CNBC's Santelli Right, 'Experts' Wrong; Unemployment Spikes to 9.1%
CNBC panelists and guests always make predictions in the minutes leading up to the Labor Department's release of the jobs report and June 3 was no exception.
While economists Diane Swonk and Mark Zandi and CNBC's own Steve Liesman all made predictions of job gains between 100,000 and 150,000 - Rick Santelli threw his own lower prediction in just seconds before the announcement: 55,000. (Video available here)
Santelli was the only one on CNBC to come close to the actual data of 54,000 jobs added. The May gains were less than one-fourth the size of April's gains. The unemployment rate also climbed to 9.1 percent. Reuters and other outlets immediately called the gains "less than expected," but even CNBC's predictions revealed that many in the media refuse to see the weakness of the economy and remained convinced the economy is in "recovery."
CBSNews.com called it a "sluggish recovery," but a recovery none the less on June 3, 2011. The New York Times reacted to the jobs report saying the hiring slowdown was "raising concerns once again about the underlying strength of the economic recovery." The MSNBC.com headline for the jobs report said the "recovery hits rough patch."
Many in the news media continue to spin bad economic news positively for the Obama administration, just as they did in 2010. After Obama's "recovery summer" ended with 14.9 million Americans still unemployed and worrisome housing and GDP data, the mainstream media went out of the way to support the stimulus and find any "bright spot" they could. Speaking about a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, Fortune's Shawn Tully said "This is actually not such bad news." Try telling that to the millions of unemployed Americans.
The media have particularly refused to sufficiently scrutinize the adminstration on the issue of unemployment. Reporters have grasped for any positive indicators they can find, but rarely criticized Obama for the lengthy stretch of high unemployment. In 2009, the rate hit a 26-year-high and the United States saw the most jobs lost in a single year since 1940, yet journalists omitted the failure of the stimulus package and refused to hold Obama accountable for the jobs losses.
In 2011, the media have clung to the recovery theme despite the failure of the stimulus package to keep unemployment below 8 percent, despite lower home prices in "double-dip" territory and the even the 1.8 percent GDP growth in the first quarter which was "well below expectations" and little more than half the fourth-quarter economic growth.
A day before the Labor Department's announcement, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) put out a warning about the May 2011 jobs report. It was posted on Business Insider June 3:
"May's job numbers will disappoint; meaningful job creation on Main Street has collapsed," William C. Dunkelburg, NFIB's chief economist, said in the statement.
Dunkelberg also said, "With one in four owners still reporting 'weak sales' as their No. 1 business problem, there is little need to add employees, especially with the uncertainty about future labor costs arising from new regulations and legislation. And, if Congress doesn't deal effectively with the trillion dollar deficit, we've got plenty to keep us worried."
- Julia A. Seymour's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Leftist Wishful Thinking
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 10:54am.
It's getting tiresome.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
I wanted to see the old rate
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 10:57am.
I wanted to see the old rate to see what this "spike" to 9.1 was all about. I hate liberal media bias like any informed person, but I also dislike it when conservative media outlets exaggerate things: i.e. a spike implies a massive rise while I doubt this was a massive increase.
Anyhoo, I type "unemployment rate" into Bing and I see something funny!
First off, the top link is the Newsbusters one so way to go Newsbusters! These are the three headlines:
"CNBC's Santelli Right, 'Experts' Wrong; Unemployment Spikes to 9.1%" - Newsbusters
"Unemployment rate drops" - Tahlequah Daily
"Unemployment Rate Held Steady at 9.1 Percent in May" - BET
Notice how all three possibilities are listed!
The article on the drop was a local article on a specific county somewhere and the other one is just an article from the racist BET.
(I don't use Google anymore due to the way it hypes socialist holidays while ignoring real ones which means Microsoft is in the odd position of being the "least evil" alternative)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Rusty
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:15am.
Now just what would you call a spike? You have 13.9 million people looking for a job. And this is not including those that have dropped off the rolls because their benefits have run out. Do the math on that. .3% of 13.9 million. You will see how many that is, and I am sure you will be surprised at the number. And keep in mind, we need more than 200,000 jobs created per month to stay even. Your going to need 300,000 to make a good dent in the unemployment rate.
