Democrats & Liberals Archives

July Job Numbers Are Weak, But Beat Expectations

Our economy added 117,000 jobs in July while May and June were revised upward to 53,000 and 46,000 respectively. July was weak but any value over 90,000 exceeds population growth in our current situation.

The good news:

Private sector growth was 154,000 in July. That tops off 17 straight months of private sector job growth worth 2.38 million jobs going back to March 2010.

The bad news:

Public sector growth was -37,000. The federal government grew slightly in July by 2,000 while state and local governments shed 39,000 jobs. The states lost jobs in non-education and the local governments lost jobs in education.

So what does it all mean?

The total job growth average in 2011 has been about 133,000. That's not very good but it's not rotten either. It needs to get a lot better. Unfortunately August may be a step back considering the plummeting markets, the uncertainty overseas, and the fact that the US is cutting spending during a slow growth, jobless recovery. Ahh, austerity.

Before I end, I wonder about one thing. Is it crazy to suggest more aid to the states? Do we need to be losing teaching jobs at the local level? No. If anyone in Congress or the White House is talking about the states anymore I've missed it. This needs to remain a topic of conversation.

Posted by Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 8:56 AM
Comments
Comment #327074

AD, if you keep painting a rosey picture, perhaps it will stick someday. But I bet the 17-18% of Americans out of work don’t see things so rosey.

Just keep defending this piece of crap that is setting in the WH…Sorry, as of now he’s sitting at his $35k a seat birthday party in of all places, the seat of corruption - Chicago.

Next move, a bus tour to middle America. I’m sure middle America will see nothing of him; but every slum minority ghetto in every liberal controlled failing city, will get a another campaign speech promising them welfare from the “Obama Stash”.

Posted by: Mike at August 5, 2011 10:28 AM
Comment #327075

Mike:

First, I’d say 17-18% is pretty high. Even U-6 is only 16.1% this month and that includes people who are working but not as much as they’d like. About 10.7% of the population is out of a job but available to work.

Second, I fail to see what reporting positive job numbers has to do with defending Obama. But if you want to make it about Obama then remember that the only reason we are in recovery now is because the ARRA added 2.5 million jobs and grew GDP higher than it would have been without the act.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 10:42 AM
Comment #327077

Any guess as to how much this number will be revised in a week?

Seems like they didn’t want to rock the boat after yesterday’s illustration of wall streets dismiss level of confidence in the economy.

And before you jump to any conclusions, I’m not pointing to some conspiracy or even accusing them of lying. Simply that when you run the report once, and get a decent number, sometimes its safer to just release that number and ‘double check’ the data later…

Posted by: adam at August 5, 2011 10:54 AM
Comment #327078

I like how the GOP field has come out slinging lies and distortions today.

Romney LIES: “Today’s unemployment report represents the 30th straight month that the jobless rate has been above 8 percent. The administration promised with their $800 billion stimulus that they would keep unemployment below that number.”

Aside from the fact that unemployment was higher than 8% before the stimulus was law, apparently if a Democrat puts out a memo that explicitly states the values contained are estimates subject to uncertainty then to the right wing that means every number in there is a promise.

Pawlenty LIES: “Since the President took office, unemployment has risen 17%, the federal debt has increased 37% and gas prices have doubled.”

Unemployment was 8.2% when Obama took office. It’s 9.1% now. that’s a 9.9% increase by my calculations. Or to phrase the different like he did, Pawlenty was wrong by 41.8%. Also I love the suggestion that gas prices have doubled as if the artificially low price of oil when Obama took office was going to remain that low forever.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 10:57 AM
Comment #327080

Adam: “Any guess as to how much this number will be revised in a week?”

The number won’t be revised in a week but we will see 2 more revisions in the coming months that could increase or decrease it. Generally BLS has revised values upward each time for the past 12 months including this month but we did see downward revisions in the two previous reports.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to how BLS arrives at it’s numbers. We can be sure that the political winds and the state of the markets the day before the release have no bearing on the situation summary.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 11:04 AM
Comment #327083

Mike does your obsession with tracking Obama extend to Congress? Where is Boehner and his crew today? Doing the business of the country? Reid has his crew in session. A jobs bill has to start in the house not with the presidents signature and working backwards to the house.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2011 11:34 AM
Comment #327087


Americans are so starved for good news on jobs that sometimes bleak looks bright.

Apparently there are no slum minority ghettos in middle America.

Posted by: jlw at August 5, 2011 3:33 PM
Comment #327088

What is important given that the economy is entering stall speed is that this job report did not increase but instead decreased the fears of a double-dip recession. Not by much of course but a little bit.

I corrected the post from 93,000 average jobs per month to 133,000 due to an Excel mistake I made this morning. We’ve had an average of 164,000 in the private sector this year but we’ve lost an average of 31,000 government jobs over that span.

