About the "jobs numbers"...something worth adding.. (it is worse than we are often told)

[Stuart G]

We need to know this about jobs numbers. Each and every month we need to create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs just to stay even with new entrants into the job market.
New entrants are people quitting school, coming of age, coming back to work, or what ever.

We have a growing population and need decent job growth just to stay even.
So, if we lose 230,000 jobs in a month, then we need 230,000 plus say 120,000 or about 450,000 new jobs to stay even for that month..

The new entrants number is not certain because I have read different figures. But it is there, and it is real. The government needs to be an employer of last resort if we are to survive in this economy with so many jobs sent over seas. This is far worse than many have stated. I am just trying to present the whole picture.

[truedelphi]

1. I forget my source on this (Probably an article posted here at DU

Several weeks back) but it is being said that the real jobless numbers are 17%.

But hey, once people decide to become rich, all else will fall into place.

[Stuart G]

3. You are correct, the real jobless rate is very very high. And so

many people have just given up. This is indeed sad.

[BlooInBloo]

4. It's really something like 79%...

If you include people who have any job dissatisfaction.

Moral: There is no "real" when it comes to definitions. There is only a *decision* about which you're going to use. Some definitions are better *for some purposes* than others. But the concept "real" applies to none of them. There are more inclusive and less inclusive definitions of "unemployment". They measure different things. It would be better they simply had different names, as that would (partly) help avoid this idiotic "real" issue.

[truedelphi]

6. Obama and his 700 Billion dollar stim package

Could have really tackled the jobless numbers by employing a definite strategy -- one that would have worked.

Take the total amount of monies allotted to the stim package, divide by the number of Americans in this country, and apportion to each individual state that amount times the states' legit population. With a strong stipulation that the states in trouble with their deficits must use the money to keep those employed at jobs classifications from 2006 at that level.

This would have insured that teachers, fire fighters, police, social workers, project managers, computer technicians, etc (and many others) would still be working.

Instead he went all shovel ready. Which really means that those most affected (folks in their fifties) are out of luck.

Additionally, as money used at the state level costs about 2005 less than money spent at the Federal Level, it woul dhave been more productive and cheaper.

Then if we still needed some of the infrastructure to be built, he could have kept the big huge Wall Street tit at bay, and squeezed the money from that to the infrastructures.

But that would have been too efficient.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Everyone knows this. It was said each and every month of the bush years.

[conscious evolution]

5. Thanks for the reminder.