The current US Government has a massive program that is creating a bubble in construction (Build Back Better), this generates a lot of jobs, but despite the program lasting a long period, those jobs don't stay and aren't jobs created entirely by free market and the private sector.
Those jobs will go away, won't last and will likely have a reverse impact once we're at the other side of the construction cycle.
Government-led hiring changes from government to government, it generates bad bubbles and is bad. If you look at the data above, you'll see that we're actually doing pretty badly, if it wasn't for the increased demand by that package.
Not to mention that those government packages are fueled by DEBT. The US is running a big deficit and this will "fake unemployment" will be paid by your kids.
I meant for the other sectors. You've picked one that didn't fit what I said to "prove" I am wrong.
About wages being higher: are you taking inflation into account? Where are those figures?
Even if you took inflation into account, the US is so big and inequality is so huge there that inflation country numb reis completely uneven and pointless.
> meant for the other sectors. You've picked one that didn't fit what I said to "prove" I am wrong
I picked the second-largest hiring category since the largest one, private education and healthcare, is less generous to your argument: it’s filled with high-paying, rewarding jobs.
> About wages being higher: are you taking inflation into account?
Yes [1].
> the US is so big and inequality is so huge there that inflation country numb reis completely uneven and pointless
Varied, yes. Even given the variance, it’s difficult to find large cohorts who don’t have a higher real wage today than any time other than Q4 2019 to Q4 2021 (stimulus). That doesn’t mean life doesn’t suck for a lot of people, just that it’s better for most and far better for many.
>Those jobs will go away, won't last and will likely have a reverse impact once we're at the other side of the construction cycle.
All construction is cyclical. There's no such thing as a "permanent" construction job. Meanwhile, those workers will have jobs, health insurance, drive the economy, buy homes, and build wealth.
Some will, others will become alcoholics, or already were and will no longer seek employment.
Not to mention most construction people ideally don't stay in construction.
It's really hard and sorta inhumane to do this when you are 50+ with problems all over your body. For many, unemployment and alcohol abuse looks like a better alternative.
America doesn't want to talk or hear about this, as everybody want to buy their beautiful huge homes on a suburb, no matter how this is costly in the health and life of others
> hard and sorta inhumane to do this when you are 50+
My painter in West Wyoming is in this age bracket. He is currently on a ski trip in Hokkaido. He makes good money and is in great health, certainly compared to most office workers I know.
This is literally true for any 50+ in construction. My point is someone with that seniority can pick their jobs, pick their clients and not necessarily be doing the back-breaking work.
My cousin's baby-daddy was a painter, but he couldn't make enough money to pay child support doing that so he does some sort of overhead-door service thing now. He was pretty thrilled to get health insurance as well since he'd never had a job that provided that before.
What data do you have that shows that painters are currently highly paid? It's entry-level construction work; AKA a shit job (maybe just a bit better than roofing), so I'm skeptical.
> It's entry-level construction work; AKA a shit job
This was historically true for construction [1]. Yet their wages are on a smooth curve upwards [2]. The entire cohort of construction workers is currently seeing high real wages, and their data almost completely hide Covid.
I’d also argue that commodity and skilled painting are different. The 50-year old commodity painter who honed his craft can charge a premium because he can smooth my drywall and put on a finish someone with zero training cannot.
That paper that you're citing is from 2022; hardly what I'd call historic. And is 2 in real dollars? Because it doesn't look like it and I wonder if it would be just a flat line if it was.
I'll say that I've worked along side my cousin's baby-daddy (I think in future I'll just call him "T" as that's less unwieldy), and he's a fine painter, but ultimately there just isn't that much to the job. I remember the first time I used a paint sprayer on a new construction job myself; basically you just need to learn where the trigger is and in a minute you can paint a wall that would take an hour with a roller.
I'll just say that my on-the-ground experience (limited such as it is to the markets/trades that my friends and family work in) doesn't express that construction is all of a sudden a good job. I could perhaps be convinced that it has upgraded from a shit job to merely a crap one, perhaps because so many people have escaped it that they have to at least pay slightly better these days. If I had any kids, I'd still be inclined give them the same advice that my blue-collar parents gave me - go to school to do just about anything else.
If we're talking qualitatively about bubbles, I'll take government-led building programs that help lower real estate prices and help build trades over hilarious tech bubbles that all rely on the same memes (Quantum! AI! Selling user data!) and then burst, leaving a bunch of people with super mad Monday.com skillz out of work.
I recommend people go and check the 12 month data in the link for themselves (the chart lets you click into categories and drill down into subcategories) and see if this narrative that good-looking job numbers are caused by a "bubble in construction created by the federal government" makes any sense.
For one thing, I'd be interested to know how this artificial construction bubble causes local governments and state governments to coordinate so well with the federal government in hiring so much in education.
For another thing, I'm wondering where construction "should" be absent this bubble and how it squares with what we already know about the demand for housing and electricity.
Finally, take a look at all the non-government, non-construction activity and tell me where the bubble is.
The current US Government has a massive program that is creating a bubble in construction (Build Back Better), this generates a lot of jobs, but despite the program lasting a long period, those jobs don't stay and aren't jobs created entirely by free market and the private sector.
Those jobs will go away, won't last and will likely have a reverse impact once we're at the other side of the construction cycle.
If you have a look at the 12 months data, you'll see construction along with government has been a big hire https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-b...
Government-led hiring changes from government to government, it generates bad bubbles and is bad. If you look at the data above, you'll see that we're actually doing pretty badly, if it wasn't for the increased demand by that package.
Not to mention that those government packages are fueled by DEBT. The US is running a big deficit and this will "fake unemployment" will be paid by your kids.