243k jobs added, unemployment dips to 8.3%

[djohn2oo8]

American employers substantially stepped up their hiring in January, bringing the unemployment rate down for the fifth month in a row.
Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.


Meanwhile, the unemployment rate (http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/storysupplement/state_unemployment_rates/?iid=EL) fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.


Hiring was much stronger than expected, and once it was apparent the job gains were broad based across several sectors, economists and investors called it a "nice surprise," "fantastic," and even "a touchdown!" Stock futures (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/markets/premarkets/index.htm?iid=EL) immediately headed higher.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.

"To show the economy adding this kind of jobs number in a January is amazing," said Kathy Kane, senior vice president of Talent Management at Adecco Group North America. "As we talk to clients, they're very optimistic about continuing to hold jobs throughout the year but also to increase jobs."

"This is an optimistic jobs report, especially in light of very poor jobs reports for almost three years," said Brian Hamilton, CEO of Sageworks, a financial information company. "We don't know if the positive jobs trend will continue, but it is definitely a good trend."
The encouraging news was coupled with revisions to the Labor Department's data, showing the economy added 180,000 more jobs than originally thought in 2011.


http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/

[George Gervin's Afro]

I just went to the fair and balanced news site and the unemployment story is no where near the leade story. In fact, the story is currently located on the 3rd bullet point under the Latest news section buried in the middle of the web page.

I would think that would be big news but I guess not..

[xrayzebra]

Okay, found out how they got this wonderful figure.......

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

[URL="Posts: 9,364 Gender: Male View halkel's Album View Profile Email Personal Message (Online) Re: Talk About Politics (19)~New « Reply #961 on: Today at 09:09:32 » Quote Modify Remove Okay, found out how they got this wonderful figure....... Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

[boutons_deux]

And what have the Repugs done to increase the jobs available and get more to participate in the job hunting and labor force?

not one fucking thing.

[xrayzebra]

And what have the Repugs done to increase the jobs available and get more to participate in the job hunting and labor force?

not one fucking thing.

Ah, boutons, I awoke you and you are in a bad mood again. Just get up
and go get your unemployment check. How many weeks you got left out
of your 99 your daddy, Obama, gave you.

[TDMVPDPOY]

would companies hire more ppl if the govt drops payroll tax and companies providing/paying heathcare?...shouldnt all of this become choice whether taxpayers want to pay for healthcare out of their own pocket?

[boutons_deux]

XZ, answer the question:

what have the Repugs done to increase the jobs available and get more to participate in the job hunting and labor force

(I'm not expecting any evidence from your military-addled brain)

[Winehole23]

When a dip in unemployment is due to people falling off the rolls rather than increased hiring, that's bad. However, the headline number went down and that's all most people will care about.

[boutons_deux]

250K new jobs should invite discouraged job seekers back onto the market, pushing up the unemployment rate.

iow, we have many years of screwed 99%ers in the zero-sum game called the %1 vs the 99%.

And I'd really like to know the average hourly wage of these 250K new jobs. Very probably well under $15/hour.

[mercos]

The economy is getting stronger. I agree with the majority of economist who say a larger stimulus would have ushered in this period of economic growth quicker. We now also know the Bush recession was far deeper than originally thought. I believe the rate of contraction reached 9%? It was bad, compacted by the fact that it was caused by the financial sector. Barring another jarring event the economy should continue to hum along for the rest of the year.

[xrayzebra]

XZ, answer the question:

what have the Repugs done to increase the jobs available and get more to participate in the job hunting and labor force

(I'm not expecting any evidence from your military-addled brain)

There is a question in your post? I see it as an accusation. As for
military-addled brain. At least I have on that I use. I cant say the
same for you.

I would give you a few facts, but they would only confuse your empty
pea size cranial cavity. What a dumb ass statement: " Repugs done to increase the jobs available and get more to participate in the job hunting and labor force"

Now go read your Media-matters website.

[TDMVPDPOY]

have they taken in account the army personnel returning abroad now unemployed?

[clambake]

good news is the new bad news.

[DarrinS]

There's already an "Obama is awesome-est president evah" thread started by resident 9/11 twoofer, Nbadan. :lol

[clambake]

birthers outing twoofers lol

[DarrinS]

birthers outing twoofers lol

No birther here

[101A]

Okay, found out how they got this wonderful figure.......

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

XRZ: Welcome back.

