Unemployment drops to 8.9%

[MaggieMae]

The truth is, this is good news. If you are a political hack that can come up with a reason your party attributed to this, it is not. But I see the imagination of some of you GOP, Bagger hackers are exceeding my wildest imagination by wrestling success from the jaws of victory. The GOP has been in a majority in the House for two months and they have only been concerned about killing Health care and going on an extended vacation. Now they point to the drop in unemployment and say they did it.

HYPOCRITES!

Private sector added over 200,000 jobs..
Even my older son got his Architects job back last week

That IS good news

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, it is very good. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, I told everyone I cared about to take their money out of the stock market because it's going to crash. Now that we have some real conservatives in the House, I've been slowly putting money back in and cautiously telling others to do the same. We may actually see a real recovery if the conservatives don't cave-in and sell America short again.

SP500 is up 35% in the two years after Obama won and the Democrats controlled everything. Ergo, always elect liberal Democrats to hold all the power, all the time.

See how easy that "logic" is?

It's up because Obama dumped about $800 billion in stimulus money that wasn't needed. But the logic goes much deeper than simply saying "the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007." You need to look at why the economy was so frail before that and the fact that the Democrats had no solutions.

I'll say it again, if anyone did not see the imminent crash after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, you weren't paying attention. But the market is still extremely fragile. All eyes are on Washington and the oil markets now.

It is economically and logistically impossible for a recession to occur by using one year as the measurement.

 

[rightwinger]

The is is all just so much schlock….. if anyone is seriously wondering why no one trusts the gov., any gov. anymore this sure gilds the Lilly.
Oh, and by no means is this a dem. only game either, but this really took off after the reporting methodology morhped under Clinton.

lets recap, the last 4 months-



Nov 2010- 39,000 jobs created, rise in rate by .4% to 9.8%.
Dec 2010- 103,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4% to 9.4%
Jan 2011- 36,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4 % to 9.0%
Feb . 2011- 192,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .1% to 8.9%.

See? Does the above make sense to anyone even on an intuitive level?

Yes.

They are two different sampling methodologies. At inflection points, they can differ wildly. And the household survey usually leads the nonfarm payrolls. They are also subject to revisions, often a few years afterwards. For example, from 1981 through 1988, employment data was revised upwards 11 times.

This is good news. The economy is beginning to accelerate. If the economy starts cranking out 200k jobs a month regularly, unemployment will continue to fall. Of course, you'd like it to be better, but its hard to argue that this bad.

If oil spikes to $150, however, all bets are off.

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

 

[Trajan]

Yes.

They are two different sampling methodologies. At inflection points, they can differ wildly. And the household survey usually leads the nonfarm payrolls. They are also subject to revisions, often a few years afterwards. For example, from 1981 through 1988, employment data was revised upwards 11 times.

This is good news. The economy is beginning to accelerate. If the economy starts cranking out 200k jobs a month regularly, unemployment will continue to fall. Of course, you'd like it to be better, but its hard to argue that this bad.

If oil spikes to $150, however, all bets are off.

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

actually no, its better last month.

thats your stock in trade of course, simple questions because you want simple answers. this month 50k net jobs were created, good, I am glad.

However, with labor participation at a 30 low, I'd say that things really have not got better overall no.

I have said so before, when we see sustained growth at rates we have had in prior post recession ears, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that, the facts are the facts. yet, here we are 20 months and over a trillion dollars later and? I posted a link and blurbs speaking to this, but it may not be simple enough for you....to that i say, sorry, stop watching the msm and go read amnd research for yourself.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes.

They are two different sampling methodologies. At inflection points, they can differ wildly. And the household survey usually leads the nonfarm payrolls. They are also subject to revisions, often a few years afterwards. For example, from 1981 through 1988, employment data was revised upwards 11 times.

This is good news. The economy is beginning to accelerate. If the economy starts cranking out 200k jobs a month regularly, unemployment will continue to fall. Of course, you'd like it to be better, but its hard to argue that this bad.

