What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[busybody..]

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Labor-Force-Participation-550x304.jpg

NIGGER OM ICKS


Obamanomics: Number of People Not In The Labor Force Jumps To Highest Number Ever: 88 Million…


(click chart to enlarge)



What the media doesn’t tell you.

Via Zero Hedge:


March NFP big miss at just 120K. Unemployment rate declines from 8.3% to 8.2%. Futures slide, for at least a few minutes before the NEW QE TM rumor starts spreading. The household survey actually posted a decline in March from 142,065 to 142,034. Considering Birth Death added 90K to the NSA number, the actual number was almost unchanged. And as always, as we predicted when Goldman hiked its NFP forecast yesterday from 175K to 200K saying “if Goldman’s recent predictive track record is any indication, tomorrow’s NFP will be a disaster”, Goldie once again skewers everyone. Finally, Joe LaVorgna’s +250,000 forecast was just 100% off… as usual.

The unemployment rate drops to 8.2% for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time highs: 87,897,000

 

[Beco]

Play it again, Lukey, you play the same childish tunes daily.

If you get in trouble and need help, call on Miss Congeniality to help you out.
She's learned two extra words..."stupid and idiot"..... GOT IT..?..

Are you talking about Lady Funk?

 

[mercury14]

The sky is falling!

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 8.1 to 7.7 million
over the month. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
was essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March. These individuals
accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April 2010, the number
of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million.

bls.gov

 

[garbage can]

Here's how dumb you are;

If you read my post, then read the source of the responses, I'd be guessing "that's how dumb you are".

 

[busybody..]

The sky is falling!




bs.gov

fixed your post, NIGGERPOON

 

[unregistered]

 

[Beco]

Unemployment down to 8.2% because 169,000 workers have left the labor market.

good for them, work causes stress.....stress shortens lives

 

[busybody..]

Unemployment down to 8.2% because 169,000 workers have left the labor market.

I had a thread

as to the REAL RESON

unemployment is down

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Last I checked, the U3 is reported on the 1st Friday of the month.

Okay. Pop quiz. What's the difference between the U3 and the U6. You have time and google and it's casual Friday. I'll check in on you later.

 

[RightField]

The big March jobs miss — and why the real unemployment rate sure ain’t 8.2%
By James Pethokoukis
April 6, 2012

http://blog.american.com/2012/04/th...-and-why-the-real-unemployment-sure-aint-8-2/

Swing and a miss. A big miss. A really big miss. U.S. employers added just 120,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. That’s the smallest increase since October. Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm employment to increase by 203,000. And as economist Robert Brusca points out, “The strong amazing run in household jobs came to a crashing halt as employment in that survey fell by 31,000 after rising by 42,000 last month and 847,000 the month before that.”

Then there’s the unemployment rate, which dipped to 8.2% from 8.3% the month before. That extends the longest streak of 8%-plus unemployment since the Great Depression. The U.S. economy hasn’t been below 8% unemployment since Obama took office in January 2009. And back in May 2007, unemployment was just 4.4%. (And keep in mind that average hourly wages are up just 2.1% over past year. But inflation up 2.9% (2.2% core). American workers are losing ground.) As Barclays Capital puts it: “Overall, the report had an undeniably weak tone and will raise doubts about the strength of the labor market. Given that the report reflects only one month of data and some of the underlying cyclical sectors registered payroll gains, we do not view it as conclusively signaling a shift to a lower trend rate of employment growth.”

And here’s how economic consulting firm IHS Global Insights views the report:

March was expected to bring another good jobs report, and it failed miserably. The streak of 200,000-plus monthly payroll gains ended at three. Job gains were almost 100,000 below expectations, the workweek shrank, and the decline in the unemployment rate reflected not more employment, but fewer people looking for work.

The big disappointments were in private services, where retail had a second successive bad month, and temp jobs fell for the first time since last June. Construction jobs fell for the second month in a row, but that is not too surprising – although the weather was exceptionally warm in March, it probably didn’t help construction as much as in January or February.

One disappointing jobs report is not reason to panic, but it will dampen some of the optimism about the strength of the recovery this year.

Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 5.8% today.

But the true measure of U.S. unemployment is far worse:

1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today down from last month—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%.

2. But what if you take into the account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which means the labor force participation (LFP) rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the LFP would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

3. Of course, the LFP rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

4. Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.5%.

5. The employment-population ratio dipped to 58.5% vs. 61% in December 2008. An historically low level of the U.S. population is actually working.

6. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or longer) account for 42.5% of the unemployment. That number is basically stuck. It was the same, for instance, in August 2010 and last December.

Bottom line: The economy is adding jobs but not very quickly, which is to be expected given GDP growth of around 2% or so. A Great Recovery after the Great Recession? More like the Great Stagnation …

 

[busybody..]

AMERICAN.COM?

Tee hee

Points and Laughs

 

[richard_daily]

Perhaps, all I know is they keep changing the numbers....same for housing. They get people excited, then they adjust the numbers again. I'm sick of it.

Granted, its an election year, but I'm tired of hearing about how horrible this economy is ....

The method of tabulating the numbers haven't changed since Obama has been in office.

You do realize that, don't you?

 

[richard_daily]

good for them, work causes stress.....stress shortens lives

veteman couldn't hack it in the private sector, so he took his welfare check and he's living off the fruits of other people's labor now.

 

[RightField]

The method of tabulating the numbers haven't changed since Obama has been in office.

You do realize that, don't you?

Yes, but there's always been a lot of subjective assessment in the "official" process such as estimating the number of unemployed who have decided to start their own businesses. There's no objective measure to the figure which serves to decrease the overall unemployment rate, it's just a WAG. These subjective factors seem to be much more "liberally" interpreted lately (pun intended).

 

[phrodeau]

Yes, but there's always been a lot of subjective assessment in the "official" process such as estimating the number of unemployed who have decided to start their own businesses. There's no objective measure to the figure which serves to decrease the overall unemployment rate, it's just a WAG. These subjective factors seem to be much more "liberally" interpreted lately (pun intended).

Just like the price of gas, no doubt.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, but there's always been a lot of subjective assessment in the "official" process such as estimating the number of unemployed who have decided to start their own businesses. There's no objective measure to the figure which serves to decrease the overall unemployment rate, it's just a WAG. These subjective factors seem to be much more "liberally" interpreted lately (pun intended).

No they have not been more liberally interpreted lately. They've been reported the same as they ever have.

Of course there are objective ways to establish unemployment. The U3 and U6 are both outstanding you just need to know the difference and be consistent with which figure you use.

Seriously you're smarter than this.

 

[RightField]

I believe that their disastrous liberal policies have actually hurt the people who they intend on helping. These policies have severed upward mobility and, not content to make the lives of the poor more miserable; they’re trying the same thing with the middle class.

What have the liberals done for one of their target constituencies…the poor?:

• They’ve implemented education programs that are supposed to provide a stronger educational background and help people escape poverty, but what they’re really doing is protecting the teachers' unions at the expense of inner-city children
• Their minimum wage policies that delay and prevent minority youth from getting jobs
• The student loan policies saddle poor and middle class students with a lifetime of debt
• The unemployment benefits are particularly problematic….when they extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, that sounds nice, but it makes it much more difficult for people to reenter the work force. Levels of chronically unemployed are at the same levels now as they were over the last couple years (so much for stimulus eh?).
• Welfare policies that encourage single motherhood (40% are poor)…that chase the fathers of the children away. Do we want to talk about the epidemic of single mothers?
• Their economic redistributionist theories are false and are prolonging the bad economy which is keeping jobs from reappearing. What few jobs are appearing are due to a few people taking bigger risks and not from a large segment of our society saying “Aha, the economic climate is stable and I know I’m not going to be hit with massive new taxes so I’m going to try to make some investments to see if I can get a decent return for my capital and my effort and initiative.”
• Their war on capital gains and investment income is going to reduce investment and further retard economic growth.

The democrats are a disaster, vote them out!

 

[RightField]

No they have not been more liberally interpreted lately. They've been reported the same as they ever have.

Of course there are objective ways to establish unemployment. The U3 and U6 are both outstanding you just need to know the difference and be consistent with which figure you use.

Seriously you're smarter than this.

I like to look at the total employment figure which, of course, shows a huge drop off as soon as the Democrats took power and continues to languish at that miserable level as when they took over (no improvement) despite all the positive "spin" they like to play.

 

[RightField]

Just like the price of gas, no doubt.

Price of gas is based on supply and demand. It is largely global, but not completely. Obama restricts drilling on public land (down 11%) but private "harvesting" is growing so the damage that Obama is doing to our energy supply is somewhat mitigated.

It's market based and less subject to the crony capitalism practiced so evidently in so many different areas by our current administration.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I believe that their disastrous liberal policies have actually hurt the people who they intend on helping. These policies have severed upward mobility and, not content to make the lives of the poor more miserable; they’re trying the same thing with the middle class.

This is because you’ve never looked at the facts and instead listen to the opinions of people who are wrong.

