Good news for America.
Good news for America.
I thought it would be flat with temp holiday workers getting laid off...
Much like the stock market seems desperate to continue rising, I think people are sick on not making money and want to do what they can to kill the recession blues... investing, hiring, etc.
There's not really any other explanation that I can think of, because the worries of Greek default, rising oil prices due to Middle East instability, a lingering 2012 presidential election, etc. suggests that business and the wealthy would be shutting their wallets along with the middle and lower classes and horde as many assets as possible... but they are sick of being stagnant! They want to grow and expand and be prosperous!
A couple of reasons....Originally Posted by badger
Pent up demand...
People have been paying down debt and now have more disposable income...
It also helps the unemploment rate go down when over a million people drop out of the workforce----This is a very weak recovery
One more important reason: The earnings reports have been pretty good for most sectors. Housing sector (& associated sectors like banking) has been in a great depression but all others have been mostly good.
Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)
A little help from Abbott and Costello on how to "shape" the numbers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-...b_1115502.html
But the "hidden unemployed" side of the ledger has always been the case, so if you ding a democratic president for it, you would have to ding the republican predecessor as well.
Unless of course, you think there was no "hidden unemployment" number before Obama took office.
As long as each administration uses a similar counting methodology (and they do) there is no way to interpret this but that it is good news for the economy and thus good news for America.
Is it enough? No. But we are clearly headed in the right direction, despite the protestations on the right that we are not.
All those rich fat cats are hiring now cause they're still getting those fat tax breaks.
Isn't that the reason for not taxing them more?
I'm glad to see the rate go down, regardless of the reason(s). Too many people wanting to work but can't.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
Word... and it's about to get worse locally with American Airlines having layoffs.
Obama will run on killing bin laden and that he isn't the Republican. He will not run on his economy.
I hope and pray he does, but he won't because we ALL know it sucks. 8.3% may be better than it was, but it's nowhere close to good.
We ALL know his stimulus was a huge waste of money for no or little gain.
Like I said, I hope and pray he runs on his economic record. He won't.
"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-- Thomas Paine
The problem with the numbers is how they are derived.
If you have 9.0% employment one month, then the next month, (assuming everything thing else is equal between the two months) 7/10's of those people are still unemployed but removed from being counted due to falling into the "given up" bucket. Then you will see a new unemployment rate of 8.3%.
Nothing has changed with the exception of how you categorized the unemployed. There is no actual improvements, it's a shell game. It doesn't matter who the president is.
BTW, the BLS changed the CPS survey in 1994, significantly. They even state the numbers before and after that date are not comparable.
Last edited by dwarthog; 2/3/2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason: added CPS
Incumbents only get evicted if voters are fed up with the status quo and are convinced that the new guy will be better than the old guy.
Ron Paul could be that guy, because he's viewed as an outsider with fresh ideas and who isn't beholden to special interests.
Mitt Romney could be that guy, because he could tout his business success (read: the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics).
I don't think Rick Santorum or Newt could be that guy for various reasons.
I also don't think Obama is that incumbent that will get evicted. Not yet, anyway. Election is young and who knows what will happen down the road.
But when the BLS shows the economy added 243,000 jobs it's hard to argue that the improvement in the unemployment numbers is strictly a "shell game."
The problem with the numbers is how they are derived.
If you have 9.0% employment one month, then the next month, (assuming everything thing else is equal between the two months) 7/10's of those people are still unemployed but removed from being counted due to falling into the "given up" bucket. Then you will see a new unemployment rate of 8.3%.
Nothing has changed with the exception of how you categorized the unemployed. There is no actual improvements, it's a shell game. It doesn't matter who the president is.
BTW, the BLS changed the CPS survey in 1994, significantly. They even state the numbers before and after that date are not comparable.
Facts undercut your argument.
I am not sure there's a better way to track unemployment than the current way. You have to just track those willing and able to work, not everyone. If you want employement numbers, cool! Compare actual employment month to month. But, if you just want to determine those who are "unemployed," I don't think you should count:
1- Babies. And other people that aren't of working age.
2- Full time parents who have no intention of entering the work force.
3- Retired persons who think Walmart greeter jobs are stupid.
4- Those who just don't feel like working. Trust fund babies, those staying their parents' basements forever, etc.
Added against what number which was removed? It's still a calculation with moving values on both sides
Sidebar:
What level of unemployment is considered "full employment"? I remember several years ago the unemployment rate was very low, maybe 3% or something. Economists regarded whatever the figure was as "full employment" as there is a certain percentage of the population that is just un-employable.
For instance: You could go down to the Daycenter for the Homeless in Tulsa, and put up a sign that said "Dig holes-$8/hr". You could then put out a bunch of shovels, and there would still be bums laying on the sidewalk in front of the sign.
Not just locally for AA.....this one will be spread across the land......and don't forget the Boeing folks.Word... and it's about to get worse locally with American Airlines having layoffs.
Yes, good distinction.
The unemployment figure counts those who are looking for a job they are willing to take. It doesn't simply measure those who can't find a job.
I have an acquaintance who was an unemployed elementary school teacher for a year. A teaching job is the only job she would consider. She's now employed.
Ingles solamente (¡no exepciones!)
Good day for America.
Phil as usual you are right. There is a lot of pent up demand. I have a 10 year old car I will be replacing and a lot of others are in the same situation.
Posting Permissions
