Jobs Report GREAT NEWS (unless you're a republican)

[sportage]

Strong: U.S. economy adds 255,000 jobs in July
The U.S. economy added 255,000 jobs in July and the unemployment rate remained at 4.9%. It far surpassed expectations of economists surveyed by CNNMoney, who had predicted a gain of 182,000 jobs.
"Employment growth remains strong," says Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, a research firm.
So far this year, America has added about 1.3 million jobs. That's a healthy improvement but still a slightly slower pace than last year, when it had gained about 1.6 million jobs by this point. Job gains for May and June were revised up a bit too.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/05/news/economy/us-economy-july-jobs-report/index.html

Good news but naturally bad news from republicans.
I swear, jobs and wage could rise 200% under Obama and because of his policies, and republicans would still gripe, "Well, people with the last name of Rumplestiltskin were left out of the growth, so THERE!"
Really... when have republicans ever given this president one pat on the back or credit for one single positive achievement?
Yet, if this jobs report were under president Donald Trump, republicans would be absolutely giddy claiming, "SEE, we told you that Donald would be an phenomenal president".

Oh well...
By days end, Donald will say something screwy about this positive jobs report as well.
Probably claiming all the new jobs were created from ISIS terrorist joining the ISIS organization.

 

[glenn1]

Good news but naturally bad news from republicans.
I swear, jobs and wage could rise 200% under Obama and because of his policies, and republicans would still gripe, "Well, people with the last name of Rumplestiltskin were left out of the growth, so THERE!"
Really... when have republicans ever given this president one pat on the back or credit for one single positive achievement?
Yet, if this jobs report were under president Donald Trump, republicans would be absolutely giddy claiming, "SEE, we told you that Donald would be an phenomenal president".

Oh well...
By days end, Donald will say something screwy about this positive jobs report as well.
Probably claiming all the new jobs were created from ISIS terrorist joining the ISIS organization.

Good news but concerns about labor force participation are legitimate and should be addressed while you're crowing about the headline unemployment rate.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Good news but concerns about labor force participation are legitimate and should be addressed while you're crowing about the headline unemployment rate.

Why is it a concern? I mean seriously what makes it a concern if you factor in all considerations such as population age number of people remaining in school etc... It's in line with projections. Conservatives keep bring it up like every last person counted is actually looking for work. Break it down for us and explain the issue.

 

[realibrad]

Good news but naturally bad news from republicans.
I swear, jobs and wage could rise 200% under Obama and because of his policies, and republicans would still gripe, "Well, people with the last name of Rumplestiltskin were left out of the growth, so THERE!"
Really... when have republicans ever given this president one pat on the back or credit for one single positive achievement?
Yet, if this jobs report were under president Donald Trump, republicans would be absolutely giddy claiming, "SEE, we told you that Donald would be an phenomenal president".

Oh well...
By days end, Donald will say something screwy about this positive jobs report as well.
Probably claiming all the new jobs were created from ISIS terrorist joining the ISIS organization.

Your post is full of irony. You are angry at the expected response that you assume will be made, even though it has not happened. You are angry at a straw man that you have created with the premise that the Republicans will dismiss this with a strawman. Do you realize how dumb this post is?

Good news though.

 

[realibrad]

Why is it a concern? I mean seriously what makes it a concern if you factor in all considerations such as population age number of people remaining in school etc... It's in line with projections. Conservatives keep bring it up like every last person counted is actually looking for work. Break it down for us and explain the issue.

What?

Why is it a concern that people are not looking for work and have given up? Um, because people not working means they are not producing things and getting people do things is the very foundation of stimulation. If participation is not important, then what is the point of stimulus?

Also, conservatives are literally arguing that people are not being counted in unemployment because of the definition of the term. If you do not have a job but are not looking for a job, you not unemployed. So if a huge chunk of the population is not looking, then unemployment could be very low and yet the economy would be shit.

 

[JSt0rm]

the baby boomers are retiring. Thats the reality.

