Chart Time

[hcap]

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_new_jobs_december_2011.jpg

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum

....Today is new jobs day, and my usual chart is below. It shows the number of net new jobs created over the past few years; that is, the number of new jobs above the 90,000 per month needed just to keep up with population growth and tread water. In December, that amounted to 110,000 net new jobs, pushing the headline unemployment rate down to 8.5%.


About a year left. Obama is not going away soon.

[BlueShoe]

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_new_jobs_december_2011.jpg



[QUOTE]....Today is new jobs day, and my usual chart is below.
And as usual no one except you can read or understand it. The real numbers come out next month when all of the temporary holiday workers now again looking for work show up on the unemployment rolls.

About a year left. Obama is going away soon.
FTFY

[Tom]

About a year left. Obama is not going away soon.

Neither is the recession.
110,000 is a problem for two reasons:

1.. It is not real - the number is deceiving due to the holidays in December.
2.. It is nowhere near what we need every month.


Obvioulsy, an entire new approach is needed.
January could have been looking very strong had the knucklehads addressed the Keystone deal instead of running home to mommie for vacation.

Sorry, hcap, no way you make Obama or the dems or the repubs look good on the economy. All of them are failing miserable. America needs to clean house.

[Pell Mell]

Isn't it all according to who's charts one looks at? This chart tells a different story and with a punch line.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/07/obama_unemployment_magic_trick_indefinitely_detain _4_million_people_from_workforce

[badcompany]

In the last 200 years, you've generally had a panic about once every 20 years. They last about 2 years, then, the economy gets back on track. The exception is the Great Depression and that took place as a result of excessive intervention on behalf of the Government and a newly created central planning agency, the Fed.

Whatever recovery is taking place, now, is happening in spite of the efforts of Government, not because of them.

If you notice, the parts of the economy that have been the slowest to recover, the housing and banking sectors, are also the most intervened.

Of course, big government loving socialist types will contest this assertion with stupid charts and logic-free arguments, but who cares?

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=hcap]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_new_jobs_december_2011.jpg




And as usual no one except you can read or understand it. The real numbers come out next month when all of the temporary holiday workers now again looking for work show up on the unemployment rolls.


FTFY
The chart is really quite simple to understand. The red bars are job loss. The blue bars are job gain. But I don't like this chart of Hcap's because it shows net job gain not gross. In other words the 110,000 jobs it shows is not the number of new jobs created in December. That number is 200,000.

[mostpost]

Neither is the recession.
110,000 is a problem for two reasons:

1.. It is not real - the number is deceiving due to the holidays in December.
2.. It is nowhere near what we need every month.


Obvioulsy, an entire new approach is needed.
January could have been looking very strong had the knucklehads addressed the Keystone deal instead of running home to mommie for vacation.

Sorry, hcap, no way you make Obama or the dems or the repubs look good on the economy. All of them are failing miserable. America needs to clean house.
You made two points and got three things wrong. That is difficult to do.
First of all the number of new jobs created in December was 200,000 not 110,000. That is more than double what we needed to break even. It is still not as good as I would like to see, but it is the best in the last eight months.
And the December numbers were 50,000 higher than anticipated.
The second thing is that most Christmas hiring was done in November, before Black Friday, so the December figures do not reflect much Christmas only hiring. It remains to be seen how the laid off Christmas hires will effect the January numbers.

Finally, as I have shown previously, the Keystone deal will have minimal effect of employment.

[hcap]

Neither is the recession.
110,000 is a problem for two reasons:

1.. It is not real - the number is deceiving due to the holidays in December.
2.. It is nowhere near what we need every month.


Obvioulsy, an entire new approach is needed.
January could have been looking very strong had the knucklehads addressed the Keystone deal instead of running home to mommie for vacation.

Sorry, hcap, no way you make Obama or the dems or the repubs look good on the economy. All of them are failing miserable. America needs to clean house.

1-Holiday jobs are not THE STORY here
and it is quite real or the composite unemployment number of 8.5 % would be higher.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2012/01/06/jobs-day/

Jobs Day

Friday ~ January 6th, 2012 in Economics | by Karl Smith



The headline number at 200K is decent. As always we care more about the internals.

