[NYT] Hiring Is Strong and Jobless Rate Declines to 6.1%

Took long enough.

 

5% is probably no longer a reachable full employment figure, but at the same time I think we need start reporting U-6 in both percentages and total persons; if there are 30-40 million adults not working that needs to be publicized somewhere.

 

over half a million full time jobs lost in June

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

 

There's no reason why we can't get to 5% .

Actually we'd likely be there if not for sequestration and had been smart enough to pass a badly needed infrastructure package a few years ago.

Instead - endless dumb debt limit fights and imaginary/fake deficit crises, due to a poorly designed government that can be neutralized by a minority of extremists, who also happen to be dumb.

U6 is at a 6 year low btw.

 

Heh. You'd have to be a complete idiot to try to find bad news in this jobs report. Even the usual right wing suspects have been forced to eat crow.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/upshot/its-hard-to-claim-the-good-news-is-really-bad.html

But gentlemen - we have found our idiot. Surprise.

 

Your own link shows that to not be true. Try again.

 

Complete idiot.

 

May 118,727,000 full time workers
Jun 118,204,000 full time workers

 

If you're trying to make a claim about absolute number of workers, you should not be using seasonally adjusted numbers, which are, by definition, not absolute numbers. Try again.

 

that's what is used to report the headline jobs created number, so why is it unreasonable?

 

Because everyone understands that the headline number is seasonally adjusted to account for irregularities. But when you try to make a more specific absolute claim, such as "over half a million full time jobs lost in June" when, in fact, you actually had 270,000 more people employed in full time jobs in June, it no longer makes sense.

Besides all that, I'm not sure even the relevance of your claim. Looking year-over-year, 2.2 million jobs have been created in the last 12 months, and 2 million of them were full-time. So the idea that full time jobs aren't growing or whatever you're trying to suggest is sort of silly. It seems like you're just cherry picking random statistics to try to score political points, without regard to reality or actually understanding the numbers involved. Or maybe you're just posting random factoids with no content for no reason - not really sure.

 

to be fair that's basically what TPM, the B conservative blog (too DGAF to look up actual spelling of that dude's name) and everybody else does blog-wise. I think it's part of the culture these days.

upworthy time

"YOU will NOT BELIEVE how MANY JOBS were CREATED THIS MONTH!!! It's ASTOUNDING!"

 

The decrease in the unemployment rate also coincided with three other events that significantly reduced the unemployment rate percentage.

The first is that long term unemployment benefits have run out, and people that were collecting them were forced to look for jobs and except jobs when they stopped receiving unemployment benefits.

Second, allot of people have stopped looking for work. The work-force participation rate is at its lowest level since Jimmy Carter was President. It is particularly high for women as women have been some of the worst effected.

Third, allot of people that have excepted jobs are underemployed. Many of them have excepted lower paying service jobs and or part time jobs. The number of high paying manufacturing jobs jobs have decreased as unions have forced many companies to move operations overseas. A bad corporate tax structure further incentivises companies to move overseas.

You have to look at the total number of employed individuals and the workforce participation rate to get a true picture of the employment situation in America because so many have been unemployed for so long, that they are not reflected in the unemployment numbers.

 

You have to understand, the entire Republican/conservative narrative is not give credit to Obama for anything, ever. At all. You'd have some lead you to believe that going from 10% to 6.1% is somehow not an improvement. They'll use the U6 (these numbers) in discussions on Bush and the "real" UE in discussions on Obama AS AN EQUAL COMPARISON.

You know what it's like- it's like comparing two shooters by using one's field goal % and one's 3-point %, like "Rubio shoots 38% and Parsons shoots 37%, so Rubio must be a better shooter" even though they're using Ricky's FG % and Chandler's 3P%. It's completely disingenuous-but they do it anyway.

Bush gives the go-ahead for the Iraq invasion, he's a hero leader. Obama gives the go-ahead for the attack that killed Bin Laden, he had nothing to do with it. Seriously, politics and religion take reasonably intelligent people and turns their logic into mush.

Reagan's UE % at the same point in his 2-term tenure was 7.4%.

 

US GDP was down -2.9% in the first quarter of 2014.

And the left has cherry picked the worthless, easily manipulated unemployment rate to crow about?

perspective.

 

Ummm nope.....this actually happened earlier this year and the rate didn't budge.

Actually what it did was decrease participation - which you refer to below and are feigning concern about.

This is a cornucopia of tired right wing economic staples proffered with no evidence to support them and no explanation as to their relevance to the current jobs data.

First - even broad measures of unemployment like U6 decreased substantially. Second - tired tropes about taxes and unions are both not relevant to this report and easily trash binned in any event. Big companies use tax shelters and dodges to reduce their liability to zero. This has very little or no impact on U, and a hackneyed attack on unions is too lazy by you to even merit a response.

You said this already. It doesn't make you look particularly smart as this has been a right wing talking point for awhile. Lot of it is actually due to demographics and a more efficient labor market.

I can think of many ways to increase LFP however, but you're not gonna like any of them.

 

Please note SamFisher's attempt at using his best "SAT words" (proffered, lol) -- which of course is actually a distraction attempt from him and also a sign that he cannot defend himself using facts.

The bottom line is that my post above shut down discussion on this topic and nobody could refute it.

When the US GDP is down nearly 3% in a quarter, you simply cannot cherry-pick a manipulable number like the unemployment rate to claim that all is great. Perspective, folks. Perspective.

 

You're cute.

 

I reckon jobs are no longer a priority with the right wing...