The sad truth behind yesterday's unemployment numbers

[MadHound]

"In reality, the jobs gained are a drop in the bucket compared to those lost during the recession. In the downturn that started in 2008, the US economy lost 8.9 million jobs, and if previous economic trends had continued, another 5.9 million jobs would have been added. Since the end of 2009, the economy has added only 5.7 million jobs.

At February’s rate of job growth, the US economy would not get back to the pre-recession level of unemployment until 2017.

By and large, the new jobs created pay much less than those lost during the crash. According to Friday’s figures, average hourly earnings for production workers have risen by only 2 percent over the past year, a figure wiped out by rising prices.

In addition to paying lower wages, an increasing number of new jobs are part time. Compared to late 2007, 5.8 million fewer people in the US are now working full time, but 2.8 million more are working part time. The share of people working part-time has grown from 16.9 percent at the start of the recession to 19.2 percent today."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/09/econ-m09.html

Ra Ra, unemployment dropped two tenths of one percent Meanwhile, with the Meatcleaver Austerity about to take hold, and Austerity Lite waiting in the wings, US workers are in for ever more hurt. But hey, the 1% can now party like it's 2007, the DOW hit a new record high

Reagan, and every single president since him have massaged the unemployment numbers to make things look as rosy as possible. This is but the latest example.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[DCBob]

2. I see many are still yearning for the "good ole" Bush-era days.

Many of those well paying pre-recession jobs were a direct or in-direct result of the bogus Bush economy. It will not be easy to replace those with legitimate well paying jobs.

[MadHound]

3. No, many are simply yearning for a single full time job

That pays enough to live a decent life. Is that too much to ask?

[DCBob]

6. No doubt many of these jobs are low paying and temporary.

For sure much of that is due to company greed but it also just going to take a long time to repair the economic mess the Bush era created.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. That's the BS that we are fed and expected to eat with a smile. The Main Street economy

could have been turned around and roaring better than it was in the 90s if there were any will to make it happen among those with the power to do so.

Lie #2: It took 8 years to create this mess. No, it took 90 days and out government's absolute refusal to enforce existing laws.

Lie #3: This is all bush & the republican's fault. No, it was a deliberate, bipartisan effort begun under reagan and accelerated to warp speed under Clinton with Democrats controlling Congress for most of that time. BushCo just pulled the trigger.

[DCBob]

18. Actually this problem has been brewing for decades.

We have bounced from one bubble to the next. Its time to build an economy on something more sustainable.

[Egalitarian Thug]

37. "it was a deliberate, bipartisan effort begun under reagan and accelerated to warp speed under

Clinton with Democrats controlling Congress for most of that time. BushCo just pulled the trigger."

[DCBob]

41. funny, I read this exact same thing word for word not along ago.

[HiPointDem]

48. so what? it's true, no surprise people repeat it.

[DCBob]

50. that statement is extremely misleading.

It implies that Bush was not a major part of the problem. No doubt there are many to blame for the economic crisis but the Bush regime deserves the biggest share, by far. The tremendous waste on warmongering and allowing the housing sub-prime mess to go on and on without warning or regulation were the main causes. I suspect if Al Gore or any Democrat were President during that time neither of those issues would have happened.

[HiPointDem]

55. it's not misleading at all.

"it was a deliberate, bipartisan effort begun under reagan and accelerated to warp speed under
Clinton with Democrats controlling Congress for most of that time. BushCo just pulled the trigger."

clinton era deregulation made the housing bubble possible.

[DCBob]

56. "clinton era deregulation made the housing bubble possible."

Republican talking point.

[HiPointDem]

58. happens to be true.

[DCBob]

59. BS. It played a role but was not the major factor.

The intent of Clinton era deregualtion was primarily to help poor people with bad credit to acquire homes. It was never intended to be used and abused the way it was in the mid 2000's during the Bush regime. The Bush administration let it get totally out of hand because everyone was making money, big money. Greed, lack of oversite and lack of action by the Bush administration were the prime causes.

[HiPointDem]

60. baloney. the intent was to make it easier for banksters to make money. everything follows

from that.

the result was that lots of poor & minority people lost their homes and now blacks have the lowest net worth on record.

gee, who could have forseen....?

in fact, that 'helping the poor and minorities' crap was just more crap. haven't you noticed that 'helping the poor and minorities' always precedes a plan to *screw* the poor and minorities?

education privatization, same thing.

[DCBob]

61. Salami. Fact is the system was not being abused during the Clinton era..

it happened under Bush's watch.

[bvar22]

34. Not yearning for the Bush Era days.

I'm yearning for the FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ era days:

+70% Rate on the Upper Bracket

Capital Gains minimum tax of 25%

Locally Owned Businesses protected by Fair Competition/Sherman Act

International Trade Policies that protected good American Jobs

Affordable College that could be accessed by anyone
and Debt Free graduation

"Too Big to Fail" was Too Big to Exist

Banking and Investment strictly regulated

Diverse Media protected, Public Service mandatory



THAT is what I yearn for.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[quaker bill]

4. While it is not all great news

Things around me in the real world are getting better. People are in fact going back to work. 6 or perhaps 8 weeks ago now, construction projects started again. People I speak to in this regard have said that "the lights just came back on".

There are lingering impacts and recovery is nowhere near complete, but something is suddenly happening out there, and the pace is increasing. I have heard different from the pundit and commentators, but I trust what I see on the ground.

[MadHound]

5. There is some stirring out there,

But it is weak, and what with the sequester, and upcoming grand bargain, soon extinguished.

However while folks are starting to work again, they are working at a much lower wage. Our wage base is being brought down to be on par with those in China and the rest of Asia. It started in the nineties, when Clinton signed NAFTA and got rid of our manufacturing sector, and has continued apace every since.

[quaker bill]

7. This is not what I am seeing

It could turn out the way you think, but I don't think so. What I am seeing has nothing at all to do with sequesters or grand bargains. What I am seeing on the ground is money flowing out of the banks and venture capital operations. I am seeing people who played the market well in 2007 and got out near the top now coming off the sidelines. They are turning dirt and building stuff. I know this because my job is dealing with the citizen complaints about it (among other things).

This part of the job causes me to meet and talk to the people who run these businesses (directors, presidents, CEOs). At some point the election results were digested and staying on the sidelines for another 4 years was apparently not an attractive option. The pace is quickening, because they want to be in front of the wave.

Sure, there are massive social justice issues to be tackled. They were pretty large before the recession and are only larger now. Wage depression and inequity is a huge issue, and growth alone will not fix it.

My point is simple, what I am seeing is private money coming off the sidelines. Watch for it in the news.

[fasttense]

8. If there is no demand, that money flowing out of bankster's hands will stop.

I've never, ever met a person who creates a job because of tax cuts, or because they have money.

They create jobs because someone wants to buy what they are selling. If the majority of people get wiped out because of austerity, there will be no demand to create jobs. A bunch of rich people building 2nd and 3rd homes or fancier office spaces does NOT an economy make.

[sendero]

14. Bingo..

... this simple irrefutable fact of economic life is glossed over all the time. Only a handful of economists I am familiar with (Reich) point out that nothing, and I mean nothing advances in an economy with no demand.

I too am seeing a small flurry of construction activity. I think QB's assessment that many of the players realized they cannot sit out 4 more years is basically spot on. However, the idea that "if we build it , they will come" is dicey at best - more like "if we can afford it, we will come". And lots of folks are still in deleveraging mode and will be in that mode for a few more years at least.

[quaker bill]

24. This is true

but sales are up. Knowing these guys they way I do, if there were no sales they would be still sitting on the cash. They have been sitting on cash since 2007. There is a reason they suddenly stopped.

Hey, I am as much a doomer as anyone, it is just not what I am seeing first hand. You can believe me or not, I have no control over it and whatever is going on will be what ever it will be, regardless of my opinion.

I am just reporting what I am seeing and what I have heard from those actually making the decisions with millions of dollars. You may not think they know what they are doing, and you might be correct. On the other hand these are the guys who got out and did not take a bath in 2007-2008 (which is why they are still in business). I tend to believe them because they have been right numerous times in a row. (this is not our first rodeo in FL)

I got no dog in this hunt and do not care to argue.

[fasttense]

62. Well I guess it depends on what side you are seeing.

I'm seeing a 12% unemployment rate here in my TN county and that is a drop in rate.

I'm seeing more people coming to the food bank and applying for food stamps. I'm still seeing home foreclosures out pacing sales. I'm seeing more homeless, more abandoned animals, more people applying for the few part-time jobs we offer. I'm seeing more trailers and vacant lots.

I suspect we are like the blind men feeling up the elephant. We feel different parts but cannot see the whole. I wonder what part I have?

[quaker bill]

64. unemployment is still high here too

Not that bad, but at last check still a bit over 10%. However, I am seeing construction equipment moving dirt again, which means the guys driving them now have work again. It has not been going on long enough yet for the impact to spread very far. But from what I have seen living here for the past 40 years is that it does spread given a bit of time. We will see.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

9. I'm seeing that too, just in the city where I live.

I'm not in meetings with CEO's. I'm just talking about what I see around town. A lot of construction projects, for one example.

College where I work, private side--tons of growth. We'll see what happens to enrollment......

Federally funded side (where i am), however is very concerned; waiting to see what happens and how much we will get to run our budget for next fiscal year.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

43. I think both you and MadHound have made good points...

I fully, 100% agree with MadHound that there has been considerable effort on the part of the 2% to bring United States wages more into line with those of the labor pools to which they fled in the past 20-30 years as they sent their production facilities abroad. That left us with an economy of service jobs traditionally mired in low wage structures. Formerly highly-paid manufacturing workers and those with associated specialized skills were forced to take lower-paying service jobs. And it's a process that is still ongoing even though some manufacturing is returning.

You also have a good point to make quaker bill and there's no reason both of your opinions can't live together peacefully. At some point the 1% decided they were going to sit on their money and I think part of it was a determination not to cooperate with an Obama (and Democratic) agenda and part goes back to their program to bring wages down and part was due to the uncertainty of some companies that their would be customers for their products following the economic crash of 2008. For the latter the improving economy has perhaps given them confidence to come off the sidelines. For the former, a second Obama term means they failed in their agenda to make him a one-term failure and now that he has a second term can't afford another four years of sitting on the sidelines or they simply no longer see the point in holding back. And the bonus for them is now there is a whole lot bigger pool of employees willing to take lower wage positions just to get back to work drawing a paycheck.

[quaker bill]

47. Time also matters

All of us are getting closer to the age of retirement at the same rate. You can sit on your money for a bit, but at some point you need to get back to work. Making a million dollars sounds good but if it takes 40 years to do it, not so much.

There is also a herd mentality to this. None of these guys wants to be the last on board. Once a few drop the hammer, the rest get aboard pretty fast. Because I am involved with the paperwork, I know these guys have been lining things up for a year to two now. They have been snagging projects out of foreclosure for nickles and dimes on the dollar, and just sitting on them. Suddenly (over the last 6 or 8 weeks) someone dropped the flag and it is off to the races again.

It has not spread everywhere yet. Last weekend I did an art festival in a city 90 miles away. The movement has not started there yet, they are still a bit more saturated with foreclosed existing homes at dirt cheap prices. I am looking seriously at buying one as the payment could be smaller than my cable bill and I like the locale for retirement.