We’d be in slightly better shape if we’d implement a program to help the states again like we did with with ARRA. Heaven forbid we go into more federal debt to keep teachers and state employees on the job at a time when the average length of unemployment is over 9 months. Unemployed for 40 straight weeks is pretty brutal.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #327094

The numbers are always revised a week later, but those revised numbers are never expressed by th MSM.

Posted by: TomT at August 5, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #327095

TomT,
Link? The non-farm payroll number is one of the most closely watched numbers of all, and if there were a weekly revision, it would be widely reported by many sources, including the WSJ. I can’t find a weeekly revision. Can you provide a link or direct me where to look for it? Are you sure you are referring to non-farm payroll, or maybe this is something else?

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #327098

[Sigh] Pretty pathetic numbers.
Last night Robert Reich (economist, former U.S. Secretary of Labor) tweeted:

“If tomorrow’s job number is below 125,000, chance of double dip goes up to 50-50.”

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2011 5:42 PM
Comment #327100

“We knew the road ahead was going to be difficult, that the climb was going to be steep. I have to admit, I didn’t know how steep the climb was going to be,” Obama told supporters in Chicago Wednesday night.

Translation: He didn’t have a clue. He’s in over his head. obama understands how to use the nation’s credit card and that’s about it.

Jobs for him means those created and funded by government. The poor have not been helped by him, the middle class have not been helped by him and the wealthy are hiding their money under the mattress now that banks want to charge them for deposits.

Confidence in this president is falling rapidly. That’s bad news for every American. obama is desperate for another term in office and desperate folks sometimes do stupid desperate things. His presidency has been a first class failure so far and many believe it is too late for him to salvage it.

The best thing obama can do for his country is to get the hell out of the way and let others lead. Give the man a few hundred million and tell him to get lost.


Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #327101

RF,
The TeaOP doesn’t have a clue either, and that being the clear case, America also needs them to get the hell out of the way, too.
It’s too bad that Obama only listens to the poor judgement of his Wall Street appointees. He should be listening to economists like Krugman and Reich — both of whom have been spot on all along.

Krugman: The Wrong Worries”

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2011 6:14 PM
Comment #327102

Unemployment was 7.8% in January 2009. It has been above 8% for 30 straight months. How is that a lie?

At this point, we would all be grateful if unemployment dropped to what it was when Obama took office.

Re expectations - it depends on what you expect. As the Obama regime wears on, all of us have to lower our expectations. I don’t think Obama expected his policies to result in unemployment over 9% more than half way through his term.

Obama’s stimulus programs didn’t do much harm, but they didn’t do much good either. If they didn’t cost so much, maybe we wouldn’t be so upset with Obama.

Obama corrected pointed out the the economy was in trouble. He then applied the wrong remedies and they are now slowing the recovery. Time for something else.

Posted by: C&J at August 5, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #327103

“Jobs for him means those created and funded by government.”

Royal Flush,

We just had eight years of a Republican administration. Do you realize that job creation under the Bush years was the worst since Herbert Hoover! That’s a fact. It ended with the US economy shedding jobs at the rate of over 500,000 jobs per month. “…the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December [2008] and 1.9 million in the year’s final four months,..” http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/

Now, you blame Obama for the current tepid job creation. But what say you about the Bush years? You might just pull your head out of the sand and realize that there is a problem that has been festering for quite some time.

Posted by: Rich at August 5, 2011 6:26 PM
Comment #327104

Phx8: “I can’t find a weeekly revision.”

I can’t either. That is the 3rd time on this site that I’ve heard that idea expressed and from 3 different people that BLS releases one number one week and then revises it a week later. I can’t for the life of me figure out what they are talking about.

Royal Flush: “Translation: He didn’t have a clue. He’s in over his head.”

BEA just revised GDP downward making the recession even deeper under current measurements than we knew even 30 days ago. Translation? No one knew how steep the climb would be. Every person on the planet in over our heads?

“Confidence in this president is falling rapidly.”

Is it? Based on what?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #327105

“Mike:

First, I’d say 17-18% is pretty high. Even U-6 is only 16.1% this month and that includes people who are working but not as much as they’d like. About 10.7% of the population is out of a job but available to work.

Second, I fail to see what reporting positive job numbers has to do with defending Obama. But if you want to make it about Obama then remember that the only reason we are in recovery now is because the ARRA added 2.5 million jobs and grew GDP higher than it would have been without the act.
Posted by:”

Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 10:42 AM

The unemployment rate is a percentage of labor force in the US, and it is that number that is being manipulated.

“If the labor force was as big today as it was when Obama took office, if there were as many jobs available today as there were then, the unemployment rate would be 11.7%, and the real unemployment rate, the U6 number, would be over 20%.”

“By the way, that stat comes from our buddy Jim Pethokoukis at Reuters, and Jim Pethokoukis has another stat. There were more Americans working this June than there were in July. There were more Americans working in June than there were in July, and yet we are told today that unemployment went down. In June there were 139,334,000 Americans working. In July, there were 139,296,000. There were more Americans working in June than were working in July. So we’re dealing with trumped up fake numbers.”

Posted by: Mike at August 5, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #327106

C&J,

As you are well aware, when Obama took office the economy was shedding jobs at an accelerating pace. The month of January 2009 was the worst month for job losses during the Great Recession. If I recall correctly, Obama didn’t take office until late January of that year. If you look at net job losses/gains from that point forward you would realize that job losses began to decelerate beginning in Obama’s first full month in office and turned positive in November of that year. Interesting correlation of job net losses/gains with the stimulus package. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_losses_caused_by_the_late-2000s_recession

You say “Time for something else.”

Ok, what exactly does the conservative wing propose? From what I have heard, the only thing proposed is just “something else.” Well what the h…, does that mean? What do you consider to be the problems with the economy? Why were the Bush years the worst job creation presidency since Herbert Hoover?

All this ranting and raving about government spending avoids the whole question about the private sector economy. You do remember that it was the private sector that collapsed. It was not public sector deficits that tanked the economy. It was the other way around. So, lets take a minute and tell us why the private sector economy collapsed and why it is still faltering. You might consider that it is not just the US but the European sector that is also faltering.

Posted by: Rich at August 5, 2011 6:48 PM
Comment #327107

Rich, didn’t Obama take office in January 2008 and not 2009?

You ask:

“So, lets take a minute and tell us why the private sector economy collapsed and why it is still faltering.”

I will tell you why; uncertainty, uncertainty of everything Obama and his liberal buddies want to do. Obama has never shown himself to be business friendly.

Posted by: TomT at August 5, 2011 6:56 PM
Comment #327108

Adrienne, thanks for the link. I read Krugman regularly, not because I agree with him, but once in awhile he says something to stimulate the grey cells. In your link, Krugman writes…

“But we already know what isn’t working: the economic policy of the past two years — and the millions of Americans who should have jobs, but don’t.”

I agree on this. Who sets “economic policy”…the president and his economic advisers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #327109

“Confidence in this president is falling rapidly.”

Is it? Based on what?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 06:37 PM

Adam, I could link to various polls and so could you. However I will ask you a simple question. Has your confidence in obama risen, declined or remained the same?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #327110

“Rich, didn’t Obama take office in January 2008 and not 2009?”

TomT,

I am pretty sure that it was 2009. Interesting correlation though with his taking office and the change in the downward trend.

Posted by: Rich at August 5, 2011 7:21 PM
Comment #327111

Royal Flush,

Lets not be disingenuous. You fully understand that Krugman advocates additional stimulus and wanted a much bigger stimulus in 2009. He faults Obama for caving into the deficit hawk position.

Posted by: Rich at August 5, 2011 7:25 PM
Comment #327112

You will not find answers to why the US and Europe are facing such economic dire in today’s or yesterday’s newspapers. One must go back a few decades to find the roots of destruction.

Simple graphs can be found on the web that show the huge increases in spending that have occurred…not suddenly, but incrementally. Had the tumor been cut out early on, the patient would be healthy today.

Conservatives, not republicans or democrats, have for years been attempting to reign in deficit spending. Others have for years have been succeeding in increasing deficit spending. Tax increases have not been popular or increased so we keep increasing our debt.

There are many ways to increase our tax revenue without increasing tax rates. And, we have many, many programs to feed, cloth and shelter the poor that are continuing as they should.

What I hope to see in 2012 is an election of those who will tackle our problems and not just kick then down the road.

Today, we are paying the piper as is Europe. We can continue to fool ourselves into thinking that spending must continue and the recent increase in the debt limit is proof of that mental disease.

We continue to follow the same fiscal policies…why expect a different result?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #327113

Mike: “The unemployment rate is a percentage of labor force in the US, and it is that number that is being manipulated.”

What do you base that idea on again? Manipulated how, and why?

Also, what are you citing after that? I’d like to read it more closely. That math doesn’t add up based on what I can read of it. You can look at the statistics yourself from BLS databases and there is no way I can see to arrive at 11.7% and 20% for U-3 and U-6 using January or February 2009 workforce values and June or July unemployment values.

TomT: “Rich, didn’t Obama take office in January 2008 and not 2009?”

Remember that the election was November 2008 so he wouldn’t have entered office until January 2009.

Royal Flush: “However I will ask you a simple question. Has your confidence in obama risen, declined or remained the same?”

