Economies Of Scale Vs. Scope of Government

Posted on by
Reply

One of the greatest mysteries to me is why we see no economies of scale the bigger cities get and the bigger governments get.  And I think that I am on the brink of resolving that mystery for myself finally.

For our example, we will take two municipalities of obviously different size: Johns Creek and Atlanta.  Both have the same state government, operate in the same environmental and economic environments and co-exist 15 miles or so apart.

And without evening providing the numbers that support the statement, we all know that it is much more expensive from a tax perspective to live in Atlanta than Johns Creek.

I have decided to provide the numbers after it was suggested that they were important.

Brief back of the envelope calculations shows that the City of Atlanta spends $1265 per resident while Johns Creek spends $637.  And on property taxes. the City of Atlanta has a millage rate 30% higher than Johns Creek.

As a more or less rational thinker, this has left me puzzled more often than not.  What is it that makes it more expensive per capita to provide services to the public, which seem to defy the concept of Economies of Scale that function flawlessly in other aspects of our life?

And then it hit me.  It’s NOT the economies of scale that are at question.  It’s the scope of government services provided.

At this point I am going to add another city to our conversation.  This one is fictional, but we all have a good understanding of how it is defined: Mayberry.

The city of Mayberry provided the most basic of services for the common good.  Court, jail, police, fire and education.

All the residents were potential beneficiaries of these services.

But when a city gets larger, like Johns Creek has, then more services are provided. Wants seem to morph into needs.   And these services may not benefit all citizens but a sub-section.     At first, it might be that a new service benefits 90% of the public. We tax all for the benefit of those 90%.  And 10% pay for services they never use.

Then the City grows larger.  Soon we add additional services, and then more additional services until the new services aret being used by 10% or less of the population and are being subsidized by the 90% that are not using them.

The larger the city the smaller the beneficiary group as a % of the whole needs to be.

Much to the chagrin of dog lovers, I’ll use the example of dog parks.  (and I love the name of the Chattapoochie Dog Park in Gwinnett so I am not a total grump).  Here’s a service provided by municipalities that only benefits dog owners.  More specifically, it only benefits that sub-segment of dog owners that want to take their dogs to a park to roam around.  If 1 in ten residents in Johns Creek have taken their pooch to the park more than 6 times in a year, I’d be shocked.

Were Johns Creek to get large enough, we’d likely have a different park for small dogs, and big dogs.  Even larger and we would have one for medium sized dogs.

We see the same effect with Arts Centers, Aquatic Centers, Nature Centers (insert the others you know are coming here).  We also see it with other services the City decides that they must provide such as bulk recycling.  The list becomes endless as long as there are funds to start the program.  And they never end. Get a few federal or state dollars to start and it’s a certainty to get started and be with you forever more.

Which brings us back to my original observation.  There are no economies of scale for bigger and bigger cites because the scope of the services these cities provide expand in such a way that there are fewer users as a % of the population, forcing the majority to subsidize them.  By the end the 99% are funding programs for the 1% that use them.

How does one reign in the “service creep” that cities seem to engage in the larger they get?

One answer would be to set a minimal level of actual users that a city expects to see from this service.  Fifty per cent would be a good starting point for discussion’s sake.

Another answer would be to cut the funds flowing into the cities that fund such projects of such a narrow scope.  To do so you will need to be ready to speak up to your local government and say “NO!”.

As a Libertarian, this is exactly why I am for  a smaller government.  Let’s do the things that we need to do for everyone’s benefit, and do them the best we can.

Then we could see economies of scale.  We could lower our taxes, and those with dogs, for instance, could fund their own private dog park with their own dollars.

Otherwise, where does the “Service Creep” end?

That’s my opinion.  I’d love to hear yours.

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

This Time, It Is Going To Be Very Different

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve today ended it’s meeting without raising the Fed Funds Rate.  As you can see by the chart below (Time-wise it reads from right to left), the Fed Fund Rate has been near zero for a long time.