[davidpdx]

16. I agree that wages are falling, especially in relation to inflation

But I don't think you can compare the wages of the US with Asia. I know what people in China and Korea get paid and it is very little (especially since I have lived in both countries, the one I am not familiar with is Japan). Most people in those there countries work six to seven day weeks and well into the evenings. The wages in the US would have to have a very steep drop combined with a very steep rise in Asian countries to be on par. Sorry I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

10. Every crash, every large-scale job loss results in return of mostly lower paying jobs later

And you can bet the wealthy and corprats LOVE every bit of it. Every time it happens, their profits increase.

It's corprat parasitism, greed, and corprat welfare of the most insidious kind.

[abelenkpe]

13. What I love

Is that the new lower paying jobs usually have fewer benefits too. No pension, no 401k match, lower pay, longer hours. But hey! We should all be saving more! Pull ourselves up by our bootstraps! Because well need that savings to supplement our ss that we get to wait longer for and won't rise with inflation. That's what's so beautiful about chained CPI. How can anyone howl about losing a few thousand a year as one ages? It's not like costs go up as one grows old and requires more and more care. See, in the future there will be no inflation.....

Cutting wages while asking people to save more and work longer. That sounds like a great plan if one is bent on destroying the economy.

[abelenkpe]

11. Economy seemed to be doing well

But I know hundreds just recently laid off from three different studios. (Because y'know labor in other countries is far cheaper) Add in sequester layoffs and furloughs and wait a few months. The forced austerity will ripple out through local economies soon enough.

Thanks Republicans!

[watoos]

15. Old fashioned capitalism is dead.

Companies used to share profits with its workers, now, workers are a cost to the bottom line, corporations share profits with shareholders, screw the workers. If they complain, off to China or Mexico.

[cantbeserious]

17. The Failure Of Capitalism

http://vimeo.com/60234702

[Purplehazed]

27. Old fashioned Capitalism ?

Like the Amsterdam Stock Exchange founded in 1602 where wealthy landowners financed expeditions of the Dutch East India Company. Captains and Sailors were employees to be paid i.e. a cost to the bottom line. Or perhaps the era of Andrew Carnegie who hired guards that killed striking workers looking for a wage increase while the company was profiting immensely. There were times when some businesses were fixtures in cities and towns and actually built some of the infrastructure, but again, that was for business. They needed to keep the goods flowing in and out of the factory and they needed to have a stable local workforce. If the business owners were incredibly wealthy, they may have paid for a library or a school.

Sadly there was no gilded age where sharing profits with the workers was common. There have been enlightened businesses that have and have prospered as well. It would be great if that actually becomes a trend.

[bhikkhu]

19. Some of that depends on how you look at "previous trends"

and I'm always amused by selective interpretations that make the present look as dour as possible, and the past as rosy. Especially when the past was bush.

So, if you look at the eight years of repug rule prior to Obama, you have a net of zero jobs added. The one "good" bit before the end there was the construction boom fueled by the housing bubble - which is about the only thing (besides war) that they had up their sleeve the whole time. So how do you take 8 years of zero net job growth (including the brief housing bubble) and make it a "trend" toward 16.8 million more jobs than we currently have?

No argument with the rest - though the long-inevitable retirement of the baby boomers needs to be factored in. They drove a decades-long increase in labor participation, and labor participation rates are in predictable decline in part due to their cycling out of the job market. Another factor there is the trend toward higher education, as compared with the 60's, as more kids go to college than previously.

One of the best approaches to current problems, I think, is a higher minimum wage.

[99Forever]

20. Harecore truthiness.

And almost NOBODY in Washington DC honestly gives a flying fuckall about what that means to us little people.

[jsr]

21. Recommend

[ProSense]

22. "Ra Ra, unemployment dropped two tenths of one percent"

"Reagan, and every single president since him have massaged the unemployment numbers to make things look as rosy as possible. This is but the latest example."

Are you sure President Obama isn't cooking the numbers? I mean, what kind of person only shaves "two tenths of one percent" off the numbers to "make things look as rosy"? I mean, the President could have shaved "two tenths of one percent" every other month for the last year and a half and the unemployment rate would be under 6.5 percent right now. Imagine the "Ra Ra" then.

Still, the good news is that Mitt lost.

[JoePhilly]

26. When I read that "massaged the unemployment numbers" line I thought I was reading a ...

Rush Limbaugh transcript. He's been making that claim since Obama took office.

UE is down from a high of about 10.2% to 7.7% in three years, and apparently, that's bad news around here.

[Ikonoklast]

28. You Better Believe It!

Seems that the Greens, angry Socialists of varying feuding types, and the Naderites see improving employment numbers as an impediment to their efforts to destroy Democrats...just like the Republican Teabaggers see improving employment numbers sinking their agenda.

[JoePhilly]

29. Better Believe that I love nostalgic references!!

And I get a kick out of the doom and gloom posters who can find the dark cloud in any good news.

I think that things getting better works against their desire for a total collapse ... a catastrophic collapse that somehow magically leads to a utopia that exists only in their minds.

Oddly, the tea party folks and the "feuding socialists" see the same catastrophic collapse leading to very DIFFERENT versions of utopia.

Go figure.

[cliffordu]

40. Yep. You Better Believe It.

All over again.

[SidDithers]

46. They seem to hate good news, eh?...

Their bitter tears are nectar to my soul.

Sid

[DevonRex]

54. That's what rival parties do

these days, it seems. I guess it's especially bad news for a party that banks on an American October Revolution before they can become relevant. Or a constitutional convention that completely changes our form of government.

Not knocking the October Revolution, mind you. I would have been right in it if my kids had been starving and cold, etc. Well, I guess it was the Feb Rev that got rid of the monarchy and then the Oct Rev that...never mind. You know what happened. And of course, Russia was still using the Julian Calendar then so... I hope I've confused you as to the actual dates. [url=http://www.desismileys.com/][img][/img][/url]

[fasttense]

63. It amazes me how people all screamed that the bushes

were rigging the unemployment rate, CPI and other government economic data. I suspect he did and many people had good data to support the argument.

But Obama never changed it back. He left almost all of it in place (can't blame him, it would suddenly make him look worse if he fixed them like he did with the budget numbers.)

We are still operating under most of the bushes manipulations, and the Clinton, and the Raygun. So, to take these numbers to heart, you must believe that the bushes and all the other presidents did not ever rig or manipulate them.

[JoePhilly]

65. The calculation for UE has not changed In a very

Long time.

Or, Perhaps you can describe how it's changed and when those changes occurred.

[MineralMan]

23. Those unemployment numbers don't indicate much for

people who are still unemployed or underemployed. However, as an indicator, it combines with other indicators to show some progress overall in our economic situation. Some progress. Not enough, but there is no magic solution that will suddenly fix everything that has been wrong with our economy. No magic solution at all.

So, you're right, in the sense that those numbers won't affect the lives of those already badly effected by the economy. Except, perhaps for those who have found new jobs. If they're not on DU, we don't hear about their new job. However, several DUers in the past couple of weeks have announced that they have found new employment after not being able to find work for a long time.

If someone is expecting a sudden turnaround, bringing full employment at great wages and salaries, they will be disappointed. That's not going to happen. Looking at indicators, however, is one way to gauge the overall economic situation, which does appear to be improving.

[KoKo]

33. Dean Baker seems to agree:

Don't Be Fooled: 7.7% Is Likely a Short-Lived Low in the US Unemployment Rate
by Dean Baker

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Looking beyond this report, though, there is not much reason for optimism. Housing construction is rising, but from a very low base. It had fallen back to just 2.0% of GDP, so even a 20% growth rate would add just 0.4 percentage points to GDP growth. The most recent data on investment shows a sharp drop, albeit after three months of good growth. We will be fortunate if this category grows at more than a 10% annual rate in 2013.

