The Aftershock: The Jobs Report on Friday

[Politico]

Over 5 million private sector jobs have been created since February 2010

Even CNN debunked this. Wake up, dude.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having the core of your future workforce gutted and out of the market is a bad thing. You're welcome to spin and argue that it's not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but those pulling the cart have to see the fruits of their labour. We should have more people pulling the cart, not fewer.

As for the decline for men 25-45, it's got to be addressed. It's sort of the elephant in the back corner that nobody talks about. Eventually someones going to stand up and say, "hey, we've got a problem here".

Having lots of men unemployed, out of the job market without future prospects - isn't a good sign. What happens if all those men decide to get together and start taking what they want?

[Beet]

Over 5 million private sector jobs have been created since February 2010

Even CNN debunked this. Wake up, dude.

Here's what CNN has to say about it:

"In 2009, Obama's first full year in office, people in states across the country were losing their jobs at a startling clip. In Ohio, the unemployment rate was 10.6%.
 
But over the next few years, the nation saw slow increases in employment in the retail, education and health care sectors. Today, most states are gaining jobs. The key swing state of Ohio now has a 7.2% unemployment rate.
 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that a lot of jobs have been created under Obama's leadership -- 4.4 million by the bureau's latest count. What Obama did not say, however, was that the nation shed 4.3 million jobs during the early days of his term, and that the net gain since he took the oath of office in January 2009 is just 125,000 jobs"

CNN claims that the 5 million claim doesn't tell the whole story and is therefore false, and if you want to read it that way, then yes, I'll amend my statement to be

"4.3 million jobs were shed during the early days of Obama's term, and since February 2010 over 5 million private sector jobs have been created."

No one is hiding the facts here- I freely admit the job situation Obama inherited was disastrous, with a loss of some 700,000 jobs/month, resulting in about 4 million jobs lost before the full effect of his policies could be felt. But that doesn't change the fact that since February 2010, private sector job growth has been proceeding at a pace quicker than population growth. We can also supplement that with targeted stimulus, if we want to. But the truth is, state tax revenues have increased for 9 consecutive quarters and soon, state and local government employment will stop being a drag, which should improve the trend further.

[Politico]

Mealy mouthed defenses of this bad economy will not save Obama.

When is Obama going to man up and take responsibility for the last year or two? Is that too much to ask for from a president?

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having the core of your future workforce gutted and out of the market is a bad thing. You're welcome to spin and argue that it's not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but those pulling the cart have to see the fruits of their labour. We should have more people pulling the cart, not fewer.

As for the decline for men 25-45, it's got to be addressed. It's sort of the elephant in the back corner that nobody talks about. Eventually someones going to stand up and say, "hey, we've got a problem here".

Having lots of men unemployed, out of the job market without future prospects - isn't a good sign. What happens if all those men decide to get together and start taking what they want?

There's no point, Ben. Like Obama, Beet is in Washington, and is out-of-touch with what is happening outside of Washington. Hell, I am abroad at the moment, but even I know what is happening back home (and my ties are to more affluent counties relative to the nation's median county).

[Beet]

Having the core of your future workforce gutted and out of the market is a bad thing. You're welcome to spin and argue that it's not.

Long term unemployment is a bad thing, yes. The damage to the careers of young people today from the bad job market is a very bad thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I think work should certainly be encouraged for people who want assistance. But again, I don't discount that lots of people could have valid reasons for not being in the formal labor force. I disagree that more work is an inherently good thing. Inherently, work is disagreeable, otherwise it wouldn't be work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As long as men are freely making that choice and have the means or accept the consequences, they might resist you forcing them to do something they don't want to. There's a name for forcing people who don't want to work to do so - it's called slavery. It used to exist in your own state of Texas, in fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but now you sound like Joseph Chamberlain Class warfare would happen, I suppose. Only Chamberlain believed that the ballot would give people that right, for they would be in the majority.

[Beet]

Mealy mouthed defenses of this bad economy will not save Obama.

When is Obama going to man up and take responsibility for the last year or two? Is that too much to ask for from a president?

Well, I've been talking about his record since February 2010, which is in the last two years.

[Beet]

There's no point, Ben. Like Obama, Beet is in Washington, and is out-of-touch with what is happening outside of Washington. Hell, I am abroad at the moment, but even I know what is happening back home (and my ties are to more affluent counties relative to the nation's median county).

