The results of Obamanomics

[CARLHAYDEN]

Can you say “stagflation”?

However, “the personal consumption expenditures price index, rose at a 3.8 percent rate,” somewhat higher the the growth rate of the economy.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42796520

[CARLHAYDEN]

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON | Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:47am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of Americans say the U.S. economy is in a recession or a depression despite official data that show a moderate recovery, according to a poll released on Thursday.

The April 20-23 Gallup survey of 1,013 U.S. adults found that only 27 percent said the economy is growing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Double-Dip Recession

By Michael Pento | May 5, 2011 3:18 PM GMT

The evidence of a double-dipping housing market and economy are becoming undeniable, even to those who still perilously cling to the notion that government intervention has been a salve instead of a poison.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/141738/20110505/double-dip-recession.htm#ixzz1LYcvzWLd
 
Robert Reich

The Economic Truth That Nobody Will Admit: We're Heading Back Toward a Double-Dip

We're heading in the direction of a double dip -- but you'd never know it if you listened to the upbeat messages coming out of Wall Street and Washington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-truth-about-the-econo_b_842998.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As it was, with the March jobs report, since the April jobs report contains positive news, once again CARL will be quiet about it.

Incidentally, the WSJ had a nice little article today about how manufacturing jobs have been seeing slow but steady growth in both 2010 and 2011 after having a steady decline during the 2000s.  I'd give a link to the article, but the WSJ has a paywall.

But here's a link to the BLS website so you can look at the raw numbers yourself:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

[CARLHAYDEN]

As it was, with the March jobs report, since the April jobs report contains positive news, once again CARL will be quiet about it.

Incidentally, the WSJ had a nice little article today about how manufacturing jobs have been seeing slow but steady growth in both 2010 and 2011 after having a steady decline during the 2000s.  I'd give a link to the article, but the WSJ has a paywall.

But here's a link to the BLS website so you can look at the raw numbers yourself:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

I find it interesting to look at the data, rather than the spin.  So, lets look at the April employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  Most people would have expected the Civilian Labor force to have increased in April to approximately 153,115,000.  That’s a difference of approximately 217,000.

Third, during the same period, the number of those “Not in labor force” (unadjusted, 16 years and over) from 85,977,000 in March to 86,248,000 in May.  That’s an increase of approximately 271,000.

Fourth, for a longer term perspective, here’s a comparison for the month of April (unadjusted, age 16 and over) for 2008 and 2011:

                                                                    2008                2011                 Change
Civilian noninstitutional population         233,405,000    239,146,000     5,741,000
Civilian Labor Force                                 153,208,000    152,898,000     - 310,000
Employment Level                                   145,921,000    139,661,000   - 6,260,000
Unemployed                                                7,287,000      13,237,000     5,950,000

Finally, Obama apologists will brag about how the “adjusted” unemployment rate increased only two-tenths of a percent in April from March, to 9.0%.

If you are interested in data, rather than spin, you can see the data at:

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you are interested in data, rather than spin, you can see the data at:

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Actually, I can't see the data at that link, nor can you.   That's a temporary URL that the BLS server gives for the dataset requested.  That's why I gave the link to the page where you can make the request.

[CARLHAYDEN]

MAY 17, 2011

Construction, Manufacturing Fall

BY ALAN ZIBEL AND JEFF BATER

U.S. home construction fell unexpectedly in April, an indication that the troubled sector will remain a drag on the economic recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576328980598765642.html

-----

I really love the use of the term "unexpectedly" in economic news. 

[Tender Branson]

April budget gap narrows sharply from year ago

(Reuters) - A surge in income tax receipts helped cut the U.S. monthly budget deficit in half in April compared to a year ago, figures issued by the Treasury Department on Wednesday showed.

The budget deficit came in at $40.5 billion in April, compared with an $82.7 billion shortfall in April 2010, the Treasury said.

But the relatively favorable data didn't change the picture of an economy heading deeper in debt and just days away from a May 16 deadline for hitting a legally set ceiling on government borrowing.

For the first seven months of fiscal 2011, which ends September 30, the cumulative deficit swelled to $869.9 billion from $799.7 billion in the comparable year-earlier period.

