Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby rabble » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:56 pm

ilikebeans wrote:Meanwhile, the Komen Foundation did the right thing and reversed their decision not to renew their partnership with PP.

Not to nitpick, which it is but I'm pretending it's not, they've modified the rule in question which makes Planned Parenthood technically eligible again.

They haven't actually given them any money yet and haven't announced any intentions to do so.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3145
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby DCB » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:34 pm

fisticuffs wrote:
Yeah, they're called the people living in the real world: the unemployed, underemployed and those who have left the work force.


Like I said Bush's recession was a bitch. What was the Republican plan to put people back to work? Did it have something to do with defunding planned parenthood or was it letting GM fail?

Also, eliminating Medicare and Social Security. And cutting food stamps.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6494
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby pjbogart » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:"Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low"


Isn't this a predictable trend as the Baby Boomers retire? Haven't economists been talking for decades about the impending retirement of America's largest generation? If you were born in 1946 wouldn't that make you 65 (turning 66) this year?

Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am
Contact:

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby Rich Schultz » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:18 pm

"Isn't this a predictable trend as the Baby Boomers retire?"

"in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring"

" ...using BLS data, the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month: apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because as chart 2 below shows, people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference. Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers. What does this mean? That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%. Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%. And that is how with a calculator and just one minute of math, one strips away countless hours of BLS propaganda."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6494
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby pjbogart » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:12 am

Rich Schultz wrote:(because as chart 2 below shows, people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring),


PUI alert! Actually, I'm a super happy drunk, so I'm considering making the change permanent.

Hey Rich, if a record number of people are over age 55 wouldn't it be expected that a record number of people over the age of 55 would be working? Furthermore, as medical advances increase our life expectancy, wouldn't you expect that more people would work longer? Furthermore, if my 401k lost 30% in 2008-2009 wouldn't it be logical to conclude that a large number of baby boomers, otherwise ready to retire, found that they needed to work a few more years to make up for their lost retirement funds when the stock market tanked?

On a side note, after losing 30% of my 401k in 2008-2009 the stock market has rebounded to its pre-crash levels and my 401k has almost rebounded to pre-crash levels too. But I've been contributing the maximum deduction since, so shouldn't I have more? Is that poor performance of my 401k administrators or simply a shload of trading fees? I'm not so sure that there's a difference.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby rabble » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:03 pm

Okay, now I'm the one who's cautiously optimistic.

Komen exec who backed Planned Parenthood cutoff quits cancer group

Steadfastly maintaining that not only was politics not involve, but that the decision was made before Handel even joined the team, Handel resigns. But I can't seem to find a reason in that article about why she's resigning. Haven't read the letter of resignation or watched the video, though.

In any event, it looks like Komen's been cowed.

I think I'd still prefer to donate to other charities from now on, and I think they'll lay low and then see what else they can get away with, but for now Planned Parenthood seems to be safe.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12624
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby snoqueen » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:34 pm

According to NPR this afternoon, Komen still won't support embryonic stem cell research. There have to be more progressive charities to give to -- if they really want to find "the" cure they need to get past this right-wing crap.

Handel is only one of a whole lot of "moles" the far right has placed in large, wealthy charities to subvert their original intent. Environmental causes have seen the same pattern, and all of a sudden my mailbox starts overflowing with pretty advertising trying to convince me how "green" coal is.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby Detritus » Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:37 pm

For those of you who care about the unemployment / underemployment / discouraged worker debate, including the mysteries of BLS calculations, take a look at the UW's own Menzie Chinn on the subject. His advice: read the footnotes, people--that's what they're there for.

Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am
Contact:

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby Rich Schultz » Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:25 am


kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby kurt_w » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:50 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:"Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-


Except that didn't actually happen. It's an artifact of the end-of-year change in population statistics. Instead of increasing by 1.2 million people, the size of the population not in the labor force actually shrunk by 75,000.

FWIW, "zerohedge" is not a particularly reliable source. They certainly misfired badly on this one....

All that said, there's a reason I put "cautious" in the title of the thread. We have actually had pretty decent job growth lately. Unfortunately, "pretty decent" isn't enough to climb back out of the hole that the jobs data fell into in 2008.

It being an election year, people are bound to ask the question "are we better off than we were four years ago?" The answer is obviously yes. Four years ago, the country looked like it was teetering on the abyss -- the financial system was collapsing, major employers like GM were facing oblivion, and the economy was hemorrhaging nearly 5 million jobs during 2008. Today, while the economy isn't exactly rosy, we've pulled back from the brink, and the economy gained back 2 million jobs last year.

That's pretty good news.

But merely being better off than we were four years ago isn't enough. I'd like to see the country better off than it was twelve years ago. Now that would be worth celebrating.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby kurt_w » Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:06 pm

For Rich Schultz and others who may still be confused about the labor force and participation rate data, the BLS actually explained it reasonably well in their summary earlier this month:

Employment Situation Summary

I would suggest reading the introductory paragraphs on "Household Survey Data", as well as the final section ("Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey").

I'm not going to speculate about why "zerohedge" didn't read that, or didn't understand it. But in any case, the quote that Rich Schultz cited was based on a fairly spectacular misunderstanding of the BLS data.

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Jobs (and cautious optimism)

Postby kurt_w » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:40 am

Another modestly good monthly jobs report. 227,000 new jobs were added last month, and the already-good numbers for December and January were revised upwards.

The number of public-sector jobs is still declining, albeit at a slower rate than in previous months.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: massimo, pjbogart, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests