Old Workers Hit New Record High As Jobs For Key 25-54 Age Group Slide By 142K

Another month, another case where the primary age group of the US work force, those aged 25-54, gets shafted.

According to the BLS’ household survey, while overall July jobs rose, if modestly less than the 209K revealed by the establishment survey, there was no joy for those aged 25-54: historically the most important and highest earning age group (in case anyone is wondering where all that missing average hourly earnings growth is) within the US labor force. As the chart below shows, while all other age groups posted a jobs uptick, it was those 25-54 that saw a 142K jobs decline in the past month.

 

And while total jobs may have recovered their combined losses since the start of the Second Great Depression in December 2007, it is cold comfort for the 25-54 age group, which still has some 2.5 million job gains to go before it recovers all losses.

 

The biggest winner? Old workers, those aged 55 and over as can be seen in the chart below.

 

And the following chart too, which shows that at 32.5 million, America has never had more workers aged 55 and over.

 

But please don’t blame the old workers: they are merely doing whatever they can to survive in a day and age in which the Chairsatan(ette) has made the lifetime product of their labor, their savings, worthless thanks to ZIRP and soon, NIRP.

If that means no jobs for other age groups, then please direct your complaints to the Marriner Eccles building.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1uOKRU9 Tyler Durden

Banco Espirito Santo Plunges 20% As Goldman Cuts Stake

As we noted yesterday, Goldman Sachs (and its muppeted clients) bought Banco Espirito Santo bonds and stocks at around 50c. Having lost more than two-thirds of their money on that trade, this happened…

  • *BANCO ESPIRITO SANTO SAYS GOLDMAN SACHS CUTS STAKE TO BELOW 2%

BES stocks is down over 20% this morning to fresh record lows. So much for the short-selling ban – maybe time for a ‘selling’ ban.

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xKlpv0 Tyler Durden

Win or Lose Halbig, Obamacare’s Biggest Troubles are Still Ahead

To say that Obamacare enthusiasts are having a bad few weeks
would be a major understatement. First, a three-judge panel at the
DC Circuit Court ruled against them in Halbig vs.
Sebelius
, a lawsuit they
called
“stupid” and “criminal” for arguing that the subsidies
that Uncle Sam was handing out through 36 federal exchanges
violated the law. Then, videos surfaced showing that one of the
law’s key architect’s – MIT’s Jonathan Gruber – had gone around the
country two years ago basically making Halbig’s “stupid”
and “criminal” argument, only to change his tune after the lawsuit
was filed.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers, who set out to destroy, once and
for all, Halbig’s argument, ended up confirming it. Greg
Sargent of the Washington Post excavated Senate documents
that he said proved — proved — that subsidies through
federal exchanges were legitimate because they were contained in an
earlier version of the bill – only to be
Obamacare.Justiceexplicitly dropped
from the final law!

And yesterday our friends at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of
these subsidies before the full DC Circuit reverses the three-judge
panel and the lower courts are still split, given that other
Circuits have rejected Halbig’s argument.

But the odds, I note, in my latest column at The Week,
are that the politically squeamish Chief Justice Roberts won’t
accept the case. He’ll let the issue be resolved at the lower court
level instead of getting his hands dirty in a partisan
mudfight.

That might mean the end of Halbig, but not the end of
Obamacare’s political troubles. “The program’s biggest
vulnerabilities are still down the road,” I note. And that’s no
accident. The administration postponed implementation of the more
painful aspects of the program till after the president is safely
out of office — partly through the original law and partly by
altering the law through executive fiat. Hence:

a postponed tsunami of discontent awaits ObamaCare, just around
the time the president exits office, when union plans are hit with
new taxes; insurance companies may require a bailout; appropriation
battles get underway; providers confront massive cuts; hospitals
suffer losses; employers face mandates; and patients, once again,
revolt against sticker shock as they are forced to pay higher
penalties or buy policies they don’t want…

So, the Obamacare film will be at 11 every night for the
forseeable future.

Go
here
to read the whole thing.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1naLGg6
via IFTTT

Win or Lose Halbig, Obamacare's Biggest Troubles are Still Ahead

To say that Obamacare enthusiasts are having a bad few weeks
would be a major understatement. First, a three-judge panel at the
DC Circuit Court ruled against them in Halbig vs.
Sebelius
, a lawsuit they
called
“stupid” and “criminal” for arguing that the subsidies
that Uncle Sam was handing out through 36 federal exchanges
violated the law. Then, videos surfaced showing that one of the
law’s key architect’s – MIT’s Jonathan Gruber – had gone around the
country two years ago basically making Halbig’s “stupid”
and “criminal” argument, only to change his tune after the lawsuit
was filed.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers, who set out to destroy, once and
for all, Halbig’s argument, ended up confirming it. Greg
Sargent of the Washington Post excavated Senate documents
that he said proved — proved — that subsidies through
federal exchanges were legitimate because they were contained in an
earlier version of the bill – only to be
Obamacare.Justiceexplicitly dropped
from the final law!

And yesterday our friends at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of
these subsidies before the full DC Circuit reverses the three-judge
panel and the lower courts are still split, given that other
Circuits have rejected Halbig’s argument.

But the odds, I note, in my latest column at The Week,
are that the politically squeamish Chief Justice Roberts won’t
accept the case. He’ll let the issue be resolved at the lower court
level instead of getting his hands dirty in a partisan
mudfight.

That might mean the end of Halbig, but not the end of
Obamacare’s political troubles. “The program’s biggest
vulnerabilities are still down the road,” I note. And that’s no
accident. The administration postponed implementation of the more
painful aspects of the program till after the president is safely
out of office — partly through the original law and partly by
altering the law through executive fiat. Hence:

a postponed tsunami of discontent awaits ObamaCare, just around
the time the president exits office, when union plans are hit with
new taxes; insurance companies may require a bailout; appropriation
battles get underway; providers confront massive cuts; hospitals
suffer losses; employers face mandates; and patients, once again,
revolt against sticker shock as they are forced to pay higher
penalties or buy policies they don’t want…

So, the Obamacare film will be at 11 every night for the
forseeable future.

Go
here
to read the whole thing.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1naLGg6
via IFTTT

A.M. Links: Gaza Cease-Fire Collapses, Republicans Promise Border Bill, Ebola Patient Evacuated to U.S.

  • An American Ebola
    patient
    will be evacuated from West Africa and brought back to
    the U.S. for treatment. The death toll from the current outbreak
    now stands above 700, making it the largest Ebola outbreak on
    record.
  • The U.S. unemployment rate has
    increased
    to 6.2 percent.
  • Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has
    no plans to retire
    in the near future. “All I can say, I am
    still here and likely to remain for a while,” the 81-year-old
    justice declared.
  • “Syfy says its sequel to the horror spoof ‘Sharknado’ snapped
    up
    3.9 million viewers
    Wednesday night. The film, officially
    titled ‘Sharknado 2: The Second One,’ nearly tripled the 1.37
    million viewers who saw last summer’s premiere of the original
    ‘Sharknado’ film.”

Follow us on Facebook
and Twitter,
and don’t forget to
sign
up
 for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1lj2phJ
via IFTTT

Kurt Loder Reviews Guardians of the Galaxy and Get on Up

Guardians of the
Galaxy
 is what happens when you hire a graduate of the
merry Troma schlock factory, hand him $170-million, and set him
loose on a lower level of the Marvel Comics empire—a place where
X-Men and Avengers would never think to tread. The result is a
fresh kind of blockbuster, a picture with wit and charm and a
wonderful wisecracking sense of humor. All the familiar comic-book
elements are in place: the fantastical planets (Morag and Xandar
and Dark Aster—home of the fearsome Kree!) and exotic MacGuffins
(there’s a mysterious Orb, and an Infinity Stone of a sort that
will be familiar to Marvel adepts). But while director James
Gunn—the Troma guy—clearly loves this stuff, he doesn’t take it too
seriously. He knows that only fan folk will likely be able to keep
track of it all, so he just ladles it on and plows right through
it. What a relief, writes Kurt Loder, who also reviews Get on
Up
, a problematic tribute to the great James Brown.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1lj2mCx
via IFTTT

Consumer Spending Rose By Most In 3 Months Driven By Higher Energy Costs

For the third month in a row, personal spending missed Bloomberg’s median expectation. However, as incomes rose 0.4% in June so spending also rose 0.4% – its best MoM rise in 3 months. The biggest MoM rise was in energy goods and services (+1.67% MoM – the biggest rise this year) – hardly the things sustainable recoveries are built on.

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1tCgS06 Tyler Durden

July Payrolls: 209K, Below Estimate; Unemployment Rate Rises To 6.2%; Wage Growth Below Estimate

If today’s market desperately needed some bad news, it got it moments ago when the July payrolls printed at 209K, below the 230K expected, and far below the June upward revised 298K (was 288K). But is the momentum slowing enough to force the Fed to push QE back? The unemployment rate rose modestly from 6.1% to 6.2%, beating expectations of an unchanged print driven by a decline in the people out of the labor force from 92.1 million to 92.0 million while the labor force participation rate rose by a tiny 0.1% to 62.9%

The labor force charts: the people “out of it” declined by 119K to 92,001, while the LFP rate rose modestly from 62.8% to 62.9%. Fewer people retiring?