So long, in fact that it has seen the peak of our most recent economic upswing (Much shallower than the last peak AND shorter in duration) and our return back to the shores of recession, all without a single rate hike.

Those that have followed my conversations in the past will recall that I firmly and unquestionably believe that the single greatest indicator to the health of the economy is Business Profits After Taxes, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  This number cannot be as easily manipulated as GDP.

It does not give the false pretense of improvement because of government spending. Government spending does not produce profit.

What the number does reflect is after all is said and done is what have businesses earned that they get to keep from all of these efforts.   This is where the real motivation to grow, hire and expand your business originates from.

I’ve taken the data from the BEA (which anyone has access to) and created a spreadsheet with both 3 and five year rolling averages of the AGR(Annualized Growth Rates) for business profits after taxes.  This data is so simple to comprehend that I would even bet that you can see without highlighting it the last three recessions that we have had.  You can also see clearly when we exited those recessions.

And, if you look at where we are today, you understand what is about to occur.  Which brings us back to the Federal Reserve.  If you look at the chart carefully you can see that each time we were in a recession( and we admitted it), the Fed cut rates, which has the effect of giving businesses a boost to profits.

This time, it is going to be very different.  The Fed has no room to cut rates.  We are near zero already.  Business profits year over year have plummeted, and the Federal Reserve continues to tell us things are getting better.  Read their latest comments here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/272962361/FOMC-July-Statement-Blueline

Do you think they are clued in?   I do not think so.  I think if they were, they would know that they are on the cusp of a major crisis.

There are a few more things I’d like to point out here.  The 7.5% line is the approximate level at which year over year profits need to rise in order to stimulate real economic growth.  Anything less and we contract, right-sizing the economy until we begin to grow again.   We have a tendency to always use a baseline of zero as the indicator that things are or are not improving.  This is not the baseline to use in most cases.

Three and Five year AGR for Business Profits After Taxes

Three and Five year AGR for Business Profits After Taxes

This data reflects the most recent data available (Four quarters ending 1st quarter 2015)  Business profits after taxes also represent all businesses across the US from mom and pop down the street to Apple and Amazon.

Were you to accept what I have written, and you agree that businesses do go in business to earn profits, and the goal is indeed higher profits year after year, then what needs to be done for a strong, healthy economy because rather clear.

1)  Create an environment for businesses where the regulatory and fiscal burdens are reduced-not increased- for all businesses.

2)  If new legislation is passed that reduces a company’s bottom line, do so knowing that it will indeed have a negative effect on both business expansion and job creation.  So make damn sure that the reason why you are doing it is worth it.

3) The longer business profits after taxes increase and stay above the 7.5% line, the stronger the recovery.  So it is in our best interest to try to promote that outcome rather than detract from it.  Too often governments see that improvement and decide that they can take some of those dollars with no ill effect.  They are wrong.

If you see the chart as I see it, then you will see what is coming.  Ask yourself what will accelerate profit growth for businesses over the next 1-3 years?  What is the catalyst?  And if the Fed cannot cut rates, how long will this next down turn last?

I encourage you to be prepared.  Yes the markets are near all time highs.  But do not be fooled.  Total dollars of profit by the Dow 30 companies are on track to drop more than 9% year over year.  Hard to spin that as a healthy and growing economy.  The smoke and mirrors are being supplied by-yep you guessed it- The Federal Reserve.  The low rates are fueling record share buybacks, increasing per share earnings and therefore share prices.  I believe that you will agree that this is not a positive chart.

Dow 30 Profits Analysis 20150717

The solution to what ails us is clear.  Government needs to reduce the burden they are generating for businesses, so that if the businesses can meet the market needs of customers, they have the potential for higher profits-not less.

Only then we will see the US economy have an opportunity to restore it’s economic engine to more than idle speed.

These are my opinions.  I would love to hear yours.  Please post or comment or email me any questions.

