U.S. Economy Gains 290,000 jobs, 231K from private sector

[Lemon law]

Gasp, say the economy is not improving, say its not so Joe.

Because if the economy keeps improving, its going to be the worse news the GOP has ever heard for many a moon. As all their big dreams of huge GOP 2010 midterm election gains go flushing down the toilet, especially if Obama and the dems can deliver more good news in other areas.

 

[sandorski]

During the WGN news here at noon, they mentioned the jobs gain, and was lead by hiring by G.E. & Berkshire Hathaway...

WGN is non-partisan, non-political news, and I think everyone will recognize those two companies as huge suck-ups to the Obama administration

coincidence?

Coincidence? GE is one of the biggest(if not biggest) Corporations in the World and a suck up to every Admin. BH is likely not far behind.

Coincidence indeed.

 

[LegendKiller]

During the WGN news here at noon, they mentioned the jobs gain, and was lead by hiring by G.E. & Berkshire Hathaway...

WGN is non-partisan, non-political news, and I think everyone will recognize those two companies as huge suck-ups to the Obama administration

coincidence?

Too bad Berkshire has almost no employees. The underlying companies may be hiring, but Buffet does not control management like that. GE is an industrial conglomerate that builds durable goods, those will be the first things to increase.

Who is being the partisan hack?

 

[LegendKiller]

kk.

Nice response there chucky. You failed at character assassination, be man enough to admit it. You could even *gasp* apologize!

At least you could have come up with a better strawman than you did.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah, sure, you distinctly remember it. Really dude, I was telling people since 2004/5 that housing was fucked. On here, on GotApex forums, on Analystforum.com, on FatWallet finance. I never once said housing "was fine", never. I don't even own a house since I was first in the market in 04 and saw it was silly.

I never stopped "showing up", you can look at my post history and see.

I will fully admit I didn't think the market would tank down to 6K, but I also knew that was a silly price and was more panic driven than anything, as history has born out.

Here's a little flavor for you buckwheat.

http://www.gotapex.com/finance-inve...issing-housing-bubble.html?highlight=Feedback

Nice job. What you predicted is pretty much exactly what happened.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Unemployment rate went up to 9.9% because more people are now looking for jobs.

In reality, assuming that that figure is true, unemployment would have had to have decreased. However, since they count people who have "stopped looking for work" as no longer being unemployed, under their cockamamie system unemployment could increase. It's kind of ironic.

Are we finally turning the corner or is this month and last just a temporary uptick?

We'll know in 6 months. If you assume that the economy is cyclical, you have to wonder what part of the cycle we are in. Are we at the start of an ascent to the next peak or have we now just reached the peak? When we reach the peak will it plateau or will it start going into a downward cycle? Will the peak for this "recovery" be the same, higher, or lower than the last peak? If it is lower then is it a sign of an overall downward trend? (Imagine a straight line with a negative slope that has a sine wave propagating along it.)

 

[Balt]

Gonna wait a while before I have too much optimism. I'm kind of concerned that the oil spill in the gulf will lead to some pretty significant job losses over the summer, and not just in the coastal states.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And wait until all of the temporary census workers (which are included in job gains numbers) are let go later this year.

Wait until the teachers get laid off.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

As said before, I hope we've turned the corner a little more. Good to see everyone else thinks the same

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Gonna wait a while before I have too much optimism. I'm kind of concerned that the oil spill in the gulf will lead to some pretty significant job losses over the summer, and not just in the coastal states.

I think the biggest concern in those regards is that rising gasoline prices will put a stranglehold on the recovery.

 

[nonlnear]

I think the biggest concern in those regards is that rising gasoline prices will put a stranglehold on the recovery.

ROFL

Why do so many people keep saying that the spill will affect gas prices? It's truly baffling...

 

[Special K]

Unemployment increase does not = turning a corner.

The actual unemployment rate is not as important as total job gains or losses. It didn't increase in reality any more than it slightly decreased late last year in reality. The latter reflected a large number of people giving up and leaving the job market, whereas the former reflects that many of those people are now coming back in.

- wolf

Wait, unemployment rose? How is that an upturn?

I really wish the media would start reporting U6 as the "standard" definition of unemployment instead of U3. U3 ignores people who have given up searching for work, as well as people who work part time when they would like to work full time. As a result, U3 can fall when people give up looking for work, and it can rise when people start looking for work again.

This video does a very good job of explaining how the various measures of unemployment are calculated:

http://khanexercises.appspot.com/video?v=vUOiOi-XaoQ

 

[DAGTA]

Gasp, say the economy is not improving, say its not so Joe.

Because if the economy keeps improving, its going to be the worse news the GOP has ever heard for many a moon. As all their big dreams of huge GOP 2010 midterm election gains go flushing down the toilet, especially if Obama and the dems can deliver more good news in other areas.

Not sure if the economy is improving or not but I think the stats being shown in the media have too much BS in them.

 

[Balt]

I think the biggest concern in those regards is that rising gasoline prices will put a stranglehold on the recovery.

Honestly I don't predict much of an effect there. I fully admit to being just an average joe schmo talking out of his ass, though. What I'm thinking about more is that all of these coastal resort areas are going to be taking a hit during their busiest months out of the year. Do people want to visit the beach when they can't even go in the water and they'll get a whiff of petroleum from their hotel room? Probably not. Then you've got all of the seafood that will be tainted, affecting fisheries and restaurants that are dependent on that sort of thing. As if that weren't enough, you've got shipping ports in that area that carry goods to and from the region that may be limited or shut down. Some of the businesses that are a considerable distance from the coast rely on them.

It's quite possible I'm overestimating the importance of the region to the overall economy because I live in the area, but it's still something that I think won't help the economy in general. Especially if the effects reach as far as Florida.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why do so many people keep saying that the spill will affect gas prices? It's truly baffling...

Assuming that it doesn't reduce the amount of oil refineries have to refine (in the short term), it could just be a nice excuse for the big oil companies to jack up the price a little bit. BP has to pay for this somehow and if BP raises its prices I don't see why its fellow oil companies wouldn't want to join in.

The gas prices are liable to go up anyway for other reasons having nothing to do with the Gulf spill, especially if the world economy starts humming again resulting in increased demand.

 

[Special K]

The gas prices are liable to go up anyway for other reasons having nothing to do with the Gulf spill, especially if the world economy starts humming again resulting in increased demand.

Exactly. If you haven't been paying attention, oil prices have been very strongly correlated with the stock market for months now. Apparently energy traders are using the stock market as a proxy for oil demand, at least to some extent.

Personally I think it's BS - there's no way that demand for physical oil changes as fast as the price it trades at does. I remember one day in September 2008 when the price of oil shot up $25 in a single day. I find it very hard to believe that that reflected an actual change the supply and/or demand for physical oil.

 

[woolfe9999]

In reality, assuming that that figure is true, unemployment would have had to have decreased. However, since they count people who have "stopped looking for work" as no longer being unemployed, under their cockamamie system unemployment could increase. It's kind of ironic.



We'll know in 6 months. If you assume that the economy is cyclical, you have to wonder what part of the cycle we are in. Are we at the start of an ascent to the next peak or have we now just reached the peak? When we reach the peak will it plateau or will it start going into a downward cycle? Will the peak for this "recovery" be the same, higher, or lower than the last peak? If it is lower then is it a sign of an overall downward trend? (Imagine a straight line with a negative slope that has a sine wave propagating along it.)

I'm not so sure the method is cockamamie. It actually makes quite a lot of sense to not count people who aren't looking for work. There was a time in this country when that number was actually quite enormous compared to now, back when single income families were the norm, typically the wife would not be looking for work. There are still some of those around. Other examples are people who are legitimately too disabled to work. Still others may be independently wealthy and have no need to work and therefore no interest in it. I don't think you can really count people in those categories and come up with an accurate picture of the employment situation.

