Construction employment was claimed to be stabilized by a shift to commercial building from residential. Might be a very short reprieve for the construction employment numbers...
RE:" if both reports are accurate - this implies residential construction workers are still employed, but working less, or at least getting paid less."
How would a large pool of off-the-books temporary guest workers effect the reports.
Net spending could decrease without effecting legal employment if illegal employment were let go first.
I would guess illegals let go and legals kept on the books to get health care (which has probably already been paid for anyway) but not actually getting any hours.
I suppose the builders are rushing to finish whatever is started asap. The accelerated works on finishing buildings are probably less expensive than land-moving when new housing is started, but it employs a lot of people.
On illegals - most are NOT off the books, they are ON THE BOOKS with phony documentation. That's the way it is everywhere EXCEPT for cash-day-labor which is a tiny part of the pie.
Why do they (employers) put them on the books? So they can stay clean with the IRS & fully comply with FICA & SS reporting. This stuff gets checked & double checked. People go to jail because of this 'mistakes' here.
Why don't they get caught hiring illegals with forged papers? Because no one looks at that - very few INS visits. INS & IRS don't even know the other exists.
Lotsa IRS scrutiny & very little INS scrutiny means forged papers rule. Employers don't ask, the documented undocumented don't tell.
That isn't to say there aren't some second & third tier illegal cash-day labor subs on these sites - there undoubtedly are, just not all that many compared to the 'legal illegals'.
This is so common in mfg'ing as to be almost laughable.
My guess is unless average people who know what is going on 'squeal' to INS they won't get caught, ever...
The bigger operations only hire 'documented' workers & don't check carefully... show me quick, good you have papers, get to work. After that it's all 'on the book'.
So unless somebody from INS shows up and actually checks the papers vs official records (at say IRS)... they are all 'legal'.
Its almost like 'call your own foul'.
I doubt the employment numbers will tell us much about what's going on here regarding legal/illegal hires & UE rates.
This report was for July and the employment report was for August, but - if both reports are accurate - this implies residential construction workers are still employed, but working less, or at least getting paid less. - CR
That was my knee jerk take on things (see your entry on August Employment... I posted a comment along this line).
Although not in construction, I'm 1099, most of my buddies are 1099... either to ourselves individually or to our shell corp... so even when business slows A LOT we are still technically 'employed'. I know a bunch of folks in the construction biz and this applies to many of them as well.
By the time they actually show up on the rolls of 'unemployed' they are going to have been dragged through hell first. If they've run a small biz like me (a small corp) as a sub-contractor to a builder, they will have had to closed the business first & possibly even filed BK before they show up officially as UE. As 'the owner' I can't 'lay myself off' and have it show up as a real layoff.
This is one more joy of the 'ownership society'... you get complete ownership of your own personal hell.
One more tidbit I forgot... although While I can't lay myself off... I sure as hell don't have to pay myself either.
Everyone in small biz like me understands this - declining revenue but costs NOT declining or not as fast means little or no paycheck... ie work & work hard but work for little or nothing... that's phase one. Phase two, three, etc follow soon enough... months later it shows up in the 'numbers'... by then its too late even for crying.
My guess is that's what's going behind the numbers.
I'm a tax attorney, and I had a client that was bankrupted by the IRS when assessed with FICA taxes the employer failed to withhold on "independant contractors". IRS is fairly agressive in this area.
I would like to politely disagree with you regarding illegals being "on the books" in construction. In my recent line of work, I was intimately involved with the accounting of several public and private homebuilders and their contractors. And I can assure you that the majority of the illegals are not on the books.
I have also been involved with manufacturers, and you are correct, most of their illegals are on the books. This makes sense, as they have to train their employees and would like them to stick around for a while. Quite humorous when you look at the payroll register and there are 3 or 4 people with the same first and last name, and their SS numbers are only different by one digit.
2% is nothing - especially if it is mostly reduced hours for the same crews. It is too early to see a significant drop in residential construction employment, but it is coming.
There will be a shift from residential to commercial - this is already happening. After a while this will be exhausted as well and employment will drop further.