EJ

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

Johns Creek: Foolin’ Ourselves

Posted on by
8

The residents of Johns Creek, Georgia have lots of things going for it.  Excellent housing, many of the best schools in the state for kids, and income levels that surpass nearly every other community.

Those positive attributes, however, have led to a flow of tax dollars into the City’s Coffers that is now doing more harm than good.

Since 2006, the year the city formed, the City has amassed $54,348,545 at the end of the fiscal year 2014, according to the City’s Certified Audited Financial Report.  That represents an increase of almost $7,000,000 per year of revenue over expenses.  With a population of around 80,000, that works out to more than $670 per every man, woman and child.

That’s an astonishing amount of money to be held per capita, and it’s growing.  Last evening, the City Council, under the lead of Mayor Mike Bodker voted to maintain the City’s millage rate at it’s current level, despite the property valuations rising sharply over the last year.  More money will be flowing into the City’s coffers again in 2016 coming directly out of the pockets of the residents.  And while it may not seem like a big deal to many outside of Johns Creek(after all, they can afford it), it is creating problems that will soon become more and more apparent as time passes.

[read more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]Incredibly, the Reserve Growth has grown at an annualized rate of 27.35%.  Mayor Bodker and the rest of the City Council have been asked numerous times why are our reserves growing so rapidly?  What will this money be used for?  From listening to dialogue at the City Council’s work session, the perception is that the public just doesn’t understand.   I think we do. I think we also know that other cities, operating under the same general rules as Johns Creek, are not rolling up such large sums of money.

Of course, some of this money is used for day to day operations as a float for paying bills and salaries as funds come and go.  But if we did not have such a large reserve fund, there would be some other financial tool to deal with  cash flow, for instance.  There would be a cost to that technique, of course.  And there are the recommendations of how much to set aside, just in case.  But it seems to me that we have more than enough set aside for a city like Johns Creek that is collecting 10 % more than they are spending year in and year out.  In fact, we have a greater margin of error than a city that barely collects enough revenue to cover expenses.

So there is absolutely no reason that the reserve funds continue to grow at such an astonishing rate without a clear explanation.  And I firmly believe that this Reserve Fund’s size is doing much more harm than good.

The size of this Reserve Fund has not kept Mayor Bodker or the City Manager, Warren Hutmacher, from speculating that one of the wealthiest cities in Georgia has a sustainability issue (despite the rapid growth of the reserve fund).  A wish list of projects was created that totals more than $180 million dollars,which would indeed suggest there is a problem.  There would be if all of these wished for items were approved.  But they haven’t been.  And like a cloud hanging over the City, this wish list is negatively influencing the decisions of the City Council.

First, there is no sustainability issue if the City of Johns Creek sticks to what it is supposed to be doing, rather than dreaming of exceptional projects that have not been proven to be desired by the majority of residents.

Second, the Reserve Fund allows for the perception that we can afford lots of lower cost projects, regardless of the return on the investment(something cities apparently are not as concerned about as the private sector).  Consequently we see 100’s of thousands of dollars allocated for purposes that might not otherwise be approved if we had a lower reserve fund and managed our decisions much more wisely.

Many residents have attempted to point out the lopsided salary structure of the City’s Employees.  They have been met with dismissive attitudes(I am being polite) and promises that this will be looked into.

Residents have pointed out that we are overpaying for certain services, and that we are wasting funds on various projects that benefit only a handful of residents or that the residents already have access to via other means.

Residents have scrutinized the City’s financial results, offering observations and asking questions that go largely unanswered.

As the monies continue to roll into Johns Creek’s coffers, there is simply no pressure to address these concerns.  The residents and the business community are both left paying for this malinvestment.

In an effort to “move the needle” on the City’s revenue sources (too much of the load is on property owners and not enough on business), the concept of a Central Business District was launched.  Several hundred thousand dollars was voted on an approved to explore this “idea”. An outside firm, Urban Design Associates, was hired to bring the concept closer to reality.

