serving as its acting leader.

--
June Zaccone
National Jobs for All Network
http://www.njfac.org

--
This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to junez [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goodjobsforall/CAPV%3DhmBwMjGzMc_KTEcbdYu7Y8VJ62PNKyV85wwt-PcqrxfaDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Friday, December 5, 2025

[NJFAC] aims of ecosocialist transformation, including job guarantee, get majority support US, UK: poll

How popular is ecosocialist transformation? New study shows strong majority support. Jason Hickel Dec 04, 2025

How popular is ecosocialist transformation? We explored this question in a new study, just published in The Lancet Planetary Health together with colleagues at the London School of Economics.

We surveyed more than 5,000 people in the UK and US, using representative samples and two separate study designs. We presented people with a full proposal for eco-socialist transformation, which included the following:

  • scaling down damaging and unnecessary production and consumption

  • cutting the purchasing power of the rich, and reducing inequality

  • establishing universal public services and a public job guarantee to reorganise production around needs

  • democratising control over finance and the means of production

  • ending imperialist appropriation from the global South through unequal exchange

We found that this vision enjoys strong majority support in both countries. In the US, 72% of people supported it, and in the UK support was even higher at 82%. These are striking results, and confirm other studies showing popular support for many of the principles and policies associated with ecosocialism.

Next, we wanted to understand how people respond to various labels that may be used to describe this transformation, so we presented people with standalone words including "degrowth", "ecosocialism", and "well-being economy", without any description. Here I will report results for the UK, but the US results are similar.

We found that "degrowth" was supported by 20-26%, depending on the study, but also attracted a lot of opposition (16-34%).

"Ecosocialism" had higher support, at 36-58%, and much lower opposition (11-16%).

"Well-being economy" had even higher support (51-81%) and very minimal opposition (more on this later).

In our final step, we gave people the full proposal but this time together with the various different labels. This enabled us to understand whether and how the use of different labels affects people's support. We found that support was high regardless of the label, with strong majorities: 67-72% in the US, and 74-84% in the UK.

So what can we make of all this? For me, here are the main takeaways:

First, the transformative vision and policies advanced by ecosocialism are popular and can form the basis of a winning political campaign. The common notion that these ideas are too "radical" and cannot gain support, is clearly wrong. People want these things, and are likely to support political leaders who can credibly promise to deliver them. The main obstacle to transformation is not popular will, but the capitalist class that currently holds predominant power over production and within political institutions.

Second, some reflections on the word "degrowth", which was the main focus of this study. Our results show that much of the opposition to (or neutrality toward) degrowth is due to misunderstanding of the word rather than rejection of the underlying principles and policies.

Degrowth is a crucial analytical and scientific term and we need it for these purposes. Advocates also note that it is a "missile word" useful for provoking people to rethink long-held assumptions. This can be powerful. But the word may be less useful as a public-facing political slogan, as — depending on the context — it is often misunderstood and can inspire negative reactions. Unless, that is, you have the capacity to educate people about what the term means and what such a transformation would entail.

Third, the term ecosocialism is substantially more popular and can create broader political support. We were surprised to find that up to 58% of people in both the UK and US were willing to support ecosocialism even when just presented with the word alone. We didn't test people's reactions to related terms, like "socialism" or "democratic socialism" or "communism", but this would be interesting to do.

What about "well-being economy"? It is popular and obviously useful in certain contexts, but it is also apolitical and can easily be co-opted and neutralised. To me it's important to be clear about the political antagonism that is at stake: the transformation requires removing the capitalist class from control over finance and the means of production. This is a class war. Ecosocialism captures this element, but other terms may work just as well or better toward this end.

Ultimately, what this study shows is that we don't necessarily need to identify and unite behind a single term. What matters is the broader vision, the political substance, and the concrete policies we advance.....

--
June Zaccone
National Jobs for All Network
http://www.njfac.org

--
This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to junez [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goodjobsforall/CAPV%3DhmCFT-kay8zPdW2GHZaiT6gtm93S9yPHd4X%3D24Jedjd_%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

Thursday, December 4, 2025

[NJFAC] How Wage Increases Became the Fed’s Red Line; food and housing costs outpace wages

How Wage Increases Became the Fed's Red Line John Ruehl, Posted on December 4, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. This John Ruehl article usefully describes how the Fed has made wage increases a, if not the, primary indicator for when inflationary pressures have gotten serious enough to warrant central bank action. But it moved to that practice in the Volcker Fed, when labor had considerable bargaining power and many labor contracts contained cost of living adjustments. Not only have things changed a lot since then, but Ruehl points out how some measures the Fed uses overstate the pace of pay increases among lower wage workers and thus contributes to rising inequality.....

By John P. Ruehl, an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute.
....

At first glance, the average weekly wage for the last two decades appears strong, often outpacing general inflation. Data from the Center for American Progress indicate that workers, especially lower-income workers, have seen real gains between the COVID-19 pandemic and late 2024.

Yet these figures can be misleading. Recessions often skew the numbers because lower-paid workers are more likely to be laid off while higher earners remain, and new hires during recoveries can temporarily boost averages through starting pay or signing bonuses. Meanwhile, common inflation metrics like the consumer price index for all urban consumers can often understate the cost of livingfor lower-income households, and most wages remain below pre-pandemic levels. In fact, real hourly wages for most workers have barely moved since the 1970s and have typically been slow to recover once they fall behind.

While the Fed has long viewed suppressing wage inflation as central to stabilizing the economy and preventing runaway inflation, this was not always its primary mission. The Federal Reserve was founded in 1913 to prevent banking panics by providing liquidity to struggling banks, with its authority expanding dramatically during the Great Depression as it took on a central role in monetary policy, bank supervision, and financial system oversight.
....
The Fed's strategy became orthodox, but its success has been mixed. It certainly helped tame inflation and return the economy to growth, but real wages have stagnated for most workers since. Meanwhile, the financial sector expanded dramatically, benefiting from higher margins, speculation, and rising asset prices as the Fed focused on wage inflation instead.

By the mid-to-late 1990s, however, the Fed demonstrated that wage growth and price stability could coexist. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan allowed the economy to run hotter than some economists recommended, betting that productivity gains from technology would keep inflation in check. Unemployment fell to historic lows, and lower-income workers in particular saw modest wage gains. In the 2000s and 2010s, inflation remained moderate, and wages remained largely stagnant.

After nearly three decades of low inflation, the inflation surge of the early 2020s was driven largely by corporate markups, supply chain shocks, and energy prices, and not wage growth. From the early 1990s through the 2010s, wages were also not a significant source of the limited inflation. Instead, asset bubbles (most notably the 2000s housing bubble), along with food and energy price shocks, were responsible for price increases.

....

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1996389739293819272
--
June Zaccone
National Jobs for All Network
http://www.njfac.org

--
This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to junez [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goodjobsforall/CAPV%3DhmDdTB8OuRZAqDwFqGX_3E9uWYdd70gGOCP8BY%2BM_xk_rw%40mail.gmail.com.