US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[AntonToo]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

 

[Oldstyle]

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%? Really? When exactly did that take place?

Yes really because ACTUAL is BASELINE + STIMULUS EFFECTS

Stimulus effect did not get revised - BASELINE did, because it wasn't possible to know how deep the recession was before recession happened.

To not understand this is to not understand basic economics.

That's basic bullshit, Anton! Christina Romer told us all that passing the Obama Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. Changing the BASELINE was what the Obama Administration did to change the narrative! When you promise unemployment of under 8% and it goes to 10%...you look bad. When you change the BASELINE and state that your stimulus kept unemployment from going to 15% you suddenly look good! Well, you do if you're dealing with a really naive audience!

AGAIN - Cristina Romer was simply taking incorrect baseline estimate of mild recession and adding stimulus effect to it.

To say that ARRA caused the revision in baseline to a deep recession is just stupid by your own admission that stimulus must have at very least made a few jobs.

So what you're saying basically is that you can create any number you want by manipulation of the baseline? Which is what the Obama Administration did when their stimulus really didn't create anywhere close to the jobs they'd predicted.

 

[Oldstyle]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

 

[AntonToo]

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%? Really? When exactly did that take place?

Yes really because ACTUAL is BASELINE + STIMULUS EFFECTS

Stimulus effect did not get revised - BASELINE did, because it wasn't possible to know how deep the recession was before recession happened.

To not understand this is to not understand basic economics.

That's basic bullshit, Anton! Christina Romer told us all that passing the Obama Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. Changing the BASELINE was what the Obama Administration did to change the narrative! When you promise unemployment of under 8% and it goes to 10%...you look bad. When you change the BASELINE and state that your stimulus kept unemployment from going to 15% you suddenly look good! Well, you do if you're dealing with a really naive audience!

AGAIN - Cristina Romer was simply taking incorrect baseline estimate of mild recession and adding stimulus effect to it.

To say that ARRA caused the revision in baseline to a deep recession is just stupid by your own admission that stimulus must have at very least made a few jobs.

So what you're saying basically is that you can create any number you want by manipulation of the baseline? Which is what the Obama Administration did when their stimulus really didn't create anywhere close to the jobs they'd predicted.

No silly, what I'm saying is there are no actuals that could definitively say exactly how many jobs were made as there is no way to separate baseline from policy effect in the actual economic readings.

Best we have is economist's estimate of the effects and very reasonably they say 800 billion buys a couple of million jobs for a while.

 

[AntonToo]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious estimates economists produce?

You say very silly things.

 

[Oldstyle]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

 

[AntonToo]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

 

[Oldstyle]

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint. You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE! You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel?

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created. That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".

 

[AntonToo]

I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel?

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created. That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".

Well since you've yet to admit anything beyond "a few jobs" atributable to stimulus your argument is entirely moot.

You say you can't answer how many jobs 800 billion dollars in stimulus spending and tax-cuts buys, but you are somehow SURE it's "just a few jobs".

 

[Rshermr]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.

2016 Jobs Reports
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 168,000 151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.
Feb 233,000 242,000 Retail, health care and construction boosted growth. Mining and manufacturing lost jobs.
March 208,000 215,000 Losses in manufacturing and mining nearly offset gains in retail, health care and cons
April 123,000 160,000 Gains in health care and banking offset losses in mining, the government and retail.


2015: 2.744 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 221,000 257,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail and construction.
Feb 265,000 295,000 Health care, retail and construction added the most jobs.
Mar 84,000 126,000 Temp jobs were the only hopeful sign.
Apr 251,000 223,000 Strong growth in health care, construction and temp help.
May 273,000 280,000 Health care, retail and hotels/restaurants grew the most.
Jun 228,000 223,000 Health care and retail trade added the most jobs.
Jul 277,000 215,000 Retail trade and health care were the biggest contributors.
Aug 150,000 173,000 Manufacturing lost jobs due to the strong dollar's impact on exports.
Sep 149,000 142,000 Mining (the oil industry) and manufacturing lost jobs.
Oct 295,000 271,000 Health care, leisure and hospitality, and retail contributed to growth
Nov 280,000 211,000 Construction, health care, and retail spurred growth.
Dec 271,000 292,000 Health care, construction, and leisure/hospitality added the most jobs.


2014: 3.015 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 187,000 133,000 The Dow rose 165 points on the strong job gains.
Feb 168,000 175,000 Winter storms limited job creation.
Mar 272,000 192,000 Jobs gains exceeded estimates.
Apr 310,000 288,000 Job gains were across the board except for information technology.
May 213,000 217,000 Health care, leisure and transportation added jobs while IT lost them.
Jun 306,000 288,000 Retail, health care, leisure, government and IT added.
Jul 232,000 202,000 Lower than expectations but still a solid gain. Increases were in health care, retail, and hotels/restaurants.
Aug 218,000 142,000 Health care and construction added the most jobs, while retail, auto manufacturing and IT lost jobs.
Sep 286,000 248,000 Retailers added jobs for back-to-school. Leisure (hotels, restaurants, bars) and health care also added.
Oct 200,000 214,000 Retailers added workers for Halloween. Leisure and health care also added jobs. Only IT reduced.
Nov 331,000 321,000 The biggest gain in nearly 3 years, thanks to retailers that added jobs for Black Friday. Other strong areas were health care, leisure, and IT.
Dec 292,000 252,000

2013: 2.311 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 190,000 157,000
Feb 311,000 236,000 Growth due to construction and retail trade.
Mar 135,000 88,000 Disappointing jobs report blamed on weather and retail layoffs.
Apr 192,000 165,000 The strong report sent the Dow above 15,000.
May 218,000 175,000 Dow rose 200 points. Housing added jobs.
Jun 146,000 195,000
Jul 140,000 162,000 Most growth in low-paying retail and restaurants.
Aug 269,000 169,000 Job gains were in low-paying retail and restaurant sectors.
Sep 185,000 143,000 Investors cheered because the Fed would keep monetary policy loose.
Oct 189,000 204,000 The government shutdown delayed the survey allowing more businesses to report.
Nov 291,000 203,000 Across-the-board job growth.
Dec 45,000 71,000 Job losses were across the board, mainly from poor holiday sales.

