http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
***************
"There are two types of people in the business community: those who produce results and those who give you reasons why they didn't." (Peter Drucker)
***************
So, Al Gore (the "Chicken Little" of the environmental movement) gets a Nobel for yelling "The Sky Is Falling!"
The article I've attached from the WSJ is signed by 16 scientists who don't think so. One of them (Dr. Ivar Giaever) - a Nobel Prize Winning physicist - resigned from the American Physical Society (APC) because he could not live with the APS policy statement, which reads, in part: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."
As the WSJ Editors point out, one of the most inconvenient facts supporting Dr. Giaever's position is that there has been NO global warming for over 10 years now.
What I am particularly happy to see is the Journal Editor's statement that: "The lack of warming for more than a decade ... suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."
Important to me, mainly because I've been asking myself this question, didn't I learn in elementary school science that CO2 is what we all "exhale" in high concentrations. The WSJ refers to CO2 as a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. For plants, the more CO2 the better.
Economically, a recent study by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now.
So Al, wherever you are (maybe, this week, at Davos), know that the forces of reason have not been stamped out. The sky will not be falling anytime soon.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Krugman On the Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/krugman-is-our-economy-healing.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
***************
"Some of my best thinking has been done by others!" (John C. Maxwell)
***************
I've been waiting for Krugman to weigh in on some of the positive numbers that are coming out on the economy. I'm guessing he's picked now to talk about this because the President's "State of the Union" message is tonight.
Krugman characterizes the state of the economy as "terrible." Three years after President Obama's inauguration and two and a half years since the official end to the recession, unemployment is "painfully" high.
(Most recently, the Texas unemployment rate broke below 8% to, roughly, 7.8%. Anything down is progress and I'm happy to see it.)
Krugman goes on to say that the two great problems at the root of the slump - the housing bust and excessive private debt - are finally easing.
The housing bubble (2000 thru 2006) began deflating almost 6 years ago and prices are back to 2003 levels. So, why don't people buy? Answer: because the current depressed state of the economy leaves many people who would normally be buying homes unable to afford them or too worried about job prospects to take the risk.
Krugman suggests the implication that there may be a "virtuous cycle" in store: an improving economy leads to a surge in home purchases, which leads to more construction, which strengthens the economy further and so on. And, there's some support for that: home sales are up, unemployment claims are down, and builders' confidence is rising. Private debt has declined in dollar terms, and declined substantially as a percentage of GDP since the end of 2008.
Krugman refers to a recent report from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) that tracks progress on"deleveraging" (the process of bringing down excessive debt levels). It documents substantial progress in the United States which it contrasts with failure to make progress in Europe. And, as Krugman carefully points out, European policy makers have been worried about the wrong things; in particular, the European Central Bank has been worrying about inflation - even raising interest rates in 2011, only to reverse course later in the year - rather than worrying about how to sustain an economic recovery.
Back to the U.S. situation: Krugman's guarded optimism is just that: "We have already suffered enormous, unnecessary damage because of an inadequate response to the slump. We have failed to provide significant mortgage relief..." when we could have. Both Krugman and Warren Buffet pointed out at the very beginning of the worldwide economic crisis that not enough money was being thrown at the problem here in the U.S.
Any optimism is better than no optimism at all. Thank you Paul Krugman.
***************
"Some of my best thinking has been done by others!" (John C. Maxwell)
***************
I've been waiting for Krugman to weigh in on some of the positive numbers that are coming out on the economy. I'm guessing he's picked now to talk about this because the President's "State of the Union" message is tonight.
Krugman characterizes the state of the economy as "terrible." Three years after President Obama's inauguration and two and a half years since the official end to the recession, unemployment is "painfully" high.
(Most recently, the Texas unemployment rate broke below 8% to, roughly, 7.8%. Anything down is progress and I'm happy to see it.)
Krugman goes on to say that the two great problems at the root of the slump - the housing bust and excessive private debt - are finally easing.
