Tomorrows job report will be bad

[Tender Branson]

Number of Temporary 2010 Census Workers Paid by the Census Bureau May 23-29:

495.000

Number of Temporary 2010 Census Workers Paid by the Census Bureau June 13-19:

250.000

That number will be closer to 200.000 by the end of June. Therefore the Census Bureau has kicked out about 300.000 Census workers during June. Combined with weak private sector hiring, about 200.000-400.000 jobs will have been lost in June.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/private-sector-employment-rises-13000-adp-says-2010-06-30

[phk]

Excepting Census jobs it should be like +20,000.

[??????????]

The Obama recovery!

[opebo]

The Obama recovery!

You long for something even worse.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The Obama recovery!

You long for something even worse.

As long as the Republicans can gain a few political points... a depression is so worth it.

[Lief 🗽]

Republicans must be ecstatic!

[Vepres]

Republicans must be ecstatic!

Of course, anybody would be happy to be proven right

[Sbane]

Republicans must be ecstatic!

Of course, anybody would be happy to be proven right

The President doesn't have that much control of the economy. The stimulus is the only thing Republicans can point to and obviously the economy isn't tanking due to it. Rather there is a case to be made that another stronger stimulus is required with tax breaks for companies that create jobs as well as starting new construction projects for roads, renewable energy, nuclear power plants (one can hope) etc.

The "problem" with the first stimulus was that a lot of it went to state governments in order to stop job losses there. So a lot of the money saved jobs, instead of creating it. I don't find anything wrong with that, do you? A job saved is the same as losing one and gaining another one, right? Without the stimulus the unemployment rate would be easily into the double digits right now.

[Vepres]

Republicans must be ecstatic!

Of course, anybody would be happy to be proven right

The President doesn't have that much control of the economy. The stimulus is the only thing Republicans can point to and obviously the economy isn't tanking due to it. Rather there is a case to be made that another stronger stimulus is required with tax breaks for companies that create jobs as well as starting new construction projects for roads, renewable energy, nuclear power plants (one can hope) etc.

The "problem" with the first stimulus was that a lot of it went to state governments in order to stop job losses there. So a lot of the money saved jobs, instead of creating it. I don't find anything wrong with that, do you? A job saved is the same as losing one and gaining another one, right? Without the stimulus the unemployment rate would be easily into the double digits right now.

Oh I agree with you, I was simply trying to annoy Lief there

I can agree with infrastructure investments and state and local government aid. However, the Republicans do have a point that the new social programs and reforms passed or possibly passing are making companies nervous.

Of course, I think the economy would recover very quickly if access to credit was only greater, particularly for companies of all sizes.

[Sam Spade]

Who knows what the jobs number is going to be and how accurate the numbers are (after the various fudging games)?  The jobs number is always a lagging indicator anyways (though it can be leading in certain situations in credit-based recessions/depressions such as the present).

[Mr.Phips]

Who knows what the jobs number is going to be and how accurate the numbers are (after the various fudging games)?  The jobs number is always a lagging indicator anyways (though it can be leading in certain situations in credit-based recessions/depressions such as the present).

It is often a coincident indicator.  A monthly loss of jobs after there are steady jobs gains usually means a recession has started.  This was the case in December 2007, February 2001, June 1990, May 1981, and January 1980.  Its almost like clockwork.  If June is a negative number, it will likely mean that a recession began in June or will in the next couple months.

[??????????]

Who knows what the jobs number is going to be and how accurate the numbers are (after the various fudging games)?  The jobs number is always a lagging indicator anyways (though it can be leading in certain situations in credit-based recessions/depressions such as the present).

It is often a coincident indicator.  A monthly loss of jobs after there are steady jobs gains usually means a recession has started.  This was the case in December 2007, February 2001, June 1990, May 1981, and January 1980.  Its almost like clockwork.  If June is a negative number, it will likely mean that a recession began in June or will in the next couple months.

We never have left the depression that started at the end of 2007.

[opebo]

We never have left the depression that started at the end of 2007.

Then why aren't you crying out for a 4-5 trillion dollar 'stimulus' like World War II, States?  It is the only way out.

[??????????]

We never have left the depression that started at the end of 2007.

Then why aren't you crying out for a 4-5 trillion dollar 'stimulus' like World War II, States?  It is the only way out.

WW2 didn't end the depression.

[Bo]

We never have left the depression that started at the end of 2007.

Then why aren't you crying out for a 4-5 trillion dollar 'stimulus' like World War II, States?  It is the only way out.

WW2 didn't end the depression.

Then what did?

[??????????]

Post war tax cuts.

[Roemerista]

Well the bad right now is better than the problem corrective policy can have theoretically. If it took place at the  wrong time it can lead to a swing away from the "natural" business cycle which would lead to a worse recession. So the glass can be half full?

And yes it was bad, we lost 125k jobs according to the AP wire.

[Sbane]

And yes it was bad, we lost 125k jobs according to the AP wire.

We lost about 200k census jobs though. So the private sector actually added 75k jobs. Nothing great but at least we didn't lose jobs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the drop in the hours work was disappointing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe Obama should have read my signature. What an idiot.

[Verily]

And yes it was bad, we lost 125k jobs according to the AP wire.

We lost about 200k census jobs though. So the private sector actually added 75k jobs. Nothing great but at least we didn't lose jobs.

Yeah, this was actually a pretty good report, especially given the doom and gloom forecasts out there. Census employment changes are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. The economy added 83,000 jobs.

[Sam Spade]

The report sucked, but according to this thread, no one should be surprised. 

[Torie]

It is interesting that the unemployment rate goes down the more folks cease to look for work and just sit on their ass. Does this annoy you as much as it annoys me?

[Sam Spade]

It is interesting that the unemployment rate goes down the more folks cease to look for work and just sit on their ass. Does this annoy you as much as it annoys me?

Yes, but neither you or I are a government statistican or enabler or whatever.

[opebo]

It is interesting that the unemployment rate goes down the more folks cease to look for work and just sit on their ass. Does this annoy you as much as it annoys me?

Yes, but neither you or I are a government statistican or enabler or whatever.

No, you're two lazy privileged members of an idle, parasitic elite, who resent when your inferiors don't either struggle ceaselessly or die, as you have come to expect of them.