2012: 2.149 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 338,000 243,000 Most job growth was in business services, hospitality, and manufacturing
Feb 257,000 227,000 Business growth made everyone think the economy had finally healed.
Mar 239,000 120,000 Poor growth across the board, and retail shed jobs.
Apr 75,000 115,000 Two sectors weren't doing well -- construction and government. Housing was hampered by foreclosures, and government was cutting budgets.
May 115,000 65,000 Seasonal weakness sent the Dow down 275 points.
Jun 87,000 80,000 The Dow dropped 180 points on the poor jobs report.
Jul 143,000 163,000 The Dow gained 217 points on the strong report.
Aug 190,000 96,000
Sep 181,000 114,000 Former GE CEO Jack Welch was suspicious that so many jobs were added right before the Presidential election. It's explained here.
Oct 132,000 171,000 The strong jobs report came out a week before the election. Data was collected before Superstorm Sandy hit.
Nov 149,000 146,000 The storm devastated New York, but didn't affect national jobs numbers.
Dec 243,000 155,000 Uncertainty over the fiscal cliff forced businesses hire less.

2011: 2.087 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 42,000 36,000 The economy had 984,000 more jobs than the year before.
Feb 188,000 192,000 Manufacturing jobs were up 189,000 year-over-year.
Mar 225,000 216,000
Apr 346,000 244,000
May 73,000 54,000 The poor jobs report sent the Dow and dollar down, and gold up.
Jun 235,000 18,000 The dismal jobs report panicked investors.
Jul 70,000 117,000 The Dow dropped 400 points despite job gains.
Aug 107,000 0 Astonishingly, absolutely no jobs were created, giving urgency to Obama's jobs speech the following week.
Sep 246,000 103,000 The economy added 2 million since the low point in February 2010, but was still down 6.7 million jobs since the high in January 2008.
Oct 202,000 80,000
Nov 146,000 120,000 Strong retail sales boosted job growth.
Dec 207,000 200,000 The economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011

2010: 1.066 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 28,000 18,000 52,000 temporary jobs were added, of which 9,000 were for the Census.There were 4 million fewer jobs than the year before.
Feb -69,000 -50,000 The economy had 3.2 million fewer jobs than February 2009. The Census added 15,000 temporary jobs, boosting the 48,000 temp jobs made available.
Mar 163,000 156,000 There were 2.3 million fewer jobs, and 633,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, than a year earlier.
Apr 243,000 290,000 The Census added 63,000 temp jobs, and manufacturing added 44,000 jobs. But there's still 1.3 million fewer jobs than the year before.
May 522,000 431,000 The Census added 411,000 temp jobs.
Jun -133,000 -125,000 The Census laid off 225,000 temp workers.
Jul -70,000 -121,000 The Census laid off 143,000, but business hiring was up by 71,000 jobs.
Aug -34,000 -31,000 There were 130.3 million jobs, a gain of 229,000 jobs in the past year and the first y-o-y job GAIN in 26 months.
Sep -52,000 -91,000 There were 130.2 million jobs, 344,000 more than the year earlier.
Oct 257,000 150,000 The economy had 829,000 more jobs than the year before.
Nov 123,000 39,000 There were 842,000 more jobs than the year before.
Dec 88,000 103,000 Businesses added 117,000 jobs, but government laid off 10,000.

2009: 5.070 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final)
JOBS ADDED (Original)

COMMENTS

Jan

-791,000

-598,000

The economy lost 2.4 million jobs, including 1 million manufacturing jobs, in the past 12 months.
Feb

-703,000

-651,000

4.1 million jobs, including 1.2 million in manufacturing, were lost Y-O-Y.
Mar

-823,000

-663,000

4.8 million jobs lost Y-O-Y, the most since the 2001 recession.
April -686,000 -611,000 There were 5.3 million fewer jobs than a year before.
May

-351,000

-345,000

Manufacturing was hit especially hard, as 1.6 million were lost Y-O-Y.
June

-470,000

-450,000

There were 5.4 million fewer jobs than the year before, including 1.6 million in manufacturing, Health care added 34,000 jobs.
July

-329,000

-247,000

There were 6 million fewer jobs than the prior July, including 1.67 manufacturing jobs.
Aug

-212,000

N.A.

The economy lost 6.2 million jobs YOY, including 1.6 million in manufacturing.
Sep -219,000 N.A. The economy was down just 6 million jobs.
Oct -200,000 N.A. There were now 5.8 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -6,000 N.A. 4.8 million jobs were lost in the past 12 months.
Dec -279,000 N.A. 4.2 million jobs were lost in 2009. This trend has been improving since July, when the economy was down 6 million jobs. Also, manufacturing was down 1.3 million jobs in the past 12 months -- better than in June.

2008: 3.569 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 15,000 -17,000 .6% growth over last year, but manufacturing lost 2.7% jobs.
Feb -87,000 -63,000 .4% growth over last year, while manufacturing lost 3% of its jobs.
March -78,000 -80,000 This was the worst monthly job loss since the last recession, and a mere .18% gain in the last year. The last time year-over-year job growth trended down this severely was in 2001, which led to 29 months of job losses.
April -210,000 -20,000 There were only .18% more jobs, and 3.38% fewer manufacturing jobs, than in April 2007
May -185,000 -49,000 Year-over-year, employment declined .11%. This was the first time there was a decline in year-over-year jobs since 2003, the end of the last recession. There were 3.55% fewer manufacturing jobs.
June -165,000 -62,000 Employment was down from the prior year.
July -209,000 -51,000 In the last year 150,000 jobs were lost, a .37% decline.
Aug -266,000 -84,000 Employment declined .5% during the year.
Sep -452,000 -159,000 Employment declined .64% during the year.
Oct -473,000 -240,000 There were 1.5 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -769,000 -533,000 In the last 12 months, 1.9 million jobs were lost -- 604,000 were in manufacturing.
Dec -695,000 -524,000 Employment declined by 2.5 million jobs, faster than in the 2001 recession, which never lost more than 2.1 million jobs in any 12-month period.

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.

NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:

You keep posting that same graph of "estimates" put forth by proponents of big government stimulus spending, Antontoo...the only line that counts is the bottom one...the top line is an estimate and I think you'll be the first to admit that estimates being thrown around at that point were anything but accurate.

You are doing the normal argument with ho support of any kind, me boy. Nothing. You are being made to look like what you are: A FOOL. And you are starting to morph into your normal personal attacks.
Problem is the normal, Oldstyle. Being a con troll, and posting con talking points, does not prove what you would like the truth to be.
You are arguing with a person with a solid economic background. This is not going to end well for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel?

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created. That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".

Well since you've yet to admit anything beyond "a few jobs" atributable to stimulus your argument is entirely moot.

You say you can't answer how many jobs 800 billion dollars in stimulus spending and tax-cuts buys, but you are somehow SURE it's "just a few jobs".

You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton. I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years. I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs! My point...a point which you seem unable to address...is that the "Jobs Saved" number was created and used by the Obama Administration not to provide the American people with a better idea of how the stimulus was working...but as a means of hiding how badly it worked.

Interesting...I just went back through every post I made since you joined the conversation and I didn't find a single one in which I said that the stimulus created "just a few jobs" yet you're quoting me as if I did! So did I miss that, Anton? Or are you making stuff up?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.