The real unemployment rate is some where around 21%. But you sound like your fine with that.
BTW, Tahlequah Daily is a strongly democrat paper. BET is also. CNBC is a democratic supporter as well. Except for maybe Santelli, and he is simply a market guy. And a good one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
When you combine this with
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 10:57am.
When you combine this with QE3, (government code for "print more paper money"), lack of American drilling, you get much higher fuel costs. Devaluing the dollar and compounding the rise in the prices, things are really going to get expensive.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Isn't it time to fire experts who always get unexpected?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 10:58am.
Who never get anything right? How many times can an expert be wrong before losing "expert" status? Just askin'.
Watching CNBC for financial coverage is much like
Submitted by no tingly legs on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:03am.
watching MSNBC for political coverage, though perhaps not as biased. NBC news, which runs both, is one big cheering squad for Duh One, so why should I believe anything they broadcast when it comes to making political or financial decisions?
You would think there would be no Left and Right there
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:07am.
When it comes to making money shouldn't there only be right or wrong? Guess not.
Steve Liesman is the worst of
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:25am.
Steve Liesman is the worst of the bunch as far a bias goes on CNBC. He is always touting the democratic line on the economy. He always backs off from arguments with Santelli. And Rick has no problem telling him he just a parrot.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Bass,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 10:21pm.
Liesman - why, what an appropriate name for this jerk. I always changed the channel when he came on with his partisanly biased "analysis" and predictions. I couldn't stand the guy.
CNBC - good, but...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 9:07pm.
I just wish they would stop bringing on John Harwood on Squawk Box. He is nothing but a Leftist political hack.
CNBC isn't telling you what financial decisions to make - they are reporting what is going on in the business world, nothing more. Business journalists are in a position where they are forced to be objective, at least as far as reporting on business goes.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
To Paraphrase FDR's Morgenthau in the 2011 Setting
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:22am.
After two years of Obama spending all he has to show for it is more unemployment than when he started and a pile of debt. The lessons of FDR are overwhelming. Does Obama not understand? Or is this deliberate, perhaps generating a crisis that "needs" more government intervention to seize more power?
We seem to be left with just a few possibilities
1. Obama and advisers are idiots incapable of learning
2. Obama knows central planing hasn't worked in the past but thinks he is smarter than everyone else and he can make it work.
3. Obama is doing this deliberately
4. ?
Its deliberate Comrade.
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:27am.
Its deliberate Comrade.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
"The lessons of FDR are
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:59am.
"The lessons of FDR are overwhelming."
Yes, they are, but as reality shows, liberals most often either forget the past or revise it. That explains in part why they make the same mistakes over and over and over and over...
Every time the unemployment
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:21am.
Every time the unemployment percentages rise and every time the new jobs numbers drop there are reports from the liberal MSM with the phrase "experts were surprised" (or some variant). They can't be experts if they are surprised at the numbers all the time so it would behoove them (the liberal MSM) to find real experts.
Of course, that's common sense...a trait lacking in the liberal MSM.
Gee, on GMA Bianna G. claimed it would be 400,000
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:29am.
And millions upon millions of jobs already "created."
The segment was more like an Obama campaign spot.
I'm guessing the 'real' unemployment rate is north of 20%
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:33am.
In Dave's book of economics, that spells D E P R E S S I O N.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:12pm.
And the media's "coverage" of Obama's Economy is the spreading of pretty pink frosting over a pile of sh....
The world of NewsBusters' Julia A. Seymour
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 9:56am.
Where an initial projection of a monthly jobs gain of 54,000 ISN'T an economic recovery.
Perspective
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:17am.
54, 000 out of a population of 300 million. Of which - a guess - 200 million are of working age.
You should be upset that the unemployment rate isn't much higher. After all, that's the result you are aching for.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
If we're talking in perspective...
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:25am.
...then it needs to be noted that just two and a half years ago, the U.S. was losing approximately 700,000 jobs every month. And now we are having monthly job gains of 50,000 - 200,000.