 

[glenn1]

Why is it a concern? I mean seriously what makes it a concern if you factor in all considerations such as population age number of people remaining in school etc... It's in line with projections. Conservatives keep bring it up like every last person counted is actually looking for work. Break it down for us and explain the issue.

So you're addressing it by saying it reflects people's voluntary choices based on self-interest (e.g. staying in school) rather than an involuntary choice of being out of the workforce. I don't know if that's the correct answer but it is an answer so kudos to you. I'll leave it to others to address the validity of that response; IMHO it's partially correct but think that it only reflects the situation of a small piece of that large decline and may be a fallback option for many rather than their preferred choice.

 

[fskimospy]

Good news but concerns about labor force participation are legitimate and should be addressed while you're crowing about the headline unemployment rate.

Concerns about labor force participation are real but that chart is pretty out of date. Labor force participation rate has been basically flat since the end of 2013 and that is actually good news considering that with an aging population it should naturally decline, all things being equal. For the near to moderate future a flat labor force participation rate actually probably indicates a moderate rise.

That being said, it seems likely that our participation rate is still depressed, which is definitely still a problem. I think we should just realize that we are unlikely to see a major rebound and should view a stable rate as a positive thing, and even a modest rise as a very positive one in terms of bringing us back in line with projected trends.

 

[senseamp]

Good news but concerns about labor force participation are legitimate and should be addressed while you're crowing about the headline unemployment rate.

Baby boomers retiring.

 

[fskimospy]

What?

Why is it a concern that people are not looking for work and have given up? Um, because people not working means they are not producing things and getting people do things is the very foundation of stimulation. If participation is not important, then what is the point of stimulus?

Also, conservatives are literally arguing that people are not being counted in unemployment because of the definition of the term. If you do not have a job but are not looking for a job, you not unemployed. So if a huge chunk of the population is not looking, then unemployment could be very low and yet the economy would be shit.

If conservatives are arguing this then they are wrong. You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking under both U5 and U6. As a way to look at relative improvement over time both U5 and U6 have dramatically declined in recent years, indicating significant economic improvement.

 

[dank69]

Your post is full of irony. You are angry at the expected response that you assume will be made, even though it has not happened. You are angry at a straw man that you have created with the premise that the Republicans will dismiss this with a strawman. Do you realize how dumb this post is?

Good news though.

Nice rant but first reply was a conservative complaining.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What?

Why is it a concern that people are not looking for work and have given up? Um, because people not working means they are not producing things and getting people do things is the very foundation of stimulation. If participation is not important, then what is the point of stimulus?

Also, conservatives are literally arguing that people are not being counted in unemployment because of the definition of the term. If you do not have a job but are not looking for a job, you not unemployed. So if a huge chunk of the population is not looking, then unemployment could be very low and yet the economy would be shit.

So break it down. How many 80-90 year olds should be out looking for work? How big a percentage of the population are they? How many more people are choosing to go into college/university?

In 2006 the BLS projected a steady decline in labor participation down to about 60% due to these factors.

 

[dank69]

If conservatives are arguing this then they are wrong. You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking under both U5 and U6. As a way to look at relative improvement over time both U5 and U6 have dramatically declined in recent years, indicating significant economic improvement.

I like how this has been pointed out in almost every thread about employment yet is brought up again to this day. It's not like brad is new here, either.

 

[Sonikku]

Well of course labor participation is down. We have job creators constantly trying to make more with fewer people in order to tighten up them profit margins.

 

[HomerJS]

Good news but concerns about labor force participation are legitimate and should be addressed while you're crowing about the headline unemployment rate.

Given the choice of this or losing jobs at a rate of 800K/month under Republican rule guess which I'll take?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Baby boomers retiring.

If a baby boomer aged person was a cashier at a bank and retires, that job is still there to be filled. I think the problem is we have less and less people doing anything, living off the government or living at home. My neighborhood is full of do-nothings.

 

[senseamp]

OK, stop baby boomers from retiring then.