* Construction up 17K, almost all of which was non-residential specialty trades. I am guessing this means oil and gas extraction installations. Combined with the 8K mining jobs, that would mean 25K jobs in December from natural resource extraction. Don’t sneeze at this.
* Manufacturing up 23K with metals and motor vehicles doing well. This is as expected.
* Non-Durables were flat. I still need to spend more time with this but from looking at the industrial production data this is where we are weak. Its not clear what’s going on here. Is this trade related? Has there been some technology change I am not aware of? I don’t know, but non-durables have been surprisingly weak.
* Wholesale and Retail Trade clocked in at 12K and 29K respectively. Not bad and consistent with rising consumer expenditures.
* Transportation came in big at 50K on 42K couriers and messengers. I am not sure if that is a strike resolution of something, but keep that in mind.
* Information managed not to fire people, coming in at 6K, call that a win.
* Financial Services likewise clocking in at 2K
* Professional and Business Services was weak at 12K with a particularly disconcerting drop of 8K in Temp workers. We always like to see temps going up as they lead the cycle
* Ed and Health added 29K, YAWN
* Leisure and Hospitality added 21K with a respectable 24K going towards food service. This is always important to me for several reasons. One, we don’t get a lot of real time data on food service despite it employing nearly as many people as manufacturing. Two, this is where the marginal worker gets a job. When you need “a job” you see if the local bar and grill is hiring. They are. That’s good for low skilled Americans.
* Government shed12K workers with a still amazing 9K local government education workers. This has gone on well longer than I thought it would. Perhaps, it will keep going on but the fundamentals are not there. We should be adding teachers. Not in the moral sense but in the sense that retail sales, and hence sales tax revenues, are rising and class size is something that parents as consumers care a lot about.

2.. It is nowhere near what we need every month. Pretty close in fact. Particularly looks good compared to the lasr Bush years.

Hey guys, I guess we could always try out Herman's 9-9-9 higher calculus.

Sorry Tom, read it and weep. Obama gets re-elected Rethugs can not fight an unemployment rate hovering below 8 % come 2012. And not with who they are submitting as a candidate.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... * Transportation came in big at 50K on 42K couriers and messengers. I am not sure if that is a strike resolution of something, but keep that in mind.
....

Wouldn't this be somewhat expected with holiday deliveries and the surge in online sales and resulting delivery of those products?

I try not to get too excited or dismayed by monthly trends and rarely dissect the internals, but that one jumps out as a possible short-term gain that may reverse quickly.

[mostpost]

In the last 200 years, you've generally had a panic about once every 20 years. They last about 2 years, then, the economy gets back on track. The exception is the Great Depression and that took place as a result of excessive intervention on behalf of the Government and a newly created central planning agency, the Fed.

Whatever recovery is taking place, now, is happening in spite of the efforts of Government, not because of them.

If you notice, the parts of the economy that have been the slowest to recover, the housing and banking sectors, are also the most intervened.

Of course, big government loving socialist types will contest this assertion with stupid charts and logic-free arguments, but who cares?

Talk about living in opposite land. :rolleyes: The housing crisis took place because banks were allowed to use dangerous financial manipulations to make money off suspect mortgages. It wasn't too much intervention, it was no intervention at all. Derivatives based on smoke and mirrors caused the collapse. Republicans made noises about tougher regulation, but in spite of controlling both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007, no regulatory bills ever made it out of committee.

[hcap]

Wouldn't this be somewhat expected with holiday deliveries and the surge in online sales and resulting delivery of those products?

I try not to get too excited or dismayed by monthly trends and rarely dissect the internals, but that one jumps out as a possible short-term gain that may reverse quickly.Yes, but I think this is specifically related to consumer holiday spending more so than transportation....

"Wholesale and Retail Trade clocked in at 12K and 29K respectively. Not bad and consistent with rising consumer expenditures."

Again the 8.5% number is meaningful in this political season. Weren't we hearing all along that over 9% unemployment will give the election to the repugs?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Weren't we hearing all along that over 9% unemployment will give the election to the repugs?

MackAttack and I disagree, but I think unemployment could go to 14% and repugs will still do just enough to convince fed-up voters to either stay home or vote for the "Rent's too damn high" candidate. Monty Brewster would have a fine chance with what they are trotting out as an alternative.

http://jasonpoblete.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/brewster2.jpg

[bigmack]

Let's take a gander at the internals.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/JobsDayModeledBehavior.png

42K couriers and messengers!

Happy days are here again. http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif

[hcap]

42K couriers and messengers!

Happy days are here again. http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif
Gee, too bad pizza man is not going to be prez. Just think if he outsourced pizza delivery costs on a nationwide basis it would really give a boost to those rather meager looking numbers for couriers and messengers you are holding your nose about.

You know, not too late now that I think about it! Work up the presentation and Send boxcar over to pitch the plan.

[bigmack]

You know, not too late now that I think about it! Work up the presentation and Send boxcar over to pitch the plan.
Speaking of questionable tag teams, do me a solid - Wrap arms with Mosty and let us know what policies BO has put into place that has a meaningful effect on jobs created. That should easy for you two fancy dancers.

Morty & I will be waiting.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/morty.jpg

[hcap]

OK, since it is no longer reasonable to deny the obvious-that the job situation has improved-NOW you guys want to argue it was nothing Obama did. :bang: :bang: :lol: :lol: :lol: :p :p ;) ;) :D :D

The republican party as represented by the poltical hacks on this board should rename themselves "The Party of Transparency"

You gentlemen are as obvious as schoolkids

[boxcar]

Talk about living in opposite land. :rolleyes: The housing crisis took place because banks were allowed to use dangerous financial manipulations to make money off suspect mortgages. It wasn't too much intervention, it was no intervention at all. Derivatives based on smoke and mirrors caused the collapse. Republicans made noises about tougher regulation, but in spite of controlling both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007, no regulatory bills ever made it out of committee.