In April, the budget report shows government spending rose to $330 billion from $328 billion in April 2010 and for the first seven months of the fiscal year it was up to $2.179 trillion from $1.999 trillion a year earlier.

On the income side, receipts in April rose to $289.5 billion from $245.3 billion. Within that category, individual income tax receipts rose strongly to $155.6 billion from $107.3 billion in April 2010 -- possibly a sign of an improving job market in a strengthening economy though Treasury offered no explanation.

Corporate income tax receipts in April gained to $25.1 billion from $23.1 billion in April last year, less striking than the increase in individual income tax receipts but nonetheless on the same upward trend.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/us-usa-budget-deficit-idUSTRE74A67N20110511

[Tender Branson]

If the deficit falls comparably for the final 5 months of the fiscal year, the dificit might be lower than last year, or about 8% of GDP.

[feeblepizza]

-8.6% unemployment rate
-$4 trillion increase in the debt since Obama's tenure began
-$14.3 trillion debt
-25% increase in debt each year compared to 12.5% each year under Dubya

[King]

-8.6% unemployment rate
-$4 trillion increase in the debt since Obama's tenure began
-$14.3 trillion debt
-25% increase in debt each year compared to 12.5% each year under Dubya

The debt increases regardless of who is President as long as there is a projected deficit and your rates are lies.  Thanks though.

[opebo]

-8.6% unemployment rate
-$4 trillion increase in the debt since Obama's tenure began
-$14.3 trillion debt
-25% increase in debt each year compared to 12.5% each year under Dubya

The trough after capitalism's inevitable crash lasts a long time - probably at least another president or two after Obama.  But the causation is Reagan through Bush II, not Obama.  This is in fact the best argument for Keynesianism - the near impossibility of recovery after capitalism's inevitable crash.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Job creation limps along after recession

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-05-19-job-creation-recession_n.htm

[WillK]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

-8.6% unemployment rate
-$4 trillion increase in the debt since Obama's tenure began
-$14.3 trillion debt
-25% increase in debt each year compared to 12.5% each year under Dubya

The debt increases regardless of who is President as long as there is a projected deficit and your rates are lies.  Thanks though.

To be fair, I don't think they've covered that in high-school economics yet, you know when you have debt and don't pay it off, it collects interest and the payments get bigger as time goes on?

Also... there a number of things, including the Wars, that Bush didn't include in the 'tab' - that Obama now is, which more than accounts for the disparity of Bush/Obama.

[CARLHAYDEN]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

Are you really that dense?!?

The length of posts is limited here, so I suggest you take an economics course.

[WillK]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

Are you really that dense?!?

Not at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have taken several economics courses. 

As a rational, overly-educated person, I don't find a slight divergence in the trend of the labor force and the population to be at all odd.  Considering some of what I know about demographic and economic trends, a divergence is expected.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Census Bureau economic news for April 2011

New orders for manufactured durable good decreased.

Shipments of manufactured durable goods decreased.

Unfilled orders for manufactured durable goods increased.

Inventories of manufactured durable goods increased.

Nondefense new orders for capital goods decreased.

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/adv/pdf/durgd.pdf

[phk]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

If it's age 16-65 it's an problematic divergence (people doing an extra semester of college or watever), not just over 16 years old.

Male Labor Force Participation rates are lower in the US than any OECD country.

[CARLHAYDEN]

...
First, the “Not Seasonally Adjusted” Civilian Labor force shrank from 153,022,000 in March to 152,898,000 in April for all persons 16 years and over!

Second, the Civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years and older increased from 239,000,000 in March to 239,146,000 in April.

Now, to rational people, that’s a really odd divergence.  

Is it?  Have you checked with a rational person?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The labor force declined in previous reporting periods so why would "most" people have expected it to increase in this one?

Are you really that dense?!?

Not at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have taken several economics courses.  

As a rational, overly-educated person, I don't find a slight divergence in the trend of the labor force and the population to be at all odd.  Considering some of what I know about demographic and economic trends, a divergence is expected.

