General Discussion

Roland99

(53,342 posts)

14. I'll agree 68,000 new jobs is better than an actual negative number but you're missing the point.

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 11:01 AM

Jun 2012

we *need* 150,000 jobs each month, on average, to maintain equilibrium with the birth/death ration and the LFPR.

Have you not seen the reports that we need nearly 300,000 jobs each month for the next few years to even get back to the point where we were before Bush's recession?

Do you see the point yet?

68,000 each month will only mean more and more people who are in the work force aren't finding a job.

Check these:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/how-many-jobs-are-needed-over-next-year.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/overly-optimistic-once-again/ (assumes 125k/mo due to lowered LFPR nowadays)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/09/highlights-and-lowlights-from-marchs-jobs-report-/ (assumes 100k/mo needed due to demographic changes in the population)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

68,000 jobs ADDED, not 750,000 jobs LOST. [View all] Atman Jun 2012 OP

As is explained every single month, Pale Blue Dot Jun 2012 #1

ADDED as opposed to LOST. Atman Jun 2012 #3

Did you read what I wrote? Pale Blue Dot Jun 2012 #4

Net positive CREATION is negative? We're not beating churn but POSITIVE is the correct direction uponit7771 Jun 2012 #7

If it takes 150,000 new jobs *each* month to maintain equilibrium, how is 68,000 good? Roland99 Jun 2012 #12

No, Roland...you're starting from a different place. Atman Jun 2012 #13

I'll agree 68,000 new jobs is better than an actual negative number but you're missing the point. Roland99 Jun 2012 #14

and, look at the trend downward now (March and April were revised down, too) Roland99 Jun 2012 #15

How can this be explained any simpler? girl gone mad Jun 2012 #36

Of course I read what you wrote, and you are wrong. Atman Jun 2012 #8

Meaning 582,000 people are being teased this month. caseymoz Jun 2012 #25

I think you're totally correct...there is a tease factor. Atman Jun 2012 #27

Additionally that 150K needed is an average, so let's consider which months there are graduates Lionessa Jun 2012 #21

Actually, on a technical note, I believe the .1% uptick in the UE rate was due to people re-entering coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #51

Actually 240,000 enter the workforce per month caseymoz Jun 2012 #24

PBD, Phone Home! Demeter Jun 2012 #32

true, but we can't just whistle in the dark,either. WI_DEM Jun 2012 #2

we still have june qazplm Jun 2012 #6

Unfortunately unless the admin stops doing the same things and expecting different results, Lionessa Jun 2012 #22

DU rec...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #5

i stopped listening to or believing the numbers since bushco. they would put out a number for the seabeyond Jun 2012 #9

That trend actually started long before *. hughee99 Jun 2012 #40

the liberal media m$nbc is pounding on the negative...doncha love 'em spanone Jun 2012 #10

...which ignores that there just might be some constraints to real growth bhikkhu Jun 2012 #16

There are constraints, but we are not close to hitting those constraints. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #37

depends on where you live madrchsod Jun 2012 #11

And O is ahead by 1 for June. Woody Woodpecker Jun 2012 #17

I love the fact that Obama is going to get blamed...NOT YellowRubberDuckie Jun 2012 #18

Oh, please, grow up. Last month's 115K was revised to 77K, so how low do you think that 69K Lionessa Jun 2012 #19

It includes public and private, but cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #20

"Grow up" yourself. You missed the point entirely... Atman Jun 2012 #26

+1 Dawson Leery Jun 2012 #28

Labor shows 13,000 government jobs were cut in May - for the 10th straight month. sad sally Jun 2012 #47

It isn't just jobs....... Cronkite Jun 2012 #23

but gas prices are down. okieinpain Jun 2012 #41

These are the prices manufacturers are getting for their products, nothing to do with gas. Cronkite Jun 2012 #43

all true, but gas perices are okieinpain Jun 2012 #45

Not everywhere. Here in western Washington state we paid $4.27 (regular) yesterday. sad sally Jun 2012 #48

Here's a very simple analogy as to why this is a "negative" number >>>> Roland99 Jun 2012 #29

Sorry, Roland. You're an outlier. Atman Jun 2012 #30

I know of no other way to explain this to you (others have tried, as well) although I made it simple Roland99 Jun 2012 #31

"You're an outlier." You atman, could not be more wrong just1voice Jun 2012 #35

Stop and take some deep breaths. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #38

Change item #3 to -750,000 and recalculate the "hole". JoePhilly Jun 2012 #33

I already did in my note at the bottom of my post. Roland99 Jun 2012 #34

Just keep swinging, your bound to hit something eventually. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #39

You really need to get into the "weeds" of those numbers. KoKo Jun 2012 #42

Did we LOSE 750,000 jobs last month? Atman Jun 2012 #44

Let's try this one more time. Pale Blue Dot Jun 2012 #46

Basically sweetapogee Jun 2012 #49

It's a dead cat bounce is what it is. Yeah positive 68,000 is better than coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #50

I have a question moose65 Jun 2012 #52

Thats a damn good question SGMRTDARMY Jun 2012 #53

There was a very dramatic spike in job seekers aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2012 #54