157,000

Number of jobs the U.S. economy added in January. For all of last year, the economy added an average of 181,000 jobs a month, according to updated figures, better than the 153,000 pace originally reported, according to the Wall Street Journal. To keep up with population growth, the economy needs to add 150,000 jobs every month.
  • Share
  • Read Later
29 comments
superlogi
superlogi

"To keep up with population growth, the economy needs to add 150,000 jobs every month."

Obviously that number is a fiction since not only did the unemployment number increase, but the job participation number hasn't been this low since 1981.  


MrObvious
MrObvious

Despite GOPs best attempt to tank our economy it's still limping along. Imagine if we had two parties working together to REALLY do something for this nation. Yeah I know...dreamin'.

fitty_three
fitty_three

I wonder how Lurch is doing with his promise of 700,000 jobs in FLA.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@superlogi 

Once again, you ignore the gigantic notes in the margins about methodologies of collecting the data and how that can easily makes those two numbers end up out of line with one another - just like Gallup can end up expecting Romney to win by 5 points when he lost by 4.

notsacredh
notsacredh

1981. Hmmmm...who was President then?

superlogi
superlogi

@MrObvious What more could you ask for?  Over the last four years, your government has stimulated the economy with $4.8 trillion of borrowed money and reduced taxes even more so than GWB did.  And, it certainly wasn't the GOP that went along with adding another economy busting entitlement or bailing out the UAW. Furthermore, you've invested in all those green energy jobs and regulated those nasty banks and corporations, bailed out subprime mortgage holders and are currently selling debt to the FED at the rate of $85 billion a month.  You, basically, have gotten everything you wanted and then some and you're still blaming the other party.  Just what more could you, possibly, want?

notsacredh
notsacredh

Like Lennon's song "Imagine", a great sentiment, but you know it won't happen.

superlogi
superlogi

@sacredh Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.  But you could have looked that up on a search engine with asking me.

reallife
reallife

@sacredh it only took him 2 years to fix what obama's first incarnation did - imagine that...

AlistairCookie
AlistairCookie

@MrObvious  

I wanted to see the comments here to find out how this would be twisted around to be Teh Bad, and to see who was doing the twisting.  Thanks to superlogi, I was not disappointed.  Although, given how active paulejb is on the MMR thread, I am a little surprised it wasn't him.  

MrObvious
MrObvious

@sacredh 

Just like some get awesome MILs but most suffer teh crazy.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@superlogi

You can't just change the definition of unemployment rate to suit your needs.  A system being optimal is far less important than a system being consistent.  The reason is that it becomes quite difficult to analyze things when you're working with two variables rather than if you just have a single variable.

You may feel that it might not be the right statistic - and that is a reasonable complaint - but the unemployment numbers were created using a constant methodology so respect that methodology.

One problem that does exist is that the unemployment number only considers those who haven't been employed or haven't looked for work within the last year.  So the people that might've dropped out is people who decided to go back to school, people who decided to use this as a reason to begin retirement (a group we fully expect are going to increase), and people who were working a part time second income for the family and decided that it wasn't as necessary while the economy was doing poorly.  So it is quite hard to determine whether or not the job participation rate is relevant.

Also, job participation percentage is a consequence of other polls.  It is entirely prone to error.  The reality is that you can't get that information without actually polling people.

superlogi
superlogi

@forgottenlord @superlogi The job participation percentage isn't a poll and it isn't prone to error.  It is 63.6%.  The last time it was this low was during the Carter stagflation recession in 1981.  And, I'm quite aware how the unemployment number (E-3) is created and while I agree that it is inaccurate, it is also much lower than it should be, given the number of people who've left the workplace and aren't considered as unemployed.

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@superlogi

Unemployment numbers are determined by conducting a survey.  You ask people "are you employed" and "have you looked for work in the last 12 months".  As such, it is quite prone to error and can be unreliable.

In comparison, the jobs added total is based upon reported payroll by businesses.  While the hidden economy may be missing, these numbers are reliable.  The only issue that can happen is that not all businesses report their payroll totals each month so there's almost always revisions over the rest of the quarter as more and more businesses report it.  However, 9 of the last 12 months are not going to be changed - everyone's made their report.  And since those are based upon payroll reports from companies rather than a survey, they are far more reliable.

superlogi
superlogi

@sacredh My argument is that you are an obvious product of a dysfunctional education.

notsacredh
notsacredh

And your arguments would be what? Conservative always good, liberal always bad?

superlogi
superlogi

@sacredh Jimmy was clearly responsible for the recession and the stagnation that accompanied it.  Ronald Reagan was clearly responsible for putting an end to it.  I didn't mention Bush, but it appears that your boy keeps taking credit for TARP which Barry says saved us from another "Great Depression" and the American Auto Industry,  when it was passed by GWB.  Oh well, your quip is just another example of wanting to have it both ways and the hypocrisy of your specious arguments.

notsacredh
notsacredh

Reagan took office on January 20th of 1981. So they were both responsible? Then by that logic, both Bush and Obama were responsible for the job losses and stock market bottoming out in 2009.

reallife
reallife

@sacredh  deficit over 17 TRILLION, unemployment still at 8%(the "official" one), 50 millions on foodstamps, Iran close to a nuclear bomb, North Korea "testing", etc etc etc

heck! even a blackout on the Superbowl!  our slide down to thirdworldism is right on course.

you're right! the socialist is doing everything he planned to do

Taking this country down was his goal after all, and you're still applauding, like trained seals.

How does it feel to be DUPED? 

not that you'll ever admit it

 



 


notsacredh
notsacredh

The DOW is only a few hundred points off of it's all-time high. Jobs are being added each month. The auto industry is alive and thriving. The banking system didn't collapse. Obama ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was taken out. Gays and lesbians can now serve their country openly without fear of being discharged. The Lilly Ledbetter Act was passed. Yep, that socialist has been a failure.

reallife
reallife

@sacredh  fixed?   hahahahaha lol

not even the hive believes that one

bzzz  bzzzzz  bzzzzz


notsacredh
notsacredh

And it's taken 4 years for Obama to fix what Bush did. Of course Obama had to deal with the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Imagine that.

superlogi
superlogi

@MrObvious @superlogi The way to stimulate the economy, is to allow the free enterprise system to work which means reducing expensive regulation and allowing the private sector more of its resources to increase economic output, which by the way, pays for the government and all of its services.  With regard to your Keynesian notion of stimulation, after the borrowing mentioned above, unemployment is higher now than when the buffoon took office and we had an economic retraction this last quarter.  In fact, we've been borrowing roughly 9-10% of GDP and have an average growth rate of 2%.  That being the case, we're seeing a dollars worth of growth for every five we borrow.  That's stimulation in reverse.