What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Unemployment lowest since 2008 (1 Viewer)

Throughout the Bush years, anything short of 300K jobs gained was considered losing jobs. We get one month during Obama where we had 11K job loss and the media is throwing a ticker tape parade for him.
You are not really attributing the job loses the past year to Obama are you? Sure you can scoff at the notion that the stimulus package would have some kind of immediate, measurable benefits yet alone reverse the effects of the recession, but do you really think that Obama has done anything that has significantly impacted the economy - yet? It is still my belief that while negative economic reactions can happen pretty quick as the stock and bond markets can immediately signal a lack of confidence, but positive improvements take much longer to be noticeable. While I might offer a position from time to time that seems contradictory (like the auto bailouts) as other factors weigh in, but in general this liberal is not supporting Obama's fiscal policies as I generally don't believe in using fiscal policy for any role other than paying for government. That being said, I find it silly to believe that Obama's budgets so far have been significantly different from Bush's. That is while I am discouraged by Obama's lack of belief that priority one should be deficit reduction and elimination, it just isn't accurate to look at Bush's typical deficits and those projected out for Obama and say that Obama changed something significant to create the larger deficits.As far as unemployment, I'm not sure that we aren't at the threshold where optimal employment levels for our economy is less than full employment. That has been predicted over and over in the past and has never actually happened so there is lots of hope that I am wrong, but what do we do if this time is different? What if some of the guys are correct and the best we can get to "full employment" is now 8% unemployed rather than 4 or 5%? I hear the analysts suggesting that kind of job gains required to undo the loses is typical in a recovery from this type of recession, so again there is lots of hope that the guys predicting this are wrong also. But the fact that this type of recovery has been typical is also why I wish we were looking long term rather than short term. I opposed W's various tax cuts and rebates in the name of economic stimulus, so I'm not going to be hypocritical now and support Obama's. However, I don't think the point of this thread is serious analysis of Obama's stimulus package or unemployment, the point is that if employment numbers start to improve now it would be good news for democrats and the midterm elections. I don't think that is really debatable.
 
Again, it is too early for anything negative to be attributed to Obama or the Democrat run House and Senate. However, if there is a way to spin news into a positive, all be the glory to Obama.

 
Odd that this managed to quickly fall to the second page without Borbely, Perry, Tobias, Mathias, tim, Fennis, Desert_Power, or white m0nkey posting to tell us how the employment numbers continue to improve on their way to positive gains...
First of all, I honestly missed the reappearance of this thread because I was busy in a few other threads and my time here in the FFA the last few days has been somewhat limited.Second of all, please do not confuse me as a defender of Obama's economic policies. So far, I have not been in general. That being said, I am happy when jobs are created and disappointed when they are not, and I don't understand how anyone could feel the opposite. Therefore, I want Obama to succeed. Despite my own personal doubts I want his plans to work. If things turn around and the economy gets better, conservatives will of course argue that this happened in SPITE of Obama. And they very well might be right. But I personally won't care; I'll be happy because things turned around. On the other hand, if things don't turn around and the economy gets worse, liberals will of course argue that this was inevitable because of Bush and had nothing to do with Obama. And they very well might be right. But I personally won't care; I'll be unhappy because things did not turn around.I started this thread because I want Obama to have good news and be popular. At the moment, he is POTUS, and therefore good news for him regarding employment issues means good news for all of us. No matter what your political position, you should be rooting for the President to succeed at this time. What is the alternative?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, it is too early for anything negative to be attributed to Obama or the Democrat run House and Senate. However, if there is a way to spin news into a positive, all be the glory to Obama.
1. Yes the Obama supporters are completely guilty of this apparent contradiction of logic.2. Please explain how the Obama supporters are in any way different from the supporters of every president we have ever had in this country during the first year of their presidency.
 
Again, it is too early for anything negative to be attributed to Obama or the Democrat run House and Senate. However, if there is a way to spin news into a positive, all be the glory to Obama.
1. Yes the Obama supporters are completely guilty of this apparent contradiction of logic.2. Please explain how the Obama supporters are in any way different from the supporters of every president we have ever had in this country during the first year of their presidency.
I'm not saying it is different, but that doesn't make it right or true. How does the cycle ever get broken if we continue to use the excuse that everyone has done it? At some point someone needs to change.
 
