• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Employers in U.S. Added Fewer Jobs Than Forecast in April

Yay failing economy!

Romney/Bachmann ftw!
 
The title could have been "Jobless rate falls to 8.1%".
 
We are now at the lowest level of employment participation in this country since 1981.

LFP%20Rate_0.jpg


The number of people who have left the workforce is also not good.

People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force_0.jpg
 
Yay! Economy failing worse than expected!
 
Tucked inside this morning’s lackluster monthly jobs report is a remarkable figure: the economy is back to a net positive for the number of private sector jobs created since the start of 2009. That is, even with the ginormous job losses that we saw in the first few months of 2009, we’re now back in the black from that standpoint. But that’s private sector jobs. In the public sector, we’ve lost more than 600,000 jobs since the start of 2009—12,000 more in the past month, mostly in education.

Economists have of course been pointing out for a long time now what a drag public sector losses have been on the recovery—noting, for one thing, that Ronald Reagan did not have to contend with that same drag during the recovery of the early 1980s. What is striking, though, is how little focus there has been on this distinction in the political debate about the recovery. The most glaring example of this oversight came recently when Mitt Romney tried to make up lost ground with women voters by charging that 92.3 percent of the jobs lost Barack Obama’s presidency have been held by women. The Obama campaign and independent factcheckers countered that this was a deeply misleading figure. Lost in the back and forth, though, was the larger truth around the argument: yes, women have been hit disproportionately since the official conclusion of the recession in the summer of 2009—because they disproportionately hold the public sector jobs—in schools and government offices—that have borne the brunt of the layoffs. This is what really made the Romney attack so galling, more than his games with the numbers—he and his fellow Republicans in Congress and state capitals have slashing public payrolls with blithe equanimity and have resisted Obama’s efforts to provide fiscal relief to states and cities to mitigate the layoffs. That is, the big job losses among women (and among minorities, which Republicans also like to point to, to tweak Obama) are the direct result of a policy they have pushed. Yet they then lament, for political gain, the desired outcome of that policy. This is right up there in the chutzpah department with the classic example of the patricidal orphan.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/103110/public-job-losses-and-gop-chutzpah
 
Last edited:
You GOPers are fucking nuts, but you are good at politics. Horrible for the country, but damn good at the politics of economics.
 
We are now at the lowest level of employment participation in this country since 1981.

LFP%20Rate_0.jpg


The number of people who have left the workforce is also not good.

People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force_0.jpg


You love to trumpet this statistic about fewer people in the labor force as some kind of indictment of Obama's economic policies. Where is the private sector job growth required to make up for the public sector losses? Who are these people dropping out of the labor force? Well, a lot of them are teenagers. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/apri...000-jobs-added/story?id=16272259#.T6QhflL4JcB

In April, teenagers had a 24.9 percent unemployment rate, compared with a 7.5 percent rate for adult men and 7.4 percent among adult women.
 
As many of us bill by the hour, in the name of efficiency I recommend each of you copy and paste the following to any easily retrievable location:

<html>Tunnels Thread Generator App.
<insert Pub link about bad economic news>
<insert Dem link about silver lining/spin; alt: Blame to prior administration>
<insert sarcastic reply>
<insert snotty, condescending counterreply>
<insert personal insult>
<insert claim of independent status who just happens to side with the Dems on this issue...again (alt: CTRL+C, CTRL+V of same excerpt from prior thread)>
<insert allegation of class warfare>
<insert allegation of racism (adjust for horrible misspelling in certain case>
<run script for national insolvency speech here>
<insert out of place argument about global warming here>

Rinse, repeat.
 
Tucked inside this morning’s lackluster monthly jobs report is a remarkable figure: the economy is back to a net positive for the number of private sector jobs created since the start of 2009. That is, even with the ginormous job losses that we saw in the first few months of 2009, we’re now back in the black from that standpoint. But that’s private sector jobs. In the public sector, we’ve lost more than 600,000 jobs since the start of 2009—12,000 more in the past month, mostly in education.

Economists have of course been pointing out for a long time now what a drag public sector losses have been on the recovery—noting, for one thing, that Ronald Reagan did not have to contend with that same drag during the recovery of the early 1980s. What is striking, though, is how little focus there has been on this distinction in the political debate about the recovery. The most glaring example of this oversight came recently when Mitt Romney tried to make up lost ground with women voters by charging that 92.3 percent of the jobs lost Barack Obama’s presidency have been held by women. The Obama campaign and independent factcheckers countered that this was a deeply misleading figure. Lost in the back and forth, though, was the larger truth around the argument: yes, women have been hit disproportionately since the official conclusion of the recession in the summer of 2009—because they disproportionately hold the public sector jobs—in schools and government offices—that have borne the brunt of the layoffs. This is what really made the Romney attack so galling, more than his games with the numbers—he and his fellow Republicans in Congress and state capitals have slashing public payrolls with blithe equanimity and have resisted Obama’s efforts to provide fiscal relief to states and cities to mitigate the layoffs. That is, the big job losses among women (and among minorities, which Republicans also like to point to, to tweak Obama) are the direct result of a policy they have pushed. Yet they then lament, for political gain, the desired outcome of that policy. This is right up there in the chutzpah department with the classic example of the patricidal orphan.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/103110/public-job-losses-and-gop-chutzpah

Just a little visual backup to Bake's post.

PrivateSectorApril2012.jpg

PublicSectorApril2012.jpg
 
I'd be curious to see what those graphs looked like if you limited the parameters purely to employment by the federal government.
 
As many of us bill by the hour, in the name of efficiency I recommend each of you copy and paste the following to any easily retrievable location:

<html>Tunnels Thread Generator App.
<insert Pub link about bad economic news>
<insert Dem link about silver lining/spin; alt: Blame to prior administration>
<insert sarcastic reply>
<insert snotty, condescending counterreply>
<insert personal insult>
<insert claim of independent status who just happens to side with the Dems on this issue...again (alt: CTRL+C, CTRL+V of same excerpt from prior thread)>
<insert allegation of class warfare>
<insert allegation of racism (adjust for horrible misspelling in certain case>
<run script for national insolvency speech here>
<insert out of place argument about global warming here>

Rinse, repeat.

We need a tax increase to get rid of all the marginal businesses and to make the going concerns marginal.
 
Back
Top