My comment:
(a) Excerpt in the window of print: Rising debt stresses manufacturing as agriculture shrinks.
What debt? “And China’s huge manufacturing sector is showing new signs of stress, as some companies struggle with rising debt and rampant overcapacity.” paragraph 5 in the English original.
(b) There is no need to read the report.
(c)
(i) Just view the graphic (which does not appear in the translation at cn.nytimes.com, but appears in print of English original that depicts the vicissitude of three sectors (agriculture, industry and services) in China from 1965 to 2013 (inclusive).
(ii) Actually the vicissitude is not that important (because we all know the trend). What is critical is the following two consecutive paragraphs in the original:
"China’s premier, Li Keqiang, recently sought to play down the importance of the GDP growth target, saying instead that he preferred to focus on whether the economy was expanding in a way that created new jobs. And so far, it appears to be doing that. China added 13.2 million new urban jobs last year, surpassing Mr Li’s official target of 10 million such jobs. [So far so good.*]
"But Mr Li’s jobs target is a gross figure. It does not factor in jobs that were eliminated. And more important, income growth is decelerating, down from double digits to around 8 percent last year. Any resulting pullback in consumer spending would have a direct impact on the service sector’s ability to continue to create jobs.
(A) You see, I had a posting on Apr 21, titled "China's Economy Coming down to Earth: The Economist." In that posting, at note (8) I expressed amazement at China's figure, and wondered aloud, "[W]as that too good to be true?"
(B) Look, there Note (8)(iii) shows "1-Month Net Change" in "total nonfarm" (compiled by BLS).
(C) This NYT report tells us China's figure is NOT net change. Because China did not tell how many jobs were eliminated, there is no telling the net change. 作者: choi 时间: 4-23-2015 18:37
(2)
(a) The first four paragraphs (in translation) of the above report are as follows:
"王君平曾在河北老家当过农民，也在内蒙古干过矿工。但在最近的一个下午，49岁的他穿着体面的西装 [in the only photo in print of the English original]，在一个职业介绍所等待上课，他将学习如何使用扫帚和拖把来清洁北京庞大的地铁系统。
中国的就业市场存在技能与需求不匹配的现象。 [English original: China has a job market mismatch.]
(b) But that phenomenon is not unique to China. (So often Westerners, including reporters, fail to see themselves. See Matthew 7: 3-5 (King James Version). www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... 3-5&version=KJV
(c) What about US?
Neil Irwin, Why Less Educated Workers Are Losing Ground on Wages; The mix of available jobs has changed, and employers have gained leverage. New York Times, Apr 23, 2015 (at page A3; under the heading “The Upshot”). www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/upsho ... being-hammered.html
("Perhaps the single most shocking number in a new review of employment and earnings data by researchers at the Hamilton Project, a research group within the Brookings Institution, is this one: The median earnings of working men aged 30 to 45 without a high school diploma fell 20 percent from 1990 to 2013 when adjusted for inflation. A group of people not earning much to begin with, in other words, has seen earnings plummet to $25,500 in 2013 from $31,900 in 1990 (both numbers are in 2013 dollars). Men with a high school diploma did only a little better, with a 13 percent decline in median earnings over the same span")
(i) The helpful graphic is online only, not in print.
(ii) The report is
Melissa S. Kearney, Brad Hershbein, and Elisa Jácome, Profiles of Change: Employment, Earnings, and Occupations from 1990-2013. Hamilton Project, Apr 20, 2015.
hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/Employment_Earnings_Occupations_Changes_1990-2013_FINAL_1.pdf