Discussion: Economy Adds 292,000 Jobs In December, Unemployment Remains At 5 Percent

Discussion for article #244414

WHAt these Data DON’t SHOW is THE LITerLLY BILLIONs of high SCHool EDucated WHIte men that aRE no longer working BECAUSe they Can’t CompETE wiTH MExicaNS, caLVEs as BIG as MUScles. Instead, they’re Using THE BLAcks PLAYBooK BY getting GOVernement HANdouts FROM the GOVernment. ASK Yourself. Would YOU Rather wORK MINIMUM wage and EAT cat FOOD or GET SNAP and EAT LOBster???

5 Likes

ANOTHER strong jobs report!?! This country is going to the dogs. Thanks, Obama.

5 Likes

GOP: (crickets)

2 Likes

This is good news. Now that these people have jobs each of them can go out and buy three guns, adding nearly one million new guns in the hands of private citizens.

2 Likes

Pro tip : when the GOP says policy XYZ will destroy jobs, it is a safe bet that the exact opposite will occur.

You’d think at some point they would be tired of being wrong all the time.

3 Likes

But wait, they’re not wrong! All of the jobs created under Obama are service industry jobs. They’re all low paying jobs. All of them! Or, so I hear.

2 Likes

Yes, all the jobs that are created under Dem/Obama policies don’t count for one reason or another.
GOP : “Excluding all the jobs that were created, Obama hasn’t created a single job!”

3 Likes

Actually the other day Rubio said the economy has flat-lined and the stock market is falling apart.

In what reality are these guys living?

3 Likes

Just a note on the real jobs situation - in 2007 we reached a peak in jobs, the working age population was 232 million, there were 153 million in the labor force (66.1%), 146 million employed, 123 million full time.

Last month? The population was 251 million, the work force was 157 million (62.7%), the employed was 149 million, of which 123.5 million were full time.

So, 19 million in population growth, only 4 million in labor force, only 3 million in employed, and only 1/2 million more full time jobs - in 8 years.

THIS is the Obama recovery. And by the way, “full time” simply means you work more than 35 hours a week - no matter how many part time jobs it took to get you there.

And then there’s this:

BLS tables found here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/queryt

The full time employment for the year, unadjusted data:

Jan - 118.8 million
Feb - 119.3 million
Mar - 120.0 million
Apr - 120.4 million
May - 121.9 million
Jun - 122.3 million
Jul - 123.1 million
Aug - 123.4 million
Sep - 122.3 million
Oct - 122.5 million
Nov - 121.9 million
Dec - 122.0 million

So, since August we have lost 1.4 million full time jobs. Expect January to drop by about 2 million as FEDEX, UPS, warehouses, retailers, will all be shedding their seasonal hires…

Yes, let’s get those babies and retirees to work! The new metrics demand we abandon former measures and use only general population numbers! After all, things can’t be that good, can they?

1 Like

Companies view employees below a certain level of education and expertise as disposable, replaceable assets. Therefore the concern for their health isn’t at the top of the list, nor their ability to pay for healthcare. If your company policy is full time workers get a benefit package, and those working part time don’t, you simply have two people working twenty hours instead of one working 40. So, you want to blame Obama for corporations establishing hiring and staffing policies specifically designed to bypass providing benefits to workers. I’m curious what the uptick in full time workers would be if companies had to provide their part time workers the same benefits as full time. What would be the advantage of hiring, training and keeping track of two people doing the job of one? Rotely blaming Obama for the dynamics of the job market is intellectually lazy and really does nothing to further the discussion.

“After all, things can’t be that good, can they?”

No, they’re not - and that’s all I’m saying. And it’s kinda important. If the economy continues to struggle Dems aren’t going to be able to keep singing “better than Bush, better than Bush.”

“Under the candidates who ran against Obama, you’d be standing in line at a soup kitchen right now hoping that the broth had a bean or two in it.”

Better than Bush! Got it.

“Perhaps you’d like to look at how many jobs American corporations exported during this period because they could.”

True, but has either party made any attempt at all to put a stop to it?

Damn - I just retired a few months ago. Do I have to go back to work??? Yuk.

Thought I was furthering the discussion and this is Obama’s economy - and it has improved - but it’s still weak. And if it doesn’t get healthier soon it could play in who sits in the WH come Jan 2017. Just imagine if we slide back into a recession in the next six months. Republicans will have a legitimate issue to beat up on the Democrats and the Dems will run from Obama as if he was a leper.

Shit happens, as the kids say.

Well, this may not be taking into account the baby boomer generation that is rapidly leaving the workforce for either 1) retirement or 2) semi-retirement and part-time work.

Also, look at:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND/countries/1W-US?display=graph

The dependency ratio has increased from 48% to 51%. Also, while there has been a decline over the past two years, there are significantly more people going to college now than in 2007. As unemployment for people with degrees is typically much lower than for those without, it can be a good long term indicator for a strong economy.

There are obviously still problems, and the economy didn’t recover as well as it should have, but how you blame that on the president is…confusing. Congress didn’t give the stimulus that we needed, they’ve done nothing to invest in infrastructure or jobs, they’ve simply sat with their arms crossed saying “No.” for 7 years. Also, the money that was given to the banks in the bail out was supposed to be lent out to produce growth. The banks didn’t do that and sat around raking in cash on the rock bottom interest rates.

The main problem with the economy is that 90% of income gains went to the top 10% and >99% of the wealth gains went to the to 1% since the wall street crash. The game is rigged so that when things go well, the rich reap the rewards, and when things go catastrophically bad, they are sheltered.

Of course – “Everybody knows that.” At least the people I talk to (snark alert).

1 Like

My point is that by any normal metric, things are going well. Yet whenever this is reported the news is immediately countered by those shooting for political points saying the data doesn’t really count. The stenograohers in the corporate media dutifully repeat right wing doom and gloom without challenging reinterpretations or even all-out falsehoods until people just figure that things must be bad. It is exacerbated by appealing to how it feels rather than objective evidence. Good news: the market is up, unemployment is down, the US is considered an “island of economic stability” and our currency is striong. If Romney had won in 2012 and we had the same data, all we would hear about is how great things have turned out.

Garage fires are more interesting than Girl Scout bake sales.