Good link, thought this graph was telling from it (for those to lazy to click)

And, WH - you're right; not many will pay attention to what is ACTUALLY happening.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg

[Winehole23]

nm

[TDMVPDPOY]

XRZ: Welcome back.

Good link, thought this graph was telling from it (for those to lazy to click)

And, WH - you're right; not many will pay attention to what is ACTUALLY happening.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg

does this stat include ppl who cant access welfare payments, who are dealing or hustling on the streets?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://transgenerational.org/aging/demographics.htm

[boutons_deux]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F_jy8qw6qkc/Tyv9ubc6_CI/AAAAAAAAMDc/MBYHtXWcFjk/s1600/PercentJobLossesAlignedJan2012.jpg


http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/employment-summary-part-time-workers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+ Risk%29

[JoeChalupa]

Things have to keep improving and this is good for all of America.

[xrayzebra]

Things have to keep improving and this is good for all of America.

How are things improving when all that is happening is the labor pool
is decreasing, which causes a drop in the unemployment percentage.

If they had not messed with the number of people in the job pool then
unemployment would be over 10 percent.

[mercos]

Jobs are being added, that is how things are improving. Look around. I know I have witnessed in my own area things are looking brighter. If you have blinders on and think Obama and the Democrats are the devil and everything they do is bad of course you are not going to think things are improving....

[EVAY]

How are things improving when all that is happening is the labor pool
is decreasing, which causes a drop in the unemployment percentage.

If they had not messed with the number of people in the job pool then
unemployment would be over 10 percent.

Actually, I don't think 'they' 'messed with' with the number of people in the job pool. The numbers are what they are.

And, if you think about it and people see this and start to believe that things are improving and go back to looking for jobs, won't that make the unemployment numbers rise later in the year, which would be bad for Obama and good for the Republicans. Isn't that what you want?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How are things improving when all that is happening is the labor pool
is decreasing, which causes a drop in the unemployment percentage.

If they had not messed with the number of people in the job pool then
unemployment would be over 10 percent.

Again you have no idea the basis for the reduction in the labor pool. 1/4 of the population will be leaving the labor pool and that exodus only began when the baby boomers started turning 65 in 2011.

As WH pointed out its not the rate that is important but rather that the total number of jobs increased by over 200k.

[TeyshaBlue]

And in the background going virtually unnoticed:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/AMR-lost-904-million-in-December--138480144.html

13,000 jobs gone. 2000 of them just up the road from me.

[greyforest]

Things have to keep improving and this is good for all of America.

things aren't improving. the way the unemployment rate is measured is purposefully misleading.

[Nbadan]

Denial isn't just a river in Africa anymore....by every measure, observable or not, the US economy is growing...

[Nbadan]

...and we are doing it without increasing the government payroll (like Dubya's tax cut 'stimulus')

[Nbadan]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6812356401_e13a0575ba_z.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7162/6812356457_181df10ea2_z.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6812356495_dcc84e4abf_z.jpg

[Jacob1983]

So basically things are back to the way they were when Obama first became president? I guess you could say that's good but it's also bad since it took 3 years to get back to that. If Obama was wonderful and awesome like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and George Clooney think he is, then why is the unemployment basically the same now as it was 3 years ago? If Obama was cool and hip, wouldn't the unemployment rate be lower like 6 or 7 percent?

[Nbadan]

Wow...

[m>s]

^ ^ and immigrants stand always ahead of natives in the job-awaiting queue :rolleyes

[NewcastleKEG]

He promised change

[Jacob1983]

It was suppose to be hope and change but it's basically been nope and the same. Why is it that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that compares Obama to Bush? Why does the GOP consider that bad strategy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/americas-jobs-report


It certainly feels that way. Before getting into the caveats, let's look at January's solid employment report. Non-farm employment jumped 243,000, or 0.2%, from December, the best in nine months. The unemployment rate fell to 8.3%, a three-year low, from 8.5%.

There were no obvious asterisks marring the positive tone of the report. Payroll gains were broad based. Construction rose 21,000, not surrendering any of its mild-weather gains of December. Manufacturing jumped 50,000, corroborating other signs of strength in the industrial sector. Government employment is becoming less of a drag: it fell only 14,000.

Prior declines in the unemployment rate were often the result of people dropping out of the labour force and thus no longer being counted as unemployed. Not this time. In January the number of employed people jumped 631,000, after adjusting for new population estimates. That’s according to the household survey which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, and often produces different results from the bigger and better-known payroll survey.

