Only 54,000 Jobs Added in May, UE Rate Rises to 9.1% (fast food, solutions, state)

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by pvande55

Is it possible that some of the loss was from natural disasters? The Japan tsunami affected auto production and the tornadoes destroyed a lot of businesses. Rebuilding should create some additional jobs in the months to come.

The BLS says no.

Maybe the Japan quake is a contributing factor.

The department said it found "no clear impact" from weather on the jobs figures.

[Secchamps98]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

If you think you're not one of those completely blinded, you should be able to read and comprehend the posts. But then, in your defense, you may be reading, just not be able to comprehend or stick with the argument because it demonstrates the cuteness of the blinders getting in your way.


Then you must believe that unemployment rate provides greater detail than number of jobs added/lost. Is that right? Let us play then... here are Unemployment Rates since 1980, grouped every four years:
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5

1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5

1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5

1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4

1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5

2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8

Would you mind ranking these group of periods based on the state of economy using those unemployment rate? For example, would you say, the economy was doing better in 2001-2004 compared to 1985-88?

Regardless of actual growth, employment is more important to the aveage person. A 5% unemployment rate today versus 10% would mean more are working, more are paying taxes, less people are using services like unemployment or welfare...a low unemployment may or may not correlate with a strong economy, but I would rather have low unemployment than a fast growing economy.....if I chose between the two. I beelive it is possible to have both...

[Secchamps98]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

And Heritage Foundation had analyzed that with Bush tax cuts, the country would have paid off its debt by 2010. That with the policies the conservatives pushed for, the economy would be in GREAT shape, with balanced budget and all.

While at it, you should mention that too?


I think Nancy Pelosi’s fault was that she assumed that it is only private sector job growth that should count whereas the conservatives would rather make sure the growth in government sector jobs should be included for bragging rights. And right along the lines is the title of this thread. It mentions 58K jobs added. Here is the reality, along the lines:

Private Sector Jobs Added in May 2011: 83K
Total Non Farm Jobs Added in May 2011: 58K
Based on the two numbers…
Government Jobs Removed in May 2011: 25K

And this, from people who complain about growth in government, that they are first in line to celebrate government sector job growth. Why am I not surprised?

It looks likeyou did not understand my point...I am saying that it is easy to distort things when one picks big time horizons and does not get into the details on a more granular basis...

[Secchamps98]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

If you want to rely on unemployment numbers, I think it was stupid to even claim anything along the lines, just as it is to make an argument against the claim. But did the stimulus fail? Not in my opinion. Where it failed, IMO, was that it relied a bit too much on tax cuts, a demand of the conservatives met in the congress. In a world where partisanship rules over common sense, the drive for bipartisanship is a stupid idea. That is also where the stimulus (and the health care reform) fails, IMO.

But, did it work better than the stimuli presented under republican congress and Bush administration? No doubt. I also believe that without the stimulus, the economy would have been far worse.

I also believe that without the stimulus, the economy would have been far worse.

People say this over and over, show me the proof that we are better off..would lke to see an economic model showing the impact if the stimulus would not have been done or if more wold have been done....

[alphamale]

According to the MSM, we're going just fine!

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Secchamps98

Regardless of actual growth, employment is more important to the aveage person. A 5% unemployment rate today versus 10% would mean more are working, more are paying taxes, less people are using services like unemployment or welfare...a low unemployment may or may not correlate with a strong economy, but I would rather have low unemployment than a fast growing economy.....if I chose between the two. I beelive it is possible to have both...

I think you just highlighted the problem with your argument. You're speaking of the average person, who must be relied upon to discuss the realities and intricacies of the economics.

I also see that you refused to respond to my post as it had asked you to pick what you would consider the best period in economy based on the groupings by unemployment rate. If an average person can do it, I'm sure you can too?

Originally Posted by Secchamps98

It looks likeyou did not understand my point...I am saying that it is easy to distort things when one picks big time horizons and does not get into the details on a more granular basis...

That was my point. Does increase in government sector employment not distort the state of the economy? Assuming that you're one of the people who believe that fewer government jobs is a good thing?

Originally Posted by Secchamps98

I also believe that without the stimulus, the economy would have been far worse.

People say this over and over, show me the proof that we are better off..would lke to see an economic model showing the impact if the stimulus would not have been done or if more wold have been done....

For proof, I've compared similar periods from last recession. "Better" is a relative term, you always need a baseline for it. No? However, I am also guilty of drawing logical conclusions, about the state of economy had no stimulus been put in place. Such conclusions are based on steps taken in past recessions, their causes and their outcomes. What have you done along those lines?