So, the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to minorities was not government intervention? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: In fact, a big story was posted on this forum a few months ago about the major part this social engineering law played in the real estate crash.

Try coming up for some fresh air some time. Your posts are quite stale.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

OK, since it is no longer reasonable to deny the obvious-that the job situation has improved-NOW you guys want to argue it was nothing Obama did.
Watch the numbers after Romney slides his shoes in the irons, come '13.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/HowtheObamaAdministrationisHurtingJobCreation-Forbes-1.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Obamaspolicieshurtstatesmanufacturers-JSOnline.png

[RaceBookJoe]

Didnt see anyone post about Novembers # being revised upward. The weird thing is that the unemployment number is based on household survey, makes me very skeptical about the true numbers. The U6 number is the real number to look at. I wouldnt expect the govt to release a bad number, esp during an election year. Going to have a lot of let-gos coming with not only the holidays being over, but also from Searrs/Kmart , Kodak, BA. While it would be really nice to believe things are improving, guess you will just have to color me skeptical at the moment. rbj

[Valuist]

Lets not forget the number of people who've dropped off unemployment; not because they've gotten a job, but because they've given up looking.

[HUSKER55]

are new jobs created by the burger biggies opening new stores counted in that?

unless they have upgraded pay and benefits I don't think those types should be counted.

[boxcar]

Lets not forget the number of people who've dropped off unemployment; not because they've gotten a job, but because they've given up looking.

All unemployed people whose benefits have expired and who are no longer on the unemployment rolls are no longer counted as being unemployed. The real unemployment number has to be closer to 20% or so.

Boxcar

[Tom]

All unemployed people whose benefits have expired and who are no longer on the unemployment rolls are no longer counted as being unemployed. The real unemployment number has to be closer to 20% or so.

Boxcar

And, the calculation has changed as well. Anything to make it look better.
Good rule of thumb, anything the gubbermint tells you is a lie. You won't be wrong very often.

[mostpost]

So, the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to minorities was not government intervention? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: In fact, a big story was posted on this forum a few months ago about the major part this social engineering law played in the real estate crash.

Try coming up for some fresh air some time. Your posts are quite stale.

Boxcar
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. There were no problems with the housing market until 2007 or 2008. The CRA did not force banks or lenders to lend money to high risk borrowers.

The fact is that 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not covered by the CRA. 25% to 30% of the loans were made by banks and other lenders which were only partially covered under the CRA. Banks which were totally under the control of the CRA accounted for less than one out of four sub prime loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Pertinent paragraph:
In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][118] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".


Sub prime mortgages were issued not because the government was forcing the banks, mortgages companies and other financial institutions to provide them, but because the companies thought they could make a fast buck.
Of course some such mortgages were provided because of government regulation, but a larger portion were issued to provide backing for derivatives based on mortgage bundles.

Financial institutions would issue a mortgage to someone they knew could not repay it. They would bundle the mortgage and others together as derivatives and sell those to investors hoping to profit even while knowing the bundles were a bad investment. Then they would buy insurance, and collect the insurance money when the mortgages went bad.
So they made money when they sold the mortgages. The made money when they collected the insurance and they made money when the house was foreclosed and they took over the property.
Of course the idiots did not realize this could not go on forever.

[mostpost]

All unemployed people whose benefits have expired and who are no longer on the unemployment rolls are no longer counted as being unemployed. The real unemployment number has to be closer to 20% or so.

Boxcar

There are two unemployment figures provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
One is the U-3. This is the number that gets all the publicity. It is the number of people who are looking for work and are unable to find a job. This is the number you hear on this news and see in the newspaper. It is currently 8.5%.
The second number is the U-6. The U-6 includes all the people in the U-3 plus the the underemployed, the marginally employed and those who have given up on looking for work. The U-6 is not a secret number which is being hidden from the public. It is right there in all the reports if you care to look for it.
The U-6 for December 2011 is 15.2%. It is not 20% as Boxcar pulled out of thin air.

Further more, the U-6 has been decreasing at a faster rate than the U-3. Using the chart linked below we see that the U-3 dropped .3% in the same time the U-6 dropped 1.3%.
http://www.nojobsurvivor.com/graphs-stats-and-charts/u3-u6-unemployment-situation-123.html

Everyone knows that the official unemployment report does not include all categories of unemployed people. Only a few think that this is some plot to trick us into believing the situation is better than it is. The fact is the U-6 figures follow the U-3 figures fairly closely over time.

[BlueShoe]

OK, since it is no longer reasonable to deny the obvious-that the job situation has improved-NOW you guys want to argue it was nothing Obama did.
Yes we do. If indeed there is a slight improvement in employment and the economy, it will be in spite of Obama, not because of him.