So the fourth quarter pick-up in growth has not only persisted into the new year, it may be gathering steam. This report is no outlier: other January data, including claims for unemployment insurance, automobile sales, and factory purchasing manager surveys, have been broadly, but not startlingly, positive. Behind the gains are two factors. The first is that at home, pent-up demand is finally being released, with the benefits being felt in particular by producers of durable goods such as cars, and construction. To be sure, the overhang of foreclosed homes and the tightness of mortgage standards militates against sharp gains in home building. But housing starts are currently so far behind the formation of new households that the smallest improvement in affordability and sentiment can't help but boost activity. That’s just what the Federal Reserve has achieved through its no-holds barred attempt to wrestle long-term interest rates (and thus mortgage rates) lower.

The second factor is global trends: emerging-market growth remains decent, boosting demand both for commodities and manufactured products, and the lower dollar has helped American factories both in export markets and against imports. Factory employees worked more overtime and longer hours in January; the total gain in factory hours was the biggest in at least six years, according to Morgan Stanley.

Now, for the caveats. In both 2010 and 2011, a promising early-year upturn in the jobs market was snuffed out by mid-year. Will the same thing happen this time? There are two reasons that could happen: one, unexpected setbacks; two, the underlying strength was never there.

Let's address the second possibility first. The secular forces of deleveraging are a constant threat to post-crisis recoveries and probably helped snuff out previous flickers of animal spirits such as in 2010. I think it's less likely now. There are telltale signs that the data may be underestimating, rather than overestimating, underlying economic strength. Revisions usually track underlying momentum, and lately they have been positive. Job growth in November has been revised up to 157,000 from 120,000. While December’s gain of 203,000 changed little from the first estimate, within the total the statisticians erased an unusual spike in package delivery jobs, replacing it with other jobs that will probably last beyond the holiday season. Benchmark revisions have also found that payroll job growth throughout 2011 was a touch stronger than first estimated. Finally, the household survey continues to outrun the payroll survey: it shows jobs up 2.8m in the last 12 months, compared to 1.9m under the payroll survey (after adjusting for new population estimates and for differences in how the two categorise jobs). The payroll survey is larger and more reliable, so do not assume the household survey is a better picture of reality. But a gap of this size ought to close and it could come from better payroll job growth rather than weaker household employment.

Now, the first risk. Last year's recovery was derailed by shocks: a spike in oil prices, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the re-eruption of Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis. There's no way to predict what bad luck may befall us this year: war with Iran? Another natural disaster? But at least in the case of Europe, the worst-case scenarios have been averted for now.

Will the better tone to the jobs market deter the Federal Reserve from further monetary easing? Not yet. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, acknowledged the moderately better tone to economic data yesterday, but the last official Fed statement and press conference strongly suggested the Fed is inclined to do more quantitative easing; we’d have to get more, and better, reports like this one to take that option off the table.

The news is obviously good for Barack Obama. It's not good enough to turn the economy into an asset for his re-election efforts. However, if this performance continues, the economy will be less of a liability. The parallel is 2004 when George Bush entered the year hobbled by stagnant job growth. The economy turned around just in time, and by just enough, to cease being a millstone and enabled him to talk about something else, in his case national security. If the subject changes, what will it change to? I don't know, but the big surprise of 2012 may be how little we talk about the economy in the run-up to November.

[boutons_deux]

So basically things are back to the way they were when Obama first became president? I guess you could say that's good but it's also bad since it took 3 years to get back to that. If Obama was wonderful and awesome like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and George Clooney think he is, then why is the unemployment basically the same now as it was 3 years ago? If Obama was cool and hip, wouldn't the unemployment rate be lower like 6 or 7 percent?

Things were going to hell (mortgage/Wall St) well before Obama even won office.

You're a typical slanderer trashing Obama for the Jobs Depression that was set off by the Repug/Fed policies for the previous 8 years and whose momemtum is still going. Meanwhile the Repugs have blocked/knee-capped every attempt at job stimulation while proposing none of their own.

[EVAY]

So basically things are back to the way they were when Obama first became president? I guess you could say that's good but it's also bad since it took 3 years to get back to that. If Obama was wonderful and awesome like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and George Clooney think he is, then why is the unemployment basically the same now as it was 3 years ago? If Obama was cool and hip, wouldn't the unemployment rate be lower like 6 or 7 percent?