My confidence is pretty steady and based on realistic expectations about what he promised versus what is possible for a president with limited control over Congress. So, I’d say I’m down ever so slightly from the day he took office but I’ve been steady for a while. It’s certainly not rapidly declining for myself.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 5, 2011 7:27 PM
Comment #327115

“Today, we are paying the piper as is Europe.”

Paying the piper for what? Again, once more time, it was not public sector deficits that tanked the economy, it was private sector debt. Do you not believe that? The financial sector collapsed in 2008 bringing down the entire economy resulting in massive decreases in federal revenue and requirements for increased federal spending due to the automatic stabilizers, bank bailouts and economic stimulus.

The problems in Europe are quite similar. The failure of private sector debt has placed enormous strain on governments as they attempt to cover the private sector losses and prop up the banking systems. Take Ireland for example. It ran a public sector surplus before the private banking collapse! It has chosen to guarantee and basically assume the debts of the private banking system and has paid an enormous price in government deficits and austerity on the population of Ireland.

Lets be clear about who failed and started this recessionary cycle.


Posted by: Rich at August 5, 2011 8:20 PM
Comment #327117

Sorry on the date, my bad. It just seems like Obama has been in office forever.

Posted by: TomT at August 5, 2011 8:33 PM
Comment #327119

Royal Flush-
Quit while you’re as close to being ahead as you’ll ever get.

The Republican party self identifies as being 69% conservative. The term doesn’t really have any meaningful distinction attached to it.

Just admit it. Your people were terrible at balancing a budget. You used wishful thinking where a calculator would have been more appropriate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 5, 2011 8:57 PM
Comment #327122

Dan posted:


“Mike: “The unemployment rate is a percentage of labor force in the US, and it is that number that is being manipulated.”

What do you base that idea on again? Manipulated how, and why?

Also, what are you citing after that? I’d like to read it more closely. That math doesn’t add up based on what I can read of it. You can look at the statistics yourself from BLS databases and there is no way I can see to arrive at 11.7% and 20% for U-3 and U-6 using January or February 2009 workforce values and June or July unemployment values. “

Dan, in 2007 there were 153.1 million people in the US workforce; with a projected workforce of 164.2 million by 2016. This is BLS statistics in 2007. At this rate, the US should be at 157.1 million workforces by 2011, but we are not.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/dec/wk1/art03.htm

Today’s labor statistics is 153.2 million workforce, with 13.9 unemployed. This figure comes out to 9.1% unemployed. Because our employment is supposed to be 4 million higher by 2011, according to BLS statistics; that is an increase of 1 million a year, entering the workforce. Which would be a 157.2 million workforce, but we only have a workforce of 153.2, so we can add the extra 4 million to the unemployed 13.9 which equals 17.9 unemployed; which comes out to 11.7% unemployment

“The number of unemployed persons (13.9 million) and the unemployment rate (9.1
percent) changed little in July. Since April, the unemployment rate has shown
little definitive movement. The labor force, at 153.2 million, was little
changed in July. (See table A-1.)”


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Now if we add to that the number who are not drawing unemployment or who have stopped looking for work, we are close to 20% unemployed.

You see Dan; everyone in DC juggles the numbers to their benefit. The sad thing is that the left is in complete denial as to our situation. We are only 5% lower than the unemployment rates of the great depression, but in reality we have many more people unemployed now than during the depression. Because, as I said in my first post, unemployment is based on the percentage of those not working who were part of the labor force.

Posted by: Mike ` at August 5, 2011 9:46 PM
Comment #327125

Rich

Let’s wait to see how the Obama years stack up before putting Bush at the bottom.

You are right that the recession was bottoming out when Obama took office. Things should have started back up. What did Obama do to prevent the robust recovery?

Posted by: C&J at August 5, 2011 10:46 PM
Comment #327137

Mike: “…but we only have a workforce of 153.2, so we can add the extra 4 million to the unemployed 13.9 which equals 17.9 unemployed; which comes out to 11.7% unemployment…”

First of all who is Dan? Second, I just realized you’re quoting Rush Limbaugh. No wonder you didn’t cite your source.

I don’t agree with your logic about the labor force though.

My first objection is that 4 million is assumed by dividing the change in 2007 to 2016. But we know this growth isn’t linear. BLS assumes full unemployment by 2016 (Or 2018 in the recent release) but it takes into account the current economic conditions. Essentially, 1 million a year is not accurate.

My second objection assumes 4 million is accurate. The labor force is a measurement of population and participation as I’m sure you understand. I assume you are claiming that 4 million is a drop in participation because if the population isn’t growing then there’s no reason to assume a person even exists to be unemployed. Without knowing what part of that 4 million is participation you cannot simply add the whole 4 million back in and suggest those are missing jobs.

Third, assuming the whole 4 million change is a drop in participation we still don’t know why they are not participating. You simply assume they should be working so should be counted.

I don’t see any rationale for suggesting today’s headline values are bogus or inaccurate due to presumed issues in the labor force measurement.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 6, 2011 12:53 AM
Comment #327142

“Let’s wait to see how the Obama years stack up before putting Bush at the bottom.”

C&J,

I think that you missed my point. It is the point that David Frum has been trying to make to conservatives since Obama was elected. There are some real problems out there that logically and empirically aren’t directly related to Obama’s policies. I would make the same point to liberals. About time for some serious analysis of the disturbing trends in the economy, health care inflation, etc. which have transcended administrations.

Posted by: Rich at August 6, 2011 6:09 AM
Comment #327146

Rich

I agree that presidents have a lot less effect on the economy than they get credit or blame.

But if we are talking presidents, it is logical to see the Obama record before claiming Bush is the worst. At this rate, Obama’s first term will make Bush’s look like happy days.

Posted by: C&J at August 6, 2011 8:07 AM
Comment #327157

Adam, sorry for the wrong name of Dan. I quoted Rush, but thought I had added the link.

As per the 10 million workers predicted by the BLS over the 10 year period: the economy may be failing and jobs may be lost, but I don’t see where that changes the BLS prediction of a 1 million increase in the workforce each year. By your accounts, you just dismiss the increase as not happening. Well, it is easy to believe 1 million eligible workers would be added to the “workforce” each year. The problem is, there are no jobs for them, so they are not counted on the grid of the workforce. If the BLS says there are 13.9 unemployed, you can add 4 million in four years to that number.

Posted by: Mike at August 6, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #327167


If unemployment figures are manipulated, job creation during the Bush Administration was even more anemic that what was thought.

The policy commitments of both parties to globalization is the primary cause of our employment problems and the recovery of our economy.

If the products that are sold in large amounts by WalMart every day, where still being manufactured in this country, the unemployment rate would be considerably lower.

Then there are the government policies that allowed the banks to turn the housing market into a bubble for greedy intent.

C&J, I guess the first Bush term could be considered happy days compared to today, but no one had the benefit of seeing the previews of coming attractions.

Posted by: jlw at August 6, 2011 1:31 PM
Comment #327172

Mike: “By your accounts, you just dismiss the increase as not happening.”

I’m suggesting you cannot divide the 12.8 million increase over ten years by 10 and then multiply that by the number of years it’s been since 2006 and add that missing value to the unemployment figure. The growth is not linear and accounts for the fact that population growth is slow now because of the recession and will speed up again in the future. Yes, the participation has slowed as well but it’s not the only factor in the decline in the labor force.

What I’m interested in is where you get the 4 million and how you found just the exact number it would take to get 11.7 and make Limbaugh seem correct when he’s not correct. What makes you add 1 million per year instead of 1.28 million?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 6, 2011 4:36 PM
Comment #327175

jlw

Yes, the previews of Obama would indeed be scary. But we didn’t know that he would be coming.

Posted by: C&J at August 6, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #327181


C&J, I agree, previews of Obama’s Administration and the Congress would have indeed been frightening.

If the people could have seen the previews of coming attractions in 2000, Obama may have become president under totally different conditions in 2008, and that is a very probable may have.

The Bush tax cuts would have never happened. The Republicans would have held Gore to the fiscal discipline established between themselves and Clinton. The war in Iraq probably would not have happened. The Gore administration would have probably heeded the warnings and whistle blowers before the housing bubble was allowed to proceed. This government would have never run up $5 trillion of debt during a Gore Administration, Republicans would have never let it happen.

Previews of coming attractions would be great if they existed.

What ifs would be wonderful if they had the capacity to teach us anything.

Posted by: jlw at August 6, 2011 6:46 PM
Comment #327185

“What I’m interested in is where you get the 4 million and how you found just the exact number it would take to get 11.7 and make Limbaugh seem correct when he’s not correct. What makes you add 1 million per year instead of 1.28 million?”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 6, 2011 04:36 PM

Well Adam, I used the links I provided to you from BLS and did the math. It wasn’t hard.

You are incorrect concerning your argument that the population growth would be low because of the recession. It doesn’t matter what the birth rate is today. The population growth we are seeing in the workforce today is the result of those born 18 to 24 years ago. The population in 1990 was 248,709,873 and ten years later in 2000, it was 281,421,906. That is an increase of 32,712,033 in ten years. Those people began to enter the work force or at least became of age to enter the workforce in 2008. So by all rights almost 33 million could be divided by 10 years and would mean that 3.3 million would enter the work force every year since 2008. Which would add an additional 10 million to today’s unemployed numbers. But it doesn’t really make any difference, the number of unemployed is much higher than reported. And you will continue to do what liberals do best, fudge the numbers to protect a socialist president. I can remember when the MSM, in their eagerness to attack Bush, were reporting 4.5-5% unemployment as the end of the world, and what is it we are hearing today; why, it’s the sound of silence!