2016 Jobs Reports
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 168,000 151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.
Feb 233,000 242,000 Retail, health care and construction boosted growth. Mining and manufacturing lost jobs.
March 208,000 215,000 Losses in manufacturing and mining nearly offset gains in retail, health care and cons
April 123,000 160,000 Gains in health care and banking offset losses in mining, the government and retail.


2015: 2.744 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 221,000 257,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail and construction.
Feb 265,000 295,000 Health care, retail and construction added the most jobs.
Mar 84,000 126,000 Temp jobs were the only hopeful sign.
Apr 251,000 223,000 Strong growth in health care, construction and temp help.
May 273,000 280,000 Health care, retail and hotels/restaurants grew the most.
Jun 228,000 223,000 Health care and retail trade added the most jobs.
Jul 277,000 215,000 Retail trade and health care were the biggest contributors.
Aug 150,000 173,000 Manufacturing lost jobs due to the strong dollar's impact on exports.
Sep 149,000 142,000 Mining (the oil industry) and manufacturing lost jobs.
Oct 295,000 271,000 Health care, leisure and hospitality, and retail contributed to growth
Nov 280,000 211,000 Construction, health care, and retail spurred growth.
Dec 271,000 292,000 Health care, construction, and leisure/hospitality added the most jobs.


2014: 3.015 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 187,000 133,000 The Dow rose 165 points on the strong job gains.
Feb 168,000 175,000 Winter storms limited job creation.
Mar 272,000 192,000 Jobs gains exceeded estimates.
Apr 310,000 288,000 Job gains were across the board except for information technology.
May 213,000 217,000 Health care, leisure and transportation added jobs while IT lost them.
Jun 306,000 288,000 Retail, health care, leisure, government and IT added.
Jul 232,000 202,000 Lower than expectations but still a solid gain. Increases were in health care, retail, and hotels/restaurants.
Aug 218,000 142,000 Health care and construction added the most jobs, while retail, auto manufacturing and IT lost jobs.
Sep 286,000 248,000 Retailers added jobs for back-to-school. Leisure (hotels, restaurants, bars) and health care also added.
Oct 200,000 214,000 Retailers added workers for Halloween. Leisure and health care also added jobs. Only IT reduced.
Nov 331,000 321,000 The biggest gain in nearly 3 years, thanks to retailers that added jobs for Black Friday. Other strong areas were health care, leisure, and IT.
Dec 292,000 252,000

2013: 2.311 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 190,000 157,000
Feb 311,000 236,000 Growth due to construction and retail trade.
Mar 135,000 88,000 Disappointing jobs report blamed on weather and retail layoffs.
Apr 192,000 165,000 The strong report sent the Dow above 15,000.
May 218,000 175,000 Dow rose 200 points. Housing added jobs.
Jun 146,000 195,000
Jul 140,000 162,000 Most growth in low-paying retail and restaurants.
Aug 269,000 169,000 Job gains were in low-paying retail and restaurant sectors.
Sep 185,000 143,000 Investors cheered because the Fed would keep monetary policy loose.
Oct 189,000 204,000 The government shutdown delayed the survey allowing more businesses to report.
Nov 291,000 203,000 Across-the-board job growth.
Dec 45,000 71,000 Job losses were across the board, mainly from poor holiday sales.

2012: 2.149 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 338,000 243,000 Most job growth was in business services, hospitality, and manufacturing
Feb 257,000 227,000 Business growth made everyone think the economy had finally healed.
Mar 239,000 120,000 Poor growth across the board, and retail shed jobs.
Apr 75,000 115,000 Two sectors weren't doing well -- construction and government. Housing was hampered by foreclosures, and government was cutting budgets.
May 115,000 65,000 Seasonal weakness sent the Dow down 275 points.
Jun 87,000 80,000 The Dow dropped 180 points on the poor jobs report.
Jul 143,000 163,000 The Dow gained 217 points on the strong report.
Aug 190,000 96,000
Sep 181,000 114,000 Former GE CEO Jack Welch was suspicious that so many jobs were added right before the Presidential election. It's explained here.
Oct 132,000 171,000 The strong jobs report came out a week before the election. Data was collected before Superstorm Sandy hit.
Nov 149,000 146,000 The storm devastated New York, but didn't affect national jobs numbers.
Dec 243,000 155,000 Uncertainty over the fiscal cliff forced businesses hire less.

2011: 2.087 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 42,000 36,000 The economy had 984,000 more jobs than the year before.
Feb 188,000 192,000 Manufacturing jobs were up 189,000 year-over-year.
Mar 225,000 216,000
Apr 346,000 244,000
May 73,000 54,000 The poor jobs report sent the Dow and dollar down, and gold up.
Jun 235,000 18,000 The dismal jobs report panicked investors.
Jul 70,000 117,000 The Dow dropped 400 points despite job gains.
Aug 107,000 0 Astonishingly, absolutely no jobs were created, giving urgency to Obama's jobs speech the following week.
Sep 246,000 103,000 The economy added 2 million since the low point in February 2010, but was still down 6.7 million jobs since the high in January 2008.
Oct 202,000 80,000
Nov 146,000 120,000 Strong retail sales boosted job growth.
Dec 207,000 200,000 The economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011

2010: 1.066 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 28,000 18,000 52,000 temporary jobs were added, of which 9,000 were for the Census.There were 4 million fewer jobs than the year before.
Feb -69,000 -50,000 The economy had 3.2 million fewer jobs than February 2009. The Census added 15,000 temporary jobs, boosting the 48,000 temp jobs made available.
Mar 163,000 156,000 There were 2.3 million fewer jobs, and 633,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, than a year earlier.
Apr 243,000 290,000 The Census added 63,000 temp jobs, and manufacturing added 44,000 jobs. But there's still 1.3 million fewer jobs than the year before.
May 522,000 431,000 The Census added 411,000 temp jobs.
Jun -133,000 -125,000 The Census laid off 225,000 temp workers.
Jul -70,000 -121,000 The Census laid off 143,000, but business hiring was up by 71,000 jobs.
Aug -34,000 -31,000 There were 130.3 million jobs, a gain of 229,000 jobs in the past year and the first y-o-y job GAIN in 26 months.
Sep -52,000 -91,000 There were 130.2 million jobs, 344,000 more than the year earlier.
Oct 257,000 150,000 The economy had 829,000 more jobs than the year before.
Nov 123,000 39,000 There were 842,000 more jobs than the year before.
Dec 88,000 103,000 Businesses added 117,000 jobs, but government laid off 10,000.

