• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Unemployment falls to 7.8% (but only 114,000 job added?)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,894
0
0
The reason the rate dropped even though only 114,000 jobs were added last month is that the rest of the past six months were revised substantially upwords. In other words, It's not that unemployment suddenly dropped to 7.8%, it's that it's been there for a while.

On a side note, Obama's reelection chances just jumped 6% on Intrade.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
Not sure, but IIRC, Steve Liesman on CNBC has previously said that unemployment rate is not revised when revised monthly jobs numbers come out.

I'm sure Santelli on CNBC is going to be ranting about labor participation rate again, just like he did earlier this year when we got robust jobs numbers before late spring / summer swoon.

Ben Bernanke said that labor participation rate has been in secular decline for quite some time (demographics, participation rate of women plateauing, and I think third part was that college students weren't taking summer jobs like they did in past), but that there was also a cyclical decline due to recession superimposed upon it.

Morningstar economist Bob Johnson said we lost about 8 million jobs during the recession. About 25% of those losses were directly related to construction (stealing demand and jobs from future because we were building 1 million more homes per year than market needed?), and another 25% were direct derivative job losses from crash in new home construction market.

Former chairman of General Electric, also commented how businesses are seeing about 75% of peak 2007 / 2008 demand (how much of that was also unsustainable credit bubble generated demand?), profit margins are back to historic highs ala 2007, and they are doing this with 30% fewer workers, which he attributed in large part to automation and robotics (i. e. those jobs are gone forever and need to be replaced with highly skilled manufacturing jobs that also happen to pay a fair wage).



Siemens in Charlotte, NC, for example:
""Siemens has a very large workforce that's fixing to retire, and there's nobody to replace them."

...

"The companies foot the bill for training that costs about $160,000 per student over the course of four years.

"I think it's a small price to pay because I know the time when we couldn't do what we do now," Thurner says. "We couldn't grow the business. We could not get machines in that they wanted because we didn't have the people to run it."

Thurner says there's no alternative to this on-the-job training. Modern manufacturing is high-tech, so you're dealing with expensive equipment. Push the wrong button and you've got a $50,000 mistake."


http://www.npr.org/2012/07/26/157033600/bypassing-college-dreams-a-different-road-to-work
"He passed the Siemens plant on Westinghouse Boulevard every day on his way to school without thinking much about it. Now the gas-turbine manufacturing plant is his future.

“I felt like a big privilege was given to me,” he says. “It’s basically your life plan set out for you. They pay for your education, and a job is waiting for me.”

Torres and the other six apprentices, also from Olympic, started orientation Monday at the Westinghouse Boulevard plant. They can’t work at the plant until they turn 18, but their learning begins immediately.

“Honestly, this is going to be life-changing for the majority of them,” says Pam Howze, Siemens’ training and development manager. “A lot probably weren’t going to be able to continue their education.”

Principals at Olympic’s five schools helped identify potential apprentices, says Mike Realon, the schools’ career-development coordinator. School officials explained the opportunity to the students and their parents and helped them prepare for interviews.

In all, Siemens is investing $165,000 per apprentice, Howze says. But after three years, it will have fully trained employees. Other employees usually have to go through time-consuming retraining.

Siemens selected students with good grade-point averages, class rank and attendance records, she says.

Operations managers on the selection committee “felt good about the process and the level of candidates,” says Mark Pringle, Siemens’ operations director.

An apprenticeship program won’t work well if a company can’t promise employment at its end. That’s not a problem at Siemens Energy. The company has about 1,100 employees at its gas-turbine manufacturing plant. Pringle expects to have 1,600 employees at year end and close to 2,000 within two years.

Turnover is only about 2%. But, Howze adds, about 40% of the machinists are eligible for retirement.


Siemens considers the apprenticeship program a community investment in work-force training. Apprentices will learn math, computer and technical skills at CPCC, augmented with time in the factory, Pringle says.

Machinists need programming skills to control machinery that transforms raw steel into complex shapes. “It may take a week, 24/7, to get it in the shape we want it,” Howze says. “The tolerances can be as thin as a sheet of paper.”


http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/print-edition/2011/06/17/a-big-investment-in-youth.html?page=all
And not low paying noodle making job such as this: http://youtu.be/ukNkCnNJuR8

:)
 
Last edited:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
16,008
1,678
126
Chance of another pop in October BLS monthly jobs report also exists, because while new home builders have increased construction from 500,000 units to 750,000, Bob Johnson said no new construction workers have shown up on BLS reports yet.)
Holy crap, a quarter of a million houses self constructing!!
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,431
82
91
Hah - Obama finally delivers when it comes to getting the unemployment rate below 8%. One more empty Romney talking point has just been put to death.
All good and well but you are a fool to think that these jobs can be sustained without the government continually pumping hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars into the economy.

Your grandchildren are going to give you a good beat down when the read your posts.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
After all this time, and all those promises, and all that spending and debt, and that cool chart, it's a whopping .1% lower than when he took office.

That's what I'd be emphasizing if I were Romney.
At what point in time does a new POTUS own the unemployment rate? Not from a political perspective, but from a realistic perspective. Serious question, if anyone can answer without partisan bias.

