Nothing on unemployment/job numbers?

[JustRalph]

Whistling past the graveyard I see........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnsD3VqLtJA


CnsD3VqLtJA

[DJofSD]

The MSNBC folks are worthless.

Michelle is conservative and I'm sure if she did not address the issues further later in the day, it will be by Kudlow and others.

[Clocker]

You are not impressed by 74,000 news jobs in December? Why, that's almost enough to keep up with population growth. It's a step in the right direction. Except for the little detail about the 347,000 that left the workforce in Dec. But overall, I believe that the total number of jobs in the country is almost back up to what it was when Obama took office. You're doing a heck of a job there, Barry.

[TJDave]

You are not impressed by 74,000 news jobs in December?

Maybe it's a good sign. Maybe that was all that was needed.

[Tom]

74,000 McJobs and 9 million out of the work force.
2 million sign up for NoCare and 6 million lose their health insurance.

This Obama is a total failure.
Al Qeada could never do as much damage to us as this moron.

[JustRalph]

92 million out of the workforce

31 million people retired officially

60 million children in the US

318 million total population

That 92 million is a significant portion of the working population.......do the math

Most living in poverty in 50 years.

Legacy anybody?

[Tom]

Compared to Obama, the dust bowl and the depression were the good old days.

[JustRalph]

:lol: Come on man!! Check out post #2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024312878

Ladies and Gents this is your Dem party

[mostpost]

74,000 new jobs in December is the thirty ninth consecutive month in which we have added jobs. 74,000 new jobs means there are 74,000 people who now have jobs who did not have jobs at the end of November. In the last three months 515,000 people who did not have jobs now have jobs

At the end of September 11,203,000 were unemployed. At the end of December 10,351,000 people were unemployed. That is a decrease of 858,000.

The U3 unemployment rate went from 7.2% in October to 7.0% in November to 6.7% in December.
The U-5 rate which is Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force 8.7 to 8.6 to 8.1.
The U-6 rate which tracks Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force dropped from 13.7 to 13.1 then stayed at 13.1

More people are working, less people are unemployed. Those are the facts.

[mostpost]

92 million out of the workforce

31 million people retired officially

60 million children in the US

318 million total population

That 92 million is a significant portion of the working population.......do the math

Most living in poverty in 50 years.

Legacy anybody?
Not in labor force
89,445 91,521 92,338 88,865 90,524 90,695 91,756 91,283 91,808
Persons who currently want a job
6,532 5,437 5,932 6,725 6,241 6,118 6,100 5,779 6,111

The last one of the first set of figures (91,808) is the number-in millions-of people not in the labor force. The last one of the second set of numbers (6,111) is the number-in millions-of people who currently want a job. The remainder of that 91,808,000 is made up of young people, retired people, students, housespouses and others who choose not to work. There are not 92 million people who want a job and can't get one.

[HUSKER55]

maybe we could teach them to play horses :D

[plainolebill]

The last one of the first set of figures (91,808) is the number-in millions-of people not in the labor force. The last one of the second set of numbers (6,111) is the number-in millions-of people who currently want a job. The remainder of that 91,808,000 is made up of young people, retired people, students, housespouses and others who choose not to work. There are not 92 million people who want a job and can't get one.

Here's the bottom line: ".........The civilian population rose by one percent from Dec. 2012 to Dec. 2013, just under 2.4 million people. In that same period, the civilian labor force declined by 0.4 percent, or by 548,000. Fewer Americans were working or looking for work at the end of 2013 than were at the end of 2012."

Spin that

Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/labor-force-declines-for-december-and-for-2013)

[plainolebill]

From another board:

"...Not adjusting the unemployment rate for the steadily falling participation rate is either sophistry or simply delusional."

"Those the Gods Seek to Destroy; They First Make Mad."

[JustRalph]

Add these two numbers together and you get the real unemployment rate. Great post Bill......

[JustRalph]

The real war on women...........

http://flip.it/BRLda

[PICSIX]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-disturbing-unemployment-rate-chart-172400813.html

[Clocker]

74,000 McJobs and 9 million out of the work force.


Exact details on how many of those new jobs are part time is not yet available, but the report did say that 55,000 of those jobs are in retail, and that the average hours worked per week for all workers dropped from November.

[DJofSD]

Those numbers will be revised and seasonally adjusted. I'd assume non-farm payroll too.