Again, it is too early for anything negative to be attributed to Obama or the Democrat run House and Senate. However, if there is a way to spin news into a positive, all be the glory to Obama.
1. Yes the Obama supporters are completely guilty of this apparent contradiction of logic.2. Please explain how the Obama supporters are in any way different from the supporters of every president we have ever had in this country during the first year of their presidency.
I'm not saying it is different, but that doesn't make it right or true. How does the cycle ever get broken if we continue to use the excuse that everyone has done it? At some point someone needs to change.
This is one aspect of politics that will never change. People support their side against all logic. And it's not so much a matter of hypocrisy, because they both want and need to be right in order to justify themselves that their convictions are correct and the other side is wrong. It takes a very strong individual to say, for instance in this case:"I'm a supporter of Obama and I voted for him, but so far I have to admit that what he's tried hasn't worked. The criticism of him from the other side has apparently been correct, and now I need to rethink some of my assertions."

People just don't do this, and we shouldn't expect them too. The only thing I personally hope for is the emergence of more independent types (like myself!) who begin with no allegience to any political party or unified ideology. I try to look at each issue separately. I like Obama personally and will continue to do so, I suspect. I like how he talks in an adult manner to the American public, which I consider unusual for a President. But his economic policies are a mess so far IMO and I hope he examines this and changes some of his opinions. However, the rhetoric from the right is just silly; Obama is not destroying the nation.

 
Throughout the Bush years, anything short of 300K jobs gained was considered losing jobs. We get one month during Obama where we had 11K job loss and the media is throwing a ticker tape parade for him.
You are not really attributing the job loses the past year to Obama are you? Sure you can scoff at the notion that the stimulus package would have some kind of immediate, measurable benefits yet alone reverse the effects of the recession, but do you really think that Obama has done anything that has significantly impacted the economy - yet? It is still my belief that while negative economic reactions can happen pretty quick as the stock and bond markets can immediately signal a lack of confidence, but positive improvements take much longer to be noticeable. While I might offer a position from time to time that seems contradictory (like the auto bailouts) as other factors weigh in, but in general this liberal is not supporting Obama's fiscal policies as I generally don't believe in using fiscal policy for any role other than paying for government. That being said, I find it silly to believe that Obama's budgets so far have been significantly different from Bush's. That is while I am discouraged by Obama's lack of belief that priority one should be deficit reduction and elimination, it just isn't accurate to look at Bush's typical deficits and those projected out for Obama and say that Obama changed something significant to create the larger deficits.As far as unemployment, I'm not sure that we aren't at the threshold where optimal employment levels for our economy is less than full employment. That has been predicted over and over in the past and has never actually happened so there is lots of hope that I am wrong, but what do we do if this time is different? What if some of the guys are correct and the best we can get to "full employment" is now 8% unemployed rather than 4 or 5%? I hear the analysts suggesting that kind of job gains required to undo the loses is typical in a recovery from this type of recession, so again there is lots of hope that the guys predicting this are wrong also. But the fact that this type of recovery has been typical is also why I wish we were looking long term rather than short term. I opposed W's various tax cuts and rebates in the name of economic stimulus, so I'm not going to be hypocritical now and support Obama's. However, I don't think the point of this thread is serious analysis of Obama's stimulus package or unemployment, the point is that if employment numbers start to improve now it would be good news for democrats and the midterm elections. I don't think that is really debatable.
No, I am not blaming this on Obama. The effect Presidents have on stimulating the economy are minimal. Governments are far more effective at ruining economic growth. I wouldn't put too much blame on Obama unless interest rates spike up significantly.Yes, Obama's budgets are worse. Bush took a huge charge against his budget by making his bailout of the banks. That money is much closer to an investment as most will be paid back with interest. I have my doubts about the money poured into AIG, but for the most parts banks are getting more stable and paying back the bailout money. I think about 30% has already been returned. Obama's money is real spending that will never get paid back. Not only that, Obama is taking the bailout money that is getting repaid and spending that too. That money was suppose to pay down the deficit. Also, I think most people know that Obama's health care bill is going to be another huge long term hit to the budget. Bush's budgets were a disaster, Obama's budgets are mind-boogling which blows away what even Bush would have done.
 