If oil spikes to $150, however, all bets are off.

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I a just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

No
No
I really do wish it was yes and yes. Until we get back 5 or 6 million jobs AND sustain an additional 3-400k a month for a year, it's not time to break out the pom poms.

 

[rightwinger]

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

actually no, its better last month.

thats your stock in trade of course, simple questions because you want simple answers. this month 50k net jobs were created, good, I am glad.

However, with labor participation at a 30 low, I'd say that things really have not got better overall no.

I have said so before, when we see sustained growth at rates we have had in prior post recession ears, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that, the facts are the facts. yet, here we are 20 months and over a trillion dollars later and? I posted a link and blurbs speaking to this, but it may not be simple enough for you....to that i say, sorry, stop watching the msm and go read amnd research for yourself.

Are we making progress or not?

Is the job picture better today than it was a year ago? I didn't say is it ideal, I asked is it better

 

[Trajan]

The is is all just so much schlock….. if anyone is seriously wondering why no one trusts the gov., any gov. anymore this sure gilds the Lilly.
Oh, and by no means is this a dem. only game either, but this really took off after the reporting methodology morhped under Clinton.

lets recap, the last 4 months-



Nov 2010- 39,000 jobs created, rise in rate by .4% to 9.8%.
Dec 2010- 103,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4% to 9.4%
Jan 2011- 36,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4 % to 9.0%
Feb . 2011- 192,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .1% to 8.9%.

See? Does the above make sense to anyone even on an intuitive level? And course obama has taken any opportunity drops, raise etc. to make it appears as iof all is well, everything is moving ahead according to plan….just a few jump starts that’s all…


and so, all that glitters, is not gold. see article below, I read this 2 days ago.....I'll take their word over a hand picked favorite of the AP who have been wrong so many times its ridiculous.....

Layoffs At Pre-Recession Level; Job Openings Down 30%
By SCOTT STODDARD, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 03/02/2011 06:50 PM ET

Twenty months after the worst recession in decades, job creation remains anemic, weighing on economic growth and making it even harder for the long-term jobless to find work.

Don't blame layoffs. They spiked in 2009 but have returned to pre-slump levels, according to Labor Department data. But job openings remain 30% below their level when the downturn hit in December 2007. Gross hiring is down by 843,000 jobs.
While the economy has grown modestly in recent quarters, hiring remains depressed due to uncertainty about future demand, concerns about government policies and efficiency gains that have let companies do more with less.

"It's the drop in job openings, not the increase in job losses that is responsible for so much of the increase in unemployment," said James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.


Labor is expected to report Friday that the U.S. added a net 183,000 jobs in February, the most since last May. The jobless rate is seen ticking up 0.1 point to 9.1% as more people entered the labor force. Many of those new or returning job-seekers will likely find only disappointment.

December job openings fell by 139,000 to 3.06 million, the third straight decline, according to Labor's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. January's JOLTS survey is due March 11.


There were 4.7 job-seekers for each opening in December, off a peak of 6.3 in July 2009 but still far above the 1.15 ratio typical before the recession, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
"We are still very near the bottom of a very huge crater," said Heidi Shierholz, an EPI labor economist.

The U.S. has expanded for six quarters, but growth has been modest by historical standards. Strong head winds remain, from a still-moribund housing market to $100 oil and looming fiscal tightening at all levels of government.
Uncertainty about ObamaCare costs have also made firms cautious about hiring, analysts said.

More at-
Stocks, Investing, Business and Financial News from Investor's Business Daily NewsAndAnalysis/Article/ 564756/201103021850/Job- Creation-Remains-Anemic.htm

As I said in another thread, no one, not a single person from Obama on down has ever promised there would be an explosion of jobs available either in the near or even the far future. They ALL have said, unequivocably, that unemployment will remain sluggish.