It's pretty hard to argue that 54,000 jobs gained in a month after the worst recession since the Great Depression ended is not a recovery, no matter what the working age population is.
Bad math
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:11am.
On what planet is 54,000 greater than 700,000?
Talk to me about recovery when we have at least recovered those jobs lost. Because by my calculations, you still have 646,000 to go under that example.
Besides, your God will NOT permit the private sector to hire people. There could be about 9000 more people hired in SC and about 1000 or so more union jobs in WA alone if He would do something about the NLRB's war on the private sector, with Boeing as its first casualty. (For but one example)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
On the planet Liberal.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:13am.
.
Bad semantics
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:33am.
Monthly job gains after significant monthly job losses. It sure sounds like a recovery, and I'm sure most reasonable people would agree.
The same ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:50am.
occurred during the Great Depression.
Your suppositions about what other people might think are baseless, liberal pablum for the weak minded. I am too old for pablum. Serve your mush elsewhere.
And that's a change of subject
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:59am.
A subtle change of subject, but one nonetheless. My point was: monthly job gains after significant monthly job losses is a recovery. A comparison to the Great Depression or anything else in history doesn't change that.
A real recovery would be with 400k+ jobs created monthly
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:06pm.
A real recovery would be with 400k+ jobs created each month. That's what we'd need to get unemployment back down. You Liberals are so ignorant.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Unsane says a recovery is 700K+ each month
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:29pm.
You say a recovery is 400K+ each month. I couldn't help but notice how relative and specific you guys are with your definition of "recovery". But I'm pretty sure monthly job gains after significant monthly job losses is a recovery. In other words, our economy is currently in pne.
Bird man
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:47pm.
You saying it doesn't make it so. I know quite a few college grads who can't find work. The housing market is NOT recovering. In fact home values are still dropping, and I don't know of anyone getting a raise (besides politicians).
Recovery? Even Obama's not trying to say we're in a recovery.
I'm not basing it on me saying it
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:00pm.
I'm just saying it's hard to argue that monthly job gains is not a recovery. One would have to have an amazingly relative definition of "recovery" to argue that. And believe me, I've seen some pretty impressive semantic gymnastics from Unsane and Brunette here on the topic.
~I heard my name being taken in vain
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:21pm.
Really, Ick? I virtually never discuss economic matters, as they bore me. Please link so I can review my total awesomeness on this subject.
I hestiated in putting a user's name...
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:28pm.
...in one of my posts because I felt that person might take it personally. But I did it anyway.
A definition of "recovery" that is only 400K+ job gains a month, without acknowledging the substantial improvement that has occurred in the past two and a half years (when the monthly job losses peaked) is a very impressive relative concept of a recovery.
~You realize that doesn't make sense, right?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:44pm.
You brought me into a topic I haven't addressed in at least a year, and when I ask you to which comment you refer to as my "semantic gymnastics" you call that "taking it personally" as if I'm at fault in some way.
I have not addressed the state of the economy in quite some time, certainly not recently, and I've never discussed the subject in detail. Your comment states otherwise, and is therefore untrue. I'm sure Unsane has given you a thorough schooling on the matter, but the fact is you put my name out there at random, for some reason.
As I recently went some three months without a comment, and have commented on a limited number of threads since then, it would be easy to go through the comments I've made and produce evidence of my semantic gymnastics regarding the "recovery".
Or you could just admit you threw my name out there for sh!ts and giggles.
Don't misunderstand me
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:53pm.
I gave you the example of your semantic gymnastics. It's here in this thread: your definition of "recovery" being 400K+ jobs a month. And I explained why it's semantics. It's an unreasonably relative and specific definition.
~Dude, get some glasses
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:59pm.
That was Free.
My response to your post was my first comment on this thread. Obviously.
Ah, semantics. Like when you enjoy the teabagger word?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:59pm.
"Teab***ers"
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 1:59pm.
It's still absolutely hilarious that Tea Party activists and sympathizers would be offended by being called that.
You're going to have to
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:30pm.
You're going to have to explain the relevance of that to this discussion about semantics. I know you have a point in this somewhere.