The Central Business District has morphed from a :hypothesis” that was going to generate enough revenue to help offset the $180 million in projects on the wish list to being financially accretive.

DEFINITION of ‘Accretive’

The process of accretion, which is the growth or increase by gradual addition, in finance and general nomenclature. An acquisition is considered accretive if it adds to earnings per share.

Applying this word to our situation, if it costs us $10,000,000, and we generate $10,100,000, then it was accretive.  However, that is a very low bar for performance and a horrible return on investment.

This City Council needs to apply the brakes, and hard.  The hard earned money that they are collecting from residents at these levels, which are not being spent on services deemed needs by the residents, and is inducing the Council to approve projects that offer little return on investment, needs to be returned to its rightful owners.

That means cutting the tax rates for both businesses and residents.

One of the Council Members spoke of his concern for residents where even $30 a year makes a big difference.  He voted for a rollback.

I suggest he think about the $670 already collected from those very same residents.

Johns Creek has been a city too long now to keep finding excuses as to why we do not have the budget tools in place to have a firm and clear grip on our fiscal health.

Johns Creek pays the professionals too well to expect anything less than the best analysis from the beginning.  A 10 year financial forecast that would have landed you a D in your college finance course should not be acceptable to anyone, even as a “draft”.

The performance bar must be raised.  We have too much at stake to have sub-par performance from the very same people we are paying top dollars for in compensation.

Below is a chart I adapted from their ten year financial forecast.  I have included some crucial elements that needed to be included, for context.  Prior year data is from the Johns Creek CAFR report, 2015 data comes from the Mid Year Budget Report and years 2016-2025 are from the 10 year financial forecast.

Click on it and have a look.

Reserve Growth, Expense, Revenues, and Capital Expenses

Reserve Growth, Expense, Revenues, and Capital Expenses

These are my opinions.  I’d love to hear yours.
[/read]

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

The Argument About the Lack of Skilled Workers

Posted on by
Reply

Repeatedly, the argument that we have a lack of skilled workers for positions has been used to demand that we allow immigrants into the nation to fill the positions. Clink the link to see just a few of the recent stories on this topic.

https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=lack+of+skilled+workers+in+america&FORM=HDRSC6

We have also seen businesses, through the Chamber of Commerce pursue some sort of relief through the government and universities to help with the shortage of “skilled” workers.

Frankly, this is not exactly true.  What he have is a shortage of skilled workers at the salaries that are being offered.  There is a big difference between the two.

It’s amazing that so many who bemoan the lack of rising salaries for workers are the very same people that are attempting to short circuit how free markets work.  Or that if left to their own accord, the free markets would address the imbalance.

Instead, we keep altering the supply by opening the gates of immigrants, rather than halting that process, and telling businesses that if they need qualified candidates, then to either A) Train them in house or B) Raise your salaries.

Were we to see this argument for minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart, for instance, we’d all accept the proper answer to get more applicants:  Raise Wages and/or Iincrease benefits.

So why are we unwilling to have that very same approach applied at higher levels?

Chambers of Commerce have gotten a sympathetic ear from local, state and federal governments.  Governments, more than anything, like to solve problems.  Real or imagined, their responsibility or not, they want to solve it.

Here in Johns Creek, Georgia, I have heard this tale of lack of workers.  The city is contemplating the redevelopment of a large area of privately owned property into an area that will attract Millennials to live, work, and play.

In other words, they cannot afford to live here, the pay is not enough to attract them here, and since they are not here, there is no where to play.

The businesses that are making this claim can work to solve the problem on their own.  Raise their wages.  That is how it has worked in the past.  That is how the problem is resolved for the future.

Taxpayers should not be the ones footing the bill to train more employees for positions in an effort to hold down wages.  Nor should they be on the hook for providing affordable housing  or transportation to get to and from the jobs.

If the businesses had a shortage of any other resources, they would pay more to get the supply, importing it at a cost from where they can find it.  That is the cost of doing business.