2009: 5.070 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final)
JOBS ADDED (Original)

COMMENTS

Jan

-791,000

-598,000

The economy lost 2.4 million jobs, including 1 million manufacturing jobs, in the past 12 months.
Feb

-703,000

-651,000

4.1 million jobs, including 1.2 million in manufacturing, were lost Y-O-Y.
Mar

-823,000

-663,000

4.8 million jobs lost Y-O-Y, the most since the 2001 recession.
April -686,000 -611,000 There were 5.3 million fewer jobs than a year before.
May

-351,000

-345,000

Manufacturing was hit especially hard, as 1.6 million were lost Y-O-Y.
June

-470,000

-450,000

There were 5.4 million fewer jobs than the year before, including 1.6 million in manufacturing, Health care added 34,000 jobs.
July

-329,000

-247,000

There were 6 million fewer jobs than the prior July, including 1.67 manufacturing jobs.
Aug

-212,000

N.A.

The economy lost 6.2 million jobs YOY, including 1.6 million in manufacturing.
Sep -219,000 N.A. The economy was down just 6 million jobs.
Oct -200,000 N.A. There were now 5.8 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -6,000 N.A. 4.8 million jobs were lost in the past 12 months.
Dec -279,000 N.A. 4.2 million jobs were lost in 2009. This trend has been improving since July, when the economy was down 6 million jobs. Also, manufacturing was down 1.3 million jobs in the past 12 months -- better than in June.

2008: 3.569 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 15,000 -17,000 .6% growth over last year, but manufacturing lost 2.7% jobs.
Feb -87,000 -63,000 .4% growth over last year, while manufacturing lost 3% of its jobs.
March -78,000 -80,000 This was the worst monthly job loss since the last recession, and a mere .18% gain in the last year. The last time year-over-year job growth trended down this severely was in 2001, which led to 29 months of job losses.
April -210,000 -20,000 There were only .18% more jobs, and 3.38% fewer manufacturing jobs, than in April 2007
May -185,000 -49,000 Year-over-year, employment declined .11%. This was the first time there was a decline in year-over-year jobs since 2003, the end of the last recession. There were 3.55% fewer manufacturing jobs.
June -165,000 -62,000 Employment was down from the prior year.
July -209,000 -51,000 In the last year 150,000 jobs were lost, a .37% decline.
Aug -266,000 -84,000 Employment declined .5% during the year.
Sep -452,000 -159,000 Employment declined .64% during the year.
Oct -473,000 -240,000 There were 1.5 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -769,000 -533,000 In the last 12 months, 1.9 million jobs were lost -- 604,000 were in manufacturing.
Dec -695,000 -524,000 Employment declined by 2.5 million jobs, faster than in the 2001 recession, which never lost more than 2.1 million jobs in any 12-month period.

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.

NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:

You keep posting that same graph of "estimates" put forth by proponents of big government stimulus spending, Antontoo...the only line that counts is the bottom one...the top line is an estimate and I think you'll be the first to admit that estimates being thrown around at that point were anything but accurate.

You are doing the normal argument with ho support of any kind, me boy. Nothing. You are being made to look like what you are: A FOOL. And you are starting to morph into your normal personal attacks.
Problem is the normal, Oldstyle. Being a con troll, and posting con talking points, does not prove what you would like the truth to be.
You are arguing with a person with a solid economic background. This is not going to end well for you.

I'm actually enjoying a little back and forth with Anton, Georgie. He seems to have at least a modicum of knowledge of economics. Of course after you...he seems like the second coming of Adam Smith!

Of course if he's misquoted me...and gotten caught at it...he's not much different than you are...oops!

 

[Rshermr]

I gave you a rather succinct answer actually. I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game. The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel?

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created. That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".

Well since you've yet to admit anything beyond "a few jobs" atributable to stimulus your argument is entirely moot.

You say you can't answer how many jobs 800 billion dollars in stimulus spending and tax-cuts buys, but you are somehow SURE it's "just a few jobs".

Your statement is correct, of course. the stimulus was close to 500,000 in terms of stimulus spending with the rest in the form of tax cuts. And the actual total, as I recall, was about 780,000.
When the cbo was scoring the stimulus by type of outlays, tax cuts were considered the least effective stimulus measures. For all the reasons we tend to know, the taxes that went largely to upper class taxpayers did the very least.
Oldstyle is simply a con troll, and wants to make the stimulus look as bad as possible. And truth is not of any interest to him. So he has stated time after time after time that jobs saved is an invalid measure. That it does not exist. And he will, of course, not consider the facts as seen by economists. Which I find obvious, related to jobs saved. They are quite simple.
In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening. In the Great Recession, in late 2007 through early 2008 we saw job losses of over 500,000 and more. So stopping job losses was an important issue. And, I have explained to OS, such a saved job was just as good as a newly created job. In either case, one less person was unemployed whether the job was lost or saved.
So, if you care about the truth, then you need to try to understand both jobs saved and jobs created. You need to try to have both happen, if you are concerned at all about the well being of workers.
While the exact number or either, created or saved, is a bit difficult to find exactly, I felt and others with background felt the economists taked with the job were pretty accurate. And organizations like the cbo did the best they could. And provided strong estimates of what was happening.
Now, of course, we see the next level of criticism, where con trolls like oldstyle are suggesting that it is all a left wing conspiracy. Really find that stupid, and not possible to deal with. But over the last couple years, I have seen it all.

 

[Rshermr]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.

2016 Jobs Reports
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 168,000 151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.
Feb 233,000 242,000 Retail, health care and construction boosted growth. Mining and manufacturing lost jobs.
March 208,000 215,000 Losses in manufacturing and mining nearly offset gains in retail, health care and cons
April 123,000 160,000 Gains in health care and banking offset losses in mining, the government and retail.


2015: 2.744 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 221,000 257,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail and construction.
Feb 265,000 295,000 Health care, retail and construction added the most jobs.
Mar 84,000 126,000 Temp jobs were the only hopeful sign.
Apr 251,000 223,000 Strong growth in health care, construction and temp help.
May 273,000 280,000 Health care, retail and hotels/restaurants grew the most.
Jun 228,000 223,000 Health care and retail trade added the most jobs.
Jul 277,000 215,000 Retail trade and health care were the biggest contributors.
Aug 150,000 173,000 Manufacturing lost jobs due to the strong dollar's impact on exports.
Sep 149,000 142,000 Mining (the oil industry) and manufacturing lost jobs.
Oct 295,000 271,000 Health care, leisure and hospitality, and retail contributed to growth
Nov 280,000 211,000 Construction, health care, and retail spurred growth.
Dec 271,000 292,000 Health care, construction, and leisure/hospitality added the most jobs.


