WALL STREET RALLYS ON JOBS NUMBERS

[acorn54]

well stocks are up in the early trading as they see positive news in the jobs numbers

[bigmack]

Through the roof. :eek:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/dowjones-GoogleSearch.png

[DJofSD]

Let's see some other metrics first. Like, where does it close at?

[Tom]

What goes up, must come down.

[BlueShoe]

Still hibernating with the other Bears. Fundamentals still not good, and when Europe sinks deeper into the muck our markets are going to be dragged down along with theirs. Sharp correction around the corner?

[Robert Goren]

Good news really kills you conservatives, doesn't it?

[chickenhead]

job numbers sucked. Lost 240K, sprinkle in a seasonal adjustment and it turns positive, with 1.2 million "leaving" the labor force.

[Tom]

Good news really kills you conservatives, doesn't it?

What good news?

[DJofSD]

Good news really kills you conservatives, doesn't it?
Show me in here (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12713) where the good news is at.

You seem to make the common mistake of thinking the stock market and the economy are the same thing. They're not.

[ArlJim78]

this is the weakest recovery ever, and the future is not looking so bright if you consider the recent CBO data or the Feds posture. the labor force dropped a record 1.2 million people in one month?:eek:
yep, happy days are here again.

[Robert Goren]

The nation’s unemployment rate dropped for the fifth straight month to 8.3 percent, its lowest level in three years, the Labor Department reported Friday, with widespread hiring across the economy.

The number of jobs grew by 243,000.
The Labor Department recorded gains in many parts of the economy including the restaurant business, accounting, health care and retail stores.

In all, the ranks of the unemployed dropped to 12.8 million in January from 13.1 million the month before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-243k-jobs-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-83percent/2012/02/03/gIQAhV3mmQ_story.html

How this not good news to everyone except Romney and Newt? I am sure the republican spin doctors are hard at work trying a figure out some sort of crazy interpretation that make the numbers sound bad as I type.

[hcap]

Steady decline in unemployment. My guess is that it will continue to drop. Repubs are losing whatever advantage they had

http://media.salon.com/2012/02/JOBSUP-460x307.jpg

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/finally_a_really_encouraging_jobs_report/

What will the GOP complain about now?
The economy adds 243,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate falls again. Finally, a really encouraging jobs report

[Tom]

What is the value of the new jobs as opposed to the value of the lost jobs?

243,000 jobs at $25,000 a year is not as good as ones valued at $50,000.
We need to add many more than that every month. The repubs can do that faster.

[hcap]

Stop eating at McDonald's

http://blog.geovisions.org/Portals/40978/images/Now%20Hiring.jpg

[chickenhead]

How this not good news to everyone except Romney and Newt? I am sure the republican spin doctors are hard at work trying a figure out some sort of crazy interpretation that make the numbers sound bad as I type.

It is good news for Obama, but for those of us not involved in politics (you aren't, are you) we can look at what the numbers really mean and are. We didn't add any jobs. We always lose jobs to January due to holiday employees being laid off, this year is no exception. Less people are employed right now than last month. That is not job growth in a way normal people understand it.

What the numbers represent is someones adjustment about how many we should have lost, and that we lost slightly fewer than that.

Its kind of like saying I usually gain 10 lbs around the holidays, this year I only gained 7 lbs, so I "lost" 3 lbs. Woot! Ignore that I'm still 7 lbs fatter.
And we still have less jobs this month than we did last month.

It's all fun with numbers. Same with the all-time record of people leaving the labor force, and our labor participation rate being at 30 year lows. That makes the unemployment rate shoot down, but it doesn't mean there are more jobs.

[lamboguy]

the only number that matters is on november 1, 2012. if the price of gold is over $2111, i would highly suggest OBAMA get his reservation in for a moving company because he will need on at that number

[ArlJim78]

here is the bad news, its not a spin, its the reality. until this trend is reversed we're in trouble and it's the policies of the regime that are causing the plunge in the labor force.

FYI, fewer people working means fewer paying taxes and less government income and higher deficits.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Participation%20Rate.jpg

[DJofSD]

Ya, and don't forget, those numbers will be adjusted at some point in the near future.

[Tom]

The number of jobs grew by 243,000.
The Labor Department recorded gains in many parts of the economy including the restaurant business, accounting, health care and retail stores.

In all, the ranks of the unemployed dropped to 12.8 million in January from 13.1 million the month before.


We lost 2.5 million jobs in January.
The 243,000 number is voodoo adjusted.
In reality, we lost jobs.

Ranks of the unemployed grew, Again, the people who dropped out of the labor force are not considered. We have LESS people working than last month. Over a million people dropped of the looking for work group in 30 days.

Thatis your good new.

[lamboguy]

i think all the numbers are very suspect. someone always knows them before they come out. there is no way you can make any money on them.

[PaceAdvantage]

i think all the numbers are very suspect. someone always knows them before they come out. there is no way you can make any money on them.You didn't read my post last night/this morning? :lol:

[Valuist]

i think all the numbers are very suspect. someone always knows them before they come out. there is no way you can make any money on them.

No doubt about it. Same with individual companies earnings. Amazing how often call option volume rises near a good quarter and put volume increases prior to the bad quarter. Just pure coincidence. :rolleyes:

[lamboguy]

You didn't read my post last night/this morning? :lol:
sorry i missed it

[PaceAdvantage]

sorry i missed itI was just joking...I got lucky...

But seriously, didn't you think expectations were low with that 135k consensus number? I figured it would be easy to beat, even with the holiday season behind us...plus with the way they manipulate the number (just like they accused the Bush admin of doing), I reasoned there was a very good chance the number would be well above expectations...

[nijinski]

The nation’s unemployment rate dropped for the fifth straight month to 8.3 percent, its lowest level in three years, the Labor Department reported Friday, with widespread hiring across the economy.