The most significant reason that the economy has taken this long to begin showing improvement is that the Fed was out of 'magic bullets' by the time Obama took office. Every time there had been a significant downturn in the economy since the days of GHW Bush, the Fed had been asked to, and had in fact, lowered the price of borrowing. They did it repeatedly during the GW Bush years, even to the point where it was almost impossible to do it anymore.
Easy money and repeated tax cuts kept the economy going through a series of bubbles during the 10 years preceding the debacle of 2007-2008.

The financial crisis that created the 'great recession' was so deep that it would take a long time to get over, unless there was greater monetary stimulus. There was no capacity for that greater stimulus, however, because the Fed had already taken the Prime rate close to zero.

So in the face of the worst recession since the great depression, the Fed couldn't lower rates except by a small amount, to virtually zero, in order to try to get the economy moving again.

Many people (including me) were fearful of huge inflationary pressure following that kind of money policy. The fact that inflation hasn't been run-away is a function of just how deep the recession hit.

Personally, I am satisfied with the pace of economic growth, because, although it is painful, it is the only way to avoid another bubble.

Obama's housing policy has been close to a total failure, imo, but his overall economic policies show a slow and steady hand.

[boutons_deux]

"has been close to a total failure"

the mortgage lenders' fraud and theft has been close to a complete success, as has been their resistance to any and all attempts to lessen the mortage crisis they caused.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a virtual guarantee that enough people will "quit looking for work" to get the unemployment "number" below 8% before the election. Smoke and mirrors.

[Agloco]

So basically things are back to the way they were when Obama first became president? I guess you could say that's good but it's also bad since it took 3 years to get back to that. If Obama was wonderful and awesome like Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and George Clooney think he is, then why is the unemployment basically the same now as it was 3 years ago? If Obama was cool and hip, wouldn't the unemployment rate be lower like 6 or 7 percent?


It was suppose to be hope and change but it's basically been nope and the same. Why is it that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that compares Obama to Bush? Why does the GOP consider that bad strategy?

^The insatiable American need for instant fixes in a nutshell.

[Wild Cobra]

It's a virtual guarantee that enough people will "quit looking for work" to get the unemployment "number" below 8% before the election. Smoke and mirrors.
This is funny in a sad way. It would be advantageous for republicans to push for extended unemployment benefits until Nov '12, and for democrats to fight against it. Once a person is off unemployment, why should they respond to saying they are unemployed if polled, but they are automatically counted as unemployed while collecting benefits.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is funny in a sad way. It would be advantageous for republicans to push for extended unemployment benefits until Nov '12, and for democrats to fight against it. Once a person is off unemployment, why should they respond to saying they are unemployed if polled, but they are automatically counted as unemployed while collecting benefits.

LMAO

in this fucked up political environment neither side will ever vote for ending the perpetual unemployment extensions...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a virtual guarantee that enough people will "quit looking for work" to get the unemployment "number" below 8% before the election. Smoke and mirrors.

And again, the Fox News puppet speaks. The Economist disagrees with your assertion and they are a British publication so no horseshit about it being 'liberal.'

[CosmicCowboy]

And again, the Fox News puppet speaks. The Economist disagrees with your assertion and they are a British publication so no horseshit about it being 'liberal.'

Fox News puppet...:lmao

God, you are SUCH a shithead.

And yes, the Economist is a good source and I have been reading them for 20+ years but they aren't infallible and also like to present contrasting viewpoints. The fact that you want to pick and choose articles and then declare it "FACT" because it was in the Economist just proves again what an intellectual midget you are.

[boutons_deux]

Jobs Deficit Still More Important Than Budget Deficit

But the U.S. labor market is far from healthy. America's job deficit is still mammoth. Our working-age population has grown by nearly 10 million since the recession officially began in December 2007 but many of these people never entered the workforce. Millions of others are still too discouraged to look for work.

The most direct way of measuring the jobs deficit is to look at the share of the working-age population in jobs. Before the recession, 63.3 percent of working-age Americans had jobs. That employment-to-population ratio reached a low last summer of 58.2 percent. Now it's 58.5 percent. That's better than it was, but not by much. The trend line here isn't quite as encouraging.

Given how many people have lost their jobs and how much larger the total working-age population is now, we've got a long road ahead. At January's rate of job gains - 243,000 - the nation wouldn't return to full employment for another seven years.