Posted by: Mike at August 6, 2011 7:33 PM
Comment #327198
But if we are talking presidents, it is logical to see the Obama record before claiming Bush is the worst. At this rate, Obama’s first term will make Bush’s look like happy days.

The same could be said of Hoover and FDR, C&J, but the people were wise enough then to call the shanty towns for the homeless Hoovervilles not FDRvilles. Why is that?
The fallacy in your logic is obvious, does it really need to be explained?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 6, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment #327199


Bush happy days? That is right, as happy as $5T of debt can get you. Now the bill has to be paid and we all know who Republicans have nominated to pay it.

How do you compare a President with a hostile Congress with one that had a rubber stamp Congress?

How do you compare a president with a opposition party that offered virtually no resistance, to a president that has an opposition that is totally committed to destroying his presidency?

How do you compare a president with a Congress that demands huge additional tax breaks for the wealthy in exchange for some workers compensation?

I am sure the Republicans can lie up a considerable number of comparisons.

Posted by: jlw at August 6, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #327221

j2t2

What people call things is not always based on actual fact. FDR did lots of good things. Solving the problem of the Depression with his New Deal was not among them. In fact, the New Deal evidently did nothing to get the economy going again and if Roosevelt had done nothing we might have come out quicker.

I believe, BTW, that the New Deal had an essential contribution, but it was unrelated to the economy. The New Deal regimented America and made it easier to militarize it, which is what we needed to fight WWII. I am not sure the more liberal (in the original sense) U.S. could have fought the Nazis as well.

Posted by: C&J at August 7, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #327224

Mike: “You are incorrect concerning your argument that the population growth would be low because of the recession.”

I agree. I was wrong on that point though technically it changes very little. The labor force is still a matter of growth and participation and you have not shown that the 4 million is a valid number let alone all a decline in participation. You cannot arrive at 4 million that using BLS numbers, despite what you say. Also, arriving at 11.7% using your own values does not make Limbaugh correct in what he said. His statement is still incorrect.

“But it doesn’t really make any difference, the number of unemployed is much higher than reported.”

I must point out that you’ve proven such a thing using only soft numbers and a handful of assumptions.

“And you will continue to do what liberals do best, fudge the numbers to protect a socialist president.”

Yes, I’m sure the Census figures the BLS uses are fudged to make Obama look better. That makes a lot of sense. Honestly if somebody is fudging I wish they’d fudge better so we’d have more positive job numbers to brag about.

This comes down to one thing that you shouldn’t get confused. I’m relying on a figures from a trusted government statistical source to tell us the current state of employment in America. You’re making unsubstantiated claims of number fudging and phony figure usage by the BLS and myself to suggest we are hiding the truth about jobs. I can’t imagine why you think you have the logical high ground in this argument.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 7, 2011 10:02 PM
Comment #327225

Mike: I must also point out something I was just considering. Unemployed counts as in the workforce so if you’re adding 4 million to unemployed you have to add 4 million to the workforce as well. Getting 11.7% is not technically correct but would be more like 11.3%. That’s just nitpicking though.

Overall your reasoning is still faulty to assume you can add those back in even pretending 4 million is correct. If I quit my job to go back to school tomorrow then I’m not in the labor force. Would you take it on yourself to suggest that I should be working and so therefore I am unemployed and not simply of the labor force?

You have absolutely no basis to suggest that any estimated value of missing labor force participants belong back in the labor force pool. The recession being a factor in lower participation is correct, but that does not give you the right to fudge the numbers for real in order to try and prove the numbers were fudged to start with.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 7, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #327226
What people call things is not always based on actual fact.

Don’t I know it C&J. Your comment on Obama proves that.

FDR did lots of good things. Solving the problem of the Depression with his New Deal was not among them. In fact, the New Deal evidently did nothing to get the economy going again and if Roosevelt had done nothing we might have come out quicker.


What revisionism C&J. To think Hoovers approach was the way to go shows just how far the right wing will go. Ask yourself this question C&J, if the new deal did nothing why was FDR reelected during the worse times of the depression? Using your logic the problem should have been solved before FDR was even elected to office the first time. Hoover had 3 years of doing nothing and yet the market did not self correct. go figure.

The point is FDR dealt with the problems, Hoover did not, he was driving the bus when it crashed. Just like Bush was this time around. Conservatives would have us believe we should be out of the great recession by now but for Obama and his policies. We all know better. It takes time to get out of a mess of this size. Time and money…

Another parallel with today is the ‘37 recession that came about due to the conservatives, much like the tea party of today, using debt to stall the recovery.

