If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org) divider line 60
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-07 10:33:34 AM
3 votes:

adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.



It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...
2012-09-07 01:29:27 PM
2 votes:
i48.tinypic.com
2012-09-07 01:05:30 PM
2 votes:
...is it just me or are the people who are and have been in favor of policies that are known, have been proven, and easily demonstrated to depress wages, like right-to-work, union busting, axing the minimum wage, and enhancing visa programs; and have led to job flight and deindustrialization like free trade agreements, deregulating factory closure, and preventing/lowering taxes that would preclude decapitalization; suddenly seem to be very, very concerned about low-wage job growth and creation, despite it being the source of the Bush-era low unemployment rates?
2012-09-07 11:59:35 AM
2 votes:

Gaseous Anomaly: Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.


Honestly? You could just give them the money for free. They'd still spend it. At least if you make them dig a ditch, you have a ditch. A ditch can be a really useful thing. A ditch can move water from one point to another. One of the reasons the Roman empire was so powerful was because it knew how to move water from one point to another. If this country stopped moving water from one point to another half of us would be dead of dysentery inside of a year. A ditch is a critical thing.
2012-09-07 11:57:03 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.


That sure as hell didn't seem to matter in the decade before Jan. 20, 2009, when after the dot-com bubble collapsed the Bush administration's unemployment numbers were boosted by low-wage, service sector, job growth, while white- and blue-collar employment contracted.
2012-09-07 11:56:54 AM
2 votes:

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.
2012-09-07 10:23:21 AM
2 votes:

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


What "total failure" Looks like-

my.barackobama.com
2012-09-07 02:03:38 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.

Take it up with the AP. That is how they are reporting the news.

The average for that same period is 143,00 for 2011.
So face it, 0bama has failed.

Got a citation?

Sorry that I don't take your word for it but I need a citation.


Cheese is either purposefully misunderstanding the question, or he just does not get it.
research.stlouisfed.org

Look at the downward slope in unemployment during the previous growth periods, 1994 to 2000 and 2003-2007. The recovery under Obama 2010-current has a steeper downward slope. Unemployment is actually dropping faster under Obama than it did during the last two expansions. He says that means Obama has "failed" when actually the results are better than we had during the last two expansions. You can see it with your eye, no need to cherry pick numbers or anything.
2012-09-07 01:38:02 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and a political system in paralysis and a fiscal policy on auto-pilot they don't hire.


The bond traders and raters told you this a year ago. You didn't listen then and now you feign outrage at the predictable macroeconomic effects hoping for partisan advantage. Cool story, bro.
2012-09-07 01:23:04 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?


Link

It took all of 30 seconds on Google to find that. It's the same act that the GOP has been blocking in Congress for the past 365 days.
2012-09-07 01:15:05 PM
1 votes:

Highroller48: I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.

That said, I must admit that this report is NOT good news. It shows that job growth continues to be frighteningly sluggish, and that the biggest reason for this month's drop in the unemployment rate is people who stop looking.

Romney's "solutions" are bogus. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's axiomatic, no matter what the Repubs tell you. There are, however, billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure projects that could be undertaken by the private and public sector, or a combination thereof, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs NOW, and even provide a return on our investment by increasing the tax base and having more efficient roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.

The Republican apologists around here can deny it all they want, but no one's buying it, especially when their party freely and openly admits to hijacking the legislative process, regrdless of the consequences, just to sabotage the Obama administration.


Excellent. I may even say THIS ^^^
2012-09-07 01:14:48 PM
1 votes:
Corporate profits, last 2 presidential terms:

research.stlouisfed.org
2012-09-07 01:11:05 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.


What is self sustaining about it?! If the government creates 1000 jobs by deficit spending, they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.


you're ignoring the multiplier
2012-09-07 01:05:18 PM
1 votes:
Also, historically when employment growth is slow that means corporate profits aren't so hot either. Right now corporate profits are the highest they've ever been. Arguing about this or that government course of action or this or that government actor is rather missing the point.
2012-09-07 12:20:26 PM
1 votes:
I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.

That said, I must admit that this report is NOT good news. It shows that job growth continues to be frighteningly sluggish, and that the biggest reason for this month's drop in the unemployment rate is people who stop looking.

Romney's "solutions" are bogus. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's axiomatic, no matter what the Repubs tell you. There are, however, billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure projects that could be undertaken by the private and public sector, or a combination thereof, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs NOW, and even provide a return on our investment by increasing the tax base and having more efficient roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.