Competition for employees is positive for everyone.  Companies have an  incentive to find, hire, and pay for the best they can afford.  Workers have the potential to advance where they work.

Until we get the government out of providing skilled workers, companies will try to take the easy path.  It’s your job to tell your governments at the local, state, and federal level that this is not the taxpayer’s responsibility.

We need to get back to a healthy economic foundation.  Getting government out of the equation at all levels is the first step in the right direction.

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

An Open Demand to the Congress of These United States

Posted on by
2

Whereas the United States Congress is negotiating and voting on the Trans-Pacific Partnership in secret,

And whereas the citizens of the United States will be subject to such laws if it passes,

And whereas the same citizens cannot offer their opinions on the passage of such unseen legislation,

The American Public opposes passage of this law and strongly urges all Representatives and Senators to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Furthermore, we demand that the text of the proposed bill be made public immediately.

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

Buy Back Mania- The Top Sixteen Dow Companies Buying Back Their Own Stock

Posted on by
Reply

Apples are apples as they say.  At least sometimes apples are apples. But all is not always as it appears.  Much has and is being made about price earnings ratios, stock buybacks, corporate leverage and more.

These metrics all have an impact on the value of a share of stock.  Anyone who who has followed what I have been saying over the last 9 years knows the value I have placed on the single most important number of a company’s performance-The Bottom Line.

While the bottom lines have been less than stellar for some time now for many of the Dow 30 companies, the Earnings Per Share numbers have been spectacular.  Why?  Stock Buybacks.

Just how many shares have companies been buying back?  Here is a table of buy backs over the last 5 years.  The numbers are staggering for a few of these because several of these companies are borrowing large sums of money to do so.  The question we need to ask is where the dollars are going to come from when these sums need to be paid back?  Are they going to be issuing shares?  Earnings(which are falling)? Or both?

Travelers -28%
Home Depot -23%
Pfizer -23%
IBM -22%
Visa -18%
American Express -16%
Exxon-Mobil -16%
Goldman Sachs -14%
MMM -13%
Intel -13%
United Health -13%
Nike -11%
Apple -11%
Disney -11%
McDonalds -11%
Cisco -10%

Travelers tops the list, on track to have purchased back a whopping 28% of its shares by the end of 2015.  Sixteen of the Dow 30 will have repurchased 10% or more of its shares by the end of the year.

The heavy share buybacks is one of the reasons that prices have continued rising.  Investors see the EPS increase(even if bottom line profits do not) and buy more shares.  The companies, seeing that investors are liking the EPS growth, buy back more shares and keep the game going.

How effective is this game?  Let’s see if you can pick the right answer to the following question:

For the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, how many of these years saw the DOW 30 companies actually earn more dollars than the previous year?

And for bonus points- Which year was the best?

If you answered All, you are far off the mark.  In fact, only one of those years will see the Dow 30 earn more dollars in total.

Which year was the best? That is going to be 2014.

The year 2015 is on track to post a 7.9% drop in total earnings.

How does one hide such abysmal performances?

That’s right!  Stock Buy Backs.

And the games continue.

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

The High Cost of Traffic: Dollar$ and Sense

Posted on by
Reply

th

We have all felt it and dealt with it.  Some of us deal with it every day of the work week, weekends included:  Traffic.

Traffic also has a cost that can be estimated in dollars, and hopefully that will lead to some common sense.

Wherever you reside, chances are you know when you need to leave by to avoid the brunt of traffic.  But sometimes, you haven’t a choice, and you are stuck with the slow crawl towards your destination.

In my case that destination is through one primary intersection both coming and going.  And sometimes it can take 15 minutes or more to travel the final three miles.  That is not the way coming home should ever feel.

Searching high and low on the internet, you will not find much of substance in dealing with traffic.  We know the familiar things that are often offered to resolve it.  Time(as in it will be years before we can do something), Technology( as in if we install cameras along the entire route and we upgrade all the traffic signals). and Mass Transit( because buses which serve people who generally do not own cars, and drivers keep on driving), I found one thing missing: cost analysis.

I did find two stories of interest to me.  One was a story detailing from the Texas Transportation Institute the cost of traffic delays.  The story dates back to 2011, which makes me think that despite the high toll it takes on us, we have more or less resigned ourselves to suffer with traffic.

Here are some of the findings from the CBS Moneywatch Story:

1) Commuters in large urban areas spend roughly 40% more on average or $1,166 per    year twiddling their thumbs in traffic. And remember, these are 2011 dollars.

2)  The cost of wasted time and fuel?  $16 per hour for cars and $106 per hour for commercial trucks.

That is quite a sum of money over the cost of the year.  And if those numbers are valid, then could I build an estimate of what just one intersection (State Bridge and Georgia 141 in Johns Creek, GA) costs drivers just during rush hours (the three peak hours in the morning and the evenings)?

The intersection of State Bridge and 141 is a major intersection.  It just might be the busiest intersection in the Metro Atlanta area that is not limited access and is controlled by a traffic light.  I have diligently searched the Georgia DOT Traffic Server for a busier one, but I have yet to find it. I encourage you to check it out and see what you can learn about your traffic as well.  You can find it here:

http://trafficserver.transmetric.com/gdot-prod/gdot_report.html

The data for most survey locations is only collected once a year, so be sure to look back at previous years to confirm that the data you are using seems reasonable.  And the data does not reflect intersections, so the method I chose to calculate the intersection volumes was calculated by taking the volumes from the mornings and evening rush hours and adding them together.  For 141 I took the two measurement locations North and South of the intersection, and determined the average of the two.  For State Bridge Road, I used the location East of 141 as the West location is not current.

Morning Rush Hour:

The volume North-South on 141 totals 10,436 vehicles between 7:00 a.m and 9:59 a.m.

The volume East-West on State Bridge totals 9,320 vehicles between 7:00 a.m and 9:59 a.m.

Evening Rush Hour:

The volume North-South on 141 totals 11,763 vehicles between 4:00 p.m and 6:59 p.m.

The volume East-West on State Bridge totals 9,320 vehicles between 4:00 p.m and 6:59 p.m.

The total going through the intersection then is approximately 19,756 in the morning period and 21,664 in the evening period for a total of 41,420 vehicles.

And if you were wondering just how many for the entire day?  It’s likely averaging over 101,000 vehicles per day.

Costs:

Below is a table which will give you an idea of just how much this traffic is costing us depending on just how much time you feel it is taking you extra to travel through the intersection.  A backup heading northbound on 141 at the Chattahoochee River could indeed take you more or less 15 minutes.

Note that even two minutes per day has a significant cost.

Cars per Day 41,420 41,420 41,420 41,420
Minutes Wasted 2 5 10 15
Minutes Wasted per Day 82840 207100 414200 621300
Hours Wasted per Day 1380.66667 3451.66667 6903.333333 10355
Cost per Hour $16 $16 $16 $16
Daily $22,091 $55,227 $110,453 $165,680
Weekly $110,453 $276,133 $552,267 $828,400
Annually $5,743,573 $14,358,933 $28,717,867 $43,076,800

These are rather large sums of money that we are wasting each workday.  Even if you disagree with the $16 amount, hopefully you are worthy of minimum wage:

Cars per Day 41,420 41,420 41,420 41,420
Minutes Wasted 2 5 10 15
Minutes Wasted per Day 82840 207100 414200 621300
Hours Wasted per Day 1380.66667 3451.66667 6903.333333 10355
Cost per Hour $7 $7 $7 $7
Daily $10,010 $25,025 $50,049 $75,074
Weekly $50,049 $125,123 $250,246 $375,369
Annually $2,602,557 $6,506,392 $13,012,783 $19,519,175

There may be some different ways to calculate this cost.  The State of Michigan has a Construction Congestion Analysis Spreadsheet to calculate the cost of delays for traffic due to construction. Perhaps it could be adopted for our purposes.

http://michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9625_54944-227053–,00.html

Greenlight

 

Common Sense:

As the costs are rather staggering when computed, it really only makes sense to begin tackling these problems today, and not waiting another 2, 3 or even 5 years.  These are real dollars coming out of our pockets today.  We have not even tacked on the emotional costs of getting to your child’s swim meet or ball game.  Some things do not have a price tag.

