HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Payroll employment contin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:33 AM

Payroll employment continues to edge up in June (+80,000); jobless rate unchanged (8.2%)

Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 11:10 AM - Edit history (2)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JUNE 2012


Nonfarm payroll employment continued to edge up in June (+80,000), and the
unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Professional and business services added jobs,
and employment in other major industries changed little over the month.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) was essentially unchanged
in June, and the unemployment rate held at 8.2 percent. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for blacks (14.4 percent)
edged up over the month, while the rates for adult men (7.8 percent),
adult women (7.4 percent), teenagers (23.7 percent), whites (7.4 percent),
and Hispanics (11.0 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate
for Asians was 6.3 percent in June (not seasonally adjusted), little changed
from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In June, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks
and over) was essentially unchanged at 5.4 million. These individuals
accounted for 41.9 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome viewers from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so you deserve to see this as much as anyone. I post the numbers every month, good or bad.

This time, they're bad. The increase in employment was only 80,000. That's a lot less than expected.

Of particular importance this morning is this article from today’s Wall Street Journal.

Unemployment Line Longer Than It Looks

AHEAD OF THE TAPE
Updated July 5, 2012, 7:26 p.m. ET

By SPENCER JAKAB

Here is a statistic for the politically inclined: No incumbent president has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 7.2% since the Great Depression.

Economists expect Friday's release of June employment data will show 95,000 new jobs added. Meantime, the unemployment rate is seen unchanged at 8.2%. That may be bittersweet or just plain bitter depending on one's political slant, but it is difficult to reconcile today's rate with past periods.

The headline unemployment rate has been flattered by the number of people no longer counted in the denominator used to calculate it. For example, a comparison of jobs data between the start and end of 2011 shows the ranks of the unemployed fell by 822,000 while the number of people not in the labor force grew by a larger 1.24 million. The unemployment rate fell by 0.6 percentage points over that time to 8.5%.

In fact, the participation rate—the share of the working-age population either working or looking for work—has fallen by 2.3 percentage points over the four years through May to 63.8%, a three-decade low. Nearly 88 million people—about seven times the ranks of the officially unemployed—aren't part of the headline rate's calculation.


Hmmm. Give that some thought. Also, when last month’s figures were released, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation was on Tom Hartmann that Friday night. He kept referring to the "U-6 Number." That can be found in Table A15. It is "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force." It appears in two forms, seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted. Either way, it is the least optimistic of all the estimates.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

What is important about these statistics is not so much this month’s number, but the trend. So let’s look at some earlier numbers. We’ll start with the ADP estimate.

(Edited to fix the links, which worked the last time I did this, but not today.)

ADP, for employment in June:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125152112
ADP jobs up 176,000 (for June)

BLS, for employment in May:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014133487
May payroll employment changes little (+69,000); jobless rate essentially unchanged (8.2%)

ADP, for employment in May:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014132307
May change in employment +133,000

BLS, for employment in April:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014113023
Payroll employment rises 115,000 in April; unemployment rate changes little (8.1%)

ADP and Gallup, for employment in April:

There were four related threads about the April jobs estimate at DU already. Three are in General Discussion, and they are based on the figures from ADP. The fourth, in LBN, paints a contrasting picture. It relies on the figures from Gallup.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002635553
Per CNBC - ADP Numbers bad (posted by Laura PourMeADrink)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002635507
BAD: ADP JOBS REPORT MISSES EXPECTATIONS BY A MILE (posted by xchrom)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002635837
ADP & TrimTabs Showing Much Weaker Payrolls Ahead of Unemployment Report (posted by marmar)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014111465
U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High (posted by brooklynite)

There's a joke about economists in there somewhere.

March, BLS:

Payroll employment rises 120,000 in March; unemployment rate changes little (8.2%)
March, ADP:

Businesses Adding 209,000 New Jobs Last Month Fail To Ignite Market Rally

February, ADP:

ADP Estimates U.S. Companies Added 216,000 Jobs in February, posted by Gruntled Old Man.

Well, enough of that. On with the show.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Monthly Employment Reports

The large print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.

A DU'er pointed out several months ago that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to "Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization." Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here are those links.

Employment Situation

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

From the February 10, 2011, "DOL Newsletter":

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The "household survey," or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The "establishment survey," or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.

62 replies, 13264 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Payroll employment continues to edge up in June (+80,000); jobless rate unchanged (8.2%) (Original post)
mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2012 OP
Inuca Jul 2012 #1
IamK Jul 2012 #2
Inuca Jul 2012 #3
SoFlaJet Jul 2012 #13
stockholmer Jul 2012 #35
Igel Jul 2012 #42
BumRushDaShow Jul 2012 #4
Firebrand Gary Jul 2012 #5
stockholmer Jul 2012 #11
amandabeech Jul 2012 #33
Citizen Worker Jul 2012 #40
byeya Jul 2012 #56
Citizen Worker Jul 2012 #39
Huey P. Long Jul 2012 #26
Firebrand Gary Jul 2012 #36
BT021 Jul 2012 #59
RBInMaine Jul 2012 #34
karynnj Jul 2012 #6
mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2012 #7
alp227 Jul 2012 #15
karynnj Jul 2012 #41
mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2012 #45
24601 Jul 2012 #51
stockholmer Jul 2012 #8
demwing Jul 2012 #16
stockholmer Jul 2012 #17
demwing Jul 2012 #18
Mayflower1 Jul 2012 #24
stockholmer Jul 2012 #27
MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #9
Mayflower1 Jul 2012 #29
MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #43
flpoljunkie Jul 2012 #10
stockholmer Jul 2012 #12
pinqy Jul 2012 #20
stockholmer Jul 2012 #30
pinqy Jul 2012 #38
Roland99 Jul 2012 #14
pinqy Jul 2012 #19
Cosmocat Jul 2012 #31
Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #21
SunSeeker Jul 2012 #22
Cosmocat Jul 2012 #32
Igel Jul 2012 #44
Beacool Jul 2012 #23
TouchOfGray Jul 2012 #25
Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #47
Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #48
TouchOfGray Jul 2012 #49
SunSeeker Jul 2012 #52
Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #53
SomeGuyInEagan Jul 2012 #28
Psephos Jul 2012 #46
SomeGuyInEagan Jul 2012 #54
Psephos Jul 2012 #58
SomeGuyInEagan Jul 2012 #60
Psephos Jul 2012 #61
SomeGuyInEagan Jul 2012 #62
emilyg Jul 2012 #37
high density Jul 2012 #50
Cronkite Jul 2012 #55
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #57

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:34 AM

1. NOT a good # :-( n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:35 AM

2. not good at all... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:38 AM

3. Revisions of previous 2 months are mixed

Ezra Klein‏@ezraklein

Revisions mixed: April down by 11k, May up by 8k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inuca (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:28 AM

13. What friggin' cracks me up

So....the SCLMB (so-called liberal media bias) claims that GAINING 80,000 new jobs is a "dismal" jobs report, forgetting of course the fact that under Bush we were losing 750,000 jobs a MONTH. You see in the real world, when you GAIN more jobs than you lose that is a GOOD thing, a good jobs report, not great one but considering how the republic party is doing it's best to DESTROY this country for political reasons, that ain't too shabby in my book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoFlaJet (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:51 PM

35. 120,000 non-farm payroll jobs a month need to be created just to keep pace with population growth

 

so 80,000 created means a net of negative 40K. Plus most of the new jobs being created are bottom of the barrel in terms of pay. 95% of the jobs lost in the last 4 years have been middle class or higher in terms of pay.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-01/obamas-middle-class-problem-job-losses

Obama's Middle Class Problem: Deeper Job Losses

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened. Hans Nichols reports on Bloomberg Television's "In The Loop."

----------------------------

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/the-recovery-squeezes-the-middle-class/

Ninety-five percent of the net job losses during the recession were in middle-skill occupations such as office workers, bank tellers, and machine operators, according to research by economists Nir Jaimovich of Duke University and Henry Siu of the University of British Columbia. That’s what we all assume happens in recessions: The middle class is hit hardest, then eventually climbs back. Only, that comeback isn’t happening. Job growth since the end of the recession has been clustered in high-skill fields inaccessible to workers without advanced degrees or in low-paying industries, the economists found.

In March the U.S. had 2 million more managers and professionals working than five years earlier. Lower-paying service-sector jobs were up 1.5 million. It’s the middle-income jobs that have been slow to return. Over the same period, there were 3.2 million fewer Americans working in sales and office jobs and 1.2 million fewer employed in transportation and production—a broad category that includes factory and assembly-line workers, printers, welders, tailors, and poultry and meat plant workers. Another worrisome measurement: Median annual household income in March was $2,900 lower after inflation than at the start of the recovery in June 2009, according to Sentier Research, an economic consulting firm.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Romney will be even more of a disaster, if he someone slithers his way into office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoFlaJet (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:15 PM

42. Some people remember more than 4 years ago.

Then the unemployment rate was 4.5% and when job creation was 100k it was dismal. A jobs report of only 75k new jobs caused the stock market to take a nosedive. We compared the job creation numbers with what was either good or what was needed.

We couldn't get past the fact that we needed 200k new jobs a month to keep up with population growth. We were irate that the unemployment rate was only 4.5% and that the recovery from the recession we had after the tech bubble burst and the stock market tanked had taken 3 years to get us back to the historically very low unemployment rates.

Now we chortle that the private sector jobs are back up to where they were on inauguration day, instead of what they were before the recession. Some exult in 80k/month job creation because, well, it could be worse. Instead of saying, "Let's compare this with where it needs to be, which is usual, let's compare it with how bad it could be." Nice change of standards, and not a particularly useful one in terms of economics.

hen again, it still annoys me that we focus on the first derivative of the unemployment curve (net job creation/loss) rather than the unemployment curve itself. The one points out when job lost was happening at its highest rate--the last month or two of * and the first month or two of Obama--and while it's a nice inflection point, it's not when the unemployment situation actually reversed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:39 AM

4. Corporate hucksters sitting on 2 trillion

and purposefully holding back in order to fulfill GOP leader gasbag Limpball's "I hope he fails".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:43 AM

5. Courtesy of a do nothing Congress! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:06 AM

11. plus NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Stegall, & the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 all coming

 

home to roost, all passed under Clinton. The USA has utterly hollowed out its industrial manufacturing base (87% gone off-shore since 1965 due to the madness that is absolute advantage modeled capitalism, as opposed to comparative advantage). These hammer blows, combined with the ascendancy of the bankster/gangsters are major taproots in the tree of bitter economic fruit now in full bloom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:32 PM

33. If Clinton hadn't "gone Republican" maybe those acts would not have past,

and there would be a decent job picture now.

