Unemployment rate drops the lowest in 4 years!

[nehalem256]

By who?

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and reality.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Full employment is defined in the US as 3% unemployment for persons 20 and older, and 4% for persons 16 and over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment

 

[Ausm]

They aren't. However, 4% unemployment is considered to be full employment or very close to it. In the real world, it is virtually impossible to get to 0% unemployment.

I can't relate to that concept while dealing with a Rightist , but I do realize there is a revolving door in this nation of people going between employment and unemployment.

 

[Ausm]

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and reality.

Damn I'm glad you are so smart! LMAO....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I can't relate to that concept while dealing with a Rightist , but I do realize there is a revolving door in this nation of people going between employment and unemployment.

Don't you ever get tired of being a partisan dick?

 

[Fern]

Less that a 150k jobs created.

The dark cloud in the Labor Department's report, however, was a drop in the size of the work force, which signaled that some people may have given up looking for work.

Economists had expected non-farm payrolls to rise about 93,000 and the jobless rate to hold steady at 7.9 percent. Friday’s report included revisions to both the September and October data showing that 49,000 fewer jobs were created than first reported.

Fern

 

[Munky]

You might wanna take a look at what the actual data says, as opposed to repeating catchy headlines from the puppet media. Or maybe Obamabots don't bother reading anymore, but anyways... the employment sucks.

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=214659

 

[OverVolt]

And if the labor force returned to the same size as in 1970 it would be 4%. And around 2.5% if you went down to 1965 leves.

Looks like a bubble to me.

Please tell me its the female worker bubble.

 

[Darwin333]

January 2009, OH you mean when the economy was in a full blow Depression thanks to the right wing administration and their banker friends? And you're saying that in less than 4 years we managed to go from a Depression to having the lowest unemployment rate since that happened?

Yeah, that is horrible!

derp

It must really suck that when you close your eyes at night deep down you know without a shadow of a doubt that your side, especially its leader, is just as friendly with the very same banksters.

 

[Darwin333]

Please by all means correlate how.

Please correlate how your team is responsible for the drop in unemployment and not the other team?

 

[Darwin333]

How is everyone working when the Unemployment rate is 4%?

Because some people are just fuckups who can't keep a job and therefore have a hard time finding one? Another small percentage has highly specialized skills and its hard to find someone in need of those skills? Yet another small percentage is perhaps married and the wife lost her job but the family isn't willing to move so she just keeps looking. Some people are simply temporarily unemployed as they transit from one job to another.

The point is there will always be a small percentage of people looking for jobs. Its hard to get much below 4% employment, its pretty damn close to as "full employment" as it gets.

Edit: Not that I am trying to give Bush any credit for that in the least, just making a point.

 

[Darwin333]

So if people retire because they give up on finding a job, how is that reflective of unemployment rate or even the state of the ecconomy, if people are able to retire? Are we counting retirees as unemployed people now?

No, they are NOT counted as unemployed people and that is the point.

Lets say you have 100 people, none of whom really want to retire, and 20 of them get laid off. So you have a 20% unemployment rate. Now lets say that after a full year of looking for a job none of them are able to so finally 10 of them say fuck it and retire early, even though they didn't really want to. Since they are no longer looking for a job they are no longer counted so now the unemployment rate has went down to 10% even though none of the unemployed got a job.

If you stop looking for a job, regardless of the reason, you aren't counted in the official numbers.

 

[Smoblikat]

It isnt very hard to improve upon shit. Obama dug us into a ditch the past 4 years.

 

[Matt1970]

Is this number going to get adjusted later like the October numbers did?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe things are doing better because of, rather than in spite of, government inaction?

Did you ever stop to think?
No.
Try that, instead of handing the obligation to others to point out where you went wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe things are doing better because of, rather than in spite of, government inaction?

For a microsecond, until I realized that govt action has been ongoing, from the FRB & from various small stimuli that Repubs have allowed through. I also realize that overall govt spending & employment has fallen, contributing to the problem. Money spent at the federal level is dwarfed by cutbacks at the state & local level, hampering recovery-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/austerity-recovery-continued/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/government-employment/

 

[Darwin333]

Did you ever stop to think?
No.
Try that, instead of handing the obligation to others to point out where you went wrong.

Which you didn't do...... Funny, I thought you had this entire superior intelligence thing going on, you should have been able to do that in your sleep. Perhaps your vastly superior intelligence is actually regressing and rather soon you will be wearing a helmet and drooling on yourself? Either that or you have always been an arrogant idiot that thinks way to highly of themselves, possibly due to some extreme childhood psychological trauma. I normally would include physical trauma but I doubt even a severe head wound would cause the kind of damage you are displaying.