Governments, however, look at this slightly different.  If they have to pay for it what is the return on THEIR investment?

I believe that answer is simple.  Less congestion equates to higher property values, higher levels of commerce and a safer and happier community.

Higher property values and higher levels of commerce leads to higher tax revenues.

Recently, the City of Johns Creek announced that it had received an improved rating for the Johns Creek Fire Department, which will safe the citizens close to 20% in future insurance premiums.  They could have chosen to have a Fire Department that was rated slightly lower at a lower cost and saved some dollars.  They chose not to for many reasons.

This was a solid investment on behalf of the citizens of Johns Creek to this point.  And that is the sort of investment I want to see dealing with the traffic issues.  The return on investment is even higher than what we saw with the Fire Department.  And this is just one intersection.

As everyone here knows, we have several others as well.

You have a responsibility as well.  You need to realize that this is a worthwhile investment and contact your officials and encourage them to act now, not later.

The money you save will be your own. Let’s work to saving the green and getting the green.

These are my opinions.  I want to hear yours.

Leave me a note and I will be happy to respond.

[thumbs-rating-buttons]

 

 

 

May 2015 NFP Number Estimate

Posted on by
Reply

My estimate is 123k in NFP jobs for the month of May.

For the we are losing 1/10th of a percent on the rate of annual jobs growth at this time.  If that trend continued in May(and there is no reason to think not), this is where we should be.

Stay tuned.

Update:

The jobs number came in at  a whopping 280k for May 2015.  Frankly, we should already be seeing these job numbers fall sharply.  The place where the dollars come from that should fuel job growth-profits…well, they are just not there.

I do recognize that the jobs numbers reported today are not of the same substance as they were ten years ago.  The shift from full to part time jobs is real, but there is no adjustment to the NFP release.

March and April 2015 jobs were also revised higher, opposite of what one might expect with the negative GDP data for the first quarter of 2015, as well as nearly every other bit of economic data.

With the economy down, profits down, consumption down(should I go on?) does it make sense that hiring is accelerating?

I do not think so.

 

$15 Minimum Wage to Have Maximum Impact

Posted on by
Reply

In a race to the bottom, major cities are showing that they too can destroy economies, and that they can do it even faster than the Central Banks.

As these cities begin to lose their commercial base, what steps are they going to do to step in and halt the slide?  Will they ask their neighboring communities to level the playing field by raising pay rates?

Will they ask the state to forbid businesses from relocating?  Will they outlaw automation?

If these cities believe that they have had a hard time since the last recession, they have not seen anything yet.

The first thing to disappear will be jobs at marginal businesses, and there are thousands of marginal businesses in every city.

Those storefronts will go dark, dragging down Commercial Real estate in it’s wake.

More people will be applying for assistance as they have no jobs and no prospects.

New businesses will refuse to open new locations in the $15 corridors.

For many reasons this is a great opportunity.  if you believe in freedom, then you should choose NOT to shop in the $15 Zone.  Why?  Because the businesses are going to try, if they can to pass this increase on to you.  Yes you.

The bottom line is that the $15 Zones created are an effort by cities to tell you that you are not paying enough for the goods and services that you purchase within their limits.

It is doomed to failure.  And you cannot forced us to support it unless the wages are forced up across the nation entirely where we simply cannot afford it.  And that will be the next call for action, as these cities begin to die an agonizing death as business spirals down.