My favorite running gag with the MSM is how increased job losses, and the revisions to previous month's numbers, are always "unexpected"

“The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.”

 
Have the numbers for January been released?
tomorrow
Link
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.

All told, the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs, the department said. That's the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls.

Aside from November's gain, January's job losses were the smallest since the recession began. Employers cut 779,000 jobs in January 2009.

The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.

Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.

The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
 
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.

All told, the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs, the department said. That's the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls.

Aside from November's gain, January's job losses were the smallest since the recession began. Employers cut 779,000 jobs in January 2009.

The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.

Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.

The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
That's relatively good news.:fingerscrossed:

 
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.

All told, the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs, the department said. That's the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls.

Aside from November's gain, January's job losses were the smallest since the recession began. Employers cut 779,000 jobs in January 2009.

The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.

Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.

The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
That's relatively good news.:fingerscrossed:
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
 
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.

All told, the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs, the department said. That's the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls.

Aside from November's gain, January's job losses were the smallest since the recession began. Employers cut 779,000 jobs in January 2009.

The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.

Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.

The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
That's relatively good news.:fingerscrossed:
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
Survey of households showed employment gains, but a survey of employers showed a 20,000 job loss. At least that's how I read it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.

 
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.
In the overall direction the country has taken as far as employment, you can't help but look at the numbers above and have at least a glimmer of hope.Productivity is where the recovery lies. Manufacturers adding jobs is a very, very good thing. Retailers adding jobs would indicate people are spending a bit more also - that's a good sign.Don't get me wrong - we've still got a long, long ways to go and I have a feeling its going to be a very prolonged uphill slog the whole way, but at least the glimmer is there way down at the other end of the tunnel.
 
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.

All told, the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs, the department said. That's the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls.

Aside from November's gain, January's job losses were the smallest since the recession began. Employers cut 779,000 jobs in January 2009.

The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.

Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.

The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
That's relatively good news.:fingerscrossed:
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
Month to month numbers are noisy.The trend line for job losses is slowing down to almost zero, although the 4-week moving average has ticked up a bit lately, it's still trending downward. Last time we had a "surprise" decrease in unemployment rate, is was because of discouraged workers dropping out of the job hunt. Haven't looked into these numbers yet. :shrug:

We'll know when the employment picture is improving because unemployment will spike as people come off the sidelines looking for work in an improved atmopshere.

I would consider things to be flat right now. Which is certainly better than the chaos we've had the last year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.

All told, the Great Recession has eliminated 8.4 million jobs, the department said. That's the most of any recession since World War II as a proportion of total payrolls.

Aside from November's gain, January's job losses were the smallest since the recession began. Employers cut 779,000 jobs in January 2009.

The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.

Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.

The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
That's relatively good news.:fingerscrossed:
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
Survey of households showed employment gains, but a survey of employers showed a 20,000 job loss. At least that's how I read it.
Temporary hiring is up, so that's a positive indicator.
 
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.
In the overall direction the country has taken as far as employment, you can't help but look at the numbers above and have at least a glimmer of hope.Productivity is where the recovery lies. Manufacturers adding jobs is a very, very good thing. Retailers adding jobs would indicate people are spending a bit more also - that's a good sign.Don't get me wrong - we've still got a long, long ways to go and I have a feeling its going to be a very prolonged uphill slog the whole way, but at least the glimmer is there way down at the other end of the tunnel.
I hope you're right. I was encouraged to see the average hours worked increase.
 
Link

January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – ... Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.....
For the past few months I have heard the market analysis guys that go radio whenever these reports keep telling us listeners that this is where they are looking. That Temporary help is always a leading indicator of which way the job market is heading. That is these are the first employees fired when the market is turning for the worst, and the first hired when the market is turning for the better. It sounds reasonable to me, but whether it is historically accurate or not :lmao: . I'm just taking their word for it and repeating it here.
 