The number of jobs grew by 243,000.
The Labor Department recorded gains in many parts of the economy including the restaurant business, accounting, health care and retail stores.

In all, the ranks of the unemployed dropped to 12.8 million in January from 13.1 million the month before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-243k-jobs-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-83percent/2012/02/03/gIQAhV3mmQ_story.html

How this not good news to everyone except Romney and Newt? I am sure the republican spin doctors are hard at work trying a figure out some sort of crazy interpretation that make the numbers sound bad as I type.

It appears that the growth in jobs are low paying part time sans. sans benefits. it;s not a good trend yet IMO.

[bigmack]

I was just joking...I got lucky...
No you didn't, you used deductive reasoning and came to a conclusion.

Well done.
------------------
Look at the links hcap & goren used. Salon.com & the WashPost. :rolleyes:

At MSDNC they're in a party-like atmosphere. Noise makers, confetti, the whole enchilada. Honesty with hcap, goren & MSDNC is a tad lax.

[lamboguy]

I was just joking...I got lucky...

But seriously, didn't you think expectations were low with that 135k consensus number? I figured it would be easy to beat, even with the holiday season behind us...plus with the way they manipulate the number (just like they accused the Bush admin of doing), I reasoned there was a very good chance the number would be well above expectations...i agree, but personally i think this jobs number today is the biggest bull shit number that i have ever seen in my entire life. i think they got these job numbers in reverse, the weather got them the big numbers, take out the weather in the northeast and they lose jobs.

i know i look foolish saying that, but let the lurkers call me crazy, i already know i am.

[acorn54]

all administrations lie about the economic stats.

[ArlJim78]

all administrations lie about the economic stats.
to some extent but not like this bunch. this group is not afraid to go the extra mile, bribe, intimidate, break laws, whatever it takes.

[pktruckdriver]

to some extent but not like this bunch. this group is not afraid to go the extra mile, bribe, intimidate, break laws, whatever it takes.

Wow My government in action, you think I can get eleceted and join in the fun ?

I have a new personality, and change my mind whenever the need arise's.

But what Party do I become a member in , Bachelor Party , good enough for me.


patrick

[Robert Goren]

I was just joking...I got lucky...

But seriously, didn't you think expectations were low with that 135k consensus number? I figured it would be easy to beat, even with the holiday season behind us...plus with the way they manipulate the number (just like they accused the Bush admin of doing), I reasoned there was a very good chance the number would be well above expectations...I was watching CNBC just before the numbers there were released. The group was bashing Obama's ecomonic policies as they always do on that channel. Their average guess was about 100k. The bond trader reporter, Rick Santalli, I remember was sure that 100k was too high. It was kind of fun to watch them eat crow after the number were announced.

[mostpost]

this is the weakest recovery ever, and the future is not looking so bright if you consider the recent CBO data or the Feds posture. the labor force dropped a record 1.2 million people in one month?:eek:
yep, happy days are here again.

Where do you get your figures? According to this:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

the labor force increased by 508,000.
Also, the U2 number improved from 15.2% to 15.1%

[mostpost]

job numbers sucked. Lost 240K, sprinkle in a seasonal adjustment and it turns positive, with 1.2 million "leaving" the labor force.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where you found this 240K lost jobs figure.
While you are at it could you explain how an "adjustment" turns a loss into a gain of the same magnitude. Kind of like going from the Marianis trench to the top of Everest without passing GO.

[mostpost]

here is the bad news, its not a spin, its the reality. until this trend is reversed we're in trouble and it's the policies of the regime that are causing the plunge in the labor force.

FYI, fewer people working means fewer paying taxes and less government income and higher deficits.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Participation%20Rate.jpg
Why looky there. The labor participation rate is now about the same as it was in 1984 under St. Ronald. That's progress?????

[mostpost]

We lost 2.5 million jobs in January.
The 243,000 number is voodoo adjusted.
In reality, we lost jobs.

Ranks of the unemployed grew, Again, the people who dropped out of the labor force are not considered. We have LESS people working than last month. Over a million people dropped of the looking for work group in 30 days.

Thatis your good new.

The U6 rate dropped one tenth of a percent also. If you don't know what the U6 rate is, google it.

[Jay Trotter]

Which states are turning their own economies around?

[mostpost]

I admit I did not understand the term "Labor Force Participation Rate" I thought that it meant the percentage of the possible work force that is working or actively seeking employment. Turns out that is not the case. The actual definition is the percentage of the non-institutionalized population over the age of sixteen that is working or actively seeking employment.

That means that the rate can be affected by other factors than a lack of jobs. For instance retirements of baby boomers would lower the LFPR. In fact this study attributes half the recent decline to just that factor.
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf

A lower LFPR is not necessarily bad. In this case it is bad, but in the late forties, fifties and sixties the rate was lower than today. That was because in those days a single breadwinner could provide for his family.

[chickenhead]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where you found this 240K lost jobs figure.
While you are at it could you explain how an "adjustment" turns a loss into a gain of the same magnitude. Kind of like going from the Marianis trench to the top of Everest without passing GO.

Sorry, hadnt had my coffee -- it's actually -2.6 million. Before you post anymore, you might want to look at the actual report (not that crib sheet). Pay attention to TableA-15, Household Data.

The data is right there, in your face. U6 did not go down, it went up. Unemployment did not go down, it went up. It is only the seasonal adjustments that ever make a January look anything but like a bloodbath (because January is actually, in reality, a bloodbath)

But that doesnt mean "good news!" for actual people...less people have jobs right now than had jobs 30 days ago, both in absolute numbers and as a % of population, and as % of the workforce. In every way.

That's not abnormal for a January -- far from it. It's not an Obama thing. But it's stupid to get excited and thump your chest about a big "seasonally adjusted" figure -- it doesn't mean a single real person got a single job. Just the opposite, real people lost jobs.