[Secchamps98]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

I think you just highlighted the problem with your argument. You're speaking of the average person, who must be relied upon to discuss the realities and intricacies of the economics.

I also see that you refused to respond to my post as it had asked you to pick what you would consider the best period in economy based on the groupings by unemployment rate. If an average person can do it, I'm sure you can too?


That was my point. Does increase in government sector employment not distort the state of the economy? Assuming that you're one of the people who believe that fewer government jobs is a good thing?


For proof, I've compared similar periods from last recession. "Better" is a relative term, you always need a baseline for it. No? However, I am also guilty of drawing logical conclusions, about the state of economy had no stimulus been put in place. Such conclusions are based on steps taken in past recessions, their causes and their outcomes. What have you done along those lines?

I am saying without something better than logic, than you hypothesis isn't worth anything. Data is key! Where is your data? The state of economy today, unemployment above 9%, debt in the trillions as compared to 1 yr ago, record rate of folks on foodstamps, .....think that means the economy is in the crapper. Your logic doesn't prove that the economy was helped by the stimulus. Surely it would not have been hard to develop a Markov decision model using best/worse case scnearios and probabilities to illustrate this? Why would I do something for free when people are paid to do this? My logic tells me we are going in the wrong direction...that logic is every bit as astute as yours

Yes, fewer govt jobs are a good thing. Govt doesn't produce refenue, it takes it from private workers....bigger the govt., less for the hard workers. Perhaps your one of those who feel it is Govt. job to take care of people from cradle to grave....I believe in less group think and more individualism.

I answered your q about unemployment. There is not always a correlation between unemployment and economic growth. I think unemployment rate is a better indicator for QOL of people than % growth in GDP or added jobs, as those can be very misleading...

[Finn_Jarber]

Bush's "zero-down-payment initiative" aimed at minorities who didn't have money for down-payment was among the worst in his 40 bill hit-list to lower lending standards. It lowered the FHA down payment requirement from 3% to zero. Even back in 2004 CBO said it was a very bad idea because it was guaranteed to raise the number of defaults as people had no coin in the game, and could walk out of a house any time they wanted (which is exactly what happened). Bush signed it into law in 2004, but hey, it was election year, and additional votes had to be purchesed with something.

[Willsson]

The left should be so proud of the increase in employment, regardless of the high wages...

Half of Last Month's New Jobs Came from a Single Employer

Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Secchamps98

I am saying without something better than logic, than you hypothesis isn't worth anything. Data is key! Where is your data?

Oh good, you want me to repeat a dozen or so of my posts here now?

The state of economy today, unemployment above 9%, debt in the trillions as compared to 1 yr ago

You won't happen to be one of those who complains about the problems with Unemployment Rate going down but using them when it goes up. Would you? If you're, I must applaud your consistency.

Having said that, did you really expect balanced budget and paying off debt on the day Obama took office much less the day he was elected? All the while, pushing for tax cuts and measures that have added to the deficits since 2001?

record rate of folks on foodstamps, .....think that means the economy is in the crapper.

It has been since 2001. But if you had your head stuck in sand until the cheering and applauding on Nov 4, 2008... then you surely have a point!

Your logic doesn't prove that the economy was helped by the stimulus. Surely it would not have been hard to develop a Markov decision model using best/worse case scnearios and probabilities to illustrate this? Why would I do something for free when people are paid to do this? My logic tells me we are going in the wrong direction...that logic is every bit as astute as yours

You don't like my logic. Why don't you share yours? I will look forward to it.

Yes, fewer govt jobs are a good thing. Govt doesn't produce refenue, it takes it from private workers....bigger the govt., less for the hard workers. Perhaps your one of those who feel it is Govt. job to take care of people from cradle to grave....I believe in less group think and more individualism.

And yet you thought Nancy Pelosi should have used increase in government sector jobs in Bush's favor while dismissing the fact that the government sector jobs have gone down since Obama took office.

I answered your q about unemployment. There is not always a correlation between unemployment and economic growth.

Are unemployment and state of economy not related?

I think unemployment rate is a better indicator for QOL of people than % growth in GDP or added jobs, as those can be very misleading...

Then you must answer my q about unemployment rate. That, contrary to your claim above, you have not. Just pick the three best four year periods on QOL (Quality of Life?) based on the unemployment data I provided in my earlier post and I will know where you stand.