 

[SlowSpyder]

OK, stop baby boomers from retiring then.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the job is still there, someone next in line should be able to get it. Even with people retiring, our labor force shouldn't be decreasing seeing as our population is growing. We can't keep sticking our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening, that everything is fine.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the job is still there, someone next in line should be able to get it. Even with people retiring, our labor force shouldn't be decreasing seeing as our population is growing. We can't keep sticking our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening, that everything is fine.

That doesn't make sense mathematically. Think of it this way:

We have ten people in the country and they are all working. 10/10 employed: 100% participation rate.

Two people retire and two extra people join the population to take their old jobs. 10/12 people employed: 83% participation rate.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That doesn't make sense mathematically. Think of it this way:

We have ten people in the country and they are all working. 10/10 employed: 100% participation rate.

Two people retire and two extra people join the population to take their old jobs. 10/12 people employed: 83% participation rate.

I get it, but our labor participation rate should not be trending down. For decades it had been going up, it seems like since the GWB years and through Obama's presidency it has been trending downwards. We have fewer people working supporting more and more who aren't working, and I'm not talking about those who have retired. Less people are supporting more non-working people. That isn't a good thing.

 

[senseamp]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the job is still there, someone next in line should be able to get it. Even with people retiring, our labor force shouldn't be decreasing seeing as our population is growing. We can't keep sticking our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening, that everything is fine.

You are assuming everyone is identical replacement part for someone else.

 

[vi edit]

That doesn't make sense mathematically. Think of it this way:

We have ten people in the country and they are all working. 10/10 employed: 100% participation rate.

Two people retire and two extra people join the population to take their old jobs. 10/12 people employed: 83% participation rate.

Or the company chooses not to re-open the position after they leave, banks the savings and the CEO takes a bigger bonus.

 

[fskimospy]

I get it, but our labor participation rate should not be trending down. For decades it had been going up, it seems like since the GWB years and through Obama's presidency it has been trending downwards. We have fewer people working supporting more and more who aren't working, and I'm not talking about those who have retired. Less people are supporting more non-working people. That isn't a good thing.

People of retirement age will comprise a larger percentage of our population than before. Are you saying people shouldn't retire? If not, why shouldn't it trend down?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are assuming everyone is identical replacement part for someone else.

No, let's not make this over complicated... We have x% of the population that is doing nothing, many taking benefits from the government. That percentage is growing much faster than we are getting more jobs. Less people are working, their taxes have to support more people than before. What's to blame for that, evil corporate greed or lazy moochers is a matter of opinion, and like most things I'm sure the truth falls somewhere in the middle. But let's not pretend like this is good, everything is doing just fine. This is happening, and it is not a good thing for our country.

 

[Svnla]

No, let's not make this over complicated... We have x% of the population that is doing nothing, many taking benefits from the government. That percentage is growing much faster than we are getting more jobs. Less people are working, their taxes have to support more people than before. What's to blame for that, evil corporate greed or lazy moochers is a matter of opinion, and like most things I'm sure the truth falls somewhere in the middle. But let's not pretend like this is good, everything is doing just fine. This is happening, and it is not a good thing for our country.

This.

NPR - Unfit for work - The startling rise of disability in America:

In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.

The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined. Yet people relying on disability payments are often overlooked in discussions of the social safety net. The vast majority of people on federal disability do not work.[1] Yet because they are not technically part of the labor force, they are not counted among the unemployed.

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

Also, I want to know what kind of jobs we are having. Full time good paying jobs with benefits or part time jobs with nothing. I saw a guy I know a few months ago as a greeter at Academy. He used to work at one of GM plants and now it is closed. He told me he also working as a bus driver for the local school board part time. I do not know how much Academy and the school board were paying him but I am sure they were not paying as well as GM and not as good as benefits, if any. He wanted full time job but could not find anything.

And he is not alone -

Even more shocking is that the BLS’s headline number of jobs added each month — the figure that can move markets and shape headlines — makes no distinction between full-time and part-time payroll gains. “So if you’re on for an hour,” Wolfers said, “you’re counted as having a job” in the survey of employers.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...aul-krugman-didnt-know-about-the-jobs-report/


http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/america-part-time-jobs-poverty/

.