We're real people, real jobs are all that matter. Unless you get paid to spin people losing tons of jobs, January is what it has always been, a bloodbath of people getting laid off.

http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[newtothegame]

Why looky there. The labor participation rate is now about the same as it was in 1984 under St. Ronald. That's progress?????
Good to see you also agree Obama has done nothing :lol:

[bigmack]

http://media.social.s-msn.com/images/blogs/00120065-0000-0000-0000-000000000000_00000065-0763-0000-0000-000000000000_20120203180228_020312_fulltime.png

One of the best ways to filter out the government's meddling in the data is to just look at how many people are working, or want to work, compared with the overall population. This cuts to the quick and ensures that people who are dropping out of the work force in frustration are still counted among the jobless.

The chart above says it all. It shows the number of people working full time as a percentage of the overall population. And I removed the government's seasonal adjustment for good measure.

These are the raw, unadulterated numbers. And they aren't pretty.

The percentage of the population working full time has returned to recessionary levels (but the recession is over, right?) and has dropped to the lows of the 1970s and 1980s.

To give you an idea of the shortfall: To get us back to the 54.7% full-time employment rate seen back in 2000, the economy would need to create nearly 21 million more jobs. Compare that with the official estimate of the number of unemployed workers, at 12.8 million.

Even if we believe the government's estimate that 243,000 jobs were created in January, and assuming the population doesn't grow, it would take seven years to get back to where we need to be.

Another problem, as mentioned, is that the job gains were predominately part-time positions, as the number of people working less than 35 hours a week surged by nearly 700,000 -- a record one-month rise. Sure, any job is better than no job. But it seems that employers are using part-time status as a replacement for full-time labor, avoiding the hassle of benefits, retirement plans and health coverage.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=44572741-42ce-4aa6-b155-401f4d96816b&_nwpt=1

[chickenhead]

Total Nonfarm Payrolls, non seasonally adjusted.

Table B-1, same report.

http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

2,689,000 less people employed. WOOT! WOOT!

Down 2,909,00 since November. WOOT! WOOT!

People gettin' crazy jobs!

[mostpost]

Total Nonfarm Payrolls, non seasonally adjusted.

Table B-1, same report.

http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

2,689,000 less people employed. WOOT! WOOT!

Down 2,909,00 since November. WOOT! WOOT!

People gettin' crazy jobs!

Thank you for showing me your numbers and where you obtained them.

A few points:

I found the historical tables for A-15
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Below is the table for non seasonably adjusted-I deleted the annual rate for clarity.

Series Id: LNU04000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l
2002 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.7
2003 6.5 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4
2004 6.3 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.3 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1
2005 5.7 5.8 5.4 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.6
2006 5.1 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.8 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.3
2007 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.8
2008 5.4 5.2 5.2 4.8 5.2 5.7 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.5 7.1
2009 8.5 8.9 9.0 8.6 9.1 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7
2010 10.6 10.4 10.2 9.5 9.3 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.2 9.0 9.3 9.1
2011 9.8 9.5 9.2 8.7 8.7 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.2 8.3
2012 8.8
As you stated there is always an increase from December of one year to January of the next. In the case of December 2011 to January 2012 that increase was .5%. But let us compare that increase with the average increase of the 3 previous years-the recession years. That average was 1%-one full persent. So, using your figures, the increase this year was one half the average increase for the previous three years. That is called an improvement. Also the rate of 8.8% is better than any January since 2009.

As for the seasonally adjusted numbers, the link above shows that they have been adjusting the numbers since at least 1948. Therefore any month to month comparison is valid. So, unemployment went down and jobs were created at least relatively. Unless you can prove to me that Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan etc. etc. did not use the seasonally adjusted numbers, I don't think you have any justification for criticism of the situation.

It is not perfect, it is not as good as I wish it was, but it is improving and it will continue to improve and there are some here who hate that.

[NJ Stinks]

Which states are turning their own economies around?

I am going answer this by unscientifically saying that it seems to me a lot more people are going out to dinner in my neck of the woods than there were a year ago. A lot more. Does it mean things are getting better? Who knows?

But it doesn't seem like things are getting worse around here. That's for sure.

(I apologize for the tiniest bit of optimism. Carry on. ;) )

[riskman]

"Just consider the following facts....

-New home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/26/real_estate/new_home_sales/index.htm?iid=HP_River

-The average duration of unemployment in America is close to an all-time record high.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UEMPMEAN

-The percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" is at an all-time high.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/extreme-poverty-is-now-at-record-levels-19-statistics-about-the-poor-that-will-absolutely-astound-you

-The number of Americans on food stamps recently hit a new all-time high.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-the-economy-is-improving


-According to the Census Bureau, an all-time record 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm


So let's not get too excited about the economy."

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/i-cant-take-it-anymore-when-will-the-government-quit-putting-out-fraudulent-employment-statistics

[mostpost]

Good to see you also agree Obama has done nothing :lol:
Newt, you're a riot. :lol: Look at the whole chart. Look at the trends. Basically an upward trend until 2000 when you know who was elected. Downhill from there.

i know you are going to say that Obama has been in power for over three years why has he not fixed things. Here is one of my analogies that everyone loves.

You own a house that you rent to a tenant. That tenant plugs all the drains with cement, turns on all the faucets and breaks off the handles. He also disables any shut off valves. He flees the house with water pouring in from everywhere. You are now in charge of the house, but are helpless to stop the water from rising.

When you finally mange to turn off all the faucets, the water is much higher than when you arrived. Is that your fault? No. Bush left the water running and it took Obama a while to get it shut off.

Now you start to pump the water out and along come some of your old tenant's friends with a fire hose and start shooting water back in the house and cutting the hose on your pump. you guessed it. They are the Republican Congress.

