[copious.abundance]

U.S. adds 222,000 jobs in June as hiring surges

The U.S. created 222,000 new jobs in June as hiring accelerated in the spring, showing that companies are still finding ways to add staff despite a growing shortage of skilled workers.

The increase in new jobs was the largest in four months and second biggest haul of the year. Hiring was also stronger in May and April than previously reported.

The unemployment rate, meanwhile, rose to 4.4% from 4.3% as more people entered the labor force in search of work. The jobless rate had fallen to a 16-year low in May.

[Outcast_Searcher]

U.S. Added 209,000 Jobs in July, Beating Expectations

209,000 jobs added, beating expectations. Unemployment rate down to 4.3%.

The Takeaway

“This is a Goldilocks report for the markets,” said Michael Gapen, chief United States economist at Barclays, meaning it was neither discouraging nor overheated. Citing the healthy payroll growth and steady gain in average hourly earnings in July, he added, “It really bodes well for macroeconomic growth.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/busi ... yment.html

Of course, in the NYT comments on this, the liberals nearly 100% give Obama all the credit and whine about Trump. So at least things are consistent on both the economic and political front.

Meanwhile, the folks that keep constantly calling for US economic disaster (any time now) seem to continue to ignore more and more contrary evidence, at least for the coming months.

[onlooker]

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/20 ... wages.html
some sobering US economic data

[onlooker]

P, sure hope that is satire and you haven't gone to the dark side or should I say optimistic side

[Outcast_Searcher]

Unless you lived and drive in paradise, that 200 mile become 100 miles in winter
COLD WEATHER RANGE LOSS: Submitted by Gilanis on January 18, 2016 (posted on a Tesla forum)

With the advent of winter in Chicago my 2015 Tesla 85D 4 months old / driven 5000 miles looses almost 40-50% range..

As if we should accept a single blogger's observations/opinion over all the other data. The overall data indicates a real world loss of from 25 to 30 percent for cold weather overall.

The subject of which has been beaten to death on more appropriate threads, like the EV threads. It's an issue in Canada in the short term. But as has been said repeatedly, with the mileage increasing, batteries increasing, and the typical daily commute WAY below 100 miles -- this isn't a real world problem for the vast majority of drivers who buy a 200+ mile car today.

In a decade it will only be an issue for well under 10% of people, as batteries and the cars improve. After all, you can buy a 300+ mile car today (Tesla S with big battery). You'll be able to buy a Model 3 with 310 miles of range this fall. Multiple manufacturers have announced 300+ mile EV's within 5 years.

Endlessly acting like this is doom, or especially like this is doom for the US economy as putting it here implies, doesn't change the facts.

[Outcast_Searcher]

"But as has been said repeatedly, with the mileage increasing, batteries increasing, and the typical daily commute WAY below 100 miles -- this isn't a real world problem for the vast majority of drivers who buy a 200+ mile car today. "

Saying stuff repeatedly has no affect the veracity of said thing. To wit, batteries are not increasing (except by dead weight/car weight). A lithium ion battery still maintains only 2% the energy content of an equivalent gasoline tank mass.

It's a real world problem when said driver is forced to the hospital with a ruptured appendix and ends (his life, that is) stuck on the side of a snowy road. Looking for a electrical outlet. I'd not take that chance.

None of that changes the fact that the vast majority of commutes are under 100 miles round trip, and that EPA EV's are available today with 200 and 300 mile ranges, and MANY such vehicles will be available within 5 years.

Which means the vast majority of commuters don't need to worry about your burst appendix scenario when driving an EV, no matter how much FUD you desperately throw around.

For those in very cold climates with truly long commutes who can't charge at work, yes, that is an issue, at least today. As I said.

[ralfy]

None of that changes the fact that the vast majority of commutes are under 100 miles round trip, and that EPA EV's are available today with 200 and 300 mile ranges, and MANY such vehicles will be available within 5 years.

Which means the vast majority of commuters don't need to worry about your burst appendix scenario when driving an EV, no matter how much FUD you desperately throw around.

For those in very cold climates with truly long commutes who can't charge at work, yes, that is an issue, at least today. As I said.

From what I know, most roads worldwide are rough or poorly maintained, and infrastructure to deliver electricity even for household needs are lacking. That is why diesel-powered vehicles are generally used because they can handle such roads and carry heavy loads, both human and cargo. Here are several examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_tax ... _the_world

EVs are limited to urban areas where roads are smoother and inclines not very steep. In addition to that, they have to be as cheap as BUVs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_utility_vehicle

in both transport and maintenance costs because most people earn less than $10 daily.

[vtsnowedin]

From what I know, most roads worldwide are rough or poorly maintained, and infrastructure to deliver electricity even for household needs are lacking. That is why diesel-powered vehicles are generally used because they can handle such roads and carry heavy loads, both human and cargo. Here are several examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_tax ... _the_world

EVs are limited to urban areas where roads are smoother and inclines not very steep. In addition to that, they have to be as cheap as BUVs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_utility_vehicle

in both transport and maintenance costs because most people earn less than $10 daily.

That doesn't change the fact that millions of Americans and Europeans drive on paved roads and in warm climates. Getting just half of these millions into a EV will take years so we can worry about rough third world roads when that time comes and not use them as an excuse now.

[Outcast_Searcher]

From what I know, most roads worldwide are rough or poorly maintained, and infrastructure to deliver electricity even for household needs are lacking. That is why diesel-powered vehicles are generally used because they can handle such roads and carry heavy loads, both human and cargo. Here are several examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_tax ... _the_world

EVs are limited to urban areas where roads are smoother and inclines not very steep. In addition to that, they have to be as cheap as BUVs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_utility_vehicle

in both transport and maintenance costs because most people earn less than $10 daily.

When I'm talking about widespread EV adoption over the next 15 to 30 years due to economics, I'm talking about in the first world, where the price and road competition is against $33,000 on average new ICE vehicles, and road conditions are largely paved and relatively well maintained.

I agree that the third world is a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish.

I've repeatedly said that I'm not buying the rapid adoption of EV's in the third world as long as electricity is unreliable or unavailable in large quantities. AND that with incomes in places like India largely at the scale where families are hoping to buy a $2500ish Nano -- that EV's becoming dominant just isn't in the cards for a long time.

It's unfortunate that many of the "thought leaders" arguing either pro or con for such topics tend to think and speak as though the problem is monolithic, and thus will just happen everywhere (or not) because of "economics".

[ralfy]

That doesn't change the fact that millions of Americans and Europeans drive on paved roads and in warm climates. Getting just half of these millions into a EV will take years so we can worry about rough third world roads when that time comes and not use them as an excuse now.

I'm not giving that as an excuse. My point is that a "vast majority" of commuters worldwide require ICEVs, not EVs.

[ralfy]

When I'm talking about widespread EV adoption over the next 15 to 30 years due to economics, I'm talking about in the first world, where the price and road competition is against $33,000 on average new ICE vehicles, and road conditions are largely paved and relatively well maintained.

I agree that the third world is a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish.

I've repeatedly said that I'm not buying the rapid adoption of EV's in the third world as long as electricity is unreliable or unavailable in large quantities. AND that with incomes in places like India largely at the scale where families are hoping to buy a $2500ish Nano -- that EV's becoming dominant just isn't in the cards for a long time.

It's unfortunate that many of the "thought leaders" arguing either pro or con for such topics tend to think and speak as though the problem is monolithic, and thus will just happen everywhere (or not) because of "economics".

Keep in mind that companies that manufacture EVs, especially in partnership with foreign companies and involving foreign investors, and in competition with each other, will want to maximize profitability by expanding to other markets. That's what businesses have been doing for decades:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Not only that, but many of the material resources needed for manufactured goods, in several cases manufacturing plants, and various services to support these businesses operate in developing countries.

That means for the industry to remain healthy the global economy on which it relies cannot depend on domestic markets (including those that are aging and facing high levels of debt) to sustain growing production and sales.

This explains why the industry will not sell things like the Nano to consumers but cheaper models, and might even earn more from selling the latter. And even then most consumers worldwide will still rely on ICEVs and not EVs for reasons given earlier.

The implication is that for any transition to other sources of energy through a free market capitalist system will require the opposite of limits to growth plus increasing energy returns.

[copious.abundance]

Some charts from the Census data released this week on US incomes in 2016 showing impressive gains for Americans

New, all-time highs for median household income last year!



Per household member, the gains are even better.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Some charts from the Census data released this week on US incomes in 2016 showing impressive gains for Americans

New, all-time highs for median household income last year!

So how do the usual suspects spin this as doom?

But, there's inflation!

But, there's debt!

But, I hate EV's!

But, I don't understand economics!

They'll find a way. Mean time, yes, very impressive gains for a "doomed" country and a "terrible" economy.

[copious.abundance]

And another one.

[Outcast_Searcher]

So much for the 2017 US recession and all the concerns about the slowing growth number in the first quarter.

Growth looking pretty decent with 3% initial call for 3Q.

The economy is being powered by a tightening labor market, which has largely maintained a strong performance that started during former President Barack Obama's first term.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/first-r ... ected.html

I notice the internet marketing clowns like Stansberry Research who constantly keep calling for a big economic crash have once again moved out their date in their ad by a year, to 2018. Gee. Why does that sound familiar? Let me think...