The debate that everything should be hunky-dory by now should be OVER, because it is what it is, and no amount of backtracking and blame is going to change the circumstances that keep unemployment high. This WAS the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it's high time people acknowledged that and learned to live with the consequences.

no he 'forecast' or 'predicted' unemployment would remain below 8%. be that as it may , see, I would forgive him, things don't always conform to our wishes and the experts best guess , wait I mean estimates, but applying the krugman yardstick ala reagan, etc. 20 months after the end of the recession, we are on our ass, it is a fact.

And frankly the sluggish gig is fine as far as it goes, so how long do we just mope along?

And as far as worse since...yada yada, yes, I am sure thats easy to believe, I would say its different , but in the end, we pay and elect for success...no? hes had the advantage of spending over a trillion dollars and a supra majority for 8 months and a budgetary majority for 18 months to get us going.....well?

is the job to much for him? Why does he get a pass? Bush didn't? Reagan in those dark days of his willful recession didn't?

 

[Trajan]

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

actually no, its better last month.

thats your stock in trade of course, simple questions because you want simple answers. this month 50k net jobs were created, good, I am glad.

However, with labor participation at a 30 low, I'd say that things really have not got better overall no.

I have said so before, when we see sustained growth at rates we have had in prior post recession ears, I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that, the facts are the facts. yet, here we are 20 months and over a trillion dollars later and? I posted a link and blurbs speaking to this, but it may not be simple enough for you....to that i say, sorry, stop watching the msm and go read amnd research for yourself.

Are we making progress or not?

Is the job picture better today than it was a year ago? I didn't say is it ideal, I asked is it better

I answered your question, look, you'll see it right there.

 

[rightwinger]

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I a just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

No
No
I really do wish it was yes and yes. Until we get back 5 or 6 million jobs AND sustain an additional 3-400k a month for a year, it's not time to break out the pom poms.

How many jobs a month were we making a year ago?
How many were we losing a month two years ago?

By what criteria do you consider it worse?

 

[Trajan]

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

No
No
I really do wish it was yes and yes. Until we get back 5 or 6 million jobs AND sustain an additional 3-400k a month for a year, it's not time to break out the pom poms.

How many jobs a month were we making a year ago?
How many were we losing a month two years ago?

By what criteria do you consider it worse?

he didn't say it was worse......reading fail.......


come here, gimme hug...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

No
No
I really do wish it was yes and yes. Until we get back 5 or 6 million jobs AND sustain an additional 3-400k a month for a year, it's not time to break out the pom poms.

How many jobs a month were we making a year ago?
How many were we losing a month two years ago?

By what criteria do you consider it worse?

Thanks, Trajan.

I don't consider it worse, rw, just stagnating. Truth is, just because we skew the numbers by dropping 1 to 2 million people out of the picture doesn't make everything rosy. We're in a bad place right now. I'd love to see some true growth in the economy, hell, I'm about to launch another company. I want money coming in.

Btw, congrats on your son and his job.

 

[rightwinger]

No
No
I really do wish it was yes and yes. Until we get back 5 or 6 million jobs AND sustain an additional 3-400k a month for a year, it's not time to break out the pom poms.

How many jobs a month were we making a year ago?
How many were we losing a month two years ago?

By what criteria do you consider it worse?

he didn't say it was worse......reading fail.......


come here, gimme hug...

I'm not too good a reader

Please splain what NO an NO means

 

[rightwinger]

No
No
I really do wish it was yes and yes. Until we get back 5 or 6 million jobs AND sustain an additional 3-400k a month for a year, it's not time to break out the pom poms.

How many jobs a month were we making a year ago?
How many were we losing a month two years ago?

By what criteria do you consider it worse?

Thanks, Trajan.

I don't consider it worse, rw, just stagnating. Truth is, just because we skew the numbers by dropping 1 to 2 million people out of the picture doesn't make everything rosy. We're in a bad place right now. I'd love to see some true growth in the economy, hell, I'm about to launch another company. I want money coming in.