[chickenhead]

As for the seasonally adjusted numbers, the link above shows that they have been adjusting the numbers since at least 1948. Therefore any month to month comparison is valid. So, unemployment went down and jobs were created at least relatively.

There is no relatively, either there are more jobs in one month than another, or there aren't. Again -- I am taking the viewpoint as a HUMAN, as a PERSON. A seasonal adjusted job pays no salary and doesn't exist. No person got a seasonally adjusted job in January. There are no paychecks being cut from seasonally adjusted companies.

Unless you can prove to me that Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan etc. etc. did not use the seasonally adjusted numbers, I don't think you have any justification for criticism of the situation.

What are you talking about? I can criticize empty chearleading whenever I feel like it. And I can give my thoughts on, and evidence from the BLS report anytime I want, completely justified.

I see headlines like "Hiring Surges in January"...and I look at payrolls and they are down 2.6 million. Hiring didn't surge at all. That is annoying. My thoughts are far more justified than the average AP headline today.

I understand the *reason* for seasonal adjustments, they are handy, but they are a number on a piece of paper, to make the numbers line up more smoothly. That isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. But they don't represent "Hiring Surges".

The reality is 2.6 million less people are working in January, and the BLS estimates we lost 2.85 million due to seasonal factors. It doesn't make such a great headline, but that is the complete headline that grownups should be able to deal with.

[JustRalph]

Great post


"Just consider the following facts....

-New home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/26/real_estate/new_home_sales/index.htm?iid=HP_River

-The average duration of unemployment in America is close to an all-time record high.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UEMPMEAN

-The percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" is at an all-time high.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/extreme-poverty-is-now-at-record-levels-19-statistics-about-the-poor-that-will-absolutely-astound-you

-The number of Americans on food stamps recently hit a new all-time high.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-the-economy-is-improving


-According to the Census Bureau, an all-time record 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm


So let's not get too excited about the economy."

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/i-cant-take-it-anymore-when-will-the-government-quit-putting-out-fraudulent-employment-statistics

[newtothegame]

Newt, you're a riot. :lol: Look at the whole chart. Look at the trends. Basically an upward trend until 2000 when you know who was elected. Downhill from there.

i know you are going to say that Obama has been in power for over three years why has he not fixed things. Here is one of my analogies that everyone loves.

You own a house that you rent to a tenant. That tenant plugs all the drains with cement, turns on all the faucets and breaks off the handles. He also disables any shut off valves. He flees the house with water pouring in from everywhere. You are now in charge of the house, but are helpless to stop the water from rising. First off, your analogy is terrible. If I own the house, I have no choice. Obama WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT. He chose his path. Secondly, are you suggesting Obama is "helpless"...I would agree again :lol:

When you finally mange to turn off all the faucets, the water is much higher than when you arrived. Is that your fault? No. Bush left the water running and it took Obama a while to get it shut off. So, it's back to Bush's fault lol. What happened to if you guys give me I trillion dollars I will keep unemployment BELOW 8%??? What happened to.."If I can't fix it in three years, it will be a ONE TERM presidency".....????

Now you start to pump the water out and along come some of your old tenant's friends with a fire hose and start shooting water back in the house and cutting the hose on your pump. you guessed it. They are the Republican Congress.
So tell me again how 2008-2010 ANY REPUBLICAN had ANY power to do anything? I believe both house were controlled by dems and the WH democratic. I know those damn repugs must of drugged the dems so they couldnt get anything done...right???

lol And you call me a riot??
But here's another serious question...we both agree that there are some 1.2 million less people working now right? I mean that is what the job numbers say.....
So stay with me now for a moment...
Doesn't that also mean 1.2 million LESS people paying income taxes???
Gee, I wonder how much the average american worker paid in taxes?
Well, in 2010 the average wage was about 41,000. Lets say the average tax on that income would be about 15% (fair??)....
That would mean that the average worker paid about 6000 in federal taxes. Now I know someone will come along and correct my numbers, and thats fine but that appears to be 7,200,000,000 LESS in federal tax revenue coming in. Gee, I wonder how that will be made up??? By the way, my numbers for the average wage came from the link below. I used the 15% tax number as a base. Although I am sure there are some higher, I felt this would be a fair representation of the average american worker.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/AWI.html

[Robert Goren]

So tell me again how 2008-2010 ANY REPUBLICAN had ANY power to do anything? I believe both house were controlled by dems and the WH democratic. I know those damn repugs must of drugged the dems so they couldnt get anything done...right???
There was a few months where the democrats had the 60 votes to kill a republican filibuster in the senate. Franken the 60th democratic senator was not seated until July 2009. Kennedy was gravely ill at this point and died shortly there after. Kirk served until Jan 0f 2010. until the republican Brown took his place. Robert Byrd was gravely ill since May of 2009 and was in out of the hospital until his death in June of 2010 . He was available many votes during that time. So basically the democrats had the abilty to ram through bills through the senate from July of 2009 through Dec of 2009 if Senator Byrd was well enough to wheeled on to floor to vote which wasn't the case most of time. So they actually had very hampered control for 6 months in 2009. Of course you knew that, but you conveniently omit it when you are falsely rambling on about how the democrats controlled everything from 2008 through 2010.