What have the liberals done for one of their target constituencies…the poor?:
[*]They’ve implemented education programs that are supposed to provide a stronger educational background and help people escape poverty, but what they’re really doing is protecting the teachers' unions at the expense of inner-city children[/QUOTE]
This frankly is a non-point. There is no debate that our schools are underfunded nor that teachers are the first thing we look at cutting when the budget isn’t looking good. We can debate about if teachers are too protected or not later as that really isn’t the point. Protecting teachers doesn’t directly hurt children inner-city or not.

[*]Their minimum wage policies that delay and prevent minority youth from getting jobs

At some point you have to start calling bullshit bullshit. The minimum wage isn’t enough to live off of which is why half of our country doesn’t pay taxes. Being on minimum wage requires government assistance just to make ends meet. Your solution to this is to lower the pay people would receive AND increase the amount of workers. What does Supply and Demand tell us will happen in this situation?

[*]The student loan policies saddle poor and middle class students with a lifetime of debt

It’s an unfortunate situation. The alternative that you propose is to make it harder to get an education and elevate yourself out of the ranks of the poor however. That’s simply not a good solution.

[*]The unemployment benefits are particularly problematic….when they extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, that sounds nice, but it makes it much more difficult for people to reenter the work force. Levels of chronically unemployed are at the same levels now as they were over the last couple years (so much for stimulus eh?).

Except they aren’t, they’ve gone down. Yes good job stimulus you have to be blind or intentionally ignorant at this point to claim the stimulus didn’t work. It wasn’t a screaming success because it was too small and poorly implemented. Tax breaks made up a third of it. But ultimately it worked.

[*]Welfare policies that encourage single motherhood (40% are poor)…that chase the fathers of the children away. Do we want to talk about the epidemic of single mothers?

Yes we do. Lets stop saying families can’t get welfare if there is an able bodied man in the family. This part is clearly a conservative action. And an admirable one at that. I understand and agree with what they were trying to accomplish. However like all laws we had to pass it to see what’s in it and what’s in it is chasing fathers of children away and creating single parent households. Lets unfuck that now that we know what’s in it.

[*]Their economic redistributionist theories are false and are prolonging the bad economy which is keeping jobs from reappearing. What few jobs are appearing are due to a few people taking bigger risks and not from a large segment of our society saying “Aha, the economic climate is stable and I know I’m not going to be hit with massive new taxes so I’m going to try to make some investments to see if I can get a decent return for my capital and my effort and initiative.”

This isn’t at all based on facts. It’s simply you imagining things.

[*]Their war on capital gains and investment income is going to reduce investment and further retard economic growth.

Again this is you making something up. Capital gains has been higher in the past and it didn’t reduce investment spending or retard economic growth in the 80’s or 90’s. These are just things you’ve been told but aren’t true.

I like to look at the total employment figure which, of course, shows a huge drop off as soon as the Democrats took power and continues to languish at that miserable level as when they took over (no improvement) despite all the positive "spin" they like to play.

Again tell me what specifically the Democrats did because what your saying amounts to the market is reacting to the number of Rs and Ds in congress. That since the D’s had a majority the market fell off not because of actual actions but because effectively there was a disturbance in the Force.

 

[busybody..]

The method of tabulating the numbers haven't changed since Obama has been in office.

You do realize that, don't you?

Hey NIGGERDAILY your fellow NIGGERS said the exact opposite when Bushco was creating 300K per month

 

[Disgustipated]

[*]Welfare policies that encourage single motherhood

That has got to be one of the dumbest things ever written on the interwebs. Srsly.

The democrats are a disaster, vote them out!

According to vettebirther they were already voted out. Remember him doing his victory dance a few months ago? This is all on the Republicans now, own it or shut the fuck up about it.

 

[Beco]

Unemployment down to 8.2% because 169,000 workers have left the labor market.

A bad job's report and watch these guys squirm.....gotta love it

 

[RightField]

You don't think that there'd not be many more jobs if the minimum wage was dropped significantly?

We're not talking about "living wages", we're talking about entry level wages. The unemployment rate amongst black city teenagers is huge, some report it to be over 50%. Lets address that. A teenager doesn't need "a living wage", just enough to make the experience worthwhile.

There are other benefits too, it allows the youth to learn work habits, experience some reponsibility, pay taxes, build positive working relationships (references) and earn a little spending money.

A side benefit is that these kids would also find something more constructive to do than the frequent problems that are associated with "idle hands."

The high levels of minimum wage reduce employment in this sector. I say reduce minimum wage.