[Clocker]

Here are some longer term numbers from Investors Business Daily (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011014-686041-counting-the-ways-obama-policies-have-failed-to-create-jobs.htm) that put the job market into perspective. Obama took office in Jan., 2009. The recession officially ended in June, 2009. During the 2007-09 recession median household income dropped $1006. During the Obama recovery, from June, 2009, to date, median household income dropped $2535.

Obama fan-boys keep pointing out that the number of jobs keeps going up. They don't mention that the number of people without jobs is going up at a faster rate.
58.6%: Current employment-to-population ratio.
61%: Ratio when Obama took office.
62%: Average employment-to-population ratio in the 30 years before Obama took office.

The U6 unemployment rate has declined recently, but is still higher than when Obama took office.
13.1%: Jobless rate in Dec. using a broader measure — U6 — which includes people marginally attached to labor force or working part time for economic reasons.
9.2%: Average U6 rate in Bush's eight years in office.

[cj's dad]

1.3 million have been cut from EUB's as of 12/31. That's a lot of folks without $$$ in their pockets.

[DJofSD]

THX Clocker.

As a former IBD subscriber, I appreciate those numbers and the posting.

Why does the word perspective come to mind? :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Add these two numbers together and you get the real unemployment rate. Great post Bill......
Proof positive that you do not know what you are talking about. The U6 rate includes the U3 rate. The addition is done for you.

If you look at the U6 numbers what you see is that those numbers are also going down consistently.

[mostpost]

The U6 unemployment rate has declined recently, but is still higher than when Obama took office.
Quote:
13.1%: Jobless rate in Dec. using a broader measure — U6 — which includes people marginally attached to labor force or working part time for economic reasons.
9.2%: Average U6 rate in Bush's eight years in office.
That is rubbish. You can't compare a single month to an average. A fairer comparison would be to compare the beginning of the Obama term to the current rate. In that case we find the the U6 rate has dropped from 14.2% to 13.1%.

But we all know that an administration generally does not affect economic policy until about a year into its term. From December of 2009 to December 2013 the U6 rate has fallen from 17.1% to 13.1%

It took George W. Bush and the Republicans from 2001 to late 2007 to start screwing up the economy. When they did so, they did it in a manner almost unprecedented in American History. Once they had established this historic task, they turned their attention to blocking every commonsense, proven attempt to fix the problem. The shock is not that unemployment has dropped to slowly; it is that it has dropped at all given the unrelenting of unwillingness of the GOP to help solve the problem.

[Clocker]

Once they had established this historic task, they turned their attention to blocking every commonsense, proven attempt to fix the problem. The shock is not that unemployment has dropped to slowly; it is that it has dropped at all given the unrelenting of unwillingness of the GOP to help solve the problem.

Obama had 2 years of a solid Democratic Congress when the GOP could not block anything. What kind of "commonsense, proven attempt to fix the problem" did he implement? Nearly $800 billion in stimulus spending, only to discover that there were no "shovel-ready" jobs. "Common sense" fixes like Cash for Clunkers and millions of dollars in loans to cronies like Solyndra. End result? Unsubstantiated claims of millions of jobs "created or saved".

"Commonsense, proven" fix? No. Obama's answer to every problem is the same old, tired Keynesian nonsense: more deficit spending. If there is anything proven here, it is that what progressives try to justify as Keynesian economics doesn't work. Not that it matters, but what they want is nothing like what Keynes proposed. Progressives start with the end they want and try to justify it with pseudo-economics.

[DJofSD]

Cue ELO "Strange Magic."

Problem with progressive is they firmly feel hope is a strategy.

[Clocker]

Problem with progressive is they firmly feel hope is a strategy.

Yeah, Hope and Blame. All the massaging the data and blaming the Republicans doesn't change reality: the economy is the pits and Obama's attempts to fix it aren't working. And the libs are still blaming Bush.

If the president had any commonsense, proven ways of improving the economy, he should have exercised some leadership and offered some compromises to the Republicans. It worked for Clinton. Whatever other problems Clinton had, he was a leader and a deal maker. He worked with the Republicans and they produced a strong economy.

Obama is a speech maker who has never shown any willingness to give an inch. When Clinton wanted something done, he worked with people in Washington. When Obama wants something done, he hits the campaign trail and urges people to contact their representatives and tell them to pass his programs.

[JustRalph]

Proof positive that you do not know what you are talking about. The U6 rate includes the U3 rate. The addition is done for you.

If you look at the U6 numbers what you see is that those numbers are also going down consistently.