[newtothegame]

There was a few months where the democrats had the 60 votes to kill a republican filibuster in the senate. Franken the 60th democratic senator was not seated until July 2009. Kennedy was gravely ill at this point and died shortly there after. Kirk served until Jan 0f 2010. until the republican Brown took his place. Robert Byrd was gravely ill since May of 2009 and was in out of the hospital until his death in June of 2010 . He was available many votes during that time. So basically the democrats had the abilty to ram through bills through the senate from July of 2009 through Dec of 2009 if Senator Byrd was well enough to wheeled on to floor to vote which wasn't the case most of time. So they actually had very hampered control for 6 months in 2009. Of course you knew that, but you conveniently omit it when you are falsely rambling on about how the democrats controlled everything from 2008 through 2010.
Not one bit of difference then when you all on the left blame bush for everything, even though the last two years of his presidency was democratic controlled......
:lol:

[Robert Goren]

Not one bit of difference then when you all on the left blame bush for everything, even though the last two years of his presidency was democratic controlled......
At no time during the Bush presidency did the republicans have anything close to 60 members in the senate. What Bush had during most his presidency was some members of the other party that were willing to work with him in order to get done what he wanted. There was at least some give and take. That is a luxury that Obama has never had. The republicans declared war on Obama day one. After what has happen in the past 3 years, you can bet that next republican president (whenever that will be)will never get a democrat vote on anything. What goes around comes around sooner or later.

[Tom]

Which states are turning their own economies around?

Indiana.

[Tom]

This whole deal about adjusting a loss into a gain is political voodoo designed to bamboozal the weak minded masses. As we see in this thread, it works.

We lost jobs.
Again.

[elysiantraveller]

At no time during the Bush presidency did the republicans have anything close to 60 members in the senate. What Bush had during most his presidency was some members of the other party that were willing to work with him in order to get done what he wanted. There was at least some give and take. That is a luxury that Obama has never had. The republicans declared war on Obama day one. After what has happen in the past 3 years, you can bet that next republican president (whenever that will be)will never get a democrat vote on anything. What goes around comes around sooner or later.

What legislation has the current administration offered that Republicans have so vehemently attacked? You won't find any. They don't believe in offering legislation.

If that was the case its just more evidence to the absolutely horrid leadership this president displays. Politics aside the guy simply can't lead. In the face of weak opposition you hammer through your agenda. This whole "republican's prevented this or that" is preposterous. Load up your agenda for votes in the chambers. You want to weaken opposition truck in a sick Kennedy or Byrd to defeat a filibuster... watch what happens to the opposition when you do that.

I oppose most all of his policies so I'm glad the guy can't lead but its completely dumbfounding how ineffective he is. You can talk about "obstructionist" republicans but the reality is ALL collegiate Political Leadership courses around the country in ten years will be talking about how weak of a leader he was... Thats a fact.

In two years of unprecedented control your only accomplishment was a Health Care Reform Bill that the majority of American's don't want and even more don't understand. If thats not an example of failure of leadership I don't know what is...

[Tom]

Gee Bobby, you forgot so much......several repubs have crossed over to pass Obama legislation. Try to get it right when you whine. :D

[DJofSD]

Obama economics: why does the word vodoo pop into my head?

[newtothegame]

At no time during the Bush presidency did the republicans have anything close to 60 members in the senate. What Bush had during most his presidency was some members of the other party that were willing to work with him in order to get done what he wanted. There was at least some give and take. That is a luxury that Obama has never had. The republicans declared war on Obama day one. After what has happen in the past 3 years, you can bet that next republican president (whenever that will be)will never get a democrat vote on anything. What goes around comes around sooner or later.

You are so lost Robert..."the republicans declared war on Obama day one"......
Which republican was it that said something to the effect of ...."If you dont like it you all can take a seat on the back of the bus".........Right near or shortly after his inauguration....(oops I gave ya a hint).....:lol:

[mostpost]

So tell me again how 2008-2010 ANY REPUBLICAN had ANY power to do anything? I believe both house were controlled by dems and the WH democratic. I know those damn repugs must of drugged the dems so they couldnt get anything done...right???

lol And you call me a riot??
But here's another serious question...we both agree that there are some 1.2 million less people working now right? I mean that is what the job numbers say.....
So stay with me now for a moment...
Doesn't that also mean 1.2 million LESS people paying income taxes???
Gee, I wonder how much the average american worker paid in taxes?
Well, in 2010 the average wage was about 41,000. Lets say the average tax on that income would be about 15% (fair??)....
That would mean that the average worker paid about 6000 in federal taxes. Now I know someone will come along and correct my numbers, and thats fine but that appears to be 7,200,000,000 LESS in federal tax revenue coming in. Gee, I wonder how that will be made up??? By the way, my numbers for the average wage came from the link below. I used the 15% tax number as a base. Although I am sure there are some higher, I felt this would be a fair representation of the average american worker.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/AWI.html

Your numbers are wrong. The job loss (1,200,000) was for last month, not the whole year. You can't assume the losses will continue the entire year. Dive your number by twelve and you will get the cost in lost taxes.

As to the Republicans not having power to do anything in 2008 to 2010. True.
They had plenty of power to stop things from being done.

Finally, I have to say that while we seldom agree, you present your arguments with a minimum of personal invective. I appreciate that. :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

They had plenty of power to stop things from being done.
They were stopped because they were lousy ideas. Give us examples of 'things' that were stopped where we'd be peachy had they passed and we'll tell you why they were more BigGovernment crap ideas trying to creep their way into our lives by creeps.

[PaceAdvantage]

They were stopped because they were lousy ideas.This is an important point that is lost on guys like mostpost.

In fact, he pointed out that some Democrats were willing to work with Bush even though the Republicans didn't have enough juice to get things done without Dem help.

And why do you think that was? Because the Bush admin ideas were more palpable than what we are currently offered. The left-leaners here seem to discard this very important point, because they can't bring themselves to admit the leadership of the Bush admin was orders of magnitude more effective than the Obama admin.

[mostpost]

Total Nonfarm Payrolls, non seasonally adjusted.

Table B-1, same report.

http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

2,689,000 less people employed. WOOT! WOOT!

Down 2,909,00 since November. WOOT! WOOT!

People gettin' crazy jobs!