When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/9784-focus-jobs-deficit-still-more-important-than-budget-deficit

The Repugs, esp at state level, will do everything possible to fire state and county govt employees to make the pain as deep as possible for Nov 2012.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fox News puppet...:lmao

God, you are SUCH a shithead.

And yes, the Economist is a good source and I have been reading them for 20+ years but they aren't infallible and also like to present contrasting viewpoints. The fact that you want to pick and choose articles and then declare it "FACT" because it was in the Economist just proves again what an intellectual midget you are.

As opposed to what? Assertions by the group think squad and their random blog? All i ever see you do is spout the GOP groupthink.

[CosmicCowboy]

As opposed to what? Assertions by the group think squad and their random blog? All i ever see you do is spout the GOP groupthink.

All I see YOU do is act like an asshole. Grow the fuck up. Get a fucking original thought for a change.

[mercos]

Jobs Deficit Still More Important Than Budget Deficit

But the U.S. labor market is far from healthy. America's job deficit is still mammoth. Our working-age population has grown by nearly 10 million since the recession officially began in December 2007 but many of these people never entered the workforce. Millions of others are still too discouraged to look for work.

The most direct way of measuring the jobs deficit is to look at the share of the working-age population in jobs. Before the recession, 63.3 percent of working-age Americans had jobs. That employment-to-population ratio reached a low last summer of 58.2 percent. Now it's 58.5 percent. That's better than it was, but not by much. The trend line here isn't quite as encouraging.

Given how many people have lost their jobs and how much larger the total working-age population is now, we've got a long road ahead. At January's rate of job gains - 243,000 - the nation wouldn't return to full employment for another seven years.

When they're not blaming Obama for a bad economy, Republicans are decrying the federal budget deficit and demanding more cuts. But America's jobs deficit continues to be a much larger problem than the budget deficit.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/9784-focus-jobs-deficit-still-more-important-than-budget-deficit

The Repugs, esp at state level, will do everything possible to fire state and county govt employees to make the pain as deep as possible for Nov 2012.


Nice info. The January numbers are great, but we still have a long way to go. Barring any seismic events I believe we will get there. I disagree with your last point. I don't believe Republicans are firing state employees to keep the unemployment rate higher for the 2012 election. I do believe some are doing it to cover for foolish tax cuts a la Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Others have had to cut for legitimate reasons as well. Luckily, the government layoffs have not had to large an effect on the numbers. I think government lost around 200,000 jobs last year.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All I see YOU do is act like an asshole. Grow the fuck up. Get a fucking original thought for a change.

Unions, entitlements and whatever the rhetoric that AM radio has going on is what comes out of your posts the majority of the time. I call you on it repeatedly and that has nothing to do with maturity but rather consistency.

That you resort to expletives and maturity smack calls to your behavior much more than mine. Citing age as something to be sought after is laughable anyway as the WW2 generation dies off the older crowd that remains lets just say leaves much to be desired.

[Jacob1983]

Again, why is it that Ron Paul is the only candidate that compares Obama to Bush?

[CosmicCowboy]

Unions, entitlements and whatever the rhetoric that AM radio has going on is what comes out of your posts the majority of the time. I call you on it repeatedly and that has nothing to do with maturity but rather consistency.

That you resort to expletives and maturity smack calls to your behavior much more than mine. Citing age as something to be sought after is laughable anyway as the WW2 generation dies off the older crowd that remains lets just say leaves much to be desired.

Calling me out?....:lmao

You are just a pissant little ankle biter. Your whiney little posts blaming all your problems on people older than you are simply pathetic and indicative of what a worthless piece of shit you are. At least Boutons is consistently aggressively delusional. You are just consistently whiney. WaWaWa....

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Obama's approval rating going up too.

[boutons_deux]

Employment trending up is the Fox Repug network's worst nightmare, so they absolutley have to lie, saying the improvements are govt lies.

Fox And Friends Pretty Sure The Labor Department Is ‘Cooking The Books’ On Jobs Numbers

Fox News appeared to be systematically ignoring the strong jobs report that day, perhaps in an effort to avoid giving President Obama any credit. The network mentioned the jobs numbers half as often as some of their competitors, and buried the big news on their website, but on Fox and Friends today, the network went a step further.

Hosts Eric Bolling, Steve Doocy, and Gretchen Carlson went beyond merely downplaying the numbers to contriving a conspiracy theory to explain them away:

BOLLING: So are they playing around with the numbers? Look, it’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it’s supposed to be non-partisan, but that’s the Department of Labor. Hilda Solis heads the Department of Labor, Hilda Solis works directly to Obama. I’m — you know.