2014: 3.015 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 187,000 133,000 The Dow rose 165 points on the strong job gains.
Feb 168,000 175,000 Winter storms limited job creation.
Mar 272,000 192,000 Jobs gains exceeded estimates.
Apr 310,000 288,000 Job gains were across the board except for information technology.
May 213,000 217,000 Health care, leisure and transportation added jobs while IT lost them.
Jun 306,000 288,000 Retail, health care, leisure, government and IT added.
Jul 232,000 202,000 Lower than expectations but still a solid gain. Increases were in health care, retail, and hotels/restaurants.
Aug 218,000 142,000 Health care and construction added the most jobs, while retail, auto manufacturing and IT lost jobs.
Sep 286,000 248,000 Retailers added jobs for back-to-school. Leisure (hotels, restaurants, bars) and health care also added.
Oct 200,000 214,000 Retailers added workers for Halloween. Leisure and health care also added jobs. Only IT reduced.
Nov 331,000 321,000 The biggest gain in nearly 3 years, thanks to retailers that added jobs for Black Friday. Other strong areas were health care, leisure, and IT.
Dec 292,000 252,000

2013: 2.311 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 190,000 157,000
Feb 311,000 236,000 Growth due to construction and retail trade.
Mar 135,000 88,000 Disappointing jobs report blamed on weather and retail layoffs.
Apr 192,000 165,000 The strong report sent the Dow above 15,000.
May 218,000 175,000 Dow rose 200 points. Housing added jobs.
Jun 146,000 195,000
Jul 140,000 162,000 Most growth in low-paying retail and restaurants.
Aug 269,000 169,000 Job gains were in low-paying retail and restaurant sectors.
Sep 185,000 143,000 Investors cheered because the Fed would keep monetary policy loose.
Oct 189,000 204,000 The government shutdown delayed the survey allowing more businesses to report.
Nov 291,000 203,000 Across-the-board job growth.
Dec 45,000 71,000 Job losses were across the board, mainly from poor holiday sales.

2012: 2.149 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 338,000 243,000 Most job growth was in business services, hospitality, and manufacturing
Feb 257,000 227,000 Business growth made everyone think the economy had finally healed.
Mar 239,000 120,000 Poor growth across the board, and retail shed jobs.
Apr 75,000 115,000 Two sectors weren't doing well -- construction and government. Housing was hampered by foreclosures, and government was cutting budgets.
May 115,000 65,000 Seasonal weakness sent the Dow down 275 points.
Jun 87,000 80,000 The Dow dropped 180 points on the poor jobs report.
Jul 143,000 163,000 The Dow gained 217 points on the strong report.
Aug 190,000 96,000
Sep 181,000 114,000 Former GE CEO Jack Welch was suspicious that so many jobs were added right before the Presidential election. It's explained here.
Oct 132,000 171,000 The strong jobs report came out a week before the election. Data was collected before Superstorm Sandy hit.
Nov 149,000 146,000 The storm devastated New York, but didn't affect national jobs numbers.
Dec 243,000 155,000 Uncertainty over the fiscal cliff forced businesses hire less.

2011: 2.087 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 42,000 36,000 The economy had 984,000 more jobs than the year before.
Feb 188,000 192,000 Manufacturing jobs were up 189,000 year-over-year.
Mar 225,000 216,000
Apr 346,000 244,000
May 73,000 54,000 The poor jobs report sent the Dow and dollar down, and gold up.
Jun 235,000 18,000 The dismal jobs report panicked investors.
Jul 70,000 117,000 The Dow dropped 400 points despite job gains.
Aug 107,000 0 Astonishingly, absolutely no jobs were created, giving urgency to Obama's jobs speech the following week.
Sep 246,000 103,000 The economy added 2 million since the low point in February 2010, but was still down 6.7 million jobs since the high in January 2008.
Oct 202,000 80,000
Nov 146,000 120,000 Strong retail sales boosted job growth.
Dec 207,000 200,000 The economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011

2010: 1.066 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 28,000 18,000 52,000 temporary jobs were added, of which 9,000 were for the Census.There were 4 million fewer jobs than the year before.
Feb -69,000 -50,000 The economy had 3.2 million fewer jobs than February 2009. The Census added 15,000 temporary jobs, boosting the 48,000 temp jobs made available.
Mar 163,000 156,000 There were 2.3 million fewer jobs, and 633,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, than a year earlier.
Apr 243,000 290,000 The Census added 63,000 temp jobs, and manufacturing added 44,000 jobs. But there's still 1.3 million fewer jobs than the year before.
May 522,000 431,000 The Census added 411,000 temp jobs.
Jun -133,000 -125,000 The Census laid off 225,000 temp workers.
Jul -70,000 -121,000 The Census laid off 143,000, but business hiring was up by 71,000 jobs.
Aug -34,000 -31,000 There were 130.3 million jobs, a gain of 229,000 jobs in the past year and the first y-o-y job GAIN in 26 months.
Sep -52,000 -91,000 There were 130.2 million jobs, 344,000 more than the year earlier.
Oct 257,000 150,000 The economy had 829,000 more jobs than the year before.
Nov 123,000 39,000 There were 842,000 more jobs than the year before.
Dec 88,000 103,000 Businesses added 117,000 jobs, but government laid off 10,000.

2009: 5.070 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final)
JOBS ADDED (Original)

COMMENTS

Jan

-791,000

-598,000

The economy lost 2.4 million jobs, including 1 million manufacturing jobs, in the past 12 months.
Feb

-703,000

-651,000

4.1 million jobs, including 1.2 million in manufacturing, were lost Y-O-Y.
Mar

-823,000

-663,000

4.8 million jobs lost Y-O-Y, the most since the 2001 recession.
April -686,000 -611,000 There were 5.3 million fewer jobs than a year before.
May

-351,000

-345,000

Manufacturing was hit especially hard, as 1.6 million were lost Y-O-Y.
June

-470,000

-450,000

There were 5.4 million fewer jobs than the year before, including 1.6 million in manufacturing, Health care added 34,000 jobs.
July

-329,000

-247,000

There were 6 million fewer jobs than the prior July, including 1.67 manufacturing jobs.
Aug

-212,000

N.A.

The economy lost 6.2 million jobs YOY, including 1.6 million in manufacturing.
Sep -219,000 N.A. The economy was down just 6 million jobs.
Oct -200,000 N.A. There were now 5.8 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -6,000 N.A. 4.8 million jobs were lost in the past 12 months.
Dec -279,000 N.A. 4.2 million jobs were lost in 2009. This trend has been improving since July, when the economy was down 6 million jobs. Also, manufacturing was down 1.3 million jobs in the past 12 months -- better than in June.