Here is a link to historical table B-1
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Look at the chart. In every case the numbers for January are lower than the numbers for the previous December. That is why they seasonally adjust the numbers. The more accurate comparison would be to compare a particular month in this year with the same month in the previous year. If you do that, you will see that every month in 2011 is higher than the corresponding month in 2010; by an average of 1,467,400 jobs.

Then compare January 2012 to January 2011. There were 1,936,000 more jobs in 2012 than in January 2011. That is almost double the increase from 2010 to 2011. (1,018,000).

Concentrate on a month in which the numbers always go down if you want. The fact is that by all other metrics the job situation is improving. Even John Boehner admits that.

[mostpost]

This is an important point that is lost on guys like mostpost.

In fact, he pointed out that some Democrats were willing to work with Bush even though the Republicans didn't have enough juice to get things done without Dem help.

And why do you think that was? Because the Bush admin ideas were more palpable than what we are currently offered. The left-leaners here seem to discard this very important point, because they can't bring themselves to admit the leadership of the Bush admin was orders of magnitude more effective than the Obama admin.

That was Robert Goren.

[newtothegame]

Your numbers are wrong. The job loss (1,200,000) was for last month, not the whole year. You can't assume the losses will continue the entire year. Dive your number by twelve and you will get the cost in lost taxes.

As to the Republicans not having power to do anything in 2008 to 2010. True.
They had plenty of power to stop things from being done.

Finally, I have to say that while we seldom agree, you present your arguments with a minimum of personal invective. I appreciate that. :ThmbUp:
As I previously mentioned, I knew someone would change the numbers some, and that was ok. But, you and I both agree that there is less tax revenue then previously if less people are working...right?
So , back to the original question, how is that shortfall made up?
I mean its not like our congressional members have tightened their belts. I would imagine that government has grown...right?
So if government is getting bigger, tax revenue is falling, ....you get the drift. How is this paid for? And please, lets stop b.s. you can NOT tax the wealthy higher and higher amounts. At some point, that safety net breaks.
These are the topics that need to be discussed...and not ten years from now. Our deficits, local, states, and federal are mostly out of control.

[acorn54]

i think i saw somewhere that 30% of the workforce is in the public sector, with generous pension plans and retirement at 55 after 20 years of work.
in any event here on long island the taxes are going up at a much faster rate than the cost of living due to the public sectors benefits. this is not sustainable.
i envision big changes with come in the near future.

[chickenhead]

Concentrate on a month in which the numbers always go down if you want. The fact is that by all other metrics the job situation is improving. Even John Boehner admits that.

I am not concentrating on one month -- every friggin news outlet is and was. That's why this thread exists.

The monster one month number! Holy cripes.

Hiring did not surge in January. There is no fantastic jobs news in January, there never is.

Wait until next month, when actual real jobs get created, and net net more people work. Who cares if it "disappoints", so long as it's actually a positive non-seasonally adjusted number, then it's better than December was, and better than January was. That is all.

Start a thread about that -- when February "disappoints" but is actually net positive for the first time in three months, you and Goren and anyone else, and you won't get any beef from me. That's a good time to chearlead!

Humans getting jobs is good news. Humans losing jobs is bad news. It ain't complicated, really.

You don't need permission from anyone, including John Boner, to think for yourself.

[hcap]

In context, the trend is positive. Even if one disagrees with the January numbers, the overall paints a clear picture and contrasts gains and losses over the last 3 years. Still not good enough but certainly better.

[sammy the sage]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trimtabs-explains-why-todays-very-very-suspicious-nfp-number-really-down-29-million-past-2-mont

says it BETTER than I...

[Tom]

In context, the trend is positive. Even if one disagrees with the January numbers, the overall paints a clear picture and contrasts gains and losses over the last 3 years. Still not good enough but certainly better.

Where have I seen that graph before?

[mostpost]

Where have I seen that graph before?
If you are going to paste a fake label on a graph, at least spell Global correctly. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

In context, the trend is positive. Even if one disagrees with the January numbers, the overall paints a clear picture and contrasts gains and losses over the last 3 years. Still not good enough but certainly better.
There are 1,936,000 more jobs in January of 2012 than there were in January of 2011. That figure is from the righties beloved non-adjusted statistics. The fact that there are fewer jobs this month than last month is not really relevant, because there are always less jobs in January than in the previous December. Always. The trend is up, the trend will continue to go up and none of their whining and manipulating will change that.

[PaceAdvantage]

The trend is up, the trend will continue to go up and none of their whining and manipulating will change that.Just like you guys liked to whine and manipsnates the Bush admin jobs numbers...always telling us how the "true rate" of joblessness was so much higher than the official reported rate...same old song and dance... :sleeping:

[Robert Goren]

Just like you guys liked to whine and manipsnates the Bush admin jobs numbers...always telling us how the "true rate" of joblessness was so much higher than the official reported rate...same old song and dance... :sleeping:That because the Bush admin was caught in some pretty big lies like WMDs in Iraq. Nothing they said after that was going to believed by anybody but the most loyal Bush supporters.

[bigmack]

mosty constantly yammering about fair wages. You don't think he's seen the internal numbers on all those jobs and the average pay, do you?

[PaceAdvantage]

That because the Bush admin was caught in some pretty big lies like WMDs in Iraq.Balderdash...are you going to make me post my video TWICE in one day? I guess you are...

Cwqh4wQPoQk

[chickenhead]

There are 1,936,000 more jobs in January of 2012 than there were in January of 2011. That figure is from the righties beloved non-adjusted statistics. The fact that there are fewer jobs this month than last month is not really relevant, because there are always less jobs in January than in the previous December. Always. The trend is up, the trend will continue to go up and none of their whining and manipulating will change that.

Yes, and we added 1.5 trillion to our debt to create those jobs, that's our gov't "filling the demand gap". And trillions to the Fed Reserve balance sheet. Juicing the rates. It used to be people cared about billions, now trillions in debt get stacked like cordwood without notice.