The housing bubble (2000 thru 2006) began deflating almost 6 years ago and prices are back to 2003 levels. So, why don't people buy? Answer: because the current depressed state of the economy leaves many people who would normally be buying homes unable to afford them or too worried about job prospects to take the risk.
Krugman suggests the implication that there may be a "virtuous cycle" in store: an improving economy leads to a surge in home purchases, which leads to more construction, which strengthens the economy further and so on. And, there's some support for that: home sales are up, unemployment claims are down, and builders' confidence is rising. Private debt has declined in dollar terms, and declined substantially as a percentage of GDP since the end of 2008.
Krugman refers to a recent report from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) that tracks progress on"deleveraging" (the process of bringing down excessive debt levels). It documents substantial progress in the United States which it contrasts with failure to make progress in Europe. And, as Krugman carefully points out, European policy makers have been worried about the wrong things; in particular, the European Central Bank has been worrying about inflation - even raising interest rates in 2011, only to reverse course later in the year - rather than worrying about how to sustain an economic recovery.
Back to the U.S. situation: Krugman's guarded optimism is just that: "We have already suffered enormous, unnecessary damage because of an inadequate response to the slump. We have failed to provide significant mortgage relief..." when we could have. Both Krugman and Warren Buffet pointed out at the very beginning of the worldwide economic crisis that not enough money was being thrown at the problem here in the U.S.
Any optimism is better than no optimism at all. Thank you Paul Krugman.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Global Warming: No
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/
***************
"To doubt everything or believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." (Jules Henri Poincare)
***************
What is Al Gore going to do? Should he give his Nobel back? I know, he'll go to Davos this month and talk about "Sustainable Capitalism."
I don't think Al has a comeback for an extensively peer reviewed study published in December indicating that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us. The research was done by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the ACRIM lab which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
According to Larry Bell, author of the article attached, the study takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using "general circulation climate models" (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.
These cycles have been clearly detected in all global surface temperature records of both hemispheres since 1850. A 60-year modulation cycle also corresponds with warming/cooling induced in the ocean surface.
And finally, three major available global surface temperature record sources report a steady-to-cooling trend since 2001.
Scafetta predicts that the global climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040 because the current 60-year cycle entered into its current cooling phase around 2000-2003.
I don't think Al Gore has anything in his arsenal of assumptions and rhetoric to refute this. So, I'll be relieved to tell my daughter that her Escalade is not contributing to the "anthropogenically-induced" global warming because the "globe" is, in fact, cooling.
***************
"To doubt everything or believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." (Jules Henri Poincare)
***************
What is Al Gore going to do? Should he give his Nobel back? I know, he'll go to Davos this month and talk about "Sustainable Capitalism."
I don't think Al has a comeback for an extensively peer reviewed study published in December indicating that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us. The research was done by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the ACRIM lab which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
According to Larry Bell, author of the article attached, the study takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using "general circulation climate models" (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.
These cycles have been clearly detected in all global surface temperature records of both hemispheres since 1850. A 60-year modulation cycle also corresponds with warming/cooling induced in the ocean surface.
And finally, three major available global surface temperature record sources report a steady-to-cooling trend since 2001.
Scafetta predicts that the global climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040 because the current 60-year cycle entered into its current cooling phase around 2000-2003.
I don't think Al Gore has anything in his arsenal of assumptions and rhetoric to refute this. So, I'll be relieved to tell my daughter that her Escalade is not contributing to the "anthropogenically-induced" global warming because the "globe" is, in fact, cooling.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Shale Game
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0108cw.html
***************
"You have to think anyway, so why not think big?" (Donald Trump)
***************
There seems to be some hesitation on the part of folks in New York to participate in the massive "shale boom" going on in the U.S. In the last three years, more than 3,000 gas wells have been drilled in western Pennsylvania's share of the Marcellus shale formation. This, of course, is right next door to New York.