That you are a lying slimey little snit.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:12pm.
And there is no point in having a discussion with you.
I agree Icarus
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:11pm.
in fact, according to Hilda Solis, SecLabor, just yesterday claimed, "In the last 15 months, we've created 2.1 million private sector jobs." That's impressive, huh? Do the math.
One accepted statistic indicates that the US needs to create 140,000 jobs/month to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate steady. Flat. Essentially, zero job growth relative to population.
Unfortunately for SecLabor Solis, she ignored the 350,000 jobs lost in the public sector during the same 15 months - meaning actual job growth during the last 15 months of "recovery" was 1.75 million.
Let's see... 1.75 million / 15 months... 116,667 jobs created per month! Oh, wait. That might not be such a good statistic. That number -if I remember my 1st grade math correctly- is less than the 140,000 we need to sustain population growth. (Maybe this is why libs need abortion to remain legal; it's the only way to make Keynesian economics even remotely feasible.) So if were creating less jobs than those entering the work force, entirely under the Obama administration and their economic policies, we're actually adding to the number of unemployed, rather than decreasing it. The only reason the unemployment rate has fallen below the 10% level is that the chronically unemployed number has increased and the number of those actually looking for work has cratered. They're not employed, they've given up looking for employment.
Maybe that's recovery in your book, but in a lot of living rooms (or under those bridges), you'd have a tough time selling it.
Assuming that I accept your premise...
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:42pm.
...about an economic recovery only being the much quoted 144,000 jobs gain a month that is needed to keep up with population growth (which I absolutely don't accept; going from approximately 700,000 jobs lost a month two and a half years ago to 54,000 jobs added last month is totally an economic recovery), it makes sense for Solis to only speak of private sector jobs over the past fifteen months since it's reasonable not to include the 2010 Census public sector workers that had jobs and then lost them over that time period.
You don't accept?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:23pm.
What does that mean? You think the number of people entering the workforce each month is less? Do you have statistics to back that up or are you going with the unicorn approach? It is generally accepted that 140k new jobs are needed each month to keep with current population growth. This administration has put in place fiscal policies that have resulted in a average of roughly 117k net jobs per month. That's not job growth.
When you present numbers comparing a particular recent month to a particular month in history, you're making an unfair assessment. Why not choose a month when more private sector jobs were "created" in your analysis? It would show better for your recovery argument. The reason, I suspect, is because the tend is now downward. Sure, it's better than it was in January 2009, but there is a curve since then, and after billions upon billions of dollars of federal spending-much of it on "make work" projects like FDR's WPA- we're now seeing a decline. Why? Because just like in auto sales, these jobs were propped up by the Fed through massive printing of new paper, and the feds spending some of it on temporary employment and some of it to keep people unemployed. This is not by any standard "recovery."
Economies are measured over the long haul. 1.8% GDP is anemic. We'll likely not reach that level for Q2. And the Obama Keynesians are out of tricks, other than a politically impossible Stim3. Recovery? Nah. This is at best a low level plateau. At worse, the beginning of a double dip.
By the way- Census jobs were quite highly touted as real improvement during "Recovery Summer" last year. And McJobs, seasonally adjusted, make up HALF of the 54,000 added last month. That's part time jobs at an evil fast food restaurant at minimum wage.
Loss of public sector workers
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:37pm.
Loss of public sector workers is good. They must become private sector wokers. Unless of course you pay them not to find a job. Who is not going take that deal? (except me) I couldn't do it... what? suck on the gooberment teat for all it's worth. But that is just me! I have been working since I was 14 now 55. So you commies can blow me. Since Bill Clinton made this popular as a democratic norm why not.
There are no job gains.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:10pm.
The figure is 9.1% how is this progress from 9.0%? Do you understand the basic terms: Gross and Net? No wonder this country is in such a dire condition, common terms are being re-defined to suit the MSM and Obama narrative .
Ica, Hay I say 1,000 K + a month is a recovery.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:08pm.
Some wished for recoveries work faster than others.
