zappasguitar
Well-known member
Oh yeah...that's gonna happen.
162,000 Jobs added in March
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
Oh yeah...that's gonna happen.
That's not enough jobs to drop the unemployment rate.
But, it's still good news. My beef with Obama is that the stimulus bill wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough infrastructure spending. And that he hasn't reigned in the Robber Barons nearly enough, to avoid a repeat of the meltdown.
On balance, this is encouraging however. Especially since at the end of 2008, it was widely concluded that we were staring at the brink of another Great Republican Depression. I wonder why republicans said that Obama's economic policy would be an economic disaster? One can only conclude on of two things.
The stimulus and the economic policies put in place in early 2009, helped turned things around, restore some confidence, and steered us from the brink of another GOP Depression.
Or, that Obama just got lucky.
But, it's still good news. My beef with Obama is that the stimulus bill wasn't big enough, and didn't have enough infrastructure spending. And that he hasn't reigned in the Robber Barons nearly enough, to avoid a repeat of the meltdown.
On balance, this is encouraging however. Especially since at the end of 2008, it was widely concluded that we were staring at the brink of another Great Republican Depression. I wonder why republicans said that Obama's economic policy would be an economic disaster? One can only conclude on of two things.
The stimulus and the economic policies put in place in early 2009, helped turned things around, restore some confidence, and steered us from the brink of another GOP Depression.
Or, that Obama just got lucky.
I'll have to look it up. I know it was lower, but the guy on la radia may have been exaggerating a bit.
You mean like the people who said that Bush's 5% unemployment rate after 3 years being President was "the worst economy since the Great Depression"?
I'll have to look it up. I know it was lower, but the guy on la radia may have been exaggerating a bit.
Yeah - a bit. The figure I have read in a few places was 184K. So, "half" of projections would be just a bit of an exaggeration, considering the revisions, as well.
Are you really trying to say that "they did it too?"
And I never said that. I consistently said that Bush had no economic plan or policy, and benefitted from an inflated boom in the housing market during most of his term, and that this was not a good foundation for the economy.
Was I wrong?
Topspin
Verified User
read teabaggers, 48,000 hired is the actual for the census in March. Private employment was up 123,000 it was 162,000 with the census workers. And Jan & Feb were revised adding 40,000 jobs.
this was a very good report, I hope you teabaggers are still too afraid to buy stocks.
this was a very good report, I hope you teabaggers are still too afraid to buy stocks.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
when it goes down under a lib president, its inherited
when overall jobs continue to be lost, yet some jobs are added, if under a lib president, this is a "good" economic sign
when unemployment allegedly stays the "same", under a lib president, this is "good" economic news
basically, if anything happens under a lib president, its "good" for the country, if it happened under bush, its "bad" for the country
Yes, I think that pointing out the hypocrisy of those now in power is important.
I personally do not play that game, but generally what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
And I agreed, Bush had no plan whatsoever, and was whispering his warnings about the housing problems and went silent when Barney Frank told him that "There is nothing wrong with AIG" really loudly.
Gallup released the real numbers of unemployment and that grew. Those who gave up and therefore are no longer counted part of the "labor market" were not counted.... It's disconcerting, but I prefer to be optimistic. We can make the economy go well, despite bad economic policy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
come on now.... that was fucking funny.... seriously.... a US CONGRESSMAN thinks an island might tip over if the military adds 25000 people to it? There really should be no other topics of conversation. We should be mocking him 24/7 in all 57 states.
But not Alaska or Hawaii, because he'd been in 57 states because his staff wouldn't let him go to Hawaii or Alaska at that time. And he was going to another "tomorrow", that would make it 58, he said. He'd have visited all 58 of the continental states....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) The numbers were a bit below estimates, expectations were for about 200000. The reason it was down is the total census hires were slower than expected. There were supposed to be about 100k hired by now, only 48k have been thus far.
2) We could see the jobs numbers be positive for 6-12 months without a decline in the unemployment rate. This is because there are roughly 2-3 million that have given up looking. As new hires are made, those people will likely start job searching again. This will keep the unemployment rate high until those numbers dwindle back down. THEN you will see the unemployment rate come back down.
3) Damo is correct, we are going to need at least 500-600k a month for several years to get back to where we were at 5-6% unemployment. This is due to the ever increasing labor force coupled with the fact that many boomers are now going to need to extend their working years and fewer will retire early due to the lost decade of performance in many peoples equity portfolios.
4) This is a good jobs number. Is it sustainable? Obviously only time will tell. I still believe we will see the double dip. Many governments around the globe are pulling back spending. Many others are up to their eyeballs in debt. Consumers in general are still scared and credit is still tight.
5) Cypress is correct. The stimulus did not go far enough into infrastructure build out. Those are REAL jobs they could create almost immediately (they should have already been put in place). These are the types of jobs needed when the labor market is so loose. I don't think it necessarily needed to be bigger... though that may be the case. Given that 65% of it hasn't even been spent yet, it is way to friggin early to be making that call.
2) We could see the jobs numbers be positive for 6-12 months without a decline in the unemployment rate. This is because there are roughly 2-3 million that have given up looking. As new hires are made, those people will likely start job searching again. This will keep the unemployment rate high until those numbers dwindle back down. THEN you will see the unemployment rate come back down.
3) Damo is correct, we are going to need at least 500-600k a month for several years to get back to where we were at 5-6% unemployment. This is due to the ever increasing labor force coupled with the fact that many boomers are now going to need to extend their working years and fewer will retire early due to the lost decade of performance in many peoples equity portfolios.
4) This is a good jobs number. Is it sustainable? Obviously only time will tell. I still believe we will see the double dip. Many governments around the globe are pulling back spending. Many others are up to their eyeballs in debt. Consumers in general are still scared and credit is still tight.
5) Cypress is correct. The stimulus did not go far enough into infrastructure build out. Those are REAL jobs they could create almost immediately (they should have already been put in place). These are the types of jobs needed when the labor market is so loose. I don't think it necessarily needed to be bigger... though that may be the case. Given that 65% of it hasn't even been spent yet, it is way to friggin early to be making that call.
Wait til they add all those positions for the IRS to penalize the living daylights out of Americans who won't purchase forced healthcare insurance.
Once the penalties start compounding in typical IRS-raping fashion, perhaps then we can put a small dent in the trillion dollar(s) deficit Hussein's healthcare will cause.
Might as well just bend over now and get it over with.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
#5 is spot on
i mean, if we are going to have one, it should be spent that way, not as a democratic election fund
No - it was funny. I don't know if it was 3 threads worth of funny, but it was funny.
The repeat of 57 states is even funnier. In the Bush years, we lefties didn't have to rely on an old campaign gaffe; we had new material on a weekly, if not daily basis (except during the last couple of years, when he stayed away from unscripted press events as much as humanly possible).