While an upward revision to the fourth quarter GDP data turned a negative 0.1% into a positive 0.1%, the economy still only grew at a 1.6% annual rate in the second half of 2012. Apart from the uptick in construction, there are few good reasons to expect much of an acceleration from this growth rate. And contrary-wise, the ending of the payroll tax cut will pull more than $100bn a year out of the economy. The impact of this tax increase was just being felt when the February jobs survey was taken in the middle of the month.

The other big hit to the economy will be from the sequester, which will pull roughly $80bn in federal spending out of the economy. The forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office and others show the sequester slowing growth by 0.5-0.6 percentage points. The economy has not even begun to feel the impact of these cuts, most of which will not start to make their effects felt until April.

In short, we have an economy that had been growing at a not-very-healthy pace through the second half of 2012 – and which is virtually certain to be slowed by contractionary fiscal policy through the rest of 2013. Unless there is a rapid reversal of policy, the 7.7% unemployment rate is likely to represent a low we may not see again for some time.

While the economy is not likely to fall into a recession and send the unemployment rate soaring, the economy is not growing fast enough to meet the need for jobs from a growing labor force. As a result, unemployment will be going in the wrong direction for the rest of the year.

[ProSense]

35. Doesn't this

While an upward revision to the fourth quarter GDP data turned a negative 0.1% into a positive 0.1%, the economy still only grew at a 1.6% annual rate in the second half of 2012. Apart from the uptick in construction, there are few good reasons to expect much of an acceleration from this growth rate. And contrary-wise, the ending of the payroll tax cut will pull more than $100bn a year out of the economy. The impact of this tax increase was just being felt when the February jobs survey was taken in the middle of the month.

The other big hit to the economy will be from the sequester, which will pull roughly $80bn in federal spending out of the economy. The forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office and others show the sequester slowing growth by 0.5-0.6 percentage points. The economy has not even begun to feel the impact of these cuts, most of which will not start to make their effects felt until April.

...run counter to the argument against the payroll tax cut. Supporters argued that it would stimulate the economy until the recovery took a better hold. Ending the payroll tax cut was planned.

Still, Baker does cite a bit of good news:

The one genuinely encouraging piece of news in the February employment data is an uptick in wage growth. Over the last three months, average hourly earnings rose at a 2.85% annual rate, compared to the prior three months. If this continues, it would imply that workers are actually seeing real wage gains. Unfortunately, this increase was likely driven by some state minimum wage hikes, and by the sort of random movements that causes these data to fluctuate erratically. But this is an item that the optimists can look to for hope.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/09-4

This is why increasing the federal minimum is crucial.

[Poll_Blind]

25. There was an article yesterday which covered these numbers and said "...the economy surges!"

And I was like. "Uh huh."

In the grand scheme of American citizenry, I don't see a lot of people being fooled. I think at least half of all Americans who are reading the news regularly, if not a whole lot more, would agree with your analysis and more importantly...they know the real score.

PB

[Purplehazed]

31. Another article said,

that given the increase in the stock market and the modest increases in home values, the US has gained back the wealth that was lost since 2007. The article didn't detail who gained the wealth.

It's certainly not the folks that are still unemployed/under employed. The small investors who had to liquidate their stocks to keep from losing everything or the foreclosed and upside down homeowners.

[Godhumor]

30. wsws and truth never belong in the same sentence

They carefully select points of comparison, misinterpret data and just make up inferences to support a horrendously skewed point of view. This article is no different.

[MadHound]

38. Really?

So can you prove, or link to something you consider more truthful, because looking at the WSWS article, it doesn't look like they are misinterpreting or making up a thing.