I don't understand why you use the word "plummets", or why the AP used the word "plunged", for a 1.4% change. I can understand using those words for a 10% or 20% change in one month, buy why for 1.4%? Seems rather mild to me.
SteveB,
That is a question best left to we who are smarter than most, and hence privy to data and trends incomprehensible by those such as yourself. OK?
PW, I just saw the Barron's article - I was very surprised!
Residential construction spending was about $330 Billion in '99 and is currently at $630 Billion annual rate. I'm not sure it will fall all the way to '99 spending - that would be a long way from here.
SteveB, I quoted the title of the AP story exactly: "Construction Spending Plummets in July". They have now changed the headline. I wasn't trying to convey my view - it was AP's characterization. I agree with you that spending hasn't "plunged" yet.
skytreker, I think Bernake is worried that the slowing housing market will lead to (if we're already not in) a recession. But I can't imagine any credible economist can look at the current state of the housing market and think that a resumption of price inflation would be healthy. Besides, I doubt anyone at the Fed thinks they have the power to control the market forces in play now.
regarding dryfly's comments on "legal illegals". My son works at a meat packing plant. The company dutifly checks all required documents, puts the people to work and calls it good enough. My son has looked at some of those documents as well as talked to the people using them. Like dryfly says, they won't pass any inspection that actually tried to verify authenticity. 900 workers all coming from the same street in Texas? Please!
I would like to politely disagree with you regarding illegals being "on the books" in construction. In my recent line of work, I was intimately involved with the accounting of several public and private homebuilders and their contractors. And I can assure you that the majority of the illegals are not on the books.
AZ - where do they account for the cash spent on laborers then? They have to write it off as something. Or pay tax on it as earnings. Right?
I am especially interested in the 'public companies'... Are they falsifying records so that they write off these off-the-book expenses as something else... say 'plywood' and if so how do the 'receipt' it? There would have to be an audit trail.
Or do they over-report the earnings (by not writing off the illegal expenses - no entry at all) and just pay the taxes? That would in part explain how some of these builders continue to report earnings in a down market... ie they really aren't there.
But wouldn't this show up in the cash flow statements and raise questions?
I can see how a very small private company or 'sole proprietor' could possibly get away with off book cash-day-labor hiring of illegals by paying the salaries out of his own after tax pockets and making it back up by paying low wages & not paying FICA. But I do NOT see how a public firm of any size could get away with it WITHOUT leaving a paper trail.
I'm not asking for a personal case study on money laundering but would you care to describe how this sausage is made?
This is one more joy of the 'ownership society'... you get complete ownership of your own personal hell.
that's a great line dryfly.
The housing slump has a wide reach. As Roubini noted, "the employment effects of housing are serious; up to 30% of the employment growth in the last three years was due directly and indirectly to housing. The direct effects are job lost in construction, building materials, real estate brokers and sales agents, and employees of the mortgage finance industry. The indirect effects imply that the role of housing is even larger than 30%. The housing boom led to a boom in consumer durables spending on home appliances and furniture."
As a mortgage lender who jumped from the investment train to the housing train, there is no other train to jump on. Business capital spending? To build inventory for broke consumers?
War historically has been a way to get out of recession. You're suppose to take the spoils of victory. Instead, we run up $300B in deficit and cut taxes, which further increases our debt. Who needs enemies, we have our gov't.
Psychological factors are causing some buyers to remain on the sidelines
Well I have to agree with Lereah on this one - the biggest factor being a sudden outbreak of sanity.
Construction employment was claimed to be stabilized by a shift to commercial building from residential. Might be a very short reprieve for the construction employment numbers...
the NAR spinster at it again. they should put the NAR press releases on theonion.com.
That will slump growth, especially if August and September continue that path for the third quarter. Roubini's 1.5% growth on track?
RE:" if both reports are accurate - this implies residential construction workers are still employed, but working less, or at least getting paid less."
How would a large pool of off-the-books temporary guest workers effect the reports.
Net spending could decrease without effecting legal employment if illegal employment were let go first.
I would guess illegals let go and legals kept on the books to get health care (which has probably already been paid for anyway) but not actually getting any hours.
So jobs are, strangely, a trailing indicator
Name and All, excellent point. If the "cash" workers are let go first that wouldn't show up in the BLS data.
Best to all.
I disagree completely about you having issue with Lereahs statement saying " indicates sales are likely to flatten in the months ahead".
They cant go below zero, therefore they will obviously flatten. DUH!
On illegals - most are NOT off the books, they are ON THE BOOKS with phony documentation. That's the way it is everywhere EXCEPT for cash-day-labor which is a tiny part of the pie.
Why do they (employers) put them on the books? So they can stay clean with the IRS & fully comply with FICA & SS reporting. This stuff gets checked & double checked. People go to jail because of this 'mistakes' here.
Why don't they get caught hiring illegals with forged papers? Because no one looks at that - very few INS visits. INS & IRS don't even know the other exists.
Lotsa IRS scrutiny & very little INS scrutiny means forged papers rule. Employers don't ask, the documented undocumented don't tell.
That isn't to say there aren't some second & third tier illegal cash-day labor subs on these sites - there undoubtedly are, just not all that many compared to the 'legal illegals'.
This is so common in mfg'ing as to be almost laughable.
My guess is unless average people who know what is going on 'squeal' to INS they won't get caught, ever...
The bigger operations only hire 'documented' workers & don't check carefully... show me quick, good you have papers, get to work. After that it's all 'on the book'.
So unless somebody from INS shows up and actually checks the papers vs official records (at say IRS)... they are all 'legal'.
Its almost like 'call your own foul'.
I doubt the employment numbers will tell us much about what's going on here regarding legal/illegal hires & UE rates.
This report was for July and the employment report was for August, but - if both reports are accurate - this implies residential construction workers are still employed, but working less, or at least getting paid less. - CR
That was my knee jerk take on things (see your entry on August Employment... I posted a comment along this line).
Although not in construction, I'm 1099, most of my buddies are 1099... either to ourselves individually or to our shell corp... so even when business slows A LOT we are still technically 'employed'. I know a bunch of folks in the construction biz and this applies to many of them as well.
By the time they actually show up on the rolls of 'unemployed' they are going to have been dragged through hell first. If they've run a small biz like me (a small corp) as a sub-contractor to a builder, they will have had to closed the business first & possibly even filed BK before they show up officially as UE. As 'the owner' I can't 'lay myself off' and have it show up as a real layoff.
This is one more joy of the 'ownership society'... you get complete ownership of your own personal hell.
One more tidbit I forgot... although While I can't lay myself off... I sure as hell don't have to pay myself either.
Everyone in small biz like me understands this - declining revenue but costs NOT declining or not as fast means little or no paycheck... ie work & work hard but work for little or nothing... that's phase one. Phase two, three, etc follow soon enough... months later it shows up in the 'numbers'... by then its too late even for crying.
My guess is that's what's going behind the numbers.
I think bull market is over.
All the last two weeks most money managers were at vacations. The market was left to goofis, who were trading up on light volume.
Next week the big guys will be back and sell all this damn thing down.
CR-
What was residential construction spending running at back in 1999? That is how far we can drop.
Gotta agree with dryfly.
I'm a tax attorney, and I had a client that was bankrupted by the IRS when assessed with FICA taxes the employer failed to withhold on "independant contractors". IRS is fairly agressive in this area.
Dryfly-
I would like to politely disagree with you regarding illegals being "on the books" in construction. In my recent line of work, I was intimately involved with the accounting of several public and private homebuilders and their contractors. And I can assure you that the majority of the illegals are not on the books.
I have also been involved with manufacturers, and you are correct, most of their illegals are on the books. This makes sense, as they have to train their employees and would like them to stick around for a while. Quite humorous when you look at the payroll register and there are 3 or 4 people with the same first and last name, and their SS numbers are only different by one digit.
2% is nothing - especially if it is mostly reduced hours for the same crews. It is too early to see a significant drop in residential construction employment, but it is coming.
There will be a shift from residential to commercial - this is already happening. After a while this will be exhausted as well and employment will drop further.
Congrats on your mention in barrons this weekend page 30.
"...from a downwardly revised reading of..."