Hey, my cousin just spent his life savings on a misguided conversion to Islam, only to find out the person he gave his money to shystered him out of it, and now he's broke penniless (fortunately another result was him abandoning Islam). He even refuses a car from his parents because he says he can't afford the insurance. So I'm not exactly ignorant of economic difficulties. The economic situation of much of the country is outrageous. But really the only hope is much more stimulative and lower/middle class friendly policies that increase incomes at the bottom.

[Wisconsin+17]

Beet, if they are home because they want to be home, that's one thing. But I don't believe that's what's happening. What I see happening is the men simply not getting hired for jobs. I work with a fair amount of street people, and it's really criminal what's happening to them. These are able-bodied young men that could be put to useful work and put their hands and minds to productive enterprises, that are being discarded like worthless refuse.

This bothers me.

I myself have a disability and have had a tough last four years (thanks Obama!), and am really getting tired of it. There's lots of stuff I can do and if I'm having difficulty, I hate to think of the folks with fewer qualifications.

[Beet]

Beet, if they are home because they want to be home, that's one thing. But I don't believe that's what's happening. What I see happening is the men simply not getting hired for jobs. I work with a fair amount of street people, and it's really criminal what's happening to them. These are able-bodied young men that could be put to useful work and put their hands and minds to productive enterprises, that are being discarded like worthless refuse.

This bothers me.

It's sickening. I certainly think Obama should have fought harder-- for progressive policies, for his stimulus proposal, and so on. My dissatisfaction is from the left, because of my study of the economy in my life so far. I just don't buy claims like Mitt Romney's that the solution is to cut the marginal tax rate on medium-sized businesses. Business taxes occur on profits, which means that they only pay a tax if they're already making a profit. Costs incurred in doing business are deducted. A business will always invest if the return is greater than the cost, so the tax rate it pays on its profit will only have a marginal decision on whether to invest. The main factor is whether they'll be able to generate enough revenue to cover costs. And that goes back to what's in my signature.

That money would be better spent transferred directly into the pockets of poor and middle class people who would spend it. Businesses would invest then because they would have the customers to generate the revenue they want. Hence, all policies that strengthen the middle class, are, on balance, better for the economy. A rising tide lifts all boats. By the way, in the past, a lot of that middle class income growth was pushed along by private-sector unions. Unions are corrupt, they can hurt the competitiveness of the industries they organize in, and strikes are one hell of an annoyance, but they can set wage expectations across entire industries that mean people have growing purchasing power year after year. And that leads to broad-based growth.

Last year, median income fell for all groups except the top 5 percent of earners. Is the solution really to make policy more favorable to the top 5 percent, to give companies more profits that they don't spend or hoard overseas?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the problem with the economy today is that willing labor isn't being utilized to its fullest extent. For all the quibbling over what this or that statistic means, I think we actually agree on the substantive issue.

[Badger]

Maybe, just maybe, we should wait for the report's actual release tomorrow before trying to parse the numbers? Just sayin.....

[Eraserhead]

Politico, I really don't think you want to debate economic issues with Beet.

Anyway, I've really seen no evidence of these jobs reports moving the electorate this cycle. I can't imagine this one would either, whether it's better or worse than expected.

[J. J.]

Over 5 million private sector jobs have been created since February 2010; that's faster than population growth. Since the Bush recession ended, private sector job creation has been happening much faster than population growth.

And, as of last month, we have fewer jobs that we had when Obama started.  That number has also decreased in the last three months, with more 300,000 fewer jobs.  

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

I would add the words, so far, to all of that.

[Politico]

Politico, I really don't think you want to debate economic issues with Beet.

He is clinging to a failed economic doctrine that even the president can no longer defend.

The proof: Falling income levels for almost everybody, 8% unemployment, 23 million hopeless people, and all of this after four years of trillion dollar deficits. We cannot afford four more years of the last four years.

Keynesian economists are out-of-touch with the Washington Way and all it entails. Some keep saying "if only we stimulated more!" That's not the problem when the resources are wasted mostly on special interest groups.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You guys are going to make us (Romney supporters) look really silly when a few days from now, Obama still leads nationwide.

Cheer up. Tonight was the grand slam we've planned for, and it's going to be a back-to-back grand slam if the jobs report is below 100,000 (and no matter what, the jobs report will not help Obama).

A grand slam requires that your team have runners on the bases, which Team Romney did not.  Nor was this even a home run.  It was more akin to a lead-off single with an unforced error that put the runner on second.

Furthermore, unless the official BLS numbers diverge way way way more than usual from the ADP numbers which found that private employment increased 162,000 in September, tomorrow's job report will have job growth over 100,000.  While not great.  Romney will not be landing a one-two punch on Obama this week, because there is no two.