Manufacturing job gains grinding to a virtual stop
9 responses | 0 likes
Started by gfn - Aug. 11, 2019, 4:43 p.m.

Over the course of the last 6 months manufacturing job growth has drop to around 3000 per month. Not only has job growth slowed but both hours worked per week has fallen and wage growth has slowed so much that for the first time in history the avg hourly wage  for manufacturing job is below the avg wage for all sectors of US employment.  Which means the avg manufacturing job does not pay as much as the avg. Of all job in the USA.

By TimNew - Aug. 11, 2019, 6:21 p.m.
Like Reply

That's simply not true. I have no idea what data you are looking at,  but I'd enjoy looking at the source.  Is it DailyBeast? 

We added 16 thousand MFG jobs last month, and that was below the average for the last 2 years.

"for the first time in history the avg hourly wage  for manufacturing job is below the avg wage for all sectors of US employment"

This is also more than laughable. One of the big problems in the US is that MFG wages have been shrinking relative to other areas for decades.  That's one of many problems Trump set out to address.  And he's had some success.

Nonsense like this belongs in the NTR section

By metmike - Aug. 11, 2019, 7:22 p.m.
Like Reply


Thank you very much for providing us with the correct information.


Please be advised, if you want to continue to post here, you will have to stop making things up. You earned yourself another warning today in the NTR section on a separate issue. This will be the last "warning".

I appreciate your cooperation. 

metmike/MarketForum Moderator

p.s. This thread will be moved to the NTR section as tim suggested because it's not an authentic trading post and so that gfn gets the message.

By gfn - Aug. 11, 2019, 10:40 p.m.
Like Reply

I added up the last 6 months of manufacturing job gains then divide it by 12 instead of 6  thelast6months were +8,-3,+3,+2,+12,+16 for a total of 38k added so over 6 months it slightly of 6k instead of the +3k I posted  but seeing how it was at +22k  weekly hours worked did drop by 0.3 hours per week and wages in manufacturing is indeed now lower than the avg. Of all wages paid these facts are available at the BLS  website for anybody to see.  Simply Google bls manufacturing  monthly charts and sites will show up to connect to.

These statictes are not made up as you have claimed and they will become a major driver in future economic direction.  IMHO

Hopefully I can figure out how to post links to your site soon

By metmike - Aug. 12, 2019, 1:26 a.m.
Like Reply


Your lack of skills to post links/sources has zero to do with your posting fake economic numbers and neither does having faulty math skills.

Nor is it an excuse for not having evidence to support your suggestion that the president is a pediphile.

Do it again and it will be your last post here.

By TimNew - Aug. 12, 2019, 8:06 a.m.
Like Reply

"Manufacturing has added an average of 8,000 jobs per month so far in 2019, after adding 22,000 jobs per month in 2018. The 1-month diffusion index edged down 0.6 point to 56.6 in July, demonstrating the degree of dispersion of job gains in the industry was similar to June. Within durable goods, motor vehicles and parts added 7,000 jobs."

By metmike - Aug. 12, 2019, 8:11 a.m.
Like Reply


Thank you for the authentic data.

By cliff-e - Aug. 12, 2019, 9:38 a.m.
Like Reply

U-6 vs. U-3...there's a big difference in what gets reported.

By TimNew - Aug. 12, 2019, 12:56 p.m.
Like Reply

I've often said the U3 unemployment # is just about useless, and that U6 gives a more comprehensive view of the employment situation, but U3, for  whatever reason, is what's generally reported.  Along with the U3, it too is at multi-decade lows..

It doesn't have a lot of bearing on a discussion in MFG job creation.

By metmike - Aug. 12, 2019, 1:25 p.m.
Like Reply

Good point cliff,

Funny how during the Obama years, U3 was the key metric for that side and the cons insisted that U6 was the real rate which we should be looking at.

Then, when we switched parties in the White House(the government did not change its reporting-its the exact same) U3 became ok for many cons and the libs, suddenly noticed U6.

Not you Tim, as you still are claiming that U3 is useless as you did when Obama was president. 

A  change in perception based on who's in office for many though. 

Imagine that........politics. 

Bottom line, which ever one you are using, it's the changes over periods greater than 1 month blips and trends that matter the most.