My not so subtle point was that I don't believe either set of numbers. They are both shaved. Add them together and throw in the under employed and half the country is screwed.

We are supposed to believe anything that comes out of this government? The promised most transparent in history is being run like a dictator is in charge. Chavez had nothing on Barry O

Chavez just wasn't as good as hiding the details and soft selling this corrupt admin

The only saving grace is watching those who swooned over this guy in 08 have to get up every day and face the news that their godlike hero is a loser of the highest order. A man who will go down in history as the biggest failure ever.

It must be hell reading the headlines every day..........hang in there . The ride on the titanic gets worse.........

[Saratoga_Mike]

That is rubbish. You can't compare a single month to an average. A fairer comparison would be to compare the beginning of the Obama term to the current rate. In that case we find the the U6 rate has dropped from 14.2% to 13.1%.

But we all know that an administration generally does not affect economic policy until about a year into its term. From December of 2009 to December 2013 the U6 rate has fallen from 17.1% to 13.1%

It took George W. Bush and the Republicans from 2001 to late 2007 to start screwing up the economy. When they did so, they did it in a manner almost unprecedented in American History. Once they had established this historic task, they turned their attention to blocking every commonsense, proven attempt to fix the problem. The shock is not that unemployment has dropped to slowly; it is that it has dropped at all given the unrelenting of unwillingness of the GOP to help solve the problem.

Most, you're jumping through way too many hoops in this thread in an attempt to show the jobs picture is improving (it is, ever so slowly).

The real culprit in the lousy December jobs number: THE WEATHER. The headline number of +74k jobs was well short of the trend of roughly +200k/month. If you look at data from the household survey (note the +74k comes from the establishment survey), it shows weather impacted 273k individuals in December. Over the prior ten Decembers, that number avg'd 166k. Therefore, weather most likely reduced the establishment survey number (+74k) by roughly 100k. As a result, I would look at the December number as +174k, in line with trend. For those who think the economy is slowing, weekly unemployment claims do not support your assertion.

Caveat: I'm mixing surveys (household and establishment (employers)), not the best approach but I think it's necessary in this case to figure out the true underlying trend.

Where we differ: 1) the economy would be stronger if Obama was not president (you think otherwise). 2) your comments about 2001 to 2007 are baseless. Leverage (too much debt), which had been building for five decades, created the conditions for a giant meltdown, not GWB's policies. That leverage was aided and abetted by the US Federal Reserve's policies. Feel free to blame Greenspan, in part, if you like.

[Tom]

For those who think the economy is slowing, weekly unemployment claims do not support your assertion.


If you are going to add in 100,000 jobs for weather, then you have to make an adjustment for the millions of people who are no longer making weekly claims because they are out of the workforce. And again, a job is not a job - a retail job is nowhere near as important as a manufacturing job.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you are going to add in 100,000 jobs for weather, then you have to make an adjustment for the millions of people who are no longer making weekly claims because they are out of the workforce. And again, a job is not a job - a retail job is nowhere near as important as a manufacturing job.

No, weekly claims are INITIAL in nature, not ongoing (that number is available, though--it's continuing claims). The weekly claims number is a great high-frequency economic indicator.

From Dec 12 to Dec 13, manufacturing jobs increased by 89k, while retail jobs declined by 153k. The decline in retail jobs is primarily related to clothing retailers (really tough past yr).

If you look at the economy dispassionately/apolitically, it is improving albeit at a slow pace. We can debate the why. Most would credit Obama; I would not.

[JustRalph]

The drop in labor force participation was sharpest for African Americans, 60.2%. That's the lowest since December of 1977. The rate of African-American men not in the labor force, the percentage of African-American men not in the labor force, 65.6%. Thirty-five percent of African men are in the labor force. The 65% is people out of work who have stopped looking. Thirty-five percent of African-American men in the labor force, not all of them are working, but in order to be considered in the labor force, you have to be trying to find a job, you have to be applying for jobs. The percentage of African-American male adults actually employed in America is under 35% of them.

Amazing this has been ignored.......THIS PRESIDENT, AS PREDICTED, HAS BEEN THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO BLACKS IN FIFTY YEARS

End of story, he is killing those who blindly supported him

[RaceBookJoe]

Here is an interesting take on the jobs #: bolded sections by me. Its long but from a free service.

To ignore or not to ignore? Jobs are the question.

200K? 225K? More? All we have heard is how the economy is humming along. Then the weather turned, and in December, apparently the jobs market turned as well, relapsing into old, well maybe not so old, habits.