 

[Darwin333]

For a microsecond, until I realized that govt action has been ongoing, from the FRB & from various small stimuli that Repubs have allowed through. I also realize that overall govt spending & employment has fallen, contributing to the problem. Money spent at the federal level is dwarfed by cutbacks at the state & local level, hampering recovery-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/austerity-recovery-continued/

Lol. Oh how I love to play with Krugman. What he failed to tell you, yet is absurdly important to the topic, is that currently total government spending is above even the increased spending in the Regan years as a percentage of GDP. As a matter of fact, other than during World War 2 2009 set a record for total government spending, how does that fit in with Krugmans theory? Granted various state and local governments now have a lot more "legacy" costs they must cover before they can employ new people (I have no hard numbers on this because I am lazy) which I would guess is why we see a drop in state and local hiring.

And State and local revenue did get hammered for 2 years during the recession, a result of all those houses (and therefore property taxes) losing a fuckload of value but it has rebounded (revenue not home value). I am very curious to know exactly what you, or Krugmans, solution to that would have been since state and local governments can not print money like the Feds can? Should the Feds have bailed the states out too, keeping in mind that total government spending didn't go down in any material way? Should the Fed so that the states could increase spending even though they couldn't maintain current spending levels?

He can argue about .gov employment all he wants but the actual spending, as a percentage of GDP, is near the highest its ever been.

Edit: Btw, total government spending, as a percentage of GDP, has in fact risen by over 5% of GDP since 2007. I am pretty sure that isn't considered going down by any definition of the word.

 

[CycloWizard]

Did you ever stop to think?
No.
Try that, instead of handing the obligation to others to point out where you went wrong.

You'd probably better stick to watching crappy childrens' cartoons and leave the adult topics to those of us with two or more brain cells to rub together.

 

[CycloWizard]

For a microsecond, until I realized that govt action has been ongoing, from the FRB & from various small stimuli that Repubs have allowed through. I also realize that overall govt spending & employment has fallen, contributing to the problem. Money spent at the federal level is dwarfed by cutbacks at the state & local level, hampering recovery-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/austerity-recovery-continued/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/government-employment/

According to those data, government spending and employment have been decreasing for years while private employment has been increasing. I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol. Oh how I love to play with Krugman. What he failed to tell you, yet is absurdly important to the topic, is that currently total government spending is above even the increased spending in the Regan years as a percentage of GDP. As a matter of fact, other than during World War 2 2009 set a record for total government spending, how does that fit in with Krugmans theory? Granted various state and local governments now have a lot more "legacy" costs they must cover before they can employ new people (I have no hard numbers on this because I am lazy) which I would guess is why we see a drop in state and local hiring.

And State and local revenue did get hammered for 2 years during the recession, a result of all those houses (and therefore property taxes) losing a fuckload of value but it has rebounded (revenue not home value). I am very curious to know exactly what you, or Krugmans, solution to that would have been since state and local governments can not print money like the Feds can? Should the Feds have bailed the states out too, keeping in mind that total government spending didn't go down in any material way? Should the Fed so that the states could increase spending even though they couldn't maintain current spending levels?

He can argue about .gov employment all he wants but the actual spending, as a percentage of GDP, is near the highest its ever been.

Edit: Btw, total government spending, as a percentage of GDP, has in fact risen by over 5% of GDP since 2007. I am pretty sure that isn't considered going down by any definition of the word.

Of course govt spending went up, largely as the result of automatic stabilizers in place to compensate for the sacred free market tripping over its own dick, doing a faceplant. Even if spending in absolute dollars hadn't gone up, spending as a % of GDP would have. That's what's supposed to happen. This has been the most profound economic collapse in 80 years, remember?

The Feds actually did do a lot for state govts in the process- extending federal unemployment benefits, allowing states to claim more federal money in a myriad of ways, particularly wrt medicaid, grants, foodstamps & easing restrictions on SS disability claims. That's outside of infrastructure stimulus spending, which is ongoing. Money appropriated is still in the process of being spent.

The feds also suffered & are still suffering from the cost of the invasion of Iraq through 2011 & ongoing expense in Afghanistan.

The gross figure of GDP says nothing about the reasons for more federal spending, which is really about the way that income distribution has changed-

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

 

[Jhhnn]

According to those data, government spending and employment have been decreasing for years while private employment has been increasing. I'm not sure what the problem is.

The problem is that govt employment acts as an economic stabilizer, lessening the impact of economic swings in the deregulated free market financialized economy featuring innovative financial products so you can buy the house of your dreams on a no down no doc negative amortization ARM at an astoundingly low introductory rate... and so that the mutual funds in your 401K can buy the AAA rated bonds created in the process...

When that sort of scam falls down, it takes a lot of the employment in the rest of the private sector with it in a cascading fashion... reference 1931 & 2008.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Which you didn't do......

His point wasn't difficult to parse, moron. Then I went beyond it. Now you try.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You'd probably better stick to watching crappy childrens' cartoons and leave the adult topics to those of us with two or more brain cells to rub together.

>Spewed Fox News memes.
>"Adult"

Here's a hint: "Adult" is past "sheeple", they don't overlap.

 

[OverVolt]

Keynes gone wild - pay people to dig holes in the ground, throw in money and burn the money to simulate aggregate demand.

All on credit of course.

Not found: any actual wealth created. But at least the hole digger and money burner had a job.