FDR and the new deal saved us from Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Conservatism and Fascism. Then he went on to guide us through the war. You can thank Hitler all you want for getting the economy going again C&J but lets face it without the new deal and it’s programs many Americans would not have been around to serve the war effort. Of course if it was the massive spending of the war effort that saved us then why are we not spending as much today to get the economy going again?


Posted by: j2t2 at August 7, 2011 10:41 PM
Comment #327228

Adam, get Limbaugh out of your head, I don’t listen to him and I’m not trying to prove his numbers; it was simply a quote I added and it didn’t come from Limbaugh’s web site.

I will restate what I said earlier, when you falsely claimed that population growth is down because of recession:

“You are incorrect concerning your argument that the population growth would be low because of the recession. It doesn’t matter what the birth rate is today. The population growth we are seeing in the workforce today is the result of those born 18 to 24 years ago. The population in 1990 was 248,709,873 and ten years later in 2000, it was 281,421,906. That is an increase of 32,712,033 in ten years. Those people began to enter the work force or at least became of age to enter the workforce in 2008. So by all rights almost 33 million could be divided by 10 years and would mean that 3.3 million would enter the work force every year since 2008. Which would add an additional 10 million to today’s unemployed numbers. But it doesn’t really make any difference, the number of unemployed is much higher than reported. And you will continue to do what liberals do best, fudge the numbers to protect a socialist president. I can remember when the MSM, in their eagerness to attack Bush, were reporting 4.5-5% unemployment as the end of the world, and what is it we are hearing today; why, it’s the sound of silence!”

From 1990 to 2000 we saw a population growth of almost 33 million people, that would enter the workforce by the time they started turning 18 years old. It doesn’t take much sense to realize these 33 million became of age to enter the work force starting in 2008 and we are almost 4 years into this added work force. Once again, todays workforce is tha virtually the same as it was in 2008. So you tell me where these added millions are working? That doesn’t even take into account, the millions of illegal aliens who are trying to get into the workforce, or are already holding jjobs that Americans should be working. The Obama numbers don’t cut it; we are much worse than is being reported.

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2011 11:00 PM
Comment #327248

Mike: “The Obama numbers don’t cut it; we are much worse than is being reported.”

You have pointed out errors in my original argument but you have not accounted for my main point: How do you know those people really exist and that they qualify as in the labor force. Simply existing and able to work does not mean you belong in the labor force. You have not actually proven your argument at all. If these numbers were in error then all numbers the BLS releases would be in doubt. They’re not though.

Furthermore, these are not “Obama numbers” and I’m not sure why you’d suggest that. Yes, BLS is inside of the Department of Labor but it’s not like Obama appoints people there to do the math. They are an independent entity.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 8, 2011 9:44 AM
Comment #327258


Let me see if I have the Republican argument right.

The economy is really in worse shape that the Obama Administration is saying.

The jobs market is worse…

The unemployed numbers are not counting everyone, so unemployment is worse….

But, but, but, people won’t get themselves one of those non existent jobs because they are drawing unemployment benefits.

Posted by: jlw at August 8, 2011 12:31 PM
Comment #327276

Adam, reasoning with you is like reasoning with a child. If we have an population increase of 33 million between 1990 and 2000, and these people began to come of age to enter work force in 2008, then you tell me where they are? You are saying I have no proof they are part of the work force. Exactly; they are either in the work force or they are not in the work force, who gives a shit. The point is, we are looking at an increase of at least 10 million people from 2008 to 2011, and where are they? If they are of age, and they are not working, then they are unemployed. If these 10 million are unemployed, then we can add them to the BLS 13.9 million unemployed. Remember, the US work force is the same today as it was in 2008. You are trying to tell me that not one person has reached the age to enter the work force in the past 3 years. You are saying those reaching workforce age have disapeared from the grid. Concerning the labor department; the DOJ is also supposed to be seperate from the administration, and yet we all know Obama is calling the shots in the DOJ. Your statement that Obama is not interferring with the labor department is ignorant and idealistic. The left has accused conservatives, the TP, and Bush of all sorts of conspiracy theories, and yet you believe this corrupt president from Chicago thugery land is far above being able to do this? Get real…

Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #327278

Adam, you are the one that wrote this rediculous post and your numbers and the BLS numbers do not match up. Everyone knows DC is all about numbers and the juggling of them.

Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #327304

Mike,

You are looking at only the persons who are age eligible to enter the workforce but fail to account for reaching retirement age. There will be either a net gain or loss depending on the difference between those entering and leaving. You are looking at only one side of the equation.

Posted by: Rich at August 8, 2011 8:14 PM
Comment #327309

Mike: “If they are of age, and they are not working, then they are unemployed.”