[KoKo]

32. " Our Current Economic Mess, Explained With Headlines"

Our Current Economic Mess, Explained With Headlines

By Dave Johnson | March 4, 2013

I was doing research, gathering headlines for a post. But the headlines told a story of their own. So here they are:


----------------------
2010

November 2010, Corporate Profits Hit New Record, U.S. Workers Still Struggling

2011

January 2011, Profits Are Booming. Why Aren’t Jobs?

May 2011, Corporate Profits At All-Time High As Recovery Stumbles

June 2011, Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages

July 2011, Corporate profits’ share of pie most in 60 years

July 2011, A Boom in Corporate Profits, a Bust in Jobs, Wages

August 2011, Companies near record profits amid high unemployment

October 2011, While Corporate Profits Are At 60-Year High, Main Street Businesses Continue To Struggle

November 2011, GDP revised downward; corporate profits up

2012

February 2012, Corporate Margins And Profits Are Increasing, But Workers’ Wages Aren’t

May 2012, Corporate Profits Return To Prerecession Levels, But Job Growth And Investment Remain Weak

June 2012, Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low

July 2012, The Economy Stinks, but at Least Corporate Profits Are at 60-Year Highs!

December 2012, Corporate profits hit all-time high as wages drop to record low

2013

Today, March 4, 2013, Corporate Profits Have Risen Almost 20 Times Faster Than Workers’ Incomes Since 2008

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130304/our-current-economic-mess-explained-with-headlines

[talkingmime]

36. Reagan's big pre-84 trick was to include the military for the first time - 100% employed group.

It completely distorted the picture. His other big trick was keeping education spending flat for the first three years and then increasing it by "more than any president has ever done before". That was technically true in dollar amounts, but accounting for inflation it still left education spending below where it should be. They're rhetorical tactics.

[DotGone]

39. I got a job after 4 years

I gross $160/week (20 hrs @ $8/hr) and spend $95 to commute to it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

66. congrats on getting a job

[Bake]

42. Does NOT, of course, count UNDER-employment.

People who are, e.g., qualified to be lawyers, airline pilots, etc., who are working in call centers.

That's the real shame of this economy.

Bake

[Cleita]

44. Bernie Sanders says the reality is 14%.

There are people who have been unemployed for so long, they have given up looking for jobs, so their status isn't reflected on the neat little charts.

[SidDithers]

45. LOL...

And wsws for the win! You'll make Hannah very happy.



Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Better believe it!

Middle-class misery is incredibly entertaining, right?

[HiPointDem]

49. masks a ton of people who've dropped out of the official economy. labor force participation rate:

[DevonRex]

51. WSWS left Republicans out of the article entirely. Named only Obama.

"The media jumped on the jobs total—significantly higher than the 165,000 that had been predicted—to proclaim an economic turnaround, while the Obama White House said the report indicated that “the recovery that began in mid-2009 is gaining traction.”

Snip

"After four years of “recovery,” the US economy is nowhere near its pre-recession level of unemployment. Instead of investing in production, major corporations, flush with cash and with their stock at record levels, are paying out dividends and inflating their own stock values."
SNIP

My take is this: WSWS views Democrats and Republicans as their political rivals. They view both parties as equally bad because they favor capitalism. We, as Democrats, kid ourselves if we believe we are considered the lesser of two evils by the writers (and followers) of WSWS. I am merely stating the facts as I see them.

So no matter who's in office, WSWS will paint as dire a picture as possible. Perhaps they'll even be disappointed at good economic news because if the economy does well then there's no reason to change things. Rather like our Republican rivals feel about anything good that happens under a Democratic president or as the result of a Democratic bill.

[Knightraven]

52. Do they plug in the numbers for those that are getting a second or third job in this report?

With the need of many to get two or three jobs, these numbers are iffy.

Then when to look at those in this report that are seasonal and temporary, again the numbers don't look right.

[treestar]

57. Oh noes! Good news!

We can't have that! No, there can't possibly be any improvement in the economy - every little bit is not enough and isn't really true anyhow!

[Liberal_in_LA]

67. lol