The Republican apologists around here can deny it all they want, but no one's buying it, especially when their party freely and openly admits to hijacking the legislative process, regrdless of the consequences, just to sabotage the Obama administration.
2012-09-07 12:19:34 PM
1 votes:
Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

img507.imageshack.us

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.
2012-09-07 12:16:51 PM
1 votes:

starzman2003: ghare: skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs

Liters. How stupid.

Don't group me in with that guy.


Not the perennial contrarian?

Skullkrusher is Armond White's handle.
2012-09-07 12:12:14 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Libertrollian: only 4 people stopped looking

Some retired, some went back to school. And given how many people will be retiring as the baby boomer hit retirement age, it's going to take finding a slightly different number to really measure things. There are roughly 10,000 people turning 65 each day now. And 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60. That's a metric assload of people who are reaching retirement and many will indeed be retiring. Now how many retired last month? Can't find the number, but it's not going to be an insignificant number.


It's shocking that no one in the media bothers to posit the "Not enough swinging qualified dicks to cover the number of retirees leaving the workforce mixed with companies not backfilling those positions to save a buck" theory. I am sure Freakonomics will look at this in a few years and say most of the stagnation in decreasing the unemployment rate was 1) Boomers leaving the workforce and 2) companies saving money and not creating jobs so that R-money can come in and give them sweeping tax cuts.
2012-09-07 12:12:13 PM
1 votes:

SuperTramp: Hi Dusk!

Here's another graphic of same, with wage dollar amounts:

[i64.photobucket.com image 190x336]


yes, it sucks. But I'm viewing things from the vantage point of this decade being an economic disaster, quite literally leveling the economic structure that existed before.

Those middle-wage jobs are 'gone'. They're not coming back. The middle class was gutted by this economic collapse and we're having to start over from scratch and we lack a World War to spur employment upward.

We're at ground zero and low-wage service jobs are the first step in rebuilding the middle class structure. No, it won't happen quick, nor easy. You can blame the GOP and the super-rich for that.
2012-09-07 12:10:29 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: ddam: Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.

I don't understand how you can't think this all the way through.

Government hires people to dig ditches. People digging ditches buy washing machines. Washing machine company expands. Government lays off ditch diggers, expects them to get a job at the washing machine factory. Can't you see the problem? These places are only expanding due to the increased demand from the ditch diggers. Once the ditch diggers are laid off, the demand falls off, and those places contract.


I was going off with the example. A better example would be investing in infrastructure which is what the New Deal was and what the Jobs bill from Obama included. While the government pays for the work done, the work is actually performed by private companies that receive contracts from the government (preferable contracts that they can bid on, not that no-bid process going on with majority of DOD contracts).

Now, not only are you putting people to work that will drive demand for everything in the economy but you're also re-building the infrastructure that is in dire need of upgrades that will benefit a lot of private businesses as well.

Not only that but if people have money maybe they'll start buying homes again (prices have started to go up - I know as I'm in the house buying process right now). Government spending could also be used to demolish neighborhoods of abandoned houses or condemned houses that exist in many of our cities and have the land be re-developed by private companies or taken over by cities and have them do with the land what they wish - sell it to raise revenue, establish public parks that increase the quality of life etc.

Bottom line is that private businesses will not invest in their business additional money (no matter how many tax cuts you give them) if they do not see an increase in demand. The job of the government in times like these (recession or slow recovery) is to increase that demand for the good of the country and the good of the economy.

I have not seen any plan from the GOP that is directed AT increasing demand. All they have provided is tax cuts which does not do that directly and evidence has shown that tax cuts do not create the same type of return on the dollar as government hiring individuals directly or through government contracts to private businessed.
2012-09-07 12:06:53 PM
1 votes:

Gaseous Anomaly: Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.


What I don't get is how this is different from private sector jobs. If I hire someone to build a house for me, is that not a real job because it eventually ends? I'm not paying those contractors in perpetuity or anything.
2012-09-07 12:05:18 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: I don't understand how you can't think this all the way through.

Government hires people to dig ditches. People digging ditches buy washing machines. Washing machine company expands. Government lays off ditch diggers, expects them to get a job at the washing machine factory. Can't you see the problem? These places are only expanding due to the increased demand from the ditch diggers. Once the ditch diggers are laid off, the demand falls off, and those places contract.


Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.
2012-09-07 12:03:42 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate


That would be a very foolish bank and they would be sure to lose their money. Banks used to not make bad bets on people they knew were going to spend their money on wine and women. I don't think even a modern bank would make such a bet.
2012-09-07 12:02:30 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: More than that, 'make-work' programs and projects are rarely as unproductive as ditch digging.

Things like the interstate highway system, the Hoover dam, the vast number of modernized bridges in the 20th century, these were government projects crafted as 'make-work'. Once these men were done with these projects, they had talents, skills, marketable skills that enabled them to find more work elsewhere.

So, the idea that economy would be artificially boosted with an inevitable collapse after the money is gone/project is done...that's deliberately obtuse or plainly ignorant of how such things actually work.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Money doesn't have much of a use beyond its ability to change hands. The faster it changes hands, the better off we all are. When money changes hands, things get built. People get fed. Jobs get created. When money sits and does nothing it becomes paper again. When it moves, it becomes energy. Who cares who moves it? If the government is willing to move it, I say they should move it.
2012-09-07 12:02:25 PM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added


8.1% of the United States definitely do
2012-09-07 11:54:55 AM
1 votes:

NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.


Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck. The unemployment rate can go down if people simply quit looking for work, which is what the Post said happened. Quit trying to sell a turd as excellent sweet-smelling nutrients that encourage young things to grow. "I need more time" is a far easier case to make.
2012-09-07 11:53:28 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Can't you see the problem? T


Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.
2012-09-07 11:50:31 AM
1 votes:
I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration. I consider the whole package.

President Obama and his team have been dealing with two wars, the Great Recession, political strife, and numerous issues in great style and wise leadership.

Mitt Romney has provided no specifics on what his administration would do different except vague talks of reducing regulations, cutting taxes, and reducing benefits for the poor, the elderly, and those less fortunate than himself.

I'm not voting Republican because the party and its leaders offer nothing except more of the same bullshiat they've fed Americans since 1980, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010.

Sadly, the GOP has simply morphed into the American Independent Party, sans bedsheets, IMHO.

upload.wikimedia.org = upload.wikimedia.org
2012-09-07 11:50:01 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy.


If you can build an airplane for the government, you can build an airplane for the private sector. But, to take it down to a more granular level, if you can produce specialty plastic for the crazy new plane the government wants, you can produce that plastic for any number of private interests. Same with electronics. Same with computers. DARPA created the ARPANET as a purely military project, and as a result, we have the internet. The most powerful economic driver we've produced, like, ever. To say that ending government spending results in jobs simply disappearing forever belies a failure to understand how interconnected our economy actually is, and fails to see the simple connections between the military, space program, university science departments, and the private sector. There is no clear and clean line of demarcation between the government and the private sector, because everything is interconnected.
2012-09-07 11:49:47 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.


How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

MattStafford: Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?


Nothing 'happens'. The money flows around the economy; that's how economies work.

Ditch digger pays money to buy food.
Grocer pays employees with that money.
Employee goes to a movie with that money.
Movie theater buys popcorn with that money.
Popcorn maker buys house with that money.
Contractors buys food with that money.

And around and around we go. You need to create the demand, and without people there's no demand.
2012-09-07 11:48:46 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no


You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!
2012-09-07 11:44:44 AM
1 votes:
I knew it would be OK news when I heard one of the Republican shills interviewed on PBS last night. His talking point was "X number of weeks above 8% unemployment!!!1!!1!" That's the new goalpost -- the 8% number. And of course in a couple of months they'll be saying "7%! Can you believe we're still above 7%!"

The Republicans are just shocked that Americans are suffering less despite the GOP's best efforts to extend our pain for as long as possible for their own selfish gain.
2012-09-07 11:44:35 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


Presumably the corporations sitting on record profits and throwing the executives bonus parties instead of hiring more employees.
2012-09-07 11:43:28 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: sprawl15: DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?

The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.

That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Maybe it's because they figure that for every 100 unemployed persons (counting only those who would otherwise be employed, NOT people who cannot have a job because they're too young/retired/bedridden/too old/ginger/etc), there are about 74 underemployed persons.

Just a guess on my part. Could be wronger than Obama/Romney slashfics, though.
2012-09-07 11:42:18 AM
1 votes:
Debeo Summa Credo

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.

Five Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.
2012-09-07 11:41:01 AM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.


Yea, I only read the headline at first. Just seemed like a big monthly drop to attribute to retirement and going back to school. I'm a realist and positive job growth is always a good thing, it's just that after the ADP report yesterday, expectations, at least for me, were much higher.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the U3 is down to 8.1. But being a trailing indicator, I tend to look more at the actual jobs numbers and after yesterday, I was hoping for something closer to 200K and I can't help but feel disappointed.

Won't effect my vote though, just thought a nice big 200k number would be a nice shot-in-the-arm to help Obama's campaign keep up the mo.
2012-09-07 11:40:40 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.

But idiots that have no idea that the economy is 98% of the times driven by demand (taking out the goods and services that are inelastic) prentend that government workers get all the money from government but don't spend it at all. This is also why tax cuts to middle class and poor help the economy more than the ones given to the rich because the rich already have the money to satisfy their needs and wants. Giving them extra money will stimulate investment IF there is a good rate of return. Since rates of return are much higher outside of the US for the past 30-40 years, that's where all those tax cuts for the rich went. (And also 22 trillion dollars sitting in offshore accounts).
2012-09-07 11:40:30 AM
1 votes:

BigBooper: theknuckler_33: 96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

It doesn't matter. The only number that will get any play is the 8.1.


Why? Because the media is totally in the tank for Obama? Most of the articles this morning about the jobs report are scathing, ignoring the context provided in this thread.
2012-09-07 11:37:08 AM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.


the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement
2012-09-07 11:35:09 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy.


Yes, we could use that boost. Those works would have more money to spend, and given they are unemployed, the multiplier would likely be very large. The fact that they are digging ditches is irrelevant - I'd be happy to just give them the money for doing nothing, but if you want to make them dig ditches, whatever.

MattStafford: It also massively distorts the economy


I dont' know what this means.

MattStafford: What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.


I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.
2012-09-07 11:34:02 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: MattStafford: but that would actually be good for the economy.

No, it would be bad for the economy.


No, it would be good for the economy. Stopping paying people who do absolutely nothing frees up capital to be used in a productive manner.
2012-09-07 11:32:46 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.


Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.
2012-09-07 11:31:50 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added


the people who have the jobs probably care...
2012-09-07 11:31:25 AM
1 votes:

Masso: School also just started. Someone pointed out that a big majority of those that stop looking for work is highschool/undergrad age bracket.


I would think that things like that would be removed from their numbers, remember they're always reported as 'seasonally adjusted', the goal of which is to remove normal seasonal fluctuations like holiday season hiring from the reported figures. I would be very surprised if whatever impact school starting/ending has on employment is not part of the seasonal adjustment.
2012-09-07 11:29:10 AM
1 votes:
Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs
2012-09-07 11:27:21 AM
1 votes:

MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.


I don't believe it would be, actually.
2012-09-07 11:26:33 AM
1 votes:
Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.

We care too much about raw numbers, not nearly enough about what is behind those raw numbers. The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy. On the other hand, the government could lay off a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as huge job losses on these reports, but that would actually be good for the economy.

Or we can just use this number as another score in the eternal left vs right football game.
2012-09-07 11:23:30 AM
1 votes:
School also just started. Someone pointed out that a big majority of those that stop looking for work is highschool/undergrad age bracket.
2012-09-07 11:22:17 AM
1 votes:
Via Romney: "We aren't better off than they were four years ago. My plan for a stronger middle class will create 12 million new jobs by the end of my first term. America deserves new leadership that will get our economy moving again."

Has he told anyone that plan, other than "tax cuts"?
2012-09-07 11:19:21 AM
1 votes:

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


Because it conflicts with what you would have preferred seeing?
2012-09-07 11:17:37 AM
1 votes:

Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.


Spin it however you want. All economic indicators point to it getting better. We (The USA) are in a better place than last year economically.
2012-09-07 11:14:54 AM
1 votes:

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?
2012-09-07 11:14:25 AM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?


The trickle down won't kick in until all abortions are illegal, creationism is taught in our schools, and only white landowners can vote.
2012-09-07 11:13:19 AM
1 votes:
Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.
2012-09-07 11:11:46 AM
1 votes:

Average monthly job growth in 2012: +139,000. 2011: +153,000. 2010: +86,000. 2009: -422,000. 2008: -300,000. 2007: +92,000. 2006: +172,000

- Sudeep Reddy (@Reddy) September 7, 2012
2012-09-07 10:50:35 AM
1 votes:

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


Is that why the U-6 fell from 15% to 14.7%? Isn't that the "real" number and it fell even more than the U-3?
2012-09-07 10:47:41 AM
1 votes:
Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?
2012-09-07 10:46:08 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.


It's a false growth though.
2012-09-07 10:28:39 AM
1 votes:
So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.
2012-09-07 10:15:18 AM
1 votes:
Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report