The weather was immediately blamed by the BLS and anyone on the left side of the voting ballot, as many full time workers were forced into part-time status due to inability to get to work. That almost sounds plausible until you apply logic: because of weather companies decided not to hire someone full time but just part-time. This is not hours worked by employees, these are hires. You seriously decide to hire someone part-time versus full-time because of a storm? Seriously? When you look at the construction sector, a sector that truly would be impacted by the weather, you see a 16K decline, seasonally adjusted. Unadjusted, however, the loss was so huge (-216K) that you wonder if something else is at work. Let's be generous (and somewhat hopeful) and say it was the weather. Sure, it was the weather.

Weather or not, the headlines are still bad. So bad that Marc Zandi, the Administration's economic apologist in chief, said to ignore the month because it was so out of step with an economy that, in his words (and he repeated them several times), has turned the corner. Could it be that it was also massively out of step with ADP's jobs survey, the one he helped revamp so it would track the BLS data more closely? Hmmm. But then again, with the BLS known to make up data ahead of important events, say the 2012 elections when it pushed the unemployment rate lower because it wanted to, does the BLS report have any credibility left? Okay, I will say it: no, it does not. But it certainly is interesting in its details.

Even with the headlines blaring anemic job creation, the details are worse.

*The 74K jobs created was the smallest in 3 years.

*The 6.7% unemployment rate understates the real rate by 380 basis (11.5%) points when you compare apples to apples using simply the average participation rate.

*Participation rate: 62.8% versus 63.0%. The lowest since 2/1978.

*Jobs Quality: 55% (40K) were part-time, 34K full-time. Temporary, retail, and wholesale trade jobs totaled 111K. Do the math. All other sectors sported a net loss of 35K jobs.

*Out of workforce: A record 91.8M working age people out of the workforce. 317M people of all ages in the US. Wow.

*In 2013 the household survey (unemployment rate) ran roughly one-half of the non-farm jobs report. They have not converged by they typically do converge, confirming one another. That did not happen in 2013, raising questions concerning the veracity of the data.

*2013 saw fewer jobs created than 2012.
Non-Farm: 2.193M in 2012 versus 2.186M in 2013
Household Survey: 2.376M in 2012 versus 1.374M in 2013

December versus the year 2013.

You can argue that December should be ignored, an outrider that does not reflect the 'true' economy and a recovery in progress. There are valid reasons for that such as . . . the weather. Even so, if you take the expected reading for number of jobs in December (197K), 2013 produced at best the same number of non-farm jobs as in 2012.

The Fix?

That does not have the feel of an economy on the upswing. Indeed, the Secretary of Labor hit the financial stations midmorning discussing the jobs report issues. Of course he said the outlook was good, the trend was positive . . . throwing out December of course.

Lenin: Communist revolutionary; Perez: Appropriately the 'Labor' Secretary
I had to do a double take the first time I saw Secretary Perez. Hard to tell the difference at times in looks and in labor ideas.

As for what needs to be done? 'Get participation up' Perez cited as a key to a jobs recovery. 'That is why,' he said, it is 'so important to pass the [unemployment benefits] extension.'

Really now. Nothing against those who are struggling to find work, but the argument the Administration is now making that paying extended unemployment benefits does not retard employment recovery flies in the face of every study on the subject. The blanket statements the President and the Labor Secretary are making about everyone on unemployment wanting a job right now is also inaccurate. I have personally witnessed people losing a job and not actively seeking employment until benefits were set to run out. These were not high school dropouts but people with bachelor's degrees. It is a mindset that transcends socioeconomic strata.

Back to Perez' statement. How do you get participation rates up, i.e. more people returning to the workforce, by extending benefits for not working? Most certainly many of those people are seeking work and would do whatever it takes to get work, but if you truly want a job and are looking for work, in the final analysis, having unemployment payments or not won't be the deciding factor. It WILL BE THE DECIDING FACTOR for those who could get a job but won't because they can take unemployment, work some odd jobs here and there for cash, and come out just about as good as if they were busting their butt at one of the many service jobs the Administration's policies have 'created or saved' over the past 5 years.

Unfortunately, that is the situation many, many of the 14M unemployed find themselves in. Where is the incentive to actively seek a part-time job (29 hours or less to avoid the ACA) in the service sector that has no upward mobility potential versus collecting some unemployment and working at some cash-basis jobs here and there and coming out with as much disposable income without the aggravation of that menial job? It is a rational economic decision, and as long as we are making that one of the choices it will be taken by many.

The Bobs: 'Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.'
Peter: 'Well, I wouldn't exactly say I've been "missing" it, Bob.'
--From 'Office Space'
Maybe here is the solution?

Got to love 'The Far Side.' We NEED some ingenuity.

Jobs are a lagging indicator, so it could be that the turn higher in Q3 and Q4 will show up in employment in Q1 and Q2 2014. That remains to be seen, and hopefully December will simply be an outlier month that truly can be disregarded in a string of gains versus yet another beginning to the end of a false hope bounce.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.'
May we all end up on a beach with white sand and blue water if that is what we want. Wow, talk about hope.

Sorry for the long post, and this came from a free service, no copyright infringments.

[JustRalph]

In a brazen bit of calculated humor (I think) today several Republican Congressmen voted against extending unemployment benefits. They used the improved unemployment numbers from last week, and the great job the White House is doing on unemployment as one of their arguments for voting the way they did. One Congressman even mentioned it to the press as his main reason for voting against the extension.

Hey Dems, you can't have it both ways........

[mostpost]

Here is an interesting take on the jobs #: bolded sections by me. Its long but from a free service.

To ignore or not to ignore? Jobs are the question.

200K? 225K? More? All we have heard is how the economy is humming along. Then the weather turned, and in December, apparently the jobs market turned as well, relapsing into old, well maybe not so old, habits.

The weather was immediately blamed by the BLS and anyone on the left side of the voting ballot, as many full time workers were forced into part-time status due to inability to get to work. That almost sounds plausible until you apply logic: because of weather companies decided not to hire someone full time but just part-time. This is not hours worked by employees, these are hires. You seriously decide to hire someone part-time versus full-time because of a storm? Seriously? When you look at the construction sector, a sector that truly would be impacted by the weather, you see a 16K decline, seasonally adjusted. Unadjusted, however, the loss was so huge (-216K) that you wonder if something else is at work. Let's be generous (and somewhat hopeful) and say it was the weather. Sure, it was the weather.

Weather or not, the headlines are still bad. So bad that Marc Zandi, the Administration's economic apologist in chief, said to ignore the month because it was so out of step with an economy that, in his words (and he repeated them several times), has turned the corner. Could it be that it was also massively out of step with ADP's jobs survey, the one he helped revamp so it would track the BLS data more closely? Hmmm. But then again, with the BLS known to make up data ahead of important events, say the 2012 elections when it pushed the unemployment rate lower because it wanted to, does the BLS report have any credibility left? Okay, I will say it: no, it does not. But it certainly is interesting in its details.

Even with the headlines blaring anemic job creation, the details are worse.

*The 74K jobs created was the smallest in 3 years.

*The 6.7% unemployment rate understates the real rate by 380 basis (11.5%) points when you compare apples to apples using simply the average participation rate.

*Participation rate: 62.8% versus 63.0%. The lowest since 2/1978.

*Jobs Quality: 55% (40K) were part-time, 34K full-time. Temporary, retail, and wholesale trade jobs totaled 111K. Do the math. All other sectors sported a net loss of 35K jobs.

*Out of workforce: A record 91.8M working age people out of the workforce. 317M people of all ages in the US. Wow.

*In 2013 the household survey (unemployment rate) ran roughly one-half of the non-farm jobs report. They have not converged by they typically do converge, confirming one another. That did not happen in 2013, raising questions concerning the veracity of the data.

*2013 saw fewer jobs created than 2012.
Non-Farm: 2.193M in 2012 versus 2.186M in 2013
Household Survey: 2.376M in 2012 versus 1.374M in 2013

December versus the year 2013.

You can argue that December should be ignored, an outrider that does not reflect the 'true' economy and a recovery in progress. There are valid reasons for that such as . . . the weather. Even so, if you take the expected reading for number of jobs in December (197K), 2013 produced at best the same number of non-farm jobs as in 2012.

The Fix?

That does not have the feel of an economy on the upswing. Indeed, the Secretary of Labor hit the financial stations midmorning discussing the jobs report issues. Of course he said the outlook was good, the trend was positive . . . throwing out December of course.

Lenin: Communist revolutionary; Perez: Appropriately the 'Labor' Secretary
I had to do a double take the first time I saw Secretary Perez. Hard to tell the difference at times in looks and in labor ideas.

As for what needs to be done? 'Get participation up' Perez cited as a key to a jobs recovery. 'That is why,' he said, it is 'so important to pass the [unemployment benefits] extension.'

Really now. Nothing against those who are struggling to find work, but the argument the Administration is now making that paying extended unemployment benefits does not retard employment recovery flies in the face of every study on the subject. The blanket statements the President and the Labor Secretary are making about everyone on unemployment wanting a job right now is also inaccurate. I have personally witnessed people losing a job and not actively seeking employment until benefits were set to run out. These were not high school dropouts but people with bachelor's degrees. It is a mindset that transcends socioeconomic strata.

Back to Perez' statement. How do you get participation rates up, i.e. more people returning to the workforce, by extending benefits for not working? Most certainly many of those people are seeking work and would do whatever it takes to get work, but if you truly want a job and are looking for work, in the final analysis, having unemployment payments or not won't be the deciding factor. It WILL BE THE DECIDING FACTOR for those who could get a job but won't because they can take unemployment, work some odd jobs here and there for cash, and come out just about as good as if they were busting their butt at one of the many service jobs the Administration's policies have 'created or saved' over the past 5 years.

Unfortunately, that is the situation many, many of the 14M unemployed find themselves in. Where is the incentive to actively seek a part-time job (29 hours or less to avoid the ACA) in the service sector that has no upward mobility potential versus collecting some unemployment and working at some cash-basis jobs here and there and coming out with as much disposable income without the aggravation of that menial job? It is a rational economic decision, and as long as we are making that one of the choices it will be taken by many.

The Bobs: 'Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.'
Peter: 'Well, I wouldn't exactly say I've been "missing" it, Bob.'
--From 'Office Space'
Maybe here is the solution?

Got to love 'The Far Side.' We NEED some ingenuity.

Jobs are a lagging indicator, so it could be that the turn higher in Q3 and Q4 will show up in employment in Q1 and Q2 2014. That remains to be seen, and hopefully December will simply be an outlier month that truly can be disregarded in a string of gains versus yet another beginning to the end of a false hope bounce.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.'
May we all end up on a beach with white sand and blue water if that is what we want. Wow, talk about hope.

Sorry for the long post, and this came from a free service, no copyright infringments.
why should we pay any attention to what this mystery author says. We don't know who he is or what his agenda is. Having said that a few comments on some of the points.

Nothing against those who are struggling to find work, but the argument the Administration is now making that paying extended unemployment benefits does not retard employment recovery flies in the face of every study on the subject.
That is false. Or it is true only if you limit yourself to studies conducted by conservative think tanks. The CBO finds that extending benefits through 2014 would result in small decrease in unemployment numbers. The CBO theorized that while the increase in the length of benefits might cause some recipients to seek jobs less intently, the money they spend would create jobs that some unemployed person would fill.

The council of economic advisers released a study on December 13 which stated that failing to extend benefits would cause a loss of 240,000 jobs in 2014.

The simple fact is that there are still not enough jobs available. According to one study there are 2.9 potential applicants for every job. It does not matter how diligent a person is in seeking employment. Two out of every three people is not going to get a job. Two out of every three people will not have the money to spend to stimulate the economy.

*2013 saw fewer jobs created than 2012.
Non-Farm: 2.193M in 2012 versus 2.186M in 2013
Fewer by 7,000; a number that could be reversed when the final numbers for November and December are announced. Without the December numbers for 2012 and 2013 we created 128,000 more jobs in 2013.

Another question is how much of the December downturn was caused by the sequester. I would say a lot.

[RaceBookJoe]

How did I know that my post would get mosty's "0bama gerbil" squirming again...hmmm.

[DJofSD]

How did I know that my post would get mosty's "0bama gerbil" squirming again...hmmm.
Time for a metric.

We should start with a simple ratio: number of words in the initial post compared to the number of words in the response.

[Clocker]

why should we pay any attention to what this mystery author says. We don't know who he is or what his agenda is.

Classic. I don't know if I agree or disagree with a statement until someone tells me what party the author belongs to.

[RaceBookJoe]

Classic. I don't know if I agree or disagree with a statement until someone tells me what party the author belongs to.

Gotta love it. That write-up actually came from a weekly stock summary I get emailed every sunday. The writer praises the govt when deserved and rails them when also deserved.

[RaceBookJoe]

Another question is how much of the December downturn was caused by the sequester. I would say a lot.

How much was the that offset by holiday part-time hirings...I would say a lot.