Jobs Report

[Don]

Where's CTB? He's usually quick to post these things.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/economy/january-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs last month, according to the government. That's an improvement from December, but was far weaker than hoped. Economists had been expecting an addition of 178,000 jobs.

Many economists had also been hoping that December's weak job gains would be revised much higher, as many experts were quick to write off the December report as a fluke. The number was revised higher, but only by 1,000 jobs to 75,000.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate was 6.6% in January, as 10 million Americans were counted as unemployed. Overall, the unemployment rate has improved substantially since it peaked at 10% in 2009.

That said, much of the decline in unemployment has come for a discouraging reason: some Americans are dropping out of the labor force. As of January, only 63% of Americans over age 16 participated in the labor market -- meaning they either had a job or looked for one. This matches the lowest level since 1978.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs last month, according to the government. That's an improvement from December, but was far weaker than hoped. Economists had been expecting an addition of 178,000 jobs.

And that isn't even enough, if it were sustained for years, to make for a healthy economy. The liberal media wants us to believe 125,000 jobs per month is good. The Marxist traitor in the White House wants us to think 150,000 per month will be sufficient. But the fact is, sustaining job growth at 175,000 a month would mean six years would pass before the economy gets to the point it was when George W. Bush was still in office.

Heidi Shierholz (Economic Policy Institute): 175,000 jobs a month won’t make us whole until 2020​

As of March, I estimate that the U.S. economy needs 8.8 million jobs to get back to the labor market health that we had in December 2007 ... Conceptually, this measure is what it would take to restore the labor market to the Dec. 2007 unemployment rate (5.0 percent) at today’s “structural” labor force participation rate, meaning it fully takes into account the fact that demographic shifts since 2007—like baby boomers hitting retirement age—and other “non-cyclical” factors mean that a somewhat lower share of the overall population should be seen as potential workers today than in 2007.

It should be noted that getting back to the degree of labor market health that we had in December 2007 is quite conservative. The labor market from 2002-2007—the recovery from the 2001 recession—saw the weakest job growth in a recovery in at least three generations. The labor market did not come close to regaining the health of the late 1990s before the Great Recession started.

In short, we're being lied to by this corrupt socialist administration, they are maneuvering in every venue imaginable to try to make things look pink and rosy, whereas the truth is this traitor has nearly single-handedly destroyed the U.S. economy, and will continue to work toward that end until he is either convicted on articles of impeachment, leaves office at the end of his term, declares himself dictator (an eventuality I've recently moved from the "highly unlikely" to the "possible" category in my own personal filing system of scenarios for the future), or achieves his goal, which he isn't that far from accomplishing now. If anyone in this country isn't scared for their freedoms, their future, and their nation, they aren't paying attention.

 

[InTheLight]

It's a very slow, protracted, anemic "recovery". Hopefully a Republican gets elected in 2016 followed by rapid economic growth. That would mean that Obama's legacy would be the President that couldn't get the economy moving and the idea of government spending to produce jobs would finally be put to rest.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the job participation rate because it is being heavily weighted by the 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day.

 

[Revmitchell]

What the primary weight of the job participation rate is being padded with is people who want to work, need to work, but have given up finding works. It is a very serious issue.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Where's CTB? He's usually quick to post these things.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/economy/january-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



That said, much of the decline in unemployment has come for a discouraging reason: some Americans are dropping out of the labor force. As of January, only 63% of Americans over age 16 participated in the labor market -- meaning they either had a job or looked for one. This matches the lowest level since 1978.

Does the report say why they are dropping out of the labor force?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's a very slow, protracted, anemic "recovery". Hopefully a Republican gets elected in 2016 followed by rapid economic growth. That would mean that Obama's legacy would be the President that couldn't get the economy moving and the idea of government spending to produce jobs would finally be put to rest.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the job participation rate because it is being heavily weighted by the 10,000 baby boomers that retire every day.

Refresh my memory ......How did Ronny Regan do it?

 

[church mouse guy]

The economy is much more dismal than the government says. Manufacturing orders are very low.

We have too many rules and regulations in Washington DC and we have the highest corporate income tax in the world.

The USA cannot compete under the weight of a massive inept federal government.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The economy is much more dismal than the government says. Manufacturing orders are very low.

We have too many rules and regulations in Washington DC and we have the highest corporate income tax in the world.

The USA cannot compete under the weight of a massive inept federal government.

And considering Chris Christy, the state of NJ cant compete under his weight either. (Guess that was a cheap shot).

Really though, your points valid. Manufacturing??? In the USA????........Gone Gone Gone

Ask Billy Joel about Allentown or Bruce Springsteen about NJ. Songs have been written.:tear:

Come on take a donut ...... They will only go to waste..... sending them to the Hoboken mayor after they go stale! LOL

 

[InTheLight]

What the primary weight of the job participation rate is being padded with is people who want to work, need to work, but have given up finding works. It is a very serious issue.

Wrong. It's driven by people retiring.

 

[Revmitchell]

Wrong. It's driven by people retiring.

First, of those who are retiring a large portion are retiring early because they cannot find a job. Otherwise they would not have retired. So the retirement factor is a bit misleading.


Second, no its not.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Wrong. It's driven by people retiring.

Even the left-leaning Washington Post doesn't agree with you.

WaPo: Why are people dropping out of the workforce?​

2) The bad economy is keeping workers in school and out of the labor force. Demographics can't entirely explain of the labor force slide. For one, the number of Americans working or actively seeking work has actually fallen faster than demographers had predicted ...

And here's another clue that this isn't just a demographic story: The participation rate for workers between ages 25 and 54 fell sharply during the recession and still hasn't recovered. Obviously, retirements can't explain this:

Now, the Post did start out with aging as the number one reason, citing supposed numbers that show baby boomers are retiring en masse, as the Post put it. However, they included a graph from Bloomberg (you'll see it in the linked article) that shows that aging workers are staying in the workforce longer, which sorely contradicts their claim.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

First, of those who are retiring a large portion are retiring early because they cannot find a job. Otherwise they would not have retired. So the retirement factor is a bit misleading.


Second, no its not.

Rev., quite true & very frustrating. Forced retirement to a generation who has much more to offer companies & the country is both greedy & shameful.

 

[InTheLight]

First, of those who are retiring a large portion are retiring early because they cannot find a job. Otherwise they would not have retired. So the retirement factor is a bit misleading.


Second, no its not.

About two-thirds of the decline in the labor participation rate is because of retirement. Only 25% is due to discouraged workers quitting their search for a job.

Go here and click on the paper "On the Causes of Declines in the Labor Participation Rate"

http://philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/research-rap/

I await your proof that the main reason for the decline in the labor rate is because people have given up looking for work.

 

[InTheLight]

Even the left-leaning Washington Post doesn't agree with you.

You are cherry picking your data.

Here is an excerpt from your article, which leads off with retirement being the #1 cause:
---
Economists disagree, however, on exactly how much demographics are responsible for the current fall in the participation rate.*The Chicago Fedestimated*in 2012 that retirements accounted for one-fourth of the drop in labor force participation since the recession began.*Other analysts, including Barclays,*have suggested*that aging Boomers could account for more than half the drop.

Meanwhile, a recent paper by Shigeru Fujita of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia staked out a more nuanced view: Demographics, he argued, didn't play a huge role in the labor-force drop between 2007 and 2011. But since then, retirements are responsible for basically the*entire*fall of the participation rate. One possible reason is that many older Americans postponed retirement immediately after the financial crisis to rebuild their battered 401(k)s. By 2012 or so, they began retiring en masse.

 

[InTheLight]

Now, the Post did start out with aging as the number one reason, citing supposed numbers that show baby boomers are retiring en masse, as the Post put it. However, they included a graph from Bloomberg (you'll see it in the linked article) that shows that aging workers are staying in the workforce longer, which sorely contradicts their claim.

Yes, those boomers that stay in the workforce are staying longer but it's not as if they make up a majority of boomers.

 

[Revmitchell]

As the Washington Post highlighted, since President Obama took office, the biggest moves out of the labor force have come from individuals going onto disability, pursuing education, or “other” (which, according to Julie Hotchkiss of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, may take account of discouraged workers leaving the workforce).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You are cherry picking your data.

Here is an excerpt from your article, which leads off with retirement being the #1 cause:

Not cherry-picking, because I dealt with it directly, and you even quoted from portion of the post with which I dispensed with their own "cherry-picked" data that their own outsourced graph didn't support.

Yes, those boomers that stay in the workforce are staying longer but it's not as if they make up a majority of boomers.

"Boomers" were born between January 1, 1947 and December 31, 1964, the majority of them after 1955. Boomers, as you can seem from this chart ...

... expect to be in the labor market much longer, and so the the GenXers behind us. Many, like me, don't plan to retire, just "slow down." For me, it's a biblical perspective: There isn't anything about "retiring" in the Bible.

 

[Revmitchell]

Moreover, the recent decreases in the labor force participation rate were not primarily because more people were retiring early or because more teenagers were going to school. Rather, most of the people who have been leaving the labor force are supposed to be in their prime working years. The saddest thing about the sinking labor force participation rate is not just the economic implications. It is that millions of people have lost hope and have given up on searching for jobs in the supposed land of opportunity.

http://bpr.berkeley.edu/2013/04/the...ate-why-this-trend-should-be-taken-seriously/

 

[InTheLight]

Thanks for the links, guys. There is data supporting both of our views. Confusing. I think we can all agree that this is the worst economic recovery of all time with Obama's policies likely hindering it rather than helping it. For example, you keep extending unemployment benefits and of course people are going to stop looking for work!

 

[Don]

Thanks for the links, guys. There is data supporting both of our views. Confusing. I think we can all agree that this is the worst economic recovery of all time with Obama's policies likely hindering it rather than helping it. For example, you keep extending unemployment benefits and of course people are going to stop looking for work!

The Philadelphia report makes an error by trying to make a case that "all" of the drop could be attributed to those who put off their retirement two years ago, but are now doing so.

None of these reports address the number of full time jobs that may have decreased, vice the number of part time jobs that may have increased; thus, affecting some individuals to drop out of the "looking for work" category because they were looking for jobs that may no longer exist (full-time work).

If anyone has data on those numbers--i.e., what kinds of jobs were created, what industries, etc.--I'd appreciate the link.

I tend to side with TND and Rev on this one; the typical slant is meant to give a "hopeful" tone. We have a tendency to give positive news, creating a hopeful attitude, and pray that the attitude will make the news reality.