Sometimes, I just don't know why some folks really worship the guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:48 PM

40. Bill Clinton didn't "go republican" that's who he is. A governor of a failed small southern state

that was at or near the bottom in every statistical category. Clinton is the corporate democrat sought by the powers who run this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Citizen Worker (Reply #40)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:30 AM

56. "Failed small southern state" totally sums up Arkansas and several other deep south

 

states that cannot provide a decent life for a significant minority of their people. It's also a state that gets back
more from the federal government than it pays in.

It's time for a president with gumption to equalize the federal/state money equation and I would like to see military
bases, or major functions of same, moved out of the south and into states that have proven they can pay their own way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:45 PM

39. According to Lori Wallach the repeal of Glass-Steagall is enshrined in the WTO Agreement, which was

passed under Clinton, as was NAFTA, and NAFTA contains the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investments. The MAI framework is contained in the current Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated in secret and pushed by Obama. In short, we're screwed unless we take to the streets and fight back against global capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:55 PM

26. Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama

 

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama

&feature=player_embedded
Uploaded by ihatethemediadotcom on Jun 15, 2011

In an interview with Matt Lauer in the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama said he should only serve one term if he could not fix the economy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Huey P. Long (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:58 PM

36. It's a good thing he has fixed the economy then! We are well on our way!

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Huey P. Long (Reply #26)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:27 AM

59. the private sector is doing fine!

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:40 PM

34. Even with this rotten RePUKE House of Reps we are STILL seeing GROWTH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:44 AM

6. Early in the article, you refer to no President with over 7.2 getting re-elected

That is commonly cited and it is not a rule that can be defended statistically. First of all there are far too few observations (ie Presidents standing for re-election). Second, the "rule" is crafted by using the % when Reagan was up for re-election. If this was a real causal relationship, you would have expected as Reagan just made it down to that level that he would have pulled off a squeaker. He didn't - it was a pretty massive landslide. Ask any Republican citing this faux wisdom if Reagan would have lost if that number were a few tenths of a point higher.

This is NOT denying that a bad economy and high unemployment will hurt an incumbent President, just saying that the simplistic rule - crafted from the data means very little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:49 AM

7. That came from the WSJ.

I have the paper sitting on my desk right in front of me. Disclaimer: I fished it from a trash can at the Metrobus transfer point at the Pentagon this morning. So, don't thank me; thank the military-industrial complex for this random act of kindness. Anyway....

I see the online version of the article is available for subscribers only. You can email the author, Spencer Jakab, at tape@wsj.com. Online, you can add comments too.

I hope this helps. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:44 AM

15. Actually if you google article titles

You can read full WSJ articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:56 PM

41. Sorry - I was not intending to attack you - just to counter a meme that is harmful

Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The WSJ likely knows better.

My concern was that many people would take the "rule" as something that would make them think Obama's reelection chances were low. Before trying to explain why the CW is flaky, I searched Daily Kos and DU2 to see if I could find a good explanation - and found one with much more detail than I hoped for.

Here is a link - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/03/981672/-Unemployment-rate-does-not-necessarily-predict-re-election-chances

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #41)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 04:18 PM

45. No problem.

You don't need to apologize. I enjoyed your post. I did not consider an attack at all.

Please enjoy the weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:46 PM

51. And it's inaccurate regarding FDR's reelection in 1936 when the rate was 16.9%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:58 AM

8. Private payrolls miss even worse 84K on consensus of 106K, yet these numbers will not allow the Fed

 

to do QE3. They simply are not bad enough. You basically have one more month to go if the Fed is going to do any injections, as waiting until September is not an option due to the closeness of the November elections. Expect the Repugs to kick up a huge protest if the the Fed even does anything in August, as they will scream that Bernanke is thus playing politics.

The best hope is that the July, August, and September employment numbers come in strong, but with the global fiscal crisis still in full effect, I am not holding my breath. TBH, it is totally in my own self-interest for the Fed to do QE3, as this will boost gold, silver, and other commodities higher (a large part of my portfolio).






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:51 AM

16. August will change the number, as students return to school

and there is less competition for existing jobs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:09 AM

17. the thing is, that is all taken into account by seasonal adjustments and the street's consensus

 

This was a miss by 20% to the downside (expected number was 100,000, and it came in at 80,000). The August number will have a higher expectation, so you will have to have even greater jobs created to beat it.

Also the EU situation here is getting worse and worse, and after the summer holiday season ends in Agust, I fully expect to see some real nasty events. Just days after the latest 'BIG PLAN' of salvation was announced, take a look at Spanish bond spreads. They are blowing up. Italy is in near collapse, and Greece is starting to teeter towards open limited civil war. The EU is the biggest trading partner of the US, not China, not Canada, so events there really matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:41 AM

18. Sure, expectation will be higher

and if those expectations are not met, people will care for about a news cycle,

Then, the higher numbers will be in August and September, which will be compared to the lower #s of the Summer, and the graph will show slow but sustained job growth.