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.
When the stock market is up, it doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. The U.S. economy for fourth quarter 2009 grows at its fastest rate in six years, but that doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. Then, when the unemployment rate drops, it's just "noise." I'm not saying the January numbers are cause for celebration, far from it, but it almost feels like no matter what the news is, some will argue that it's bad news. This reminds me of the criticisms against the liberals who were "rooting for failure" in Iraq.Edit: I don't mean to imply that you're rooting for the economy to fail. But I think there are definitely positive aspects to the numbers for January, what with job gains in manufacturing, retail and temporary employment. Also, the survey of households apparently indicates significant employment gains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Link

January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – ... Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.....
For the past few months I have heard the market analysis guys that go radio whenever these reports keep telling us listeners that this is where they are looking. That Temporary help is always a leading indicator of which way the job market is heading. That is these are the first employees fired when the market is turning for the worst, and the first hired when the market is turning for the better. It sounds reasonable to me, but whether it is historically accurate or not :lmao: . I'm just taking their word for it and repeating it here.
That is a historical sign that the labor market is turning.
 
The way I read it we shed more jobs in January (unexpectedly) and the only reason the unemployment rate went down is because people have given up looking for a job thus reducing the number of people included in the work force. Not good news.
The report included more good news from the manufacturing sector, which is a key factor in the recovery. Manufacturers gained 11,000 jobs, its largest increase since April 2006.Retailers added 42,100 jobs, the most since November 2007, before the recession began. Temporary help services gained 52,000 jobs, the fourth month of gains in that category. That could signal future hiring, as employers usually hire temp workers before permanent ones.
In the overall direction the country has taken as far as employment, you can't help but look at the numbers above and have at least a glimmer of hope.Productivity is where the recovery lies. Manufacturers adding jobs is a very, very good thing. Retailers adding jobs would indicate people are spending a bit more also - that's a good sign.Don't get me wrong - we've still got a long, long ways to go and I have a feeling its going to be a very prolonged uphill slog the whole way, but at least the glimmer is there way down at the other end of the tunnel.
You're becoming one of my favorite posters. Not sure if you consider that a good thing.
 
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.
When the stock market is up, it doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. The U.S. economy for fourth quarter 2009 grows at its fastest rate in six years, but that doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. Then, when the unemployment rate drops, it's just "noise." I'm not saying the January numbers are cause for celebration, far from it, but it almost feels like no matter what the news is, some will argue that it's bad news. This reminds me of the criticisms against the liberals who were "rooting for failure" in Iraq.
Everything is tied together, although your criticism is spot on for some. Yes, the month to month unemployment numbers are noisy. If they drop .3% yet the trend line is spiking up, the trend is what matters and vice versa. Pretty sure that's the argument against "it sure is cold today, global warming must be fake" comments. The GDP had a headline grabbing numbers and I'm not knocking it saying it wasn't good, but inventory changes will make GDP look worse on the way down and better on the way up. They will be meaningless if PCE doesn't pick up (which it did slightly). Krugman has said as much.
 
Here is my question as it relates to the OP: What kind of unemployment numbers will be needed for Obama and the Dems to see success in November? Does he need some huge rise in employment? Or will relatively flat numbers with a slow uptick, like we saw today, be enough? (Or do you believe that the Dems will lose anyhow due to other factors like fiscal spending, healthcare, etc.?) Please give your opinion.

 
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.
When the stock market is up, it doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. The U.S. economy for fourth quarter 2009 grows at its fastest rate in six years, but that doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. Then, when the unemployment rate drops, it's just "noise." I'm not saying the January numbers are cause for celebration, far from it, but it almost feels like no matter what the news is, some will argue that it's bad news. This reminds me of the criticisms against the liberals who were "rooting for failure" in Iraq.
Everything is tied together, although your criticism is spot on for some. Yes, the month to month unemployment numbers are noisy. If they drop .3% yet the trend line is spiking up, the trend is what matters and vice versa. Pretty sure that's the argument against "it sure is cold today, global warming must be fake" comments. The GDP had a headline grabbing numbers and I'm not knocking it saying it wasn't good, but inventory changes will make GDP look worse on the way down and better on the way up. They will be meaningless if PCE doesn't pick up (which it did slightly). Krugman has said as much.
My rant was likely misplaced. I know precious little about the intricacies of the U.S. economy. I happily defer to you, Andrew74 and others to provide a more realistic analysis of the numbers. I was merely giving my gut reaction to what I saw as a similarity in the reactions to the positive reports we've received over the last few months (though I know the markets are down this week). My bad, please carry on.
 
