• 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!

Jobs Report - Lower than Expected Jobs Growth

jhmd2000 said:
You think it will really go to 9% that quickly? I figure it will take at least two more months...
Click to expand...

It's kind of interesting. The number is arbitrary, and more of an estimate. We all know that. But if unemployment drops to 7.9% right before the election, that going to be a big deal for Obama. You'll never hear the end of it.
 
DeacMan said:
Isn't the population participating in the labor force (i.e. people working) the lowest it has been something like 30 years? If that is true, this report sucks. And isn't the rate of job creation is the slowest it has been in many months as well. It is decelerating. That is also worrisome and not a good sign - although perhaps hiring in late summer tends to be slower anyway. Anyway, what good is a lowered unemployment rate if it is the result of people just leaving the workforce - unless those people are just capable of retiring comfortably (and we all know those baby boomers have been great savers over the years).
Click to expand...

It's a mixed report because it's slower job growth than you would like, but it is growth. It's, what, 30+ straight months of positive job creation in a row? That's good. The real figures tends to fluctuate month-to-month, but what matters is the direction the jobs are heading. Bottom line: this report, like the dozens before it, points to recovery rather than recession. That makes it acceptable, though nothing to string up balloons about. We're slogging rather than jogging, but the economy is on the right track. And yes, August is typically a down month due to late summer business inertia, I believe. And unemployment always is a moving target, but you can't use it one way and then dismiss it the other and be intellectually honest. It either means something or it doesn't, both ways.

NOTE: I did not mention Obama or the GOP once in this post.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
It's a mixed report because it's slower job growth than you would like, but it is growth. It's, what, 30+ straight months of positive job creation in a row? That's good. The real figures tends to fluctuate month-to-month, but what matters is the direction the jobs are heading. Bottom line: this report, like the dozens before it, points to recovery rather than recession. That makes it acceptable, though nothing to string up balloons about. We're slogging rather than jogging, but the economy is on the right track. And yes, August is typically a down month due to late summer business inertia, I believe. And unemployment always is a moving target, but you can't use it one way and then dismiss it the other and be intellectually honest. It either means something or it doesn't, both ways.

NOTE: I did not mention Obama or the GOP once in this post.
Click to expand...

Dude - Over 300,000 people left the workforce. I'm not sure we can conclude there is even positive job "growth" going on - especially considering the number of people participating in the workforce is at something like a 30 year low.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
It's kind of interesting. The number is arbitrary, and more of an estimate. We all know that. But if unemployment drops to 7.9% right before the election, that going to be a big deal for Obama. You'll never hear the end of it.
Click to expand...

This I agree with. Although I suspect you will hear Romney and Co. try to get everyone focused on broader metrics than just the unemployment rate. Expect the cocophony of sound on this starting - oh, about 6 hours ago.
 
090712krugman1-blog480.jpg


No real need to be chicken littles, but this sucks. It's not getting worse, but it sucks.
 
Also, when considering labor force dropouts, keep in mind that ~8,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 each day, or 240,000 a month.
 
RJKarl said:
There is no evidence the GOP would have agreed to tax rate increases.
Click to expand...

Ah. But for one word, I would have scored in the debate. Or not. Board points for RJ 1, Beatrix 0.

But out in the real world, there is evidence that leaders on both sides will agree to tax increases and/or spending cuts to stabilize the fisc. That’s encouraging to me even if it undermines the left’s spin that a not insignificant ratio of the leadership in the most powerful country on the planet is filled with moronic simpletons.
 
In July, there were 155,013,000 in the U.S. civilian labor force. In August that dropped to 154,645,000—meaning that on net 368,000 people simply dropped out of the labor force last month and did not even look for a job.

There were also 119,000 fewer Americans employed in August than there were in July. In July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 142,220,000 Americans working. But, in August, there were only 142,101,000 Americans working.

Despite the fact that fewer Americans were employed in August than July, the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.3 in July to 8.1. That is because so many people dropped out of the labor force and stopped looking for work. The unemployment rate is the percentage of people in the labor force (meaning they had a job or were actively looking for one) who did not have a job.