2008: 3.569 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 15,000 -17,000 .6% growth over last year, but manufacturing lost 2.7% jobs.
Feb -87,000 -63,000 .4% growth over last year, while manufacturing lost 3% of its jobs.
March -78,000 -80,000 This was the worst monthly job loss since the last recession, and a mere .18% gain in the last year. The last time year-over-year job growth trended down this severely was in 2001, which led to 29 months of job losses.
April -210,000 -20,000 There were only .18% more jobs, and 3.38% fewer manufacturing jobs, than in April 2007
May -185,000 -49,000 Year-over-year, employment declined .11%. This was the first time there was a decline in year-over-year jobs since 2003, the end of the last recession. There were 3.55% fewer manufacturing jobs.
June -165,000 -62,000 Employment was down from the prior year.
July -209,000 -51,000 In the last year 150,000 jobs were lost, a .37% decline.
Aug -266,000 -84,000 Employment declined .5% during the year.
Sep -452,000 -159,000 Employment declined .64% during the year.
Oct -473,000 -240,000 There were 1.5 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -769,000 -533,000 In the last 12 months, 1.9 million jobs were lost -- 604,000 were in manufacturing.
Dec -695,000 -524,000 Employment declined by 2.5 million jobs, faster than in the 2001 recession, which never lost more than 2.1 million jobs in any 12-month period.

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.

NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:

You keep posting that same graph of "estimates" put forth by proponents of big government stimulus spending, Antontoo...the only line that counts is the bottom one...the top line is an estimate and I think you'll be the first to admit that estimates being thrown around at that point were anything but accurate.

You are doing the normal argument with ho support of any kind, me boy. Nothing. You are being made to look like what you are: A FOOL. And you are starting to morph into your normal personal attacks.
Problem is the normal, Oldstyle. Being a con troll, and posting con talking points, does not prove what you would like the truth to be.
You are arguing with a person with a solid economic background. This is not going to end well for you.

I'm actually enjoying a little back and forth with Anton, Georgie. He seems to have at least a modicum of knowledge of economics. Of course after you...he seems like the second coming of Adam Smith!

Of course if he's misquoted me...and gotten caught at it...he's not much different than you are...oops!

Ah. the effort to make the new guy like you. If you keep on your normal pace, that will end shortly. Really, it is always fun to see you morph into personal attacks.

 

[Oldstyle]

Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious economic estimates economists produce?

You say very silly stuff.

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel?

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created. That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".

Well since you've yet to admit anything beyond "a few jobs" atributable to stimulus your argument is entirely moot.

You say you can't answer how many jobs 800 billion dollars in stimulus spending and tax-cuts buys, but you are somehow SURE it's "just a few jobs".

Your statement is correct, of course. the stimulus was close to 500,000 in terms of stimulus spending with the rest in the form of tax cuts. And the actual total, as I recall, was about 780,000.
When the cbo was scoring the stimulus by type of outlays, tax cuts were considered the least effective stimulus measures. For all the reasons we tend to know, the taxes that went largely to upper class taxpayers did the very least.
Oldstyle is simply a con troll, and wants to make the stimulus look as bad as possible. And truth is not of any interest to him. So he has stated time after time after time that jobs saved is an invalid measure. That it does not exist. And he will, of course, not consider the facts as seen by economists. Which I find obvious, related to jobs saved. They are quite simple.
In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening. In the Great Recession, in late 2007 through early 2008 we saw job losses of over 500,000 and more. So stopping job losses was an important issue. And, I have explained to OS, such a saved job was just as good as a newly created job. In either case, one less person was unemployed whether the job was lost or saved.
So, if you care about the truth, then you need to try to understand both jobs saved and jobs created. You need to try to have both happen, if you are concerned at all about the well being of workers.
While the exact number or either, created or saved, is a bit difficult to find exactly, I felt and others with background felt the economists taked with the job were pretty accurate. And organizations like the cbo did the best they could. And provided strong estimates of what was happening.
Now, of course, we see the next level of criticism, where con trolls like oldstyle are suggesting that it is all a left wing conspiracy. Really find that stupid, and not possible to deal with. But over the last couple years, I have seen it all.

"In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening."
Every time Rshermr tries to pretend like he knows something about economics you get sentences like THAT one! Yeah, there's that college Economics degree shown off in all it's glory!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it? I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula. He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here. Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change? Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.

Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.

2016 Jobs Reports
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 168,000 151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.
Feb 233,000 242,000 Retail, health care and construction boosted growth. Mining and manufacturing lost jobs.
March 208,000 215,000 Losses in manufacturing and mining nearly offset gains in retail, health care and cons
April 123,000 160,000 Gains in health care and banking offset losses in mining, the government and retail.


2015: 2.744 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS (Final Report) JOBS (Original Estimate) COMMENTS
Jan 221,000 257,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail and construction.
Feb 265,000 295,000 Health care, retail and construction added the most jobs.
Mar 84,000 126,000 Temp jobs were the only hopeful sign.
Apr 251,000 223,000 Strong growth in health care, construction and temp help.
May 273,000 280,000 Health care, retail and hotels/restaurants grew the most.
Jun 228,000 223,000 Health care and retail trade added the most jobs.
Jul 277,000 215,000 Retail trade and health care were the biggest contributors.
Aug 150,000 173,000 Manufacturing lost jobs due to the strong dollar's impact on exports.
Sep 149,000 142,000 Mining (the oil industry) and manufacturing lost jobs.
Oct 295,000 271,000 Health care, leisure and hospitality, and retail contributed to growth
Nov 280,000 211,000 Construction, health care, and retail spurred growth.
Dec 271,000 292,000 Health care, construction, and leisure/hospitality added the most jobs.


2014: 3.015 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 187,000 133,000 The Dow rose 165 points on the strong job gains.
Feb 168,000 175,000 Winter storms limited job creation.
Mar 272,000 192,000 Jobs gains exceeded estimates.
Apr 310,000 288,000 Job gains were across the board except for information technology.
May 213,000 217,000 Health care, leisure and transportation added jobs while IT lost them.
Jun 306,000 288,000 Retail, health care, leisure, government and IT added.
Jul 232,000 202,000 Lower than expectations but still a solid gain. Increases were in health care, retail, and hotels/restaurants.
Aug 218,000 142,000 Health care and construction added the most jobs, while retail, auto manufacturing and IT lost jobs.
Sep 286,000 248,000 Retailers added jobs for back-to-school. Leisure (hotels, restaurants, bars) and health care also added.
Oct 200,000 214,000 Retailers added workers for Halloween. Leisure and health care also added jobs. Only IT reduced.
Nov 331,000 321,000 The biggest gain in nearly 3 years, thanks to retailers that added jobs for Black Friday. Other strong areas were health care, leisure, and IT.
Dec 292,000 252,000

2013: 2.311 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS CREATED (Final) JOBS CREATED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 190,000 157,000
Feb 311,000 236,000 Growth due to construction and retail trade.
Mar 135,000 88,000 Disappointing jobs report blamed on weather and retail layoffs.
Apr 192,000 165,000 The strong report sent the Dow above 15,000.
May 218,000 175,000 Dow rose 200 points. Housing added jobs.
Jun 146,000 195,000
Jul 140,000 162,000 Most growth in low-paying retail and restaurants.
Aug 269,000 169,000 Job gains were in low-paying retail and restaurant sectors.
Sep 185,000 143,000 Investors cheered because the Fed would keep monetary policy loose.
Oct 189,000 204,000 The government shutdown delayed the survey allowing more businesses to report.
Nov 291,000 203,000 Across-the-board job growth.
Dec 45,000 71,000 Job losses were across the board, mainly from poor holiday sales.

