"Jobless recovery" adds 112,000 jobs last month

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
"Jobless recovery" adds 112,000 jobs last month

Jobless Rate Drops; 112,000 Jobs Added
Story said:
Feb 6, 12:17 PM (ET)
By LEIGH STROPE


WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent in January to the lowest level in more than two years as companies added just 112,000 new jobs - fewer than expected but enough to keep alive hope for a turnaround in the struggling job market.

The jobless rate fell 0.1 percentage point last month to the lowest level since October 2001, when it was 5.4 percent, the Labor Department said Friday. January's rate matched the 5.6 percent posted in January 2002.

Employers added new jobs last month at a pace not seen in three years. The last time payrolls expanded more than 112,000 was in December 2000, when companies added 124,000 positions.

But economists were disappointed, saying they had expected a larger increase of 150,000 new jobs or more.
So what, we're supposed to complain that it wasn't good enough? It's flippin' 112,000 new jobs! That sure as hell beats no new jobs.

Some economists think hiring really is occurring in the economy, but it is not being reflected in the Labor Department's monthly survey of business payrolls. In the separate survey of households, employment jumped by 496,000 last month.

The household survey counts self-employed workers and contract workers, which are increasing. The survey of businesses does not.

"They're not recording the outside contractors - they're not reflecting something that is tremendously fundamental now to the American corporate scene, and that's outsourcing to outside contractors," Mayland said.
Using the real numbers of people working and not just the gov't numbers and the job market is doing great. But you have to want to find a job. That's the key.

About 8.3 million people remained unemployed in the United States last month.
Rest of story

For context:
Germany has a 10.4% unemployment rate. 4.317 million Germans out of work.

France in Dec. 2003 had a 9.7% unemployment rate. 2.635 million Frenchies out of work.

Russia has a 9% unemployment rate. 6.3 million Ruskies out of work.

The US unemployment rate is 5.6% Imagine the cheers of joy if Germany, France or Russia could have a 5.6% unemployment rate.
 
Smeg Head said:
But you have to want to find a job. That's the key.
That's what the unemployment rate is about, man. It doesn't count unemployed people who aren't out applying.

The US unemployment rate is 5.6% Imagine the cheers of joy if Germany, France or Russia could have a 5.6% unemployment rate.
Why, clutch the pearls, do I hear a Republican making an appeal to international trends and opinions to forward the argument that if it's good enough for the world it's good enough for us? Where were you when we were sidestepping the UN?
 

toader

Banned
Smeg Head said:
So what, we're supposed to complain that it wasn't good enough? It's flippin' 112,000 new jobs! That sure as hell beats no new jobs.

Only if your an economist. Otherwise, be happy. Im glad for the jobs, there must be a social theory somewhere or something that states something abotu unemployment rates. Its impossible to have an unemployment rate of zero, so I think 5-6% is pretty good.

Until someone can find another one, I am going to declare my own social theory:

Toader's Theory
Unemployment in a society will never be 0%
 
I think unemployment, at least as its currently measured so that it's exclusive of potential workers who aren't seeking employment, could hit 0% if there were more government initiatives and the private sector had a less dominant grip on the economy.

People do have to change jobs from time to time, so maintaining a 0% unemployment rate over a period of time would be a pretty good trick outside of pure communism.

Under a capitalist system wherein the private sector wields the majority of the power, there will always be workers competing for jobs and getting beaten out, so it probably will never be possible to hit 0% no matter how big that economy gets.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
Why, clutch the pearls, do I hear a Republican making an appeal to international trends and opinions to forward the argument that if it's good enough for the world it's good enough for us? Where were you when we were sidestepping the UN?
Huh? Again I must remind you I'm not a Republican. If I were to choose a party it'd likely be the Constitutionalist. But I'm an independant conservative instead.

But you didn't get the context. So lemme 'splain summit to ya'll.

No matter how bad people make our unemployment rate may seem, it's beats the hell out of what Europe has. Yet it is Europe's economy that is held in such high esteem by so many.

Guspasho keeps ranting about the "jobless recovery" to me. Well here it is. 112,000 new jobs according to the gov't and 469,000 to the aforementioned household survey. It's thats jobless, then I'm going to love it when we have a surge in jobs.
 

Xynrx

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
For context:
Germany has a 10.4% unemployment rate. 4.317 million Germans out of work.

France in Dec. 2003 had a 9.7% unemployment rate. 2.635 million Frenchies out of work.

Russia has a 9% unemployment rate. 6.3 million Ruskies out of work.

The US unemployment rate is 5.6% Imagine the cheers of joy if Germany, France or Russia could have a 5.6% unemployment rate.
That is a little misleading. You neglected to mention how many people 5.6% of the US is. In fact, 5.6% of the US population is more than the 4.317 mil from Germany, 2.635 mil from France, and 6.3 mil from Russia combined. The actual figure in people is 16.352 mil unemployed in the US alone.

I don't know why, but I am suddenly getting a flashback to when you said it doesn't matter how much %GDP a nation gives to international aid because the US gives more $$$ in total without coming nearly as close to the % GDP.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Ah, we see what we want to see and ignore the rest.

Article said:
Added Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics: "This economy under normal circumstances should be generating 200,000 to 300,000 a month" in new jobs.

Analysts are looking for monthly payroll gains of 300,000 or more for sustained job growth, and the economy remains far from that mark.
Article said:
Job growth is expected to be a key issue as November's presidential election nears, and President Bush could be vulnerable. The economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since he took office, giving him the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover.
So, if my math is correct at this rate it will only take ~16+ years to make up the jobs lost during Bush's first 4 years. Bush is going to be slaughtered on the economy issue, but he's got a tried and true ace in the hole; 9/11. That works on everything.
 