They are the most expensive jobs ever, because the underlying economy is anemic. But you're right, they do exist. It is in no way sustainable, but it exists.

It's not a left/right issue for me -- I get so tired of people that see everything through partisan glasses. Things are not going well. At all. Isn't that a bigger concern to anyone than stupid petty Democrat and Republican partisan wanking?

You know what Bush/Greenspan did after 2001 recession? They lowered rates and pushed up big deficits and did their best to create artificial, unsustainable job growth. And when it started to turn on them, they did more of both.

You know what Obama/Bernanke are doing? Where is this left right difference?

All the stuff you normally talk about, all the petty legislation -- it's window dressing to keep the partisans busy.

It's the same frigging guys, doing the same friggin thing. Just MORE.

It isn't the way out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Things are not going well. At all. Isn't that a bigger concern to anyone than stupid petty Democrat and Republican partisan wanking?The stock market seems to say otherwise...and the market as a whole is pretty good at calling bullshit when bullshit needs to be called...

How do you account for this?

If things really aren't going well AT ALL, then why is the market back to the level it was right before the 2008 financial meltdown?

[chickenhead]

The stock market seems to say otherwise...and the market as a whole is pretty good at calling bullshit when bullshit needs to be called...

How do you account for this?

If things really aren't going well AT ALL, then why is the market back to the level it was right before the 2008 financial meltdown?

Just generally -- the stock markets multi-decade bull coincided with multi-decade fall in interest rates. We are now at the bottom, 0% interest rates, even flattened the curve going out. Guaranteed now, through 2015. They're even talking about issuing negative interest rate bonds. The market should be peaked. Risk assets pricing related to risk free return and all that.

The problem is rates can NEVER go back up again, or things immediately go to shit. It takes awhile for the broader implications of that to really sink in (it took me awhile, at least).

[mostpost]

About a month ago we had a discussion on unemployment. Lefties said the numbers were improving and pointed to the drop in the unemployment rate from 8.5% to 8.3%. Righties disagreed. They said the true unemployment rate was found in the U6 numbers. They also said it was wrong to use the seasonally adjusted employment rate.

Chickenhead pointed out that we had lost jobs from December to January.

Well the numbers are out for February 2012. Unemployment stayed the same at 8.3% and we gained 227,000 jobs. A good month.

But, wait a minute. Those are the numbers you guys said we can't use. You said the true numbers are the U6 unemployment rate, (the one that includes those who have stopped looking for work.), and the non seasonally adjusted employment figures.

OK, we will use those figures.
In February 2012 the U6 rate dropped from 15.1% to 14.9%. At least the fourth straight month that it dropped and 1.8% lower than a year ago
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Using the non seasonally adjusted figures, jobs did not increase by 227,000.
It increased by 851,000.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

Using the figures which you guys insist we use, it would appear that February of 2012 continued the trend of improving employment in the United States. We are not yet at an ideal situation, but we are getting closer every month.

Too bad Mr. Republican Nominee. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

About a month ago we had a discussion on unemployment. Lefties said the numbers were improving and pointed to the drop in the unemployment rate from 8.5% to 8.3%. Righties disagreed. They said the true unemployment rate was found in the U6 numbers. They also said it was wrong to use the seasonally adjusted employment rate.

Chickenhead pointed out that we had lost jobs from December to January.

Well the numbers are out for February 2012. Unemployment stayed the same at 8.3% and we gained 227,000 jobs. A good month.

But, wait a minute. Those are the numbers you guys said we can't use. You said the true numbers are the U6 unemployment rate, (the one that includes those who have stopped looking for work.), and the non seasonally adjusted employment figures.

OK, we will use those figures.
In February 2012 the U6 rate dropped from 15.1% to 14.9%. At least the fourth straight month that it dropped and 1.8% lower than a year ago
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Using the non seasonally adjusted figures, jobs did not increase by 227,000.
It increased by 851,000.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

Using the figures which you guys insist we use, it would appear that February of 2012 continued the trend of improving employment in the United States. We are not yet at an ideal situation, but we are getting closer every month.

Too bad Mr. Republican Nominee. :lol: :lol:

Explain, please: If there was a real gain in jobs, why didn't we see a corresponding drop in the unemployment rate?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

We are not yet at an ideal situation, but we are getting closer every month.
Hallelujah. Happy days are here again. Or, soon to be.

So sayeth a retired postal employee. :jump:

[acorn54]

boxcar
this is not my explanation but rather what i read on yahoo finance.
1-when the jobs number improves, people on the sidelines who had given up looking for work re-enter the job market, thus the lack of decrease in the unempoyment rate

2-labor participation in the economy is a lagging indicator and comes late in the recovery

[jognlope]

Segment on NBC news about all the manufacturing jobs that are waiting to be filled, so hope Pell grants for community colleges can go through and more companies do the apprentice programs.

I shoulda been a postal employee. Every one of them is lean.

[mostpost]

Segment on NBC news about all the manufacturing jobs that are waiting to be filled, so hope Pell grants for community colleges can go through and more companies do the apprentice programs.

I shoulda been a postal employee. Every one of them is lean.
Boy, are you wrong about that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[lsbets]

We are not yet at an ideal situation, but we are getting closer every month.

Too bad Mr. Republican Nominee. :lol: :lol:

Have you filled up your gas tank lately? That is the number that should scare the shit out of Obama. His mindless Obamabots won't care or will rationalize how the big O has nothing to do with the rise but is the only hope for its fall, but to the average person, the price of gas is getting to be their biggest concern.

Heck, I have an idea. I choose to drive my daughter 35 miles each way to gymnastics 5 days a week. Its getting expensive, but it wouldn't be fair to ask me to give that up or cut back on something else, so someone else should pay for my gas. Maybe the esteemed parents of Ms. Fluk can pay for it?

[BlueShoe]

Americans have already adjusted their driving habits due to four dollar gasoline. Recent studies indicate that if and when it hits five dollars Americans will drastically alter their driving habits. In addition, the prices of everything will increase because of increased transportation costs. Translation; by summer any signs of recovery may be over with and we slide right back into an even deeper recession. In the meantime Obama states that gasoline is becoming obsolete and that we should just wait until electric cars work or else scrape the scum off of ponds and burn it in our gas tanks.

[boxcar]

boxcar
this is not my explanation but rather what i read on yahoo finance.
1-when the jobs number improves, people on the sidelines who had given up looking for work re-enter the job market, thus the lack of decrease in the unempoyment rate

2-labor participation in the economy is a lagging indicator and comes late in the recovery

Number 1 sounds contrived. Yes, a certain number of "below-the-radar" unemployed will re-enter the workforce, but for the unemployment rate to remain unchanged, this says that all the jobs were filled by those in that category.

Number 2 is a little more plausible. But the most plausible of all is that the numbers are being "massaged" during an election year.

Rush predicted that the unemployment rate would drop below the 8% mark toward the end of the year. Even if it dropped to 7.9, that sounds better than 8.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Americans have already adjusted their driving habits due to four dollar gasoline. Recent studies indicate that if and when it hits five dollars Americans will drastically alter their driving habits. In addition, the prices of everything will increase because of increased transportation costs. Translation; by summer any signs of recovery may be over with and we slide right back into an even deeper recession. In the meantime Obama states that gasoline is becoming obsolete and that we should just wait until electric cars work or else scrape the scum off of ponds and burn it in our gas tanks.

It shows you how utterly out of touch and unrealistic these libs are. Can you imagine the president of the U.S. making such an utterly stupid statement? In fact, it's beyond stupid! "Obsolete", indeed! Oil, a natural organic resource, is the fuel that powers the engine of all the economies of the entire world. And there isn't a thing on the immediate horizon to replace it any time soon at an affordable price. Not one thing! Is solar going to power trains, planes and cars and boats? Or is wind going to power these things? Is pond scum going to replace jet fuel? :rolleyes:

If we had drilled for oil decades ago as so many wanted, we would not be in this position today. Only idiots with IQs below that of palmetto bugs and who suffer with chronic mental myopia would intentionally keep us dependent on foreign oil. There is no plus side to dependency. None. Nada. Zippo.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Americans have already adjusted their driving habits due to four dollar gasoline.

Most people who do not live on the coasts cannot adjust their driving habits. They live 30-40 miles from work and still have to get there, 5 days a week. About all they can do it go to the store on the way home instead of stopping home to relax first. The more rural the area people live in, the more driving they have to do.

In 2008 people adjusted their spending based on the price of gas. They cut out a lot of "luxuries" to pay for gas. That was the start of the recession. If the Obama gang has their way and the price continues to go up, the economic recovery will reverse.

[bigmack]

Using the figures which you guys insist we use, it would appear that February of 2012 continued the trend of improving employment in the United States.
(Let's see if Mosty will answer this. 1 to 5 says he doesn't.)

Are there more or fewer people employed today than when BO took office?

[Tom]

(Let's see if Mosty will answer this. 1 to 5 says he doesn't.)

Are there more or fewer people employed today than when BO took office?

And a follow up - 1-9 hi either ignores or gets wrong!

How many manufacturing jobs are we down from 2000?

[Tom]

Segment on NBC news about all the manufacturing jobs that are waiting to be filled, so hope Pell grants for community colleges can go through and more companies do the apprentice programs.

I shoulda been a postal employee. Every one of them is lean.

This guy is a postal employee......want to reconsider? :D

[BlueShoe]

Most people who do not live on the coasts cannot adjust their driving habits. They live 30-40 miles from work and still have to get there, 5 days a week. About all they can do it go to the store on the way home instead of stopping home to relax first.

When it comes to discretionary driving they can and have. Instead of visiting Grandma who lives 300 miles away once a month now it is once a quarter, or those weekend trips to the beach, mountains, or favorite golf course will be cut way down or eliminated entirely. When an ever increasing portion of your budget must go into your gas tank for commuting to the job, that means cutting spending elsewhere. No spending, no economic recovery, and back we may go into perhaps an even worse recession.

[Tom]

And why the HELL should we have to adjust?
We have all the GD energy we need to last us for far longer than we we will be around. We are dependent on foreign oil and paying high prices because of dim-witted POS idiot like Obama and Gore - two of the WORST traitors in US history. What damage they have purposely done to this country is inexcusable.

Whoever runs against this little nazi-wannabe, remember, a vote for Obama is a vote against the United States.

Take out the trash in November.

[elysiantraveller]

For the "fairweather" economists...

The economy added 250,000 jobs in January 2012... 220,000 in February...

[PaceAdvantage]

Four years into the slowest recovery in history, I should hope so.

We're ten years from the start and still posting comparable numbers?

Way to go Trump, for keeping things going, pouring some extra fuel on the fire, and not doing anything to **** it up.

Yup, that's what you should be saying. But your agenda won't allow you.

Who's the silly boi now?

[elysiantraveller]

Four years into the slowest recovery in history, I should hope so.

We're ten years from the start and still posting comparable numbers?

Way to go Trump, for keeping things going, pouring some extra fuel on the fire, and not doing anything to **** it up.

Yup, that's what you should be saying. But your agenda won't allow you.

Who's the silly boi now?

I believe I said massive government spending and tax cuts help juice the economy...

Also that trade conflicts hurt it...

I just find the double standard around here super funnie...

My only post in this thread before the bump was me smashing Obama on a variety of issues... none economy related.

I'm sure I can dig them up though.