2012: 2.149 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 338,000 243,000 Most job growth was in business services, hospitality, and manufacturing
Feb 257,000 227,000 Business growth made everyone think the economy had finally healed.
Mar 239,000 120,000 Poor growth across the board, and retail shed jobs.
Apr 75,000 115,000 Two sectors weren't doing well -- construction and government. Housing was hampered by foreclosures, and government was cutting budgets.
May 115,000 65,000 Seasonal weakness sent the Dow down 275 points.
Jun 87,000 80,000 The Dow dropped 180 points on the poor jobs report.
Jul 143,000 163,000 The Dow gained 217 points on the strong report.
Aug 190,000 96,000
Sep 181,000 114,000 Former GE CEO Jack Welch was suspicious that so many jobs were added right before the Presidential election. It's explained here.
Oct 132,000 171,000 The strong jobs report came out a week before the election. Data was collected before Superstorm Sandy hit.
Nov 149,000 146,000 The storm devastated New York, but didn't affect national jobs numbers.
Dec 243,000 155,000 Uncertainty over the fiscal cliff forced businesses hire less.

2011: 2.087 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 42,000 36,000 The economy had 984,000 more jobs than the year before.
Feb 188,000 192,000 Manufacturing jobs were up 189,000 year-over-year.
Mar 225,000 216,000
Apr 346,000 244,000
May 73,000 54,000 The poor jobs report sent the Dow and dollar down, and gold up.
Jun 235,000 18,000 The dismal jobs report panicked investors.
Jul 70,000 117,000 The Dow dropped 400 points despite job gains.
Aug 107,000 0 Astonishingly, absolutely no jobs were created, giving urgency to Obama's jobs speech the following week.
Sep 246,000 103,000 The economy added 2 million since the low point in February 2010, but was still down 6.7 million jobs since the high in January 2008.
Oct 202,000 80,000
Nov 146,000 120,000 Strong retail sales boosted job growth.
Dec 207,000 200,000 The economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011

2010: 1.066 million jobs created
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 28,000 18,000 52,000 temporary jobs were added, of which 9,000 were for the Census.There were 4 million fewer jobs than the year before.
Feb -69,000 -50,000 The economy had 3.2 million fewer jobs than February 2009. The Census added 15,000 temporary jobs, boosting the 48,000 temp jobs made available.
Mar 163,000 156,000 There were 2.3 million fewer jobs, and 633,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, than a year earlier.
Apr 243,000 290,000 The Census added 63,000 temp jobs, and manufacturing added 44,000 jobs. But there's still 1.3 million fewer jobs than the year before.
May 522,000 431,000 The Census added 411,000 temp jobs.
Jun -133,000 -125,000 The Census laid off 225,000 temp workers.
Jul -70,000 -121,000 The Census laid off 143,000, but business hiring was up by 71,000 jobs.
Aug -34,000 -31,000 There were 130.3 million jobs, a gain of 229,000 jobs in the past year and the first y-o-y job GAIN in 26 months.
Sep -52,000 -91,000 There were 130.2 million jobs, 344,000 more than the year earlier.
Oct 257,000 150,000 The economy had 829,000 more jobs than the year before.
Nov 123,000 39,000 There were 842,000 more jobs than the year before.
Dec 88,000 103,000 Businesses added 117,000 jobs, but government laid off 10,000.

2009: 5.070 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final)
JOBS ADDED (Original)

COMMENTS

Jan

-791,000

-598,000

The economy lost 2.4 million jobs, including 1 million manufacturing jobs, in the past 12 months.
Feb

-703,000

-651,000

4.1 million jobs, including 1.2 million in manufacturing, were lost Y-O-Y.
Mar

-823,000

-663,000

4.8 million jobs lost Y-O-Y, the most since the 2001 recession.
April -686,000 -611,000 There were 5.3 million fewer jobs than a year before.
May

-351,000

-345,000

Manufacturing was hit especially hard, as 1.6 million were lost Y-O-Y.
June

-470,000

-450,000

There were 5.4 million fewer jobs than the year before, including 1.6 million in manufacturing, Health care added 34,000 jobs.
July

-329,000

-247,000

There were 6 million fewer jobs than the prior July, including 1.67 manufacturing jobs.
Aug

-212,000

N.A.

The economy lost 6.2 million jobs YOY, including 1.6 million in manufacturing.
Sep -219,000 N.A. The economy was down just 6 million jobs.
Oct -200,000 N.A. There were now 5.8 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -6,000 N.A. 4.8 million jobs were lost in the past 12 months.
Dec -279,000 N.A. 4.2 million jobs were lost in 2009. This trend has been improving since July, when the economy was down 6 million jobs. Also, manufacturing was down 1.3 million jobs in the past 12 months -- better than in June.

2008: 3.569 million jobs lost
MONTH JOBS ADDED (Final) JOBS ADDED (Original) COMMENTS
Jan 15,000 -17,000 .6% growth over last year, but manufacturing lost 2.7% jobs.
Feb -87,000 -63,000 .4% growth over last year, while manufacturing lost 3% of its jobs.
March -78,000 -80,000 This was the worst monthly job loss since the last recession, and a mere .18% gain in the last year. The last time year-over-year job growth trended down this severely was in 2001, which led to 29 months of job losses.
April -210,000 -20,000 There were only .18% more jobs, and 3.38% fewer manufacturing jobs, than in April 2007
May -185,000 -49,000 Year-over-year, employment declined .11%. This was the first time there was a decline in year-over-year jobs since 2003, the end of the last recession. There were 3.55% fewer manufacturing jobs.
June -165,000 -62,000 Employment was down from the prior year.
July -209,000 -51,000 In the last year 150,000 jobs were lost, a .37% decline.
Aug -266,000 -84,000 Employment declined .5% during the year.
Sep -452,000 -159,000 Employment declined .64% during the year.
Oct -473,000 -240,000 There were 1.5 million fewer jobs than last year.
Nov -769,000 -533,000 In the last 12 months, 1.9 million jobs were lost -- 604,000 were in manufacturing.
Dec -695,000 -524,000 Employment declined by 2.5 million jobs, faster than in the 2001 recession, which never lost more than 2.1 million jobs in any 12-month period.