And where have we heard that phrase before?
CR-
Kudos on the Barron's mention. When should we expect the book deal?
I don't understand why you use the word "plummets", or why the AP used the word "plunged", for a 1.4% change. I can understand using those words for a 10% or 20% change in one month, buy why for 1.4%? Seems rather mild to me.
SteveB,
That is a question best left to we who are smarter than most, and hence privy to data and trends incomprehensible by those such as yourself. OK?
Run along now.
SteveB,
1.2% of $1.2 trillion is $14.4 billion a year less being spent on construction...
That's drop is bigger than entire industries, like, say, the movie business.
I'd call that a "plummet."
PW, I just saw the Barron's article - I was very surprised!
Residential construction spending was about $330 Billion in '99 and is currently at $630 Billion annual rate. I'm not sure it will fall all the way to '99 spending - that would be a long way from here.
SteveB, I quoted the title of the AP story exactly: "Construction Spending Plummets in July". They have now changed the headline. I wasn't trying to convey my view - it was AP's characterization. I agree with you that spending hasn't "plunged" yet.
Best to all.
Mike, you want that spending to be constantly growing, not contracting, which means downturn and slowing growth.
I saw recently that Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach has gone bearish again after a quick flirtation with the dark side when he was a bull- interesting.
I think Bernanke has chosen to re inflate the asset bubble of housing to protect his ass and political benefactors... any comments?
skytreker, I think Bernake is worried that the slowing housing market will lead to (if we're already not in) a recession. But I can't imagine any credible economist can look at the current state of the housing market and think that a resumption of price inflation would be healthy. Besides, I doubt anyone at the Fed thinks they have the power to control the market forces in play now.
regarding dryfly's comments on "legal illegals". My son works at a meat packing plant. The company dutifly checks all required documents, puts the people to work and calls it good enough. My son has looked at some of those documents as well as talked to the people using them. Like dryfly says, they won't pass any inspection that actually tried to verify authenticity. 900 workers all coming from the same street in Texas? Please!
I would like to politely disagree with you regarding illegals being "on the books" in construction. In my recent line of work, I was intimately involved with the accounting of several public and private homebuilders and their contractors. And I can assure you that the majority of the illegals are not on the books.
AZ - where do they account for the cash spent on laborers then? They have to write it off as something. Or pay tax on it as earnings. Right?
I am especially interested in the 'public companies'... Are they falsifying records so that they write off these off-the-book expenses as something else... say 'plywood' and if so how do the 'receipt' it? There would have to be an audit trail.
Or do they over-report the earnings (by not writing off the illegal expenses - no entry at all) and just pay the taxes? That would in part explain how some of these builders continue to report earnings in a down market... ie they really aren't there.
But wouldn't this show up in the cash flow statements and raise questions?
I can see how a very small private company or 'sole proprietor' could possibly get away with off book cash-day-labor hiring of illegals by paying the salaries out of his own after tax pockets and making it back up by paying low wages & not paying FICA. But I do NOT see how a public firm of any size could get away with it WITHOUT leaving a paper trail.
I'm not asking for a personal case study on money laundering but would you care to describe how this sausage is made?
This is one more joy of the 'ownership society'... you get complete ownership of your own personal hell.
that's a great line dryfly.
The housing slump has a wide reach. As Roubini noted, "the employment effects of housing are serious; up to 30% of the employment growth in the last three years was due directly and indirectly to housing. The direct effects are job lost in construction, building materials, real estate brokers and sales agents, and employees of the mortgage finance industry. The indirect effects imply that the role of housing is even larger than 30%. The housing boom led to a boom in consumer durables spending on home appliances and furniture."
As a mortgage lender who jumped from the investment train to the housing train, there is no other train to jump on. Business capital spending? To build inventory for broke consumers?
War historically has been a way to get out of recession. You're suppose to take the spoils of victory. Instead, we run up $300B in deficit and cut taxes, which further increases our debt. Who needs enemies, we have our gov't.
Psychological factors are causing some buyers to remain on the sidelines
Well I have to agree with Lereah on this one - the biggest factor being a sudden outbreak of sanity.