Btw, congrats on your son and his job.

Thanks....he is an architect and construction and remodeling jobs just dried up. After a year, his company is getting more work in the last three months than they had all year

 

[Zander]

It's better than it was, but not much.

 

[skeptic]

actually no, its better last month.

thats your stock in trade of course, simple questions because you want simple answers. this month 50k net jobs were created

But that's the first net positive month for job creation since the recession began. 198,000 jobs were created in one month. More than are required to meet the employment needs of the growing population.

It's the first real month of recovery since the credit crisis began in August of 2008.

Stop trying to assassinate the data the BLS delivers and just read it with an open mind. This month's results are cause for celebration at long last. We are finally seeing real recovery. Dig it!

 

[boedicca]

February jobs report: Unemployment falls as hiring picks up - Mar. 4, 2011

The private sector is driving a recovery. That is very good!

Yes, it is very good. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, I told everyone I cared about to take their money out of the stock market because it's going to crash. Now that we have some real conservatives in the House, I've been slowly putting money back in and cautiously telling others to do the same. We may actually see a real recovery if the conservatives don't cave-in and sell America short again.

So the GOP holds majority in the house and have done nothing to create jobs and you will give them credit for the jobs improvement...yeah....

We are just crawling out of the hole that GW left for us.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator, you instant gratification nitwit.

The GOP hasn't proposed its budget yet - but look at the hyperventilation by the Dems to cut less than 1.6% after the the increased over 25% since 2007.

Government spending is crushing growth out of the private sector. The jobs situation will not improve until real GDP (not this fake inflation driven Obama version) growth actually occurs.

 

[boedicca]

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Generally, there are mixed messages at inflection points. The economy usually doesn't start producing 700k jobs overnight. It builds over time. One should look at all the data holistically, and the trend is towards improvement. New claims fell to 370k on Thursday, for example.

Frankly, though, I don't expect the rate of employment growth to grow fast compared to other recoveries. This is a very different type of recession and there is still too much capacity in the economy that will only be eliminated with time. The last recovery was relatively weak and was highly dependent on a housing bubble that should never existed. This recovery will be weak too.

It's not that the Recession was so different - it's the RECOVERY that's the problem.

We've never had a government act in such a hostile, anti-growth manner to the private sector. Obama's policies have thwarted recover of the private sector while supporting massive spending on the government itself.

We should be generating 300K plus private sector jobs per month right now. But Obama-Pelosi-Reid killed that. It's shameful - and millions of people are suffering severe long term unemployment because of it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes.

They are two different sampling methodologies. At inflection points, they can differ wildly. And the household survey usually leads the nonfarm payrolls. They are also subject to revisions, often a few years afterwards. For example, from 1981 through 1988, employment data was revised upwards 11 times.

This is good news. The economy is beginning to accelerate. If the economy starts cranking out 200k jobs a month regularly, unemployment will continue to fall. Of course, you'd like it to be better, but its hard to argue that this bad.

If oil spikes to $150, however, all bets are off.

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Simple question...

Is the employment picture better than it was one year ago?
Is it better than it was two years ago?

Slightly better. But that's only due to the right putting the brakes on anti-business legislation. Do you think anyone would be hiring if they knew the real employment numbers?

The problem is White House czars are changing regulations. These are just now starting to go into effect. Businesses will have to evaluate the impact and start laying off or hiring accordingly. What we're seeing is an improvement in the overall negative outlook of businesses, but one or two major changes by the White House can spill the apple-cart and it's back up to 10%. And it the price of gas keeps going up all of the gains will be wiped out.

 

[rightwinger]

Any way you slice it, the economy is improving

Now, if we could only get the idiots in congress to work together without worrying about who gets the credit....we could really make some progress

 

[sparky]

i;ll sign onto that rightwinger

it's a tad better than last spring, just mho

thing i keep asking is, are they really fixing anything long term?