I thought a quote from Donald Trump would be appropriate here since New York is determined to think "small."
According to Clark Welton in his article which I've attached, with more and more producers in the business, the price of natural gas has dropped steadily and the U.S. has become the world's leading producer of natural gas. With a $3 billion budget gap for fiscal year 2013, one would think New York might want to jump into this economic prosperity.
But, no, the environmentalists have pressured governor Cuomo into a "non-commitment." This flies in the face of multiple economic studies that point to billions of dollars in new business activity and tens of thousands of jobs. The Marcellus and Utica formations represent an "extraordinary opportunity" for New York. OK, let me repeat, JOBS.
Last I checked, Robert Redford has an estate in Malibu. He doesn't like the environmental impact of drilling. Nice. Is he going to hire the people in New York who are unemployed?
Setting aside the politics, anybody who's seen "Gasland," the HBO documentary on hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania comes away convinced that there are problems. So, New York gets the chance to tell the oil companies what they have to do to drill safely in New York without polluting. The Sate Department studied the Keystone XL pipeline proposal for 3 years and negotiated 59 changes for safety and environmental reasons. All were accepted. New York should do the same but do it in "weeks" instead of years. It's not rocket science.
Wait, there's more. France's Total SA will invest $2.3 billion in Chesapeake Energy Corp. assets to explore the Utica shale formations in Ohio. China Petrochemical Corp. will spend $2.5 billion in a joint venture with Devon Energy to explore shale oil and gas projects in Alabama, Mississippi, and Colorado. These are global energy dollars coming back to the U.S. (Foreign Direct Investment!).
Chesapeake estimates its deal alone could create 25,000 high-paying jobs within the next few years. The drilling boom has created a growing market for businesses that service oil drillers, such as steel-pipe producers.
According to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, "...sooner or later Albany's revenue needs will "trump" (no pun intended) its anticarbon pieties." The WSJ editors go on to say, "If President Obama wants to help his re-election chances, he'll stop wasting tax dollars on losers like Solyndra and "green jobs" and start talking about the brown jobs that are already multiplying in the private economy."
As Welton points out in the article attached, MIT issued a report on fracking that found "the environmental impacts of shale development challenging but manageable..." Gas can replace oil fired and coal fired power plants. It burns cleaner. What's the question?
***************
Closer to home, the folks at California-based Clear Capital have projected that home prices in Dallas will rise by 5.8% in 2012. According to them,the DFW area will be among the Top 10 home price gainers this year. About half of the 50 major U.S. cities in the Clear Capital forecast are expected to have price gains this year.
Clear Capital estimates that, in the fourth quarter of 2011, more than 28% of the homes for sale in North Texas were previously foreclosed properties. But, these properties have to be dealt with before the overall housing market can get healthy again.
***************
"You have to think anyway, so why not think big?" (Donald Trump)
***************
There seems to be some hesitation on the part of folks in New York to participate in the massive "shale boom" going on in the U.S. In the last three years, more than 3,000 gas wells have been drilled in western Pennsylvania's share of the Marcellus shale formation. This, of course, is right next door to New York.
I thought a quote from Donald Trump would be appropriate here since New York is determined to think "small."
According to Clark Welton in his article which I've attached, with more and more producers in the business, the price of natural gas has dropped steadily and the U.S. has become the world's leading producer of natural gas. With a $3 billion budget gap for fiscal year 2013, one would think New York might want to jump into this economic prosperity.
But, no, the environmentalists have pressured governor Cuomo into a "non-commitment." This flies in the face of multiple economic studies that point to billions of dollars in new business activity and tens of thousands of jobs. The Marcellus and Utica formations represent an "extraordinary opportunity" for New York. OK, let me repeat, JOBS.
Last I checked, Robert Redford has an estate in Malibu. He doesn't like the environmental impact of drilling. Nice. Is he going to hire the people in New York who are unemployed?
Setting aside the politics, anybody who's seen "Gasland," the HBO documentary on hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania comes away convinced that there are problems. So, New York gets the chance to tell the oil companies what they have to do to drill safely in New York without polluting. The Sate Department studied the Keystone XL pipeline proposal for 3 years and negotiated 59 changes for safety and environmental reasons. All were accepted. New York should do the same but do it in "weeks" instead of years. It's not rocket science.
Wait, there's more. France's Total SA will invest $2.3 billion in Chesapeake Energy Corp. assets to explore the Utica shale formations in Ohio. China Petrochemical Corp. will spend $2.5 billion in a joint venture with Devon Energy to explore shale oil and gas projects in Alabama, Mississippi, and Colorado. These are global energy dollars coming back to the U.S. (Foreign Direct Investment!).
Chesapeake estimates its deal alone could create 25,000 high-paying jobs within the next few years. The drilling boom has created a growing market for businesses that service oil drillers, such as steel-pipe producers.
According to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, "...sooner or later Albany's revenue needs will "trump" (no pun intended) its anticarbon pieties." The WSJ editors go on to say, "If President Obama wants to help his re-election chances, he'll stop wasting tax dollars on losers like Solyndra and "green jobs" and start talking about the brown jobs that are already multiplying in the private economy."
As Welton points out in the article attached, MIT issued a report on fracking that found "the environmental impacts of shale development challenging but manageable..." Gas can replace oil fired and coal fired power plants. It burns cleaner. What's the question?
***************
Closer to home, the folks at California-based Clear Capital have projected that home prices in Dallas will rise by 5.8% in 2012. According to them,the DFW area will be among the Top 10 home price gainers this year. About half of the 50 major U.S. cities in the Clear Capital forecast are expected to have price gains this year.
Clear Capital estimates that, in the fourth quarter of 2011, more than 28% of the homes for sale in North Texas were previously foreclosed properties. But, these properties have to be dealt with before the overall housing market can get healthy again.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Good News About Jobs
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/business/economy/us-adds-200000-jobs-unemployment-rate-at-8-5.html?emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?emc=eta1
***************
"Strategic thinking is the bridge that links where you are to where you want to be." (John C. Maxwell)
***************
One of my students once told me that she didn't like reading my blog because the economic news, or job news, was so negative!
So, here's some good news: today's NY Times reports that the U.S. added 200,000 new jobs last month! That's Labor Department data which pretty much everybody respects.
The Labor Department also reported that the unemployment rate fell to 8.5% in December, from a revised 8.7% in November.
The employment report built on some other positive economic news: consumer confidence rose, manufacturing (and manufacturing jobs) is coming back up, small business is ramping up and for the sixth consecutive month the economy has added at least 100,000 jobs. And, how about auto news? U.S. auto sales were up 1 million units in 2011 (to 12.8 million) and are projected to go up another 1 million units in 2012. Any positive boost in consumer confidence pushes auto sales, plus, the average age of a car in the U.S. is now "11 years" (an all time record). Trade in values are at an all time high because there is a shortage of used cars so the economics of that industry begins to look real positive.
Weighing against that positive news would be issues like Congress potentially declining to continue extensions of the payroll tax break and unemployment benefits, loans from banks are still hard to come by, home values continue to drop and a potentially negative euro zone situation.
Diane Swonk (Mesirow Financial) points out that the positive news is not just small business creating jobs but also "new business" job creation and that's critical in the equation for this economy. Swonk went on to say that Labor Department numbers tend to underestimate growth in small business jobs and the self-employed, both of which can be indicators of a turnaround. Good!
So, how do we keep all this going? Well, it's probably not the right time for cutting back on spending ("Keynes Was Right" - Krugman - attached). "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury." That's Keynes in 1937 as FDR was about to prove him right by doing the wrong thing: trying to balance the budget too soon, throwing the U.S. economy into a worse recession. Quoting Krugman: "Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is under way."
So, the same thing happened again in 2010 and early 2011 when (quoting Krugman again), "...politicians and policy makers in much of the western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And, by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again."
Krugman goes on to point out that the Obama stimulus package was way too small but the fact that it failed proves to the opposition that "government stimulus" doesn't work. In defense of Krugman, both he and Warren Buffet said at the time that the stimulus was way too small.
So, the real test of Keynesian economics, "..hasn't come from the half-hearted efforts of the U.S. federal government to boost the economy, which were largely offset by cuts at the state and local levels."
What I did not know was that in March 2011, the Republican staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee released a report titled "Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy." It ridiculed concerns that cutting spending in a slump would worsen the slump, arguing that spending cuts would improve consumer and business confidence, and that this might well lead to faster, not slower, growth. Nobody agrees.
The bottom line, as Krugman points out, is that 2011 was a year in which the political elite obsessed over short-term deficits that aren't actually a problem!
The good news, as Krugman points out, is that President Obama has finally gone back to fighting premature austerity and, again according to Krugman, he seems to be winning the political battle.
Here's to a better 2012!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?emc=eta1
***************
"Strategic thinking is the bridge that links where you are to where you want to be." (John C. Maxwell)
***************
One of my students once told me that she didn't like reading my blog because the economic news, or job news, was so negative!
So, here's some good news: today's NY Times reports that the U.S. added 200,000 new jobs last month! That's Labor Department data which pretty much everybody respects.
The Labor Department also reported that the unemployment rate fell to 8.5% in December, from a revised 8.7% in November.
The employment report built on some other positive economic news: consumer confidence rose, manufacturing (and manufacturing jobs) is coming back up, small business is ramping up and for the sixth consecutive month the economy has added at least 100,000 jobs. And, how about auto news? U.S. auto sales were up 1 million units in 2011 (to 12.8 million) and are projected to go up another 1 million units in 2012. Any positive boost in consumer confidence pushes auto sales, plus, the average age of a car in the U.S. is now "11 years" (an all time record). Trade in values are at an all time high because there is a shortage of used cars so the economics of that industry begins to look real positive.
Weighing against that positive news would be issues like Congress potentially declining to continue extensions of the payroll tax break and unemployment benefits, loans from banks are still hard to come by, home values continue to drop and a potentially negative euro zone situation.
Diane Swonk (Mesirow Financial) points out that the positive news is not just small business creating jobs but also "new business" job creation and that's critical in the equation for this economy. Swonk went on to say that Labor Department numbers tend to underestimate growth in small business jobs and the self-employed, both of which can be indicators of a turnaround. Good!
So, how do we keep all this going? Well, it's probably not the right time for cutting back on spending ("Keynes Was Right" - Krugman - attached). "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury." That's Keynes in 1937 as FDR was about to prove him right by doing the wrong thing: trying to balance the budget too soon, throwing the U.S. economy into a worse recession. Quoting Krugman: "Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is under way."
So, the same thing happened again in 2010 and early 2011 when (quoting Krugman again), "...politicians and policy makers in much of the western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And, by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again."
Krugman goes on to point out that the Obama stimulus package was way too small but the fact that it failed proves to the opposition that "government stimulus" doesn't work. In defense of Krugman, both he and Warren Buffet said at the time that the stimulus was way too small.
So, the real test of Keynesian economics, "..hasn't come from the half-hearted efforts of the U.S. federal government to boost the economy, which were largely offset by cuts at the state and local levels."
What I did not know was that in March 2011, the Republican staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee released a report titled "Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy." It ridiculed concerns that cutting spending in a slump would worsen the slump, arguing that spending cuts would improve consumer and business confidence, and that this might well lead to faster, not slower, growth. Nobody agrees.
The bottom line, as Krugman points out, is that 2011 was a year in which the political elite obsessed over short-term deficits that aren't actually a problem!
The good news, as Krugman points out, is that President Obama has finally gone back to fighting premature austerity and, again according to Krugman, he seems to be winning the political battle.
Here's to a better 2012!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
College Majors, Unemployment & Earnings
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/want-a-job-go-to-college-and-dont-major-in-architecture/?ref=business
***************
"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem." (John Galsworthy)
***************
In today's "Economix" (NY Times Blog), Cathrine Rampel shares her perspective on the new report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (click on the PDF in her post).
The report gives an excellent perspective on unemployment rates and pay by major. While unemployment for new graduates is around 8.9%, the rate for those with only a high school degree is 22.9%. And, while we all know that Sarbanes (or the "Accountants and Lawyers Relief Act") has provided lifetime employment for people with BA, MS (Accounting) and CPA certifications, the actual numbers are striking: a graduate degree holder in Accounting can expect a 3.8% unemployment rate for his/her profession. Just for the sake of perspective, North Dakota's unemployment rate is at, roughly, 3.2% because of the "Shale Oil Boom" and that 3.2% is really those who are trying really hard not to work!
Georgetown had to use age breaks for the study data so "recent college graduate" means 22 to 26 years old, "experienced college graduate" 30 to 54, and "graduate degree holder" also 30 to 54.
Unemployment was highest among Architects (13.9%).
And, it's pretty obvious that people employed in education, psychology and social work don't make much money even though they have very low unemployment rates. The supply/demand equation doesn't always work.
The data for Engineering is what I expected but I was disappointed that Petroleum Engineering wasn't broken out. My guess is that in a study as large as Georgetown's, that wasn't possible or relevant statistically. Petroleum Engineering is a major where the supply/demand equation does work. While I don't know the current numbers, I have seen starting salaries as high as $125,000 in that major. But, that major is very cyclical. With the average age in the oil business trending around 58, they can't get enough young engineers. In ten years, that could all change. It has in the past.
Overall, I'm not sure what a recent college graduate with a Liberal Arts degree is doing (9.2% unemployment rate). My strong suggestion would be (and has been) graduate school: suddenly, the 9.2% drops to 3.8%.
***************
"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem." (John Galsworthy)
***************
In today's "Economix" (NY Times Blog), Cathrine Rampel shares her perspective on the new report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (click on the PDF in her post).
The report gives an excellent perspective on unemployment rates and pay by major. While unemployment for new graduates is around 8.9%, the rate for those with only a high school degree is 22.9%. And, while we all know that Sarbanes (or the "Accountants and Lawyers Relief Act") has provided lifetime employment for people with BA, MS (Accounting) and CPA certifications, the actual numbers are striking: a graduate degree holder in Accounting can expect a 3.8% unemployment rate for his/her profession. Just for the sake of perspective, North Dakota's unemployment rate is at, roughly, 3.2% because of the "Shale Oil Boom" and that 3.2% is really those who are trying really hard not to work!
Georgetown had to use age breaks for the study data so "recent college graduate" means 22 to 26 years old, "experienced college graduate" 30 to 54, and "graduate degree holder" also 30 to 54.
Unemployment was highest among Architects (13.9%).
And, it's pretty obvious that people employed in education, psychology and social work don't make much money even though they have very low unemployment rates. The supply/demand equation doesn't always work.
The data for Engineering is what I expected but I was disappointed that Petroleum Engineering wasn't broken out. My guess is that in a study as large as Georgetown's, that wasn't possible or relevant statistically. Petroleum Engineering is a major where the supply/demand equation does work. While I don't know the current numbers, I have seen starting salaries as high as $125,000 in that major. But, that major is very cyclical. With the average age in the oil business trending around 58, they can't get enough young engineers. In ten years, that could all change. It has in the past.
Overall, I'm not sure what a recent college graduate with a Liberal Arts degree is doing (9.2% unemployment rate). My strong suggestion would be (and has been) graduate school: suddenly, the 9.2% drops to 3.8%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)