 

And perhaps the most imporant chart: average hourly earnings, rose just 2.0%, following a downwar revision to June’s 2.0% to 1.9%, below the 2.2% expected. So much for those soaring labor costs.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1naHugu Tyler Durden

Your 30-Second Payrolls Preview

While consensus is 230k, the whisper number for non-farm payrolls has ticked up to 270k from London’s earlier 260k according to Bloomberg’s Richard Breslow.

Here’s how the numbers may play out…

245k and equities cut losses and everyone heads to Fire Island on an early train

 

200k and USD hit, equities fly and everyone heads to Quogue on an earlier flight

 

300k and bonds get smoked, USD flies, EM vomits, equities utterly confused and floor clerks arrive disheveled and sweaty to a cold dinner in Bensonhurst

Goldilocks or Anti-Goldilocks?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/XofTmY Tyler Durden

Philly Fed’s Plosser Explains Why He Dissented With The FOMC

In an unscheduled release moments ago the Fed’s Plosser just explained why he was the sole dissenter with the FOMC’s announcement. Here is the punchline: “I cast a dissenting vote because I opposed retaining the statement language that reads “…it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends.” I viewed such language as an inappropriate characterization of the future path of policy and so may limit the Committee’s flexibility going forward.”… “In addition, the economy today is very close to achieving the central tendency outcomes for 2015 reported in the December 2013 Summary of Economic Projections. Specifically, the central tendency projection for unemployment at the end of 2015 was 5.8 to 6.1 percent, and that for inflation was between 1.5 and 2.0 percent. From this perspective, we are nearly 18 months ahead of where the Committee thought we would be just seven months ago.

He concludes: “the Committee’s statement does not appear to reflect what was once thought to be appropriate policy based on the behavior of unemployment and inflation.”

Poor Plosser still doesn’t get that it was never about the economy but pushing the S&P to the highest possible level before letting it all go.

From the Philly Fed:

Philadelphia Fed President Plosser Gives Statement on Dissenting Vote at the Federal Open Market Committee meeting of July 29–30, 2014

The economy has improved significantly this year, and inflation and unemployment have moved much closer to the FOMC’s longer-term goals. However, neither the pace of the reduction in asset purchases nor its end date has been modified, nor has the time-dependent language associated with the projected liftoff of the federal funds rate been adjusted. Thus, I cast a dissenting vote because I opposed retaining the statement language that reads “…it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends.” I viewed such language as an inappropriate characterization of the future path of policy and so may limit the Committee’s flexibility going forward.

In December 2013, the FOMC began to taper its asset purchase program, indicating that it was not on a preset course, but that the pace depended on the performance of the economy. The Committee also indicated it was likely that it would be appropriate to maintain the current range of the federal funds rate well past the time that the unemployment rate declines below 6.5 percent. At the time this decision was made, the unemployment rate was 7.0 percent, and year-over-year PCE inflation was 1.0 percent. With the recovery appearing somewhat unsteady and with the possibility of inflation falling further, caution and patience seemed prudent.

My own assessment at that time was that the economy would gradually recover. I projected that by the fourth quarter of 2014 the unemployment rate would decline to 6.2 percent, and year-over-year PCE inflation would rise to 1.8 percent. Consistent with that view of gradual economic recovery, I believed that an appropriate monetary policy would require the funds rate to rise to 1.25 percent by year-end 2014. Moreover, I anticipated continued progress toward economic health in 2015, with the unemployment rate reaching 5.8 percent and inflation running at 2.0 percent. Consistent with these outcomes, my associated funds rate was in the neighborhood of 3.25 percent at the end of 2015.

My views on the appropriate funds rate settings were — and continue to be — informed by Taylor-type monetary policy rules that depict the past behavior of monetary policy, which I find useful for benchmarking my policy prescriptions. With the economy having already reached my year-end 2014 forecast for inflation and unemployment, and appearing to be well on its way toward achieving my 2015 forecasts approximately a year ahead of schedule, the funds rate setting remains well behind what I consider to be appropriate given our goals.

In addition, the economy today is very close to achieving the central tendency outcomes for 2015 reported in the December 2013 Summary of Economic Projections. Specifically, the central tendency projection for unemployment at the end of 2015 was 5.8 to 6.1 percent, and that for inflation was between 1.5 and 2.0 percent. From this perspective, we are nearly 18 months ahead of where the Committee thought we would be just seven months ago. Consistent with these projections for 2015, 14 of 17 participants indicated that the federal funds rate should be above zero, with a median value of 75 basis points. Yet the Committee’s statement does not appear to reflect what was once thought to be appropriate policy based on the behavior of unemployment and inflation.

Thus, given the clear progress we have made toward achieving our long-term goals over the past year, and the progress and momentum that appears to be building in the economy and in the broader labor market, I no longer believe that the forward guidance language in the statement is appropriate or warranted.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/XofSPN Tyler Durden