The trouble with the method tends to be that it can temporarily mislead during certain periods of time when the labor market is in strong flux. So late last year when the rate started to come down, this was actually a bad sign because it suggested that people did not perceive that there was hiring going on and hence they were giving up. This time, the rate going up, particularly when coupled with the job gains in absolute numbers, is actually a good thing because it suggests that people feel there is hiring going on. I think the method is pretty good; people just need to understand that the unemployment rate is one isolated statistic, and that movements in one direction or another could mean something quite opposite of what they appear to mean on the surface. And in the longer term, the tendency for the statistic to mislead or confuse people tends to iron itself out.

- wolf

 

[Special K]

I'm not so sure the method is cockamamie. It actually makes quite a lot of sense to not count people who aren't looking for work. There was a time in this country when that number was actually quite enormous compared to now, back when single income families were the norm, typically the wife would not be looking for work. There are still some of those around. Other examples are people who are legitimately too disabled to work. Still others may be independently wealthy and have no need to work and therefore no interest in it. I don't think you can really count people in those categories and come up with an accurate picture of the employment situation.

The unemployment statistics are derived from a household survey. I'm pretty sure they ask you if you "want a job but cannot find one" as one question, and then "have you actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks" as another question.

Asking the first question is important because it would rule out stay at home parents and disabled people as you mentioned, but also full time students and probably some other groups I'm not thinking of at the moment. Obviously it makes sense to exclude these people, but lumping them in with people who do want a job but haven't made an active search in the past 4 weeks doesn't seem correct.

 

[Moonbeam]

You were very busy on the forums telling people everything was fine at 12k, then at 11k, then at 10k, so on and so forth, telling everybody housing was fine. Then you stopped showing up, because everybody figured out what you were.

It was quite funny, actually. Yep. I distinctly remember it.

Yup, it took me a while but I figured out who He is. I thought about a similar dude who said I was forgiven and that if I were a little child I would find the kingdom of heaven, and then he disappeared.

 

[woolfe9999]

The unemployment statistics are derived from a household survey. I'm pretty sure they ask you if you "want a job but cannot find one" as one question, and then "have you actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks" as another question.

Asking the first question is important because it would rule out stay at home parents and disabled people as you mentioned, but also full time students and probably some other groups I'm not thinking of at the moment. Obviously it makes sense to exclude these people, but lumping them in with people who do want a job but haven't made an active search in the past 4 weeks doesn't seem correct.

I'd have to know the actual questions asked before I can take a position of agreement or disagreement with any of the above.

- wolf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If this chart pattern holds true...we should be seeing some significant improvements in the unemployment picture shortly. Those who think Corporate profits are a 'bad thing' might want to rethink their position.

http://www.businessinsider.com/char...nce-in-unemployment-rate-reverse-scale-2010-2

"Here's an unemployment chart you'll both love and hate, from Citi's Steven Wieting.

As shown below, since 1980, employment (in red) has fallen after corporate profits (in black) have risen, and vice versa. The relationship is very clear.​

Problem is, there's about a one-year lag between the two trends. This highlights what should simply make sense -- companies hire people once they see profits rebounding, and more importantly once they believe that adding more people will lead to higher profits. Still, this fact of economics isn't fun for the unemployed.​

But here's the good news. Given the recent rebound in corporate profits the U.S. has already experienced, there is a very high chance that employment will get better over the coming twelve months. One can't stress enough the fact that employment is a lagging indicator:"
[/COLOR]​

 

[werepossum]

I really think we've turned a corner. Companies hate the unknown, and having health care passed so that they know what they are dealing with, who will be the winners and who will be the losers, was a huge relief. Even if most companies dislike the actual bill they recognize that it could be much worse and at least can now figure the new costs into plans and budgets. I think that if cap-and-tax can be similarly put to bed then our economy will really take off, which would also raise government income and put off our day of reckoning.

 

[sandorski]

I really think we've turned a corner. Companies hate the unknown, and having health care passed so that they know what they are dealing with, who will be the winners and who will be the losers, was a huge relief. Even if most companies dislike the actual bill they recognize that it could be much worse and at least can now figure the new costs into plans and budgets. I think that if cap-and-tax can be similarly put to bed then our economy will really take off, which would also raise government income and put off our day of reckoning.

That is true, however the rest of your post purposely ignores the real cause of the uncertainty and thus is a pile of Partisan/Blind Ideologue BS.