Here is my question as it relates to the OP: What kind of unemployment numbers will be needed for Obama and the Dems to see success in November? Does he need some huge rise in employment? Or will relatively flat numbers with a slow uptick, like we saw today, be enough? (Or do you believe that the Dems will lose anyhow due to other factors like fiscal spending, healthcare, etc.?) Please give your opinion.
:confused:
 
January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs, the government said Friday.

The rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000, the Labor Department said. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.
This is promising news, but the "household survey" is notoriously unreliable, so until we see a few more months positive trend, I take it with a huge bushel of salt. We've seen these numbers revised downward consistently.....
The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

The November figure was revised higher, however, to show a gain of 64,000 jobs.
It's promising to see the November figure revised higher.....when the economy is still tanking, you often see downward revisions due to the methodology used to estimate unemployment. As things turn upward, you typically see the opposite - upward revisions. So even though it's only 1 data point, it's a glimmer of hope.
The number of part-time workers who want full-time work, but can't find it fell by almost 1 million. That lowered the "underemployment" rate, which also includes discouraged workers, to 16.5 percent from 17.3 percent.
This is also a good sign.
 
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.
When the stock market is up, it doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. The U.S. economy for fourth quarter 2009 grows at its fastest rate in six years, but that doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. Then, when the unemployment rate drops, it's just "noise." I'm not saying the January numbers are cause for celebration, far from it, but it almost feels like no matter what the news is, some will argue that it's bad news. This reminds me of the criticisms against the liberals who were "rooting for failure" in Iraq.Edit: I don't mean to imply that you're rooting for the economy to fail. But I think there are definitely positive aspects to the numbers for January, what with job gains in manufacturing, retail and temporary employment. Also, the survey of households apparently indicates significant employment gains.
There are positive signs, but the reason I said it was noise is that people are so excited about it. To me the unemployment rate isn't that great of an indicator because it has so many holes and lags the economy. Plus the household survey is an extremely volatile series. The best features out of it are probably the employment/population ratios that give big picture glimpses. The weekly claims data are much more relevant and give a better picture of the employment situation, IMO.Plus, you shouldn't reem a guy for talking out of both sides of his mouth when he hasn't done that. :confused: Just sharing my opinion that I didn't think the data was all that great.
 
Here is my question as it relates to the OP: What kind of unemployment numbers will be needed for Obama and the Dems to see success in November? Does he need some huge rise in employment? Or will relatively flat numbers with a slow uptick, like we saw today, be enough? (Or do you believe that the Dems will lose anyhow due to other factors like fiscal spending, healthcare, etc.?) Please give your opinion.
I don't think there's enough political will for Congress to pass a big enough jobs package to make the Dems have success in November. There's obviously lots of incentive for ®s to block a jobs bill since it benefits them to do so, even if it hurts their constituents. Not sure what it would take for a bi-partisan jobs bills to get passed.
 
Here is my question as it relates to the OP: What kind of unemployment numbers will be needed for Obama and the Dems to see success in November? Does he need some huge rise in employment? Or will relatively flat numbers with a slow uptick, like we saw today, be enough? (Or do you believe that the Dems will lose anyhow due to other factors like fiscal spending, healthcare, etc.?) Please give your opinion.
Obama and the Dems have to hope there is a material dent in the unemployment rate. You know, something like moving from 10% down to 8% -- it has to be enough that people FEEL the economy improving, not just see it in govt statistics.
 
Plus the household survey is an extremely volatile series. The best features out of it are probably the employment/population ratios that give big picture glimpses. The weekly claims data are much more relevant and give a better picture of the employment situation, IMO.
:goodposting:
 
Here is my question as it relates to the OP: What kind of unemployment numbers will be needed for Obama and the Dems to see success in November? Does he need some huge rise in employment? Or will relatively flat numbers with a slow uptick, like we saw today, be enough? (Or do you believe that the Dems will lose anyhow due to other factors like fiscal spending, healthcare, etc.?) Please give your opinion.
I think Obama is going to get held to his 8% unemployment cap prediction with a vengeance, and the GOP would be foolish not to use that against him. It's going to have to drop at least a bit below 8% for it not to be an albatross - and there's no way I see that as a reasonable possibility by the time November comes.
 