DOOCY: Are you saying they’re cooking the books?

BOLLING: I’m saying there’s room for error. There’s room — when you’re talking about 4 million people, how do you know?

DOOCY: How do you know?

CARLSON: I don’t think anyone should surprised that in an election year — [...] So it’s interpretation, I think is the way in which we’d describe it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/06/419288/fox-and-friends-pretty-sure-the-labor-department-is-cooking-the-books-on-jobs-numbers/

===============

Lying Repug governors, killing local and state govt jobs by the 100Ks and pushing austerity budget cuts to worsen the economy, are claiming that they are responsible for improved job numbers.

Repugs overwhelmingly trust Fox Repug Propaganda network to be telling the Pravda.

[boutons_deux]

Things Are Not OK

As the Economic Policy Institute points out, we started 2012 with fewer workers employed than in January 2001 — zero growth after 11 years, even as the population, and therefore the number of jobs we needed, grew steadily. The institute estimates that even at January’s pace of job creation it would take us until 2019 to return to full employment.

And we should never forget that the persistence of high unemployment inflicts enormous, continuing damage on our economy and our society, even if the unemployment rate is gradually declining. Bear in mind, in particular, the fact that long-term unemployment — the percentage of workers who have been out of work for six months or more — remains at levels not seen since the Great Depression. And each month that this goes on means more Americans permanently alienated from the work force, more families exhausting their savings, and, not least, more of our fellow citizens losing hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/opinion/krugman-things-are-not-ok.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[Winehole23]

But even as news stories note a bit of a dark cloud to that silver lining in the form of fewer-than-expected new jobs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-hiring-slowed-sharply-inmarch-unemployment-fell-to-82-percent/2012/04/06/gIQAroNXzS_story.html) -- even leading their coverage (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/06/us-usa-economy-payrolls-idUSBRE8350AG20120406) with that datum -- there's still more reason to take that dipping unemployment rate with a grain of salt. That's because, even as jobless numbers have dipped, so have the ranks of people who actually have jobs.

In February 2012, or so says the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor participation rate (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/news.release/empsit.a.htm) was 63.9 percent. In March, it dropped to 63.8 percent. That's down from 64.2 percent in March of 2011. And, if you're not participating, you don't get counted -- whether or not you have a job. So, despite an unemployment rate nominally moving in an encouraging direction, 31,000 fewer people were drawing paychecks last month than the month before.


In fact, the labor participation rate has been consistently spiraling down for several years now, and there really isn't a soft landing for numbers of this sort.
Cruddy labor numbers aren't an Obama-specific problem -- the participation rate has been dropping for over a decade, ever since the halcyon days of the dot-com bubble.


But then, we already knew that the lousy economy was a success of bipartisan cooperation (http://reason.com/blog/2009/02/06/were-making-this-up-as-we-go). It takes a lot of cross-aisle hand-shaking to drive the national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) from simply disturbing levels to Greek-style over-achievement in the course of a decade. Why wouldn't that sort of talent work equal magic with the labor market?
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/06/unemployment-rate-drops-but-fewer-people

[boutons_deux]

They job creation numbers never say anything about quality of the jobs. A fast food drone job is counted the same as petroleum engineer job.

The VRWC 30+ year War on Employees, with mgmt and investors grabbing the employee wages not paid, has succeeded and continues:

Low-Wage Jobs to Blame for Slow Economic Recovery

Now a new study attributes the jobless recoveries following recent recessions to such job polarization. The study's authors argue that jobs in the middle of the skill and income distribution disappear during recessions and fail to come back during recoveries. How real is job polarization?
The job polarization thesis is widely attributed to work by David Autor and his colleagues. But as Autor makes very clear, it is only the decade of the 1990s that can be characterized by a hollowing out of middle-skill jobs. In that decade, according to Autor, employment growth was most rapid in high-skill jobs, was modestly positive in low-skill jobs, and was modestly negative in middle-skill jobs. From 1999 to 2007, in contrast, Autor finds that employment growth was concentrated in the bottom third of the skill distribution, a pattern that has persisted through the recovery from the 2007-2009 recessionand that is expected to persist to 2020.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/low-wage-jobs-to-blame-for-slow-economic-recovery?utm_source=CEPR+feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cepr+%28CEPR%29&utm_content=Google+Reader