Here’s the nonseasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, aka ‘The Adjustment Bureau’:

Category                                                         12/08                          4/11                  Change
Civilian noninstitutional population                235,035,000          239,146,000          4,111,000
Civilian labor force                                         154,349,000          152,898,000         - 1,451,000
Employed                                                       143,350,000          139,661,000        - 3,689,000

Now, December of 2008 was the last full month of Bush’s presidency and April of 2011 the most recent month of Obama’s presidency for which data is available.

As can be clearly seen, the growth in the civilian noninstitutional population is what we should expect, but, the civilian labor force has been shrinking under Obama (NOT JUST ONE MONTH)!
The number of persons employed has also been shrinking under  Obama as well!

Now, if the civilian labor force were the same percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population in April of 2011 as it was in December of 2008, then the unemployment rate (U-3) would be 11.1%!

Now, the adjustment bureau doesn’t want people getting the right ideas about Obamanomics, so, they simply reduce the civilian labor force to keep the U-3 unemployment rate down.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Stubborn Jobless Claims Still Keep On Climbing Higher

Published: Thursday, 26 May 2011

By: Reuters

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to 424,000

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43179580

[krazen1211]

Stagflation is coming. Actually, it's here.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ia-HJiY5QFIl0DMhd82rOVICRI8w?docId=CNG.251a905ac90328d88a8e288a85e13e7f.71

Crisis still stalks the global economy with stagflation lurking and Japan set for recession this year despite moderate overall recovery, the OECD said on Wednesday, warning against complacency.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development held its 2011 global growth forecast steady at 4.2 percent in its latest semi-annual Economic Outlook report, but warned of negative uncertainty.

[opebo]

The problem with the funny stagflation theory is that we're still in severe deflation.

[WillK]

As can be clearly seen, the growth in the civilian noninstitutional population is what we should expect, but, the civilian labor force has been shrinking under Obama (NOT JUST ONE MONTH)!

Anyone educated in economics and demographics could predict that the civilian labor force would be about level this year regardless of who was president. Add in the slow recovery from a deep recession and it makes total sense to see a 1% drop in the size over the labor force since 2008.   

Maybe you are the one who needs to take some courses. 
Some reading to get you started:

• A Forbes article from 2005 predicting that the size of the US workforce will level off by 2010 (without knowing there would be a recession or Obama): 
  http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/28/career-babyboomer-work-cx_sr_0929bizbasics.html
  
• A more recent Business Week article addressing the same subject:
  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-07/aging-baby-boomers-reduce-jobless-rate-matus-says.html
  

 

[CARLHAYDEN]

As can be clearly seen, the growth in the civilian noninstitutional population is what we should expect, but, the civilian labor force has been shrinking under Obama (NOT JUST ONE MONTH)!

Anyone educated in economics and demographics could predict that the civilian labor force would be about level this year regardless of who was president. Add in the slow recovery from a deep recession and it makes total sense to see a 1% drop in the size over the labor force since 2008.   

Maybe you are the one who needs to take some courses. 
Some reading to get you started:

• A Forbes article from 2005 predicting that the size of the US workforce will level off by 2010 (without knowing there would be a recession or Obama): 
  http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/28/career-babyboomer-work-cx_sr_0929bizbasics.html
  
• A more recent Business Week article addressing the same subject:
  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-07/aging-baby-boomers-reduce-jobless-rate-matus-says.html
  

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics aka ‘the adjustment bureau,’ has an interesting way of covering its derriere on the U-3 data.

Consider the following (not seasonally adjusted) data of “Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now” for the periods December of 2008 and April of 2011:

December, 2008          5,180,000
April, 2011                   6,482,000
Difference                    1,302,000

Next, for the same period lets look at the “Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available” for the same periods:

December, 2008           1,908,000
April, 2011                    2,466,000
Difference                        558,000

Then there are those “Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons for Not Currently Looking” for the same period:

December, 2008             642,000
April 2011                       989,000

The three categories aggregate difference amounts to 2,849,000.  So, if we are to believe the adjustment bureau, the reduction in the civilian labor force is NOT some demographic driven factor as you suggest.