As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created. All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.

NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:

You keep posting that same graph of "estimates" put forth by proponents of big government stimulus spending, Antontoo...the only line that counts is the bottom one...the top line is an estimate and I think you'll be the first to admit that estimates being thrown around at that point were anything but accurate.

You are doing the normal argument with ho support of any kind, me boy. Nothing. You are being made to look like what you are: A FOOL. And you are starting to morph into your normal personal attacks.
Problem is the normal, Oldstyle. Being a con troll, and posting con talking points, does not prove what you would like the truth to be.
You are arguing with a person with a solid economic background. This is not going to end well for you.

I'm actually enjoying a little back and forth with Anton, Georgie. He seems to have at least a modicum of knowledge of economics. Of course after you...he seems like the second coming of Adam Smith!

Of course if he's misquoted me...and gotten caught at it...he's not much different than you are...oops!

Ah. the effort to make the new guy like you. If you keep on your normal pace, that will end shortly. Really, it is always fun to see you morph into personal attacks.

I have no doubt, Rshermr...that the more Anton sees of your VAUNTED knowledge of economics...he's going to want to have long detailed discussions with you about things like economic schools of thought!

Oh wait, I keep forgetting you don't know anything about any of those! You just pretend to! What was I thinking?

 

[Rshermr]

Your problem is that I have a rather good memory and I remember what the narrative was BEFORE the stimulus...that if we spent the money we would "cap" unemployment at 8%! Then when the stimulus didn't perform at anywhere near that projection...the narrative was changed to what was shown on your "graph"...that if we hadn't spent the money we'd be up over 15%. Gee, what a great job by Barry and his minions to keep it just below 10%!

The "revisions" you speak of are how the Obama White House revised the narrative.

Ah. I would not make that accusation without at least an expert source. Again. As usual. No one, me boy, knew where the ue rate was going. That it went to just over 10% was not a real surprise to actual economists, but seems to be a surprise to you that it could have been so difficult to predict.
In addition, organizations like the cbo suggested that it could have gone considerably higher. But then, you, having had two classes in economics suggest you have the answers. Which are, strangely, the same as the bat shit crazy con talking points. what a coincidence.
Relative to your use of pet words for the president, just more proof of your lack of integrity or class. But it is funny, on the other hand, that you create a recession, going toward being a depression, to a new president and blame the new president for it.
Then, you have the loosing presidents political leaders meet on the night of the new pres' inauguration and determine that no republican will allow that new president to enact new efforts to tame the very recession they have created. And in practice that they voted against every effort that president and his party brought forward, and brought none forward themselves. Only a fool would believe that was ethical. Only a fool would say that was not un-American, in the effects it had on the workers of this country. Only a fool like you.

 

[Rshermr]

I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on! I by the way was not making a guess. I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!

I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.

Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel?

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created. That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".

Well since you've yet to admit anything beyond "a few jobs" atributable to stimulus your argument is entirely moot.

You say you can't answer how many jobs 800 billion dollars in stimulus spending and tax-cuts buys, but you are somehow SURE it's "just a few jobs".

Your statement is correct, of course. the stimulus was close to 500,000 in terms of stimulus spending with the rest in the form of tax cuts. And the actual total, as I recall, was about 780,000.
When the cbo was scoring the stimulus by type of outlays, tax cuts were considered the least effective stimulus measures. For all the reasons we tend to know, the taxes that went largely to upper class taxpayers did the very least.
Oldstyle is simply a con troll, and wants to make the stimulus look as bad as possible. And truth is not of any interest to him. So he has stated time after time after time that jobs saved is an invalid measure. That it does not exist. And he will, of course, not consider the facts as seen by economists. Which I find obvious, related to jobs saved. They are quite simple.
In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening. In the Great Recession, in late 2007 through early 2008 we saw job losses of over 500,000 and more. So stopping job losses was an important issue. And, I have explained to OS, such a saved job was just as good as a newly created job. In either case, one less person was unemployed whether the job was lost or saved.
So, if you care about the truth, then you need to try to understand both jobs saved and jobs created. You need to try to have both happen, if you are concerned at all about the well being of workers.
While the exact number or either, created or saved, is a bit difficult to find exactly, I felt and others with background felt the economists taked with the job were pretty accurate. And organizations like the cbo did the best they could. And provided strong estimates of what was happening.
Now, of course, we see the next level of criticism, where con trolls like oldstyle are suggesting that it is all a left wing conspiracy. Really find that stupid, and not possible to deal with. But over the last couple years, I have seen it all.

"In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening."
Every time Rshermr tries to pretend like he knows something about economics you get sentences like THAT one! Yeah, there's that college Economics degree shown off in all it's glory!

Ah, and the personal attacks continue. Normal, when oldstyle runs out of things to say. I see, oldstyle, you have given up any attempt, weak though it was, at arguing economics. Normal.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your problem is that I have a rather good memory and I remember what the narrative was BEFORE the stimulus...that if we spent the money we would "cap" unemployment at 8%! Then when the stimulus didn't perform at anywhere near that projection...the narrative was changed to what was shown on your "graph"...that if we hadn't spent the money we'd be up over 15%. Gee, what a great job by Barry and his minions to keep it just below 10%!

The "revisions" you speak of are how the Obama White House revised the narrative.

Ah. I would not make that accusation without at least an expert source. Again. As usual. No one, me boy, knew where the ue rate was going. That it went to just over 10% was not a real surprise to actual economists, but seems to be a surprise to you that it could have been so difficult to predict.
In addition, organizations like the cbo suggested that it could have gone considerably higher. But then, you, having had two classes in economics suggest you have the answers. Which are, strangely, the same as the bat shit crazy con talking points. what a coincidence.
Relative to your use of pet words for the president, just more proof of your lack of integrity or class. But it is funny, on the other hand, that you create a recession, going toward being a depression, to a new president and blame the new president for it.
Then, you have the loosing presidents political leaders meet on the night of the new pres' inauguration and determine that no republican will allow that new president to enact new efforts to tame the very recession they have created. And in practice that they voted against every effort that president and his party brought forward, and brought none forward themselves. Only a fool would believe that was ethical. Only a fool would say that was not un-American, in the effects it had on the workers of this country. Only a fool like you.

Gee, all those left wing talking points in one post as you whine about "bat shit crazy con talking points"? You don't even realize what a joke you are most of the time...do you, Georgie?

Run out of things to say? Me? You could only hope, little buddy! I'm having to much fun roasting your poser behind!

 

[Oldstyle]

Speaking of which...you STILL haven't explained your lie that Obama never negotiated a deal with China! You didn't think I forgot did you?