Some fun data from the household survey from October (when the data showed some life).

Employed: -410,000

Labor Force: -757,000

Employment/Population Ratio: steady at 58.4%

FBG Unemployment rate: 4.9%

As someone else mentioned, good news is the hours worked has rebounded from 33.0 to 33.3 since then.

 
someone may have to talk p boy off the ledge if we see job growth.

It looks like positive job growth will start in early 2010.
Were the lefties required to take some kind of psychotropic drug this morning? First the tea party thread and now this. What in the Seven Hells are you talking about?
Since you seem to take glee out of bad numbers, it would seem the opposite would be true.
 
someone may have to talk p boy off the ledge if we see job growth.

It looks like positive job growth will start in early 2010.
Were the lefties required to take some kind of psychotropic drug this morning? First the tea party thread and now this. What in the Seven Hells are you talking about?
Since you seem to take glee out of bad numbers, it would seem the opposite would be true.
Do you actually read any posts, or do you just see my name and automatically leap to a conclusion despite posts being completely contrary to the tortured point you are trying to make (as well as "cleverly" trying to "out" me as P_Boy when I explained what happened with that moniker a few days ago).
 
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.
When the stock market is up, it doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. The U.S. economy for fourth quarter 2009 grows at its fastest rate in six years, but that doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. Then, when the unemployment rate drops, it's just "noise." I'm not saying the January numbers are cause for celebration, far from it, but it almost feels like no matter what the news is, some will argue that it's bad news. This reminds me of the criticisms against the liberals who were "rooting for failure" in Iraq.Edit: I don't mean to imply that you're rooting for the economy to fail. But I think there are definitely positive aspects to the numbers for January, what with job gains in manufacturing, retail and temporary employment. Also, the survey of households apparently indicates significant employment gains.
Part of it is that the unemployment "rate" is a farce of a statistic. The bottom line is that it looks like more jobs were lost than gained, but at least losses are slowing.
 
I'm not going to sift through the bickering to see if this has been posted already, so I'm just gonna drop it here.

“A sharp increase in the number of people giving up looking for work helped to depress the jobless rate. The number of ‘discouraged job seekers’ rose to 1.1 million in January from 734,000 a year ago.”
Carry on.
 
This is disappointing news overall, especially when you couple it with what is happening in the unemployment claims series. We are seeing initial and continuing claims creep upwards, and the extended claims series hasn't done anything but go up. At this point many we estimating we would see job growth, but other than the blip in November we aren't there. The Unemployment rate going down is noise at this point.
When the stock market is up, it doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. The U.S. economy for fourth quarter 2009 grows at its fastest rate in six years, but that doesn't matter because the unemployment rate continues to rise and that's what really matters. Then, when the unemployment rate drops, it's just "noise." I'm not saying the January numbers are cause for celebration, far from it, but it almost feels like no matter what the news is, some will argue that it's bad news. This reminds me of the criticisms against the liberals who were "rooting for failure" in Iraq.Edit: I don't mean to imply that you're rooting for the economy to fail. But I think there are definitely positive aspects to the numbers for January, what with job gains in manufacturing, retail and temporary employment. Also, the survey of households apparently indicates significant employment gains.
Part of it is that the unemployment "rate" is a farce of a statistic. The bottom line is that it looks like more jobs were lost than gained, but at least losses are slowing.
If it's a farce of a statistic, how come I kept hearing people keep referincing it to slam Obama when it hit 10%?
 
someone may have to talk p boy off the ledge if we see job growth.

It looks like positive job growth will start in early 2010.
Were the lefties required to take some kind of psychotropic drug this morning? First the tea party thread and now this. What in the Seven Hells are you talking about?
Since you seem to take glee out of bad numbers, it would seem the opposite would be true.
Do you actually read any posts, or do you just see my name and automatically leap to a conclusion despite posts being completely contrary to the tortured point you are trying to make (as well as "cleverly" trying to "out" me as P_Boy when I explained what happened with that moniker a few days ago).
Did it get changed to P Boy Fan?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top