It doesn't solve the immediate problems faced by the unemployed, but it doesn't spell doom for Obama either.

No President since the great Depression has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%? Well no President Since Roosevelt has had to face as great an economic challenge during an election year.

Obama is starting to hit Romney hard on outsourcing. what he needs to do now is go to the American people and say "Give me a Congress that will pass a damn Jobs Bill!" Really lay it on. Go full on Truman on these guys.

Truman defeats Dewey and the Do Nothing 80th Congress. That's the election tactic Obama should be following.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:19 PM

24. Why are all of the countries in the EU failing?

Does anyone have the answer to that question? What has caused the collapse over there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mayflower1 (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:02 PM

27. Not all (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, etc are ok- for now) but many. In a nutshell here's some reasons:

 

1. The Euro was doomed from the beginning. You cannot have a single currency with 17 different fiscal policies and a myriad number of underlying macroeconomic subsystems. What works for one country will many times be a poison pill for another. IMHO it was designed to eventually fail to force political unification, aka the stripping of the individual nation-states sovereignty.

2. Massive systemic control fraud by the top 10 or so banks, who lied and cooked books to get nations like Greece into the Eurozone. These banksters then bet against the very nations they had set up to fail.

3. The inability for individual nations to print money, thus hamstringing the nations' abilities to expand and contract money supply as tailored to their own economic situation. Only the ECB can do this, and Germany basically runs the ECB. They have a hard-wired fear of inflation, dating back to the Wiemar hyperinflation of the mid 1920's.

4. Sustained, coordinated attacks by both the banks and the hedge fund hyenas on the individual nations bond markets. They can bring a nation like Greece or Portugal to its knees in just a few days via large increases in the cost of borrowing. In addition there was a tremendous amount of corruption in many of the southern EU countries, that led to traditional financial woes as well. This is drastically overplayed in the financial press, however.

5. The utter insistence that PRIVATE bank losses be NATIONALIZED and dumped onto the backs of the citizens. This huge debt transfer is then used as the principal rationale behind the calls for drastic austerity. This austerity then creates a negative feedback loop where the economies contract, thus bring in ever decreasing revenues to the national governments. Then the crisis is started all over again. Public infrastructure and public lands and resources are then snapped up at bargain-basement prices by the banksters.

Neo-feudalism, driven by corporate bankster fascism thus ensues. Eventually even the US (who escapes the immediate wrath by the Fed's ability to print trillions of dollars and still have the globe flee into its arms of dollars and debt) will succumb to this death spiral as well.

The other main thing (EU fear being the first) that is propping up the US dollar is that 87% of all global transactions (including the big one- oil) are still denominated in dollars. This creates a constant demand for more and more dollars, and allows the US to rack up trillions upon trillion in public debts that any other nation would have long ago went bankrupt from. This ponzi scheme is enforced by one main thing, the US military. This gunboat banking schema is the reason for 95% of the empiric wars that America is engaged in.

Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi were murderous despots, but both were supported with billions of US taxpayer-funded dollars until they each attempted to trade oil in non-dollar denominated methods or tried to nationalize their oil fields. At that point, the 'shock-and-awe' embrace of US death dealing began in earnest. The major nation now trading oil in non dollar ways is Iran. Thus the war drums beat for mullah blood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:03 AM

9. But bipartisan austerity seemed to be working so well

When will the American people wake up and vote for traditional Democratic values? Republican and Third Way policies can lead to no other outcome but this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:16 PM

29. The Repub argument is that

socialism was a contributing factor of Europe's collapse.

At some point, paying for so many freebies will become unstustainable, will it not? Seems like there should be a middleground between a welfare mentality and austerity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mayflower1 (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:29 PM

43. The data show the opposite

In fact, the most socialistic countries, such as Northern Europe, Germany, and France, are doing pretty well. But the countries which, five years ago, were hailed by Bankers, Republicans and Third Way as models of how "responsible adult" economies should work, like Ireland and Spain, are getting crushed. Iceland was also a poster child for being a "responsible adult" economy, and it got crushed, but instead of austerity it put some bankers in jail and told the others to screw, and now it's doing well. Greece is another story, it genuinely had structural issues IIRC.

Leveraging, Deleveraging, and Fiscal Policy
Those Revolting Europeans
European Crisis Realities
Greece as Victim

The other big problem in Europe is that countries can't print their own money (only the EU can as a whole), but that's technical.

In general, if one doesn't have time to do the research, it's pretty safe to assume that anything that Republicans or the Third Way says is 100% wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:06 AM

10. How is it the ADP said 175,000 jobs were added in the private sector in June? Why so far off?

Private sector adds 176,000 jobs in June: ADP

NEW YORK | Thu Jul 5, 2012 8:48am EDT

(Reuters) - U.S. companies added more jobs in June, beating expectations for a decrease in hiring and suggesting the economic recovery has not completely lost traction.

The ADP National Employment Report said on Thursday private employers added 176,000 jobs last month, more than the 105,000 economists had forecast.

May's figures were revised up slightly to an increase of 136,000 jobs from the previously reported 133,000.

The report is jointly developed with Macroeconomic Advisers LLC.

"In isolation, this is a healthy surprise that private worker hiring came in higher than expected. I don't know if it's sustainable," said Robbert Van Batenburg, head of global research, at Louis Capital Markets in New York.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/us-usa-economy-employment-adp-idUSBRE8640JG20120705

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:10 AM

12. because the models that the BLS uses are extremely flawed, but at least take cheer that most of the

 

time the BLS dramatically UNDERSTATES the true level of unemployment. Win some, lose some when it comes to BLS BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 11:01 AM

20. You didn't actually respond to the post

The question was about Jobs...BLS's Current Employment Statistics Survey. Which has nothing to do with the Unemployment rate which comes from a completely different survey.

And no, BLS does not dramatically understate unemployment. The only people who say that are using ridiculous or subjective or ridiculously subjective definitions of unemployment.

The models are not perfect, of course, but no model is. They're not extremely flawed, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinqy (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:17 PM

30. BLS and other models, the changes, and some issues

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/194459-bls-government-data-gospel.html

These models have changed over the last several decades so much - that to compare them over time is like comparing oranges to apples. This is not Republicans or Democrats - but BOTH parties. The biggest changes have come under both Clinton and Bush. Here is a brief reason why we can't use BLS and other government data to compare year-over-year data - because of these radical changes.

Employment/Unemployment: The U3 is the most highly watched number for unemployment, the problems with the U3 are numerous.

1. It is a poll. They call people and see if they have a job, looking for a job, unemployed, etc. Polling data traditionally has wide margins of error as well as you can create questions to generate the answers you WANT.

2. "Discourage Workers" - Clinton stop counting those people who are unemployed, but no longer looking for work. By labeling them, we no longer count them as unemployed.

3. Temp/Part time - Bush increase the use and definitions of temp and part time workers into the employment numbers, making it look better than it is.


All these changes (by both Republicans and Democrats) have made the current unemployment and employment numbers better than what they actually are. The U6, which is another BLS number - does not include many of these "label" changes. U6 is just as valid and is conducted by the same government organization that conducts the U3 number. However, politicans NEVER like to talk about U6 - as it is ALWAYS higher than U3. The fact is - U3 is beyond bogus if we are talking about the actual number of unemployed people in this country.



INFLATION


The CPI (Consumer Price Index) has traditionally been used to measure inflation. However, the model - again - has changed so many times over the last several decades that it no longer measures inflation, but rather the adjusted cost of living. A COLI (Cost of Living Index) measures the impact of inflation and reflects how consumer change their spending habit as they are affected by inflation. The government has changed our CPI model to a COLI model, however they didn't change the name nor have they told the public that they are no longer measuring inflation, but rather the impact of inflation to the consumer.The recent changes under Bush and Clinton are as follows:

Hedonics - this alters the price of a good, based on the technology benefit it has to the consumer. Example, you can use the iPhone to surf the internet, so it serves two purpose, so instead of reflecting the actual cost of product, they adjust it lower to reflect the technology benefit. However, the man on the street is STILL out of pocket for the full amount. Hedonics is one of the most highly critical change to the model.

Substitution - initaily this was argued that if the price of steak increase, the consumer can purchase hamburger. As the consumer is still meeting their utility effeiencys - steak and hambger are both protein. What subsitution reflects is changes in consumer spending habits as the cost of one good increases, they will select a lower cost good to meet a similar need. However, this is actually lowering the CPI number because of the impact of inflation. The BLS can use subsitutions to change the size of product, brand names, generic names, and even time when they measure the price. It reeks of manipulation. I am happy to provide the BLS text sample of what they can do with Subsitution - it is pretty shocking.

Geometric Weighting - goods have always been weighted in the index, but now geometrical weightings have pushed some goods higher that drop in value, while certain goods with higher volatility are weighted lower.

CORE - the Fed and other's like to discuss the CORE. This is the CPI minus FOOD and ENERGY. They argue that Food and Energy fluctuations are temporary and can distort inflation. The reality is that Food and Energy are the largest consumption factors that impact consumers and as they have shorter commodity cycles (1-6 months) they certainly do have higher volatility. However, to remove them to measure inflation - is ignoring the biggest expenditure for consumers. So far the Fed's pat answer is that Food and Energy prices are temporary - however we have seen a steady rise of a couple of years. What IS temporary - we don't know because the Fed will NOT define Temporary.


Commodities - Soft Commodities (Food and Energy) have shorter life cycles to market (1-6 months) that certainly impact the "head line" inflation number, even with all the model changes. However, Hard Commoditeis (Iron, Copper, and other raw materials) have a longer time to market (mining -> refining -> manufaturing -> finished goods -> inventory). It can take 6 -18 months (and longer depending on inventories) before higher commodity prices trickle down to the consumer (in the CPI measure). However we ARE starting to see it. The model will allow the BLS to keep rachetting it down lower, even Bush's new CPPI-U will even push it lower. So we may never see high inflation - if reported by the BLS and their model.



So why all these model changes? Several Reasons:

1. In order to attack Treasury Buyers, the rate of inflation must not be too far above the shorter-term yield curve on notes.

2. It keep the value of the dollar from falling too quickly.

3. Most importantly - the CPI is used to determine the rise in Social Security Payments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:25 PM

38. Interesting Tactic

You cut and paste someone else's post from a different forum. Which required almost no effort on your part. But to debunk it (because almost everything claimed is wrong) I'd have to spend a lot of time and effort addressing each point.