Smeg Head said:
Guspasho keeps ranting about the "jobless recovery" to me. Well here it is. 112,000 new jobs according to the gov't and 469,000 to the aforementioned household survey. It's thats jobless, then I'm going to love it when we have a surge in jobs.
In that case I'll sit this one out and wait for Gus tag your argument in the nuts by pointing out how 112,000 gained and 2.7 million lost compare and contrast with each other. The alligator eats the big one.
 

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
So what, we're supposed to complain that it wasn't good enough? It's flippin' 112,000 new jobs! That sure as hell beats no new jobs.
it failed to meet wall street's expectations by about a third, for what that's worth.
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
What we're seeing now, however, suggests that there may be something fundamentally wrong in the engine room of the American economy. If the normal trajectory had prevailed, two years after the trough of the recession jobs would have been up around 6 percent, and 7.7 million more Americans would be working. Instead, we have lost 2.5 million factory jobs. Since the 1930s, jobs lost in recession had been more than recovered 31 months later. Now, 34 months later, private-sector jobs are down by 2.5 million since March 2001. In the recoveries of the mid-1970s and 1980s, America was generating about 300,000 new jobs a month within six months of cyclical upturns. In the early 1990s, this expansion slowed to about 200,000 a month, and we had to wait a full two years for that. This time we have seen not a deceleration in job creation but a net loss--the sharpest in any period since the Great Depression, especially in manufacturing. In the 1980s and 1990s, it used to be that a 1 percent drop in gross domestic product resulted in a dip in private employment of between 1.3 and 1.5 percent. This time, with only a one half of 1 percent decline in GDP, the economy shed almost 3 percent of its jobs.

It also explains why some 80 percent of the 2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost are gone for good.
Meanwhile, the number of people working part time broke 25 million for the first time this past November. Of these, 4.9 million are classified as "involuntary part time," meaning they would rather be working full time. This number alone has increased 600,000 from a year ago and 1.6 million since the recession began in 2001. And more of these jobs offer no benefits, little opportunity for mobility, and slim prospects for long-term security.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040209/opinion/9edit.htm
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
So, if my math is correct at this rate it will only take ~16+ years to make up the jobs lost during Bush's first 4 years. Bush is going to be slaughtered on the economy issue, but he's got a tried and true ace in the hole; 9/11. That works on everything.
You're math is wrong. Job growth will continue to grow at an ever increasing rate like it has every other recovery. No recovery takes 16 years. :xrollseye
 
maccool said:
So, if my math is correct at this rate it will only take ~16+ years to make up the jobs lost during Bush's first 4 years.
What they didn't tell you was that "more than 2 million" = 2.7 million. So, something like 23 years I think?
 
Sarcasm or not, it's still a valid point. Bush can't pat himself on the sack just yet, he's replaced 1/23 of what he's destroyed, and that's only talking about domestic economy.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Well mac, apparently you guys are. You keep bringin up the number of jobs lost. Those are the gov't numbers. They don't include the number of independant contractors, self-employed and contract workers. How do you really know that jobs were lost in the first place if you won't use the right numbers?

EDIT:
Duped, pray tell exactly how did Pres. Bush make people lose their jobs? The dot-bomb that was on Pres. Clinton's watch? 9-11, which would hurt any economy?

And while we're are it, how did Pres. Clinton make jobs? The dot-com bubble? Exactly what did he do to help the insane dot-com bubble? I can tell you how he broke it. Attacking Microsoft. That day can be traced back to the beginning of the bubble popping.
 
The measurement of unemployment itself underaccounts for actual unemployment. If we go down this road everyone's arguments on both sides are completely unsupportable.

Do you think 2.7 million people lost their jobs and suddenly became successful at-home businessmen thanks to Sally Struthers or something?
 

Squeezle

Diabloii.Net Member
You do realize that the President doesn't have such a great effect on the economy, right? A lot of these problems were caused years before Bush was appointed President.
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
Squeezle said:
You do realize that the President doesn't have such a great effect on the economy, right? A lot of these problems were caused years before Bush was appointed President.
So the government can't change the economy? This would be news to me.
 

toader

Banned
Xynrx said:
That is a little misleading. You neglected to mention how many people 5.6% of the US is. In fact, 5.6% of the US population is more than the 4.317 mil from Germany, 2.635 mil from France, and 6.3 mil from Russia combined. The actual figure in people is 16.352 mil unemployed in the US alone.
No, the way Smeg stated it made it NOT misleading. If they said the US had 16 million unemployed while Germany only had 4, France only 2.5, and Russia only 6 million. THATS misleading.

You cant look at raw numbers, you have to looks a % when compared to the total sample. We have more people unemployed because we have ALLLLOT more people in our country than they do.

You know what argument it reminds ME of: when people say we have the largest national deficit ever. Well, guess what, we do have the largest $$ amount of deficit ever. BUT, if you look at the $$ amount deficit we have and compare it to out GNP, you will get a % of how much the deficit is. And guess what...magically...this is NOT the highest % deficit we have ever had, nowhere even close.

You have to look at % based on the sample. You cannot just compare raw numbers...that is faulty.
 

toader

Banned
Damascus said:
So the government can't change the economy? This would be news to me.
The government can direct the economy, thats about all. Its like a living thing, you cant just change it on a whim.
 
Top