The increase to the 9.1% rate from 4.7% (when the democrats took over congress) is No recovery.
pne= decline
You Didn't Build That.
I admit that uptick in the unemployment rate...
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:21pm.
...you mention does not at all meet the definition of "recovery". But an uptick in monthly job gains/losses from -700,000 to +54,000 is very much an economic recovery.
Hello there in Ickrus land, 9.1% is more than 8.9%
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:44pm.
Ta da! and the total is a NEGATIVE NUMBER...- 646,000
At your rate of "recovery" every single person in America will be unemployed by 2211.
What part of Arithmetic do you not get?
You are confusing lib recycling claims with net jobs.
You Didn't Build That.
Nah, I'm actually on pretty firm ground when I say ...
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:58pm.
54,000 jobs gained last month compared to the job losses of two and a half years ago is an economic recovery.
That's pretty straightforward, and impossible to deny.
Reality check
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:38pm.
Actually, it's not straightforward, and very easy to deny, and it is hilarious to see you accusing me of semantic gymnastics right before you post this idiocy.
You have the most selective study of history I have seen in some time. You want to jump up and down and say "54,000 jobs is a RECOVERY!!! Especially in view of the job losses that happened 2 and a half years ago!!!"
And those job losses STILL have to be made up for. Therefore, 54,000 is a drop in the bucket.
I'm wondering if you pay bills like this. I'm sure you've taken out a $20,000 car loan, and then only paid off $5000 of it and declared it paid off...right? It only makes sense, considering your shoddy math skills, which further shows me (in an unrelated topic) why Socialist thieves such as yourself should NEVER be permitted to teach mathematics..
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You definately understand
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:51pm.
"54,000 jobs is a RECOVERY!!! Especially in view of the job losses that happened 2 and a half years ago!!!"
That's absolutely right, and it takes some mighty semantics to deny that is an economic recovery.
As per your car loan analogy (although it's not completely relevant here; the recovery in the monthly jobs numbers is more significant than $5K of $20K), paying off part of that car loan is progress on paying of the loan.
Still math deficient
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:30pm.
It is absolutely incorrect. Hence the car loan analogy. By your definition, if you pay off $5000 of a $20,000 car loan, you consider it paid off. Never mind the $15,000 actually left to pay.
54,000 jobs out of the hundreds of thousands - MILLIONS - of jobs lost is not a recovery. Jump up and down and throw a temper tantrum insisting that it is, but it isn't.
Just like in markets. CNBC shows graphics fairly frequently that indicate where various stock indices are in relation to their highs in October 2007. The DJIA, NASDAQ and S&P 500 aren't at those levels yet, so there is no recovery there as well. I'm sure you'd jump up and down and shriek for joy at a "up" day in the markets in the 1930s, gleefully screaming "recovery!" - but that did not a recovery make. The stock market didn't recover from the Crash of 1929 until 1954.
Talk to me about job recovery once we get back the jobs lost - all of them, not just this piddling 54,000 - and the economy once again has expanded to the point when jobs open up at numbers above the peak at 2007.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~Not
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:36pm.
if it's accruing interest faster than you're paying it off. Then you're going in the hole.
What people are pointing out is that the number of jobs added to the economy every month is consistently equal to or less than the number of people entering the job market. If you only pay the interest on your car loan, you hold steady. In order to pay down the principal you have to pay more than the interest, and in order to make our way back to where we were we need to add more new jobs than new people in the workforce.
There, my first post on this topic. *yawn*
Ic, 2.5 years ago, how about 2009
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:51pm.
graph. This is the famous icarus "recovery", 202 K less jobs lost?
For example you are bleeding out at a rate just over a quart/hour.... voila now you are bleeding out at a rate just less than a quart/hour, hint you are still going to bleed out.... A job recovery is when blood is put back in your system.
Employment as % of population.
You Didn't Build That.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:34pm.
And where did I say that recovery equals 700,000 jobs a month? My definition of recovery is a bit more elaborate than that - but if you want to find out what that is, it is best that you do not put words in my mouth...and simply ask what it is.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am taking Larry Kudlows
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 7:53pm.