But ok, let's do some highlights off the top of my head without research:
It is a poll. They call people and see if they have a job, looking for a job, unemployed, etc. Polling data traditionally has wide margins of error as well as you can create questions to generate the answers you WANT.

It is a survey. Initiation into the survey is a personal visit from a census worker. The margins of error are not wide because it is a well-designed survey. Margin of error for the Unemployment level is +/- 2.9% But your source wants to add in Discouraged workers...but that has a margin of error of 12%. So he's complaining about margins of error, but wants to make it worse? And no, the questions can't be changed: they're published and standard: http://www.census.gov/cps/methodology/questions.html

"Discourage Workers" - Clinton stop counting those people who are unemployed, but no longer looking for work. By labeling them, we no longer count them as unemployed.
Untrue. Until 1967, some discouraged workers were included, but not systematically. They were included as part of an alternative method in the 70's. Under Clinton, a time limit was established, but that's it. He didn't remover them from the UE rate.

Temp/Part time - Bush increase the use and definitions of temp and part time workers into the employment numbers, making it look better than it is.
I can't find anything to support any changes of definition or use of temp or part time under anyone.

The U6 is NOT how things used to be. The U6 includes part time for economic reasons (NEVER considered unemployed ever by anyone) and the Marginally Attached (which includes Discouraged) which was never a category before 1994.

Hedonics - this alters the price of a good, based on the technology benefit it has to the consumer. Example, you can use the iPhone to surf the internet, so it serves two purpose, so instead of reflecting the actual cost of product, they adjust it lower to reflect the technology benefit.

Hedonics is a statistical model to account for quality change that can't be directly measured. When you're measuring price change you HAVE TO compare the SAME item month to month. If the item changes, it's no longer the same item. Hedonics is mostly used for clothing, such as if a dress was 95% cotton and now 90% cotton but the price hasn't changed, that would be recorded as a price increase because you're paying the same amount for lower quality.

CORE CPI is preferred by finance type because the volatility of food and energy can distort the trend. Long term trends are better measured by the core CPI. Sometimes core is higher, sometimes lower.


Substitution - initaily this was argued that if the price of steak increase, the consumer can purchase hamburger.
BLS doesn't use substitution like that at all. The experimental Chained CPI does allow substitution, but it's not at the collector's discretion...it's a statistical model where changes in the amounts purchased (reflecting taste) change. But it's all for the SAME STANDARD of LIVING.

Geometric Weighting - goods have always been weighted in the index, but now geometrical weightings have pushed some goods higher that drop in value, while certain goods with higher volatility are weighted lower.

Not quite. Geometric mean weights a lesser change in price more than a greater change. The arithmetic mean gives the upper bound of change...the maximum possible change. Which is obviously not accurate. Geometric mean is more realistic.

Commodities - Soft Commodities (Food and Energy) have shorter life cycles to market (1-6 months) that certainly impact the "head line" inflation number, even with all the model changes. However, Hard Commoditeis (Iron, Copper, and other raw materials) have a longer time to market (mining -> refining -> manufaturing -> finished goods -> inventory). It can take 6 -18 months (and longer depending on inventories) before higher commodity prices trickle down to the consumer (in the CPI measure)
ummm raw materials aren't part of the CPI....CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. The PPI does measure raw materials, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:36 AM

14. Because ADP's number doesn't mean squat on a national level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:58 AM

19. Different Statistical Universe

ADP uses Admin data for its clients and only its clients.
BLS uses a sample survey for all business that contribute to UI taxes (including the government).

The numbers almost never match up, but BLS has the better picture because it includes more businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:18 PM

31. PUBLIC SECTOR!

Many fiscal budgets run July to June - the State of Pennsylvania and the public school districts in Pa had to pass budgets in June.

Budget cuts over the last two years by the republican governor and state legislature have forced universities and public schools to cut jobs like mad. There is one central pennsylvania school district that layed off 70 people in June. Not all districts are that bad, some aren't making any cuts, but there are 500 school districts, and it adds up. Some of the state universities are some of the bigger employers in the state and this years state budget cuts 30% from their funding.

What they have done to the USPS ...

It is callous, it is intentional, and if we had ANYTHING approaching the LIBERAL MEDIA these jerkoffs scream about, the republicans would be evicerated for what they have done the last few years - all in the sake of the hubris of trying to destroy a president with the added benefit of driving the privatization that allows their donors to raid the tax payer piggy banks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 11:17 AM

21. Looks like republicans want to put a different spin on this one

A little too late though. Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 11:38 AM

22. One major cause of the unemployment crisis: ongoing cuts at the state and local level.

Over 100,000 teachers have been laid off in the last year. And the red state governors have been all about that.


http://www.businessinsider.com/over-100000-local-teaching-jobs-have-been-lost-in-the-last-year-2012-7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:26 PM

32. Live in Pa - I have been posting this today

Corbett and the R state legislature/senate have forced thousands of lost jobs at public schools and universities alone.

add in the USPS ...

A VERY concerted, and callous, effort to destroy the president.

Sadly, there are people (of their family or friends) who have lost their jobs for this reason alone who are going to blame President Obama and somehow use their losing their jobs to deranged GOP hubris as a means to blame the evil liberal boogyman and further entrench their "conservatism."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:29 PM

44. TX did this last year.

There was a bit of a political war waged.

There's only so many places to cut funding. Most of the TX budget is health care and education. Remove 100% of what's left and you'd have eliminated half the predicted budget shortall.

There was a large rainy day fund from oil revenues. Use it or not? Most on the left said use every penny, the "hope" position; those closer to the center said "use half", the "hope, but maybe not so much" position; those on the right said, "Things could get worse, save it."

That left cutting services or raising taxes. Obama, when he was running for office, was right in saying you don't raise taxes in a recession. It was pretty much standard far until 2009, when all of a sudden a lot of people said that's what was needed--raising a taxes in a recession. (Why, Clinton raised taxes a mere 2 years after a recession!) I don't think most Texans wanted a tax increase anyway.

They cut Medicaid, education, and pretty much everything else. When updated revenue numbers came in a month or two later some cuts were reversed before they were fully implemented and schools hired more teachers (sometimes rehiring teachers they let go). A big hunk of the increased revenue was from oil industry fees.

(This actually pretty much screwed public science education: Suddenly all TX students need 4 years of science and the science standards were boosted in preparation for a more rigorous standardized test being phased in last year and then next two years. At the same time that they needed to hire more science teachers and buy equipment hand over fist they cut budgets. Argh.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:11 PM

23. Oh, boy.........

Over 300M people and this is all the job creation we can muster????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:31 PM

25. Disability Ranks Outpace New Jobs In Obama Recovery

 

Leaving aside IBD's slanted headline, this doesn't look good either.


More workers joined the federal government's disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation's jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery.

The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.

The disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama's economic recovery. While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits.

In other words, the number of new disability enrollees has climbed 19% faster than the number of new jobs created during the sluggish recovery.


http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TouchOfGray (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:28 PM

47. I noticed you defended Romney in the Bain thread

And attack the President in this one. Not fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TouchOfGray (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:56 PM

48. Looks like you are citing a right wing source

The same source who claimed Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance under the British Health Care system. Hawking has always lived in Britain.


Again, not fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #48)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:09 PM

49. So you are saying that

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security Administration are RW sources?

Did you even read the article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TouchOfGray (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:37 AM

52. This is the latest RW meme. Bill O'Reilly ranted about it on his show last night.

He suggested, in O'Reilly's special way, that these disability enrollees are scamming the system.

Of course, no discussion was offered regarding the fact that we have an aging workforce, and the fact that the ACA has not kicked in yet, so chronic medical problems for which people cannot get treatment in ERs, like back pain and diabetes, are rendering them disabled. And when there are no jobs to be had even when you are able-bodied, enrolling in the SSDI program is the only way these folks can survive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #52)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 07:06 AM

53. Yes that the new theme of the RW

And they even post it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:07 PM

28. Which makes this the 28th consecutive month of job INCREASES ...

4.4 million added to private rolls in that time.

Upward trend, folks. Upward. For 28 straight months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 09:21 PM

46. It takes 125,000 new jobs/mo just to break even with rising population.

The stat that says it all is total employment.

It's down by 5 million since 2008. Not up.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Psephos (Reply #46)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:14 AM

54. Right. Down steeply '08 to '10, but increasing steadily for more than two years to make up half

of those. 4.4 million in the private sector since early '10, while - at the same time - eliminating a bunch of public sector jobs.

We're climbing out of this hole, slow and steady, but climbing. While US companies are sitting on record amount of cash ($2 trillion by some estimates) and some sectors having record profits.

It's far better than '00 to '10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #54)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:49 AM

58. We are barely treading water, and way below the numbers in January 2009.

Remember "Recovery Summer"?

That was proclaimed in 2010. Millions of jobless are still waiting.

If the labor force was the same size as when Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today—the current U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Do you understand what those numbers mean? They've been artificially adjusted due to an assumption by statisticians that if you haven't been working for a long time, you're no longer interested in working. You buy that?

The U-6 unemployment rate, which includes “all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons,” is 14.9%, which is up from May. That's the real unemployment rate. 1 in 6 who could be working are not.

I don't play the blame game. I look at the numbers. We are all to blame, for obvious reasons. Obama didn't create this mess, and he cannot fix it.

We are currently in the longest streak - 41 months - of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. In 2009, Obama's economic team, in an effort to get the stimulus bill passed, predicted "with high confidence" that after the stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% today. The pugs are going to go to town on that.

The following is from a ZeroHedge article. These are the numbers you want to consider. If you aren't familiar with that site, I suggest you fix that soon.

* Total Nonfarm Payrolls have decreased by -1.3 million from December 2008 (134,379K) to June 2012 (133,088); Source: St. Louis Fed

* Full-time jobs based on the Household Survey, have decreased by 2.5 million from 117,039K to 114,573K; Source: Table A.9, BLS

* Part-time jobs based on the Household Survey, have increased by 1.6 million from 26,3187 to 27,894K; Source: Table A.9, BLS

* Foodstamps recipients have increased by 14.6 million from 31.567 million to 46,187 (as of April 2012); Source: USDA

* Disability recipients have increased by 1.3 million from 7.427 million to 8.733 million; Source: Social Security Administration

Full article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/economic-quality-scorecard-obama-administration

Look at this graph.



Look at each trendline in that graph. Millions fewer jobs since 2009, and millions more people since 2009, fighting for what's out there. 15 million new foodstamp recipients since 2009, while U-3 has risen to 15%. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. In my opinion, it's not helping the Democratic Party's electoral prospects pretending otherwise.

As for your assertion that "it's far better than '00 to '10", do you know what the unemployment rate was in each of those years?

2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

Source: BLS

I suggest not calling too much attention to those numbers.

We are going to have a real political Battle Royale this fall. The voters want to elect people they can trust. Everyone can see how shitty the job market is, how beat up real-estate is, how many dead zones there are in commercial districts, and how many government entities are in debt to their eyeballs and barely able to pay bills.

When political messages conflict with their own lyin' eyes, voters are going to believe what their own lyin' eyes tell them, and not what the flim-flam men tell them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Psephos (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:53 PM

60. I don't deny the numbers. But why go backward?

At least we are barely treading water, which is a long way from where we were in '08 and '09. The policies that created this clusterfuck are the ones we are shedding, though much, much slower that I'd like to see (and the stimulus was nowhere near what it should have been, which might have taken us down to a 6 percent recorded unemployment number).

What I am saying is it is a slow, tough slog, but why go back to the policies that created this mess? And it could be much, much worse. And if Mittens and enough of his kind are elected, it will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #60)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 08:51 PM

61. Well, I can agree with that. Forward is the only way out.

The economy is clearly sick and stagnant, unemployment is on everyone's mind, and few people feel like things have improved much in the last 3 1/2 years.

As I see it, the election will turn on who can credibly offer a way forward. The Democratic Party message needs to present clearly graspable, clearly credible plans for restarting the economy. People's tolerance for political bullshit is at a low point.

Things really ARE that bad, and could very well worsen soon, given the slow-motion train wreck in Europe. A successful message must acknowledge that. Voters want a voice that can be trusted to say it like it is, rather than what some focus-group-based consultant says.

If the Party doesn't get rid of the bullshit, then just enough people might say what the hell, could Rmoney be any worse?

That's why I remind those interested in keeping a D in the White House that putting a petticoat on a pig does not change the fact that it's a pig. The numbers are our friend, if we speak about them honestly, and use them to craft a credible economic strategy.

By the way, I appreciate your civility, whether or not we have identical views. I know we want the same outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Psephos (Reply #61)

Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:30 AM

62. Yeah, we're on the same page. And I definitely agree with you ...

... about how cynical people are about the messaging (I really never thought it could get worse than it did in the '80s, then came the '90s and now ...).

What frustrates me is the fact the we are treading water - just barely, but still treading - and have been doing so and sometimes a bit better for over two years now as opposed shedding jobs and the nobody is saying so. And all this while actually cutting public employment.

*If* public sector employment held steady or even added a few jobs, where would the numbers be?

*If* we had enacted a real stimulus bill, where would the numbers (and the highways, power plants, schools, damns, etc.) be?

*That* is what I think Dems should be talking about. Given the handicapping by the Republicans in Congress, timidity (IMO) by Obama in certain areas and the lapdog mainstream media, that we are slowly moving forward is kind of amazing.

What is really amazing is while my views really haven't changed since the '80s when I think I would have been considered a moderate Democrat or left-leaning Indy, I think I am now considered a raging socialist (or communist, whatever is more inflammatory).

And, while I appreciate your comment, your responses have been much more civil than mine and I will strive toward that. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:02 PM

37. Not good.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:10 PM

50. Job growth has sucked for more than a decade now

When will we stop following these disastrous GOP ideas that simply do not work no matter what economy they're applied to around the globe?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to high density (Reply #50)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:48 AM

55. Wages and job growth.....

 

Looking at median household income declines makes the job picture over the past couple of decades look even worse.

What worries me the most is the fact that formerly decent paying work is now being advertised at wages 20 to 30% lower than offered as late as 2006/2007.

In my area the auto plants and auto suppliers are starting to hire.

Nissan hired around 1200 people which is good news however the majority were hired through a job service at 11 to 12 dollars an hour. They did hire some people directly and the pay was in the 15 dollar an hour range while the workers there now are making 18 to 20.

GM Spring Hill is hiring new production workers at 15.30 an hour while the recalled workers are well over 20/hr.

The Bridgestone tire factory is hiring new workers at an advertised wage of 13.80 an hour while their other workers were making 22 to 24 dollars an hour.

V.W. is hiring and they pay 16 to 17 dollars an hour.

Now we move on to the auto suppliers. 12 to 14 dollars an hour seems to be the norm for "first tier" suppliers. You move on to the second tier suppliers and I have seen wages advertised as low as 8 dollars an hour.

Job growth has been terrible over the past ten years and the jobs being created are paying less. It doesn't make for a very solid economy when prices are rising (food, fuel) and wages declining. I think people compensated for low pay with credit but that has to end eventually.

The funny thing is people want to "blame" President Obama when this has been a long term trend brought on by past political decisions made by both parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Sat Jul 7, 2012, 11:19 AM

57. The fact that jobs can be added or lost without affecting the unemployment figures

 

is proof that we kinda lie with that statistic.

We really ought to shift over to using exclusively the percentage of working age individuals who are employed. That will always be a more honest number and a better gauge of how things are going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread