Jobless claims SOAR

Hilarious, 6271.

You wrote:

"If there is as big a drop in first time claims as there was an increase this week yes I will post the Bloomberg report and Bollomberg link on it. And it the claims take a huge drop the week after that I will post that as well."


Well, the criteria has been met, you haven't been posting about it, get called on it, and that was your response?

Hilarious.
 
Job market better, but still not goodSo does this paint a rosy picture for Mr. Obama? Not exactly. An improving situation isn't the same as a good situation. The labor market is still very depressed and is likely to remain so for quite some time. There are a number of indicators that show how bad things are for the typical job applicant.
According to the Jolts data, the number of monthly hires today, at a little over four million, is just slightly higher than it was in January 2009. Hires need to increase by over 30% to get back to 2007 peak levels. During the three years since January 2009, they have increased by 4%.

The low level of hiring bodes ill for those without a job. Because the number of unemployed is high and the number of hires is low, the statistical likelihood that an unemployed worker will find a job is just over one-third as high as it was in 2007. Differences this great are noticeable to the unemployed. The positive changes in the labor market have not substantially improved the chances of finding a job.

Furthermore, the recent favorable employment numbers may be transitory. The two months that preceded last month's 200,000 job-growth figure recorded about half as much job creation—so it is too soon to say whether this is a trend or just a blip. But even if 200,000 jobs are added each month, it will take about four years to get back to the employment levels that prevailed at the peak. Also, over the past year, the proportion of the population in the labor force (defined as working or seeking employment) has actually declined to 64% from 64.3%. That tends to make the unemployment rate look better than it is.

There is one other troublesome factor. The labor market is fluid, and each month about as many workers are hired as are separated from their previous jobs. The hiring that occurs to replace lost workers is called churn. As James Spletzer of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and I show in a forthcoming article in the American Economic Review, churn hiring accounts for about two-thirds of all hiring. Churn is generally good for workers and good for the economy because workers move to better, higher-paying jobs where they are more productive. The typical wage increase when moving to a new job is around 8%. But churn is down by over 35% from the pre-recession level during the last quarter of 2007.

This means that even people with jobs aren't doing as well as they should be. Because of the slack labor market, many are stuck in their current jobs, earning less than they would in a vibrant economy.

Labor-market statistics will provide ammunition for the presidential campaigns. Each will cherry-pick numbers to bolster its case. But most people are unlikely to be persuaded much by the rhetoric. Despite recent improvement, a bleak labor market is what they confront every day.
 
The job market is improving, I don't think that's even debatable. However, as it improves, the long term unemployed will re-enter the market and the unemployment numbers could spike again into the upper 8s. In other words, the bad data ain't done.
 
Jobs lost in 2008: 2.6 millionJobs lost in first 4 months of 2009: 2.5 million

So EVEN before Obama could actually start putting in the stimulus measure and total of 5.1 million jobs were lost.

money.cnn.com

Now the jobs created picture:

Private sector jobs created in 2010: 863,000 (more than the number created during the ENTIRE Bush/Cheney time


Private sector jobs created in 2011: 1,529,000

And getting better. Repubs' only hope now is that somehow this inevitable march towards more robust creation is turned around. Otherwise they're toast.
hookem.gif
flag.gif
 
The reason his facts are confusing is that he cherry picks them and takes them out of context. I think it's hilarious that he compares job growth during a recovery to job growth to a period where the economy was strong and then tailed off.That's like me taking a really hungry guy and someone who's just eaten a four-course meal, giving them the two dishes and saying that the hungry guy's food must be a lot better because he's eating it faster.
Of course he talks about jobs creeated, but doesn't talk about jobs lost or people who have left the workforce or are no longer seeking unemployment. He does this deliberately because he knows it messes up his little story.

Here's something that may give you a little context - it's not directly related to this, but it brings up an important point:
The Link

In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LOL! That article is the most biased and silly Op ed I have read from a major news outlet. Read the comments at the bottom. He's a democrat hack.
 
Roger is bragging about us spending Trillions from the tax payers to provide jobs at a low number. It cost the tax payers $278K per job. That's not a good return on our investment. If I were given $10 Trillion I could get the unemployment rate under 7%, Give me $20 trillion and I could get it under 4%. Meanwhile while the already working people that paid for those jobs struggle due to not having their money anymore, which now hurts the small businesses because nobody has extra money to spend. Total failure. You got to stop with the regulation, stop taxing at a high rate due to Obama's high spending habits that creates dependency, and allow Americans to do what they do best, which is a huge incentive to do well to reward yourself which will make everyone do well. Obama wants to be like Europe. We have been the greatest country and Obama thinks we should change what we've done for many decades and be like Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top