I am taking Larry Kudlows remarks about what #s we need to get unemployment down. No doubt Unsane is using numbers from a difference economist. In both cases, the numbers are far higher than what The Obama Economy is producing.
Now, I know you would rather distract us all from the the failures of The Obama Economy, but that fact of the matter is, The Obama Economy is not creating enough jobs to get unemployment down, and thus speed the recovery.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
There is no recovery.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:22pm.
Look at the total employment numbers. There haven't been this few persons employed in the US since the end of the dot com recession. There were fewer people then, yet the work force has shrunk to the same size. We haven't had an unemployment problem like this since the Carter recession. The MSM can spin this all it wants but the facts are clear : the economy is not improving in any significant way, and certainly not enough to provide jobs for all the people who are trying to enter the worforce.
History is ALWAYS relevant. Those like you who dismiss history are doomed to repeat it.
Comparisons, whether historic or not, ...
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:31pm.
... aren't relative to a discussion of whether the change in the job losses/gains constitutes a recovery by definition.
"[T]he economy is not improving in any significant way[.]"
700,000 jobs lost every month two and a half years ago. And 54,000 jobs gained last month.
It is less than the number of
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:30pm.
persons who entered the workforce last month. Ergo, the unemployment rate increased. What about that do you not understand? The number of persons unsuccessfully seeking employment as a fraction of the workforce is growing. Some recovery. Another important clue here : the markets did not greet this news with enthusiasm. The markets are about prediction : a negative market reaction means the predictions about employment growth were overly optimistic.
You want to look at just the last month's change as if it is not part of the economic continuum. Looking at the last year.
total employment, non agricultural :
There is your recovery. 399k net gains since last year. That doesn't even cover the new grads entering the workforce, much less any immigrants. legal or otherwise. Some would argue this is noise in the measurement since it's less than 0.3% of the total.
Again...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:30pm.
54,000 does not equal or exceed 700,000.
Of course you expect most reasonable people to agree with your "logic" rooted in some of the poorest math I have seen outside of a Department of History. But then, you think most reasonable people support turning the government into a big pampering and babying agency as you do. Not to mention your wish to have the government constantly steal from the successful...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane, NL207, upcountrywater
Submitted by Icarus on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:09pm.
The logic of you guys is: spend a whole lot of time explaining how monthly job gains after a time period of monthly job losses isn't an economic recovery. From what I can see, you guys are basically framing the same case in slightly different ways. "The monthly job gains now are not as big as the monthly job losses then." "The unemployed as a percentage of the working age population hasn't changed that much."
It can all be summedup as: "It's not as good as it should be." However, this doesn't change the fact that an economic recovery has indeed occurred. Because a severely wounded patient hasn't learned to walk again yet (even though they have long since been stabilized and are now in good spirits) doesn't mean that a recovery hasn't occurred. To argue that there hasn't been a recovery is absurd. To argue that 54,000 jobs added last month is not a recovery from approximately 700,000 jobs lost each month two and a half years ago is also absurd.
Beyond unimpressed with your "argument"
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 3:35pm.
It is not an economic recovery, and if there was anyone else other than your God, His Majesty The Shahinshah in the White House, you'd be crying that it is a depression.
You are all alone in your little echo chamber. The markets thoroughly disagree with you. As unemployment rose to 9.1%, the unemployment rate disagrees with you. History disagrees with you. Math disagrees with you.
When we get back ALL - this means ALL, not the piddling 54,000 you are popping champagne corks over - of the jobs lost back and can start adding jobs to that total, then by all means, talk all you want about a recovery. Until then, none has happened.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ignoramus.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:45pm.
I didn't make any arguments about the changes in employment over the last month. I argued there has be NO meaningful growth in employment since this recession began, and the BLS statistics support this claim. You, the dishonest little snot that you are, want to make your claims of recovery upon employment statistics for one month. The particular measure you want to choose isn't even representative of the private sector workforce as that number, exclusive of agricultural employment, DECLINED last month.
One month of gains, especially gains that include the public sector, does not make a recovery.
I own your sorry ass. Come around anytime you need a spanking.