Not by the definitions used by BLS. People who are not looking for work are not in the workforce. The Census samples those who not in the workforce to see if they are discouraged or otherwise marginally attached for the alternative measurements of employment because that is certainly a negative on the job market. The rest do not belong for one reason or another. They could be in school. They could be new mothers. They could be stoned slackers. They still don’t count.

“You are saying those reaching workforce age have disappeared from the grid.”

I’m simply saying we don’t know. Maybe they opted for more education instead of joining the workforce. As Rich mentions, maybe older employees retired early for some reason at the same time as young people joined the workforce essentially canceling out any increase. There are a lot of reasons a person exists but does not count as in the workforce. I feel like this idea is a fundamental flaw in your argument but you’re not acknowledging it.

“Your statement that Obama is not interferring with the labor department is ignorant and idealistic.”

Really? See, I don’t think that’s a very strong way of making your case. Do you have any evidence that the president influences the statistical methods of the BLS?

“Adam, reasoning with you is like reasoning with a child.” … “Adam, you are the one that wrote this ridiculous post and your numbers and the BLS numbers do not match up.”

Look, I enjoy arguing with you but if it’s so ridiculous you should just go comment on another subject in another post. There is absolutely no reason for either of us to get too nasty or rude.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 8, 2011 9:13 PM
Comment #327310

Rich, perhaps you could explain to me, why any person reaching retirement age would be willing to retire in this economy?

The only people retiring are those who lose their jobs and also qualify for SS. What person would want to retire when their 401k have taken such a hit? There is a local IBEW union hall that had to raise their retirement age because they have lost so much money in their retirement fund. So, the increase of eligible workforce numbers far outweighs the numbers of people retiring. You guys can bullshit these numbers all you want, but they are still incorrect.

The number of unemployed is much closer to 20+%.

Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #327312

Adam opined:

“Not by the definitions used by BLS. People who are not looking for work are not in the workforce… I’m simply saying we don’t know. Maybe they opted for more education instead of joining the workforce. As Rich mentions, maybe older employees retired early for some reason at the same time as young people joined the workforce essentially canceling out any increase. There are a lot of reasons a person exists but does not count as in the workforce. I feel like this idea is a fundamental flaw in your argument but you’re not acknowledging it… Really? See, I don’t think that’s a very strong way of making your case. Do you have any evidence that the president influences the statistical methods of the BLS?”

This is all supposition. Why should we not think that Obama has his influence in the BLS; as I said, he controls what Holder does and does not do in the DOJ. I have no reason to believe he does not influence the BLS for political reasons. Let me give it to you straight Adam; I wouldn’t trust Obama as far as I could throw him. He has lied to the American people multiple times and the left does whatever is necessary to defend him. You are making this ridiculous argument with me on the unemployment numbers simply to defend Obama, and you know the numbers are much higher than they claim. As I told Rich, retirement numbers are down, due to not knowing if they can survive on retirement income. Check the numbers…

Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2011 9:48 PM
Comment #327313

Mike: “The number of unemployed is much closer to 20+%.”

At the rate you’re finding people to add back in it will be 30% by tomorrow or maybe 50%. You’ve run out of legitimate counter arguments and now you’re just smearing Obama and anyone who supports him. You really know how to turn a good argument into a sad one.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 8, 2011 9:54 PM
Comment #327318

Adam, I gave the numbers, but you continue to live in ths Obama fantasy land. The numbers don’t add up. Let me ask you a question: The BLS unemployment rates hit 25% in 1933; were those numbers taken from those drawing unemployment compensation, or was it the actual number of men who were out of work? At what point were the numbers fudged to make the unemployed % seem smaller?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2011 10:27 PM
Comment #327326

Mike,

My point is simple. If you want to count the number of people reaching the age of eighteen as part of the workforce, then you must also subtract the number of people reaching an established retirement age (65) in order to determine your concept of a total workforce based on age. It is clear that the largest age cohort in the population (baby boomers) is now beginning to leave the workforce based on your age determined definition of workforce.

Posted by: Rich at August 9, 2011 7:02 AM
Comment #327331

Mike: “…were those numbers taken from those drawing unemployment compensation, or was it the actual number of men who were out of work?”

I don’t know. Do you? I tried to find the answer but couldn’t really get any certainty on it. On the other hand BLS methodologies have changed over the years so it’s hard to compare today’s employment to the Great Depression but we can compare today’s employment to more recent bad recessions.

Today’s unemployment numbers don’t come from those drawing unemployment compensation though or the actual number of people out of work, for the record.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 9, 2011 9:22 AM
Comment #327344


The projected population of the U.S. in 2050 is just over 400 million. There is a high probability that as a percentage of the population the workforce will be smaller with more people unable to support themselves.

The key to reducing population is the empowerment and education of women. Educated, workforce women have fewer children.

Posted by: jlw at August 9, 2011 1:29 PM
Post a comment