The Bureau of Labor Statistic also reported that in August the labor force participation rate (the percentage of the people in the civilian non-institutionalized population who either had a job or were actively looking for one) dropped to a 30-year low of 63.5 percent, down from 63.7 percent in July. The last time the labor force participation rate was as low as 63.5 percent was in September 1981.

EEESH.
 
DeacMan said:
Dude - Over 300,000 people left the workforce. I'm not sure we can conclude there is even positive job "growth" going on - especially considering the number of people participating in the workforce is at something like a 30 year low.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what most economists seem to think, and how Wall Street interpreted the report. Spin away, dude. It's the politicians that want to make this a massive deal one way or the other, for personal reasons.
 
Last edited:
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Also, when considering labor force dropouts, keep in mind that ~8,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 each day, or 240,000 a month.
Click to expand...

And these reports can often be off by as many as 60K jobs either way. A private firm had new jobs created last month at 201K, and, overall, the economic news last week was good on multiple fronts. It's okay to be hopeful about the economy, even during an election. I guess that's a dumb thing to post on a politics board though.
 
Four years with absolutely enormous output gaps ARE a massive deal. We have a ton of totally gratuitous human suffering in this country right now. The solution is some combination of mass mortgage refinance (local governments using eminent domain to buy and refi mortgages, direct federal action, or principal reductions, I don't care), deficit spending (tax suspension or massive public works, I don't care), and expansionary monetary policy. This IS a massive deal, and I'm tired of central bankers not doing their fucking jobs and politicians bitching about deficit reduction when every last goddamn person in the market who matters is willing to buy Treasuries at negative real rates.
 
BillBrasky said:
At the gym this morning I saw that the percentage (something like 62-63%) of people in the workforce is the lowest since 1981. That worries me far more than any of the other statistics. No way that is sustainable.
Click to expand...

And before that, it was lower because families didn't have to have two wage earners. These days, most people pretty much do have to have that.

It's a bad situation. The people that want to work have to work more, and the people that don't want to work don't seem to have to. That 8% number is of course a completely joke as far as the total number of jobless in the country.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
It's kind of interesting. The number is arbitrary, and more of an estimate. We all know that. But if unemployment drops to 7.9% right before the election, that going to be a big deal for Obama. You'll never hear the end of it.
Click to expand...

And if it doesn't, I'll never hear the end of how it isn't his fault. Simple, really.
 
DeacMan said:
LOL. In what form?

Anywho, I'm quite sure we'll see more "money" put into the economy shortly via easing. How long that takes to make any difference in this metric, I'm not smart enough to know.
Click to expand...

Well I keep a Big Tent bandwagon. You can hop on if you're in favor of increasing the deficit by whatever means necessary, as long as no actual wars are unilaterally started. I'm just inferring your willingness to join up from your evident frustration with the labor market and output gap and knowledge of Britain's Austerian mega-fail.
 
bobknightfan said:
Your assumption is, to put it bluntly, full of shit. There is no evidence whatsoever that any Republican in congress will agree to any tax increase. I just went thru this with someone a few days ago. Give me the name of a Republican in congress who has agreed to an increase of any amount....under any circumstances....in marginal tax rates. So far, nobody has given me the name of a single elected Republican in congress who has done this. And nobody is going to give me such a name....because there aren't any such Republicans in congress. When you say "tax increases", I'm talking about "tax increases"....not some kind of potential mysterious sleight of hand revenue increase, closing loopholes, or bookkeeping shenanigans. I'm talking about black & white, easy to see, marginal tax rate increases. I'll be waiting.......

Boehner didn't offer to increase taxes in that aborted deal with Obama. His plan called for lowering tax rates.
Click to expand...

Facepalm

That was me. And I have no desire to re-hash it. Your inability to grasp the concept that rates in and of themselves are meaningless unless you know the underlying code is astounding. You can drop rates and increase revenues or you can raise rates and increase revenues. Or vice-versa. Rate-only discussions are probably sufficient for many on the left (it's about fairness, after all... amirite?) but meaningless for effecting real change. With that said, we just went through a ton of discussion demonstrating that Republican leaders were willing to do a deal that increased revenues. President Obama agreed with them (before he didn't. And before he did again). And evidently Biden and Cantor are on record as saying they would have been able to pull it through Congress as well. So I beg to differ - my understanding isn't bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top