Here are the unemployment rates in Obama's first 6 months:

February 2009 - 8.1%
March 2009 - 8.5%
April 2009 - 8.9%
May 2009 - 9.4%
June 2009 - 9.5%
July 2009 - 9.4%

I don't think we can have an absolutely definitive answer, but I'm fairly certain that no one objective would say it's the February number. BTW if you're saying it's only a .1 difference then to now, that means he owned it in January, before he even set foot in the door. Way to spin it to the max!
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,656
10,712
136
After all this time, and all those promises, and all that spending and debt, and that cool chart, it's a whopping .1% lower than when he took office.

That's what I'd be emphasizing if I were Romney.
Considering we were losing almost 800,000 jobs/month when he took over its a BFD!
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,656
10,712
136
Republicans like to forget about that - nevermind the mountain we had to climb to get out of the mess
Don't worry goalpost will be moved. Someone told me a Crossroads GPS ad claims Obama promised 5.6% unemployment if we passed stimulus.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
I also forgot exact number of months he claimed, but as always, moderate Mitt has a quote or video clip I think from when he was coming into office in Massachusetts that he isn't responsible for economy until something like 11 months (?) into his term.

Can't find quote or video clip now.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,205
6,257
136
I also forgot exact number of months he claimed, but as always, moderate Mitt has a quote or video clip I think from when he was coming into office in Massachusetts that he isn't responsible for economy until something like 11 months (?) into his term.

Can't find quote or video clip now.
This one?
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
1,570
126
But if Obama's name were Reagan, he'd be considered a saint?

Depends on the promises made, the money spent, and the exact situation.

Could be that Reagan's "recovery" was better or worse.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
"You guys are bright enough to look at the numbers. I came in and the jobs had been just falling right off a cliff, I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And if you are going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should have immediately turned around, well that would be silly. It takes awhile to get things turned around. We were in a recession, we were losing jobs every month.”
Yep, I think that's it.

Quick, wait, where's the etch-a-sketch!


:rolleyes:
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
more labor participation number smoke and mirrors. And how many are actually full time not part time jobs?? Yet another structured liberal deception supported by media willing accomplices.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
I hate people still use these numbers they don't mean shit. They should factor in the people who dropped off unemployment benefits plus those still on it.

It's way higher than 8 percent.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71


http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/03/art2full.pdf

Of course Obama is also responsible for the SAAR (seasonally adjusted, annualized rate) job losses totally 650,000 and 700,000 that chart seems to indicate occurred in November and December 2008.

IIRC, actual job creation peaked in January 2008 and jobs deficit Obama has to fill might even be based in part last year of Bush presidency did (i. e. a disingeuous "baseline" is being used to gauge Obama's job creation record).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,782
3,306
126
Wonder where the recovery would be at if gas prices were lower and Europe wasn't falling apart.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Seasonal hiring jumps the stats towards the end of the year. You can see that by the jobs mostly being part time. These jobs include retail and harvest hiring. It does help obamas campaign somewhat, but its not like people are going to forget the last 4 years of unemployeement numbers.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,205
6,257
136
more labor participation number smoke and mirrors. And how many are actually full time not part time jobs?? Yet another structured liberal deception supported by media willing accomplices.
I hate people still use these numbers they don't mean shit. They should factor in the people who dropped off unemployment benefits plus those still on it.

It's way higher than 8 percent.
Is that because you guys just know in your gut that this country can't create jobs with a Muslim in the White House?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Hay construction is up in MN. We have a 1 billion doller stadium to build . That Obummer had nothing to do with.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,869
0
71
FWIW, fair market value for the S & P 500, if tail risks (e. g. Europe, China, fiscal cliff) can be removed, resolved, or at least sufficiently contained, might be from various tidbits I've read and seen, around 1600 (which is 2013 target Savita Subramanian of BaC/ML just released in the last month ago: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49208910/S_P_500_to_Hit_Record_High_in_2013_Strategist), particularly relative to where artificially depressed interest rates are.

That's above all time high on S & P 500 before stock market crashed (somewhere around 1575).
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
I hate people still use these numbers they don't mean shit. They should factor in the people who dropped off unemployment benefits plus those still on it.

It's way higher than 8 percent.
Lemme ask, if this is the standard that has been used for quite some time now, why does it need to be changed right now?

Or do you just want it changed in general to have a better informed public?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
more labor participation number smoke and mirrors. And how many are actually full time not part time jobs?? Yet another structured liberal deception supported by media willing accomplices.
Always willing to go to any lengths to prove how detached from reality you are. Yet another GOP troll with his head planted firmly up his ass wishing the economy will tank. At some point you need to ask yourself why you hate America so much and are not ashamed to admit it.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,379
0
0
Always willing to go to any lengths to prove how detached from reality you are. Yet another GOP troll with his head planted firmly up his ass wishing the economy will tank. At some point you need to ask yourself why you hate America so much and are not ashamed to admit it.
At some point your going to ask yourself why you bellieved the lies . Than you will beat yourself over your own stupidity
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
At some point your going to ask yourself why you bellieved the lies . Than you will beat yourself over your own stupidity
At some point you will realize how the numbers are calculated (pst the same way they have been for years, even when they made Bush look good) and that they don't get cooked by the POTUS, the democrats, the republicans, or the Libroool Media...

I think the word you are looking for is "Then" btw genius... :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY