May’s Jobs Report Disappoints Across the Board

[Navy Pride]

More bad news for Hussein Obama.



May

1 June 2012

Well, this is a bad employment report — across the board. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy created just 69,000 jobs in May -- the fewest in a year -- and the unemployment rate crept up to 8.2 percent

 

[Deuce]

Be honest, NP: When you read that, you smiled, didn't you?

 

[mtlhdtodd]

Be honest, NP: When you read that, you smiled, didn't you?

The inverse will also be true. Some will read this and try to figure out how to polish this turd then blame it on Bush.

 

[Navy Pride]

The inverse will also be true. Some will read this and try to figure out how to polish this turd then blame it on Bush.

You are right and yes I did smile big time...............

 

[Wiseone]

You are right and yes I did smile big time...............

Perfect example of why I hate politics, it makes people see bad news as good news because it damages a political opponent, the suffering of those affect be damned.

 

[teamosil]

Well, I'd still certainly take slow, steady, job growth over the rapid job loss we saw last time we tried out the Republican plan for the economy.

 

[Grant]

Perfect example of why I hate politics, it makes people see bad news as good news because it damages a political opponent, the suffering of those affect be damned.

It's also an attempt to educate the public to vote for someone of character and experience rather than fashion or ideology, and what happens when you ignore these factors.

 

[a351]

Well, I'd still certainly take slow, steady, job growth over the rapid job loss we saw last time we tried out the Republican plan for the economy.

If you're referring to the collapse of the housing market, that was hardly a planned occurrence, nor was it soley republican policies that led to the crash itself. If you're referring to the pre-2007-8 economic climate, taking your claims of "rapid job losses" seriously would be a task that requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

 

[teamosil]

If you're referring to the collapse of the housing market, that was hardly a planned occurrence, nor was it soley republican policies that led to the crash itself. If you're referring to the pre-2007-8 economic climate, taking your claims of "rapid job losses" seriously would be a task that requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

The housing market was, at most, a minor contributing cause, and really it's probably more accurate to describe it as one of many economic vulnerabilities that made the collapse more severe than a cause at all. Not sure what you mean about mental gymnastics. We lost tons of jobs very fast obviously. Terrifyingly fast.

 

[Dickieboy]

More bad news for Hussein Obama.

Well, this is a bad employment report — across the board. The Bureau of Labor Statistics

And I'm sure you caught this from the report too:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised from +154,000 to
+143,000, and the change for April was revised from +115,000 to +77,000.

So with 69k for May less 11k for March adjustment and 38k for April adjustment leaves an adjusted net of 20k May jobs created. That's right...20k

 

[NotEliTanenbaum]

You are right and yes I did smile big time.

Perfect example of why I hate politics, it makes people see bad news as good news because it damages a political opponent, the suffering of those affect be damned.

In response to Wiseone, AMEN. Navy Pride, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for smiling at that news. I don't care if job creation takes place under a Republican or a Democrat, or who it elects or doesn't elect. Although I acknowledge that some unemployment is necessary in a capitalist system, when you have 12.5 million people who can't find work, that's a tragedy, and you should not smile at May's news just because it hurts Obama.

 

[Grant]

In response to Wiseone, AMEN. Navy Pride, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for smiling at that news. I don't care if job creation takes place under a Republican or a Democrat, or who it elects or doesn't elect. Although I acknowledge that some unemployment is necessary in a capitalist system, when you have 12.5 million people who can't find work, that's a tragedy, and you should not smile at May's news just because it hurts Obama.

What did the American people expect when they voted for a guy with no experience whatsoever? This was a horribly naive decision thy made and now they are paying for it. That's just what happens when people make bad decisions, so there's little use in complaining about it.

The idea is to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

 

[NotEliTanenbaum]

What did the American people expect when they voted for a guy with no experience whatsoever? This was a horribly naive decision they made and now they are paying for it. That's just what happens when people make bad decisions, so there's little use in complaining about it.

The idea is to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

The economy would probably be in similar shape if McCain were elected. If a stimulus bill had not been passed or was smaller than the one passed by Obama, the Fed would have been more activist than it already has been. Anyways, my point is that I dislike it when people discuss the jobs report's impact on the election.

 

[Grant]

The economy would probably be in similar shape if McCain were elected. If a stimulus bill had not been passed or was smaller than the one passed by Obama, the Fed would have been more activist than it already has been. Anyways, my point is that I dislike it when people discuss the jobs report's impact on the election.

You actually have no idea what might have happened had John McCain been president. But you know what you have now. That's a problem.

 

[Wiseone]

What did the American people expect when they voted for a guy with no experience whatsoever? This was a horribly naive decision thy made and now they are paying for it. That's just what happens when people make bad decisions, so there's little use in complaining about it.

The idea is to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

Lets not blow this out of proportion, its the jobs report from a single month. And lets not overstate the role of the President in the economy, the current unemployment rate is a result of the recession that started in 2008 which is obviously not the fault of Obama. And its not the fault of Bush either if you think I was about to go that route, it was set off by an over-reliance on credit(both by banks, individuals and states) based on far overoptimistic visions of the future. Just like a person who lands a good job may think "Now I can borrow more money to live better now, based on money i'll have in the future" so did governments think "Our economies are growing well, now we can burrow money to spend more today based on where we predict our economy will be in the future" or a bank may say "People and government are spending a lot more, therefore we loan money to companies seeking to start up or expand because we know from individual/gov't consumption and where we predict it will be in the future, that the investment will pay off."

Unfortunately everyone was wrong, the economy was built on credit based on the "faith" that the economy will reach a certain rise by the time those loans come due. Thats what happened to Greece for example, they took loans assuming their economy would be a certain size, and therefore they would be bringing in X amount of revenue, by the time the loans were due unfortunately their economy didn't grow as expected and they've defaulted if it weren't for the bailouts. They may still default.

This recession is a global phenomenon, and has its roots in many more things than US Presidential policy, and its still being experienced the global economy is still correcting itself for the mistakes that millions of people made that contributed to the problem. Sure some contributed more than others, that company that defaults on its multi-million dollar loan to the bank affects the banks health more than an individual defaulting on a 1000 dollar loan, but all contribute. No single person caused this and no single person is going to solve it.

Also don't forget the massive boom in commodity prices in the late 2000s, when crude oil is 30 bucks a barrel in 2005 and you have a 5 year construction plan you may leave yourself some wiggle room in your project in case gas gets more expensive. May if it goes to 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 bucks? Surely preparing for 100 is excessive especially when everyone is building(this is pre-subprime crisis) and we can't hedge our bets so much we gotta use every dime to build more, risk be damned. How about if crude oil shoots to almost 150 bucks in 2008, just three years later. How many companies and projects were crunched by that massive unexpected cost of business increase?

 

[LizardofOz]

So let me see if I get this straight, jobs were created and unemployment went down, even if it wasn't the best it still was job creation and this is seen as bad news?

Here is something else interesting--
Canada's unemployment rate is 7.3%.
The UK's is 8.2%.
Germany's is 5.6%

These are all unusually high for all these countries. Is this Obama's fault? The Federal Reserve has even predicted that unemployment won't drop to under 5% for US until sometime after 2017. What exactly could McCain have done that would have been different?

 

[Wiseone]

So let me see if I get this straight, jobs were created and unemployment went down, even if it wasn't the best it still was job creation and this is seen as bad news?

Here is something else interesting--
Canada's unemployment rate is 7.3%.
The UK's is 8.2%.
Germany's is 5.6%

These are all unusually high for all these countries. Is this Obama's fault? The Federal Reserve has even predicted that unemployment won't drop to under 5% for US until sometime after 2017. What exactly could McCain have done that would have been different?

Unemployment went up dude, not down. Yes jobs were created but the net change was down, not up. But yes like I said, this is a global thing out of the control of a single man.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The inverse will also be true. Some will read this and try to figure out how to polish this turd then blame it on Bush.

Yep. Those same folks would also assert that Obama can pick that turd up, by the clean end, and stimulate it with more borrowed funds and/or by taxing "the rich" just a bit more.

 

[teamosil]

Unemployment went up dude, not down. Yes jobs were created but the net change was down, not up. But yes like I said, this is a global thing out of the control of a single man.

No, you don't understand. The jobs created number is the net increase in jobs. We actually lose and gain many more jobs each month than 69,000 jobs every month. Like maybe we lose 500,000 jobs and gain 569,000, so that would be creating 69,000 jobs.

 

[Grant]

Lets not blow this out of proportion, its the jobs report from a single month. And lets not overstate the role of the President in the economy, the current unemployment rate is a result of the recession that started in 2008 which is obviously not the fault of Obama. And its not the fault of Bush either if you think I was about to go that route, it was set off by an over-reliance on credit(both by banks, individuals and states) based on far overoptimistic visions of the future.

It was the government getting too involved in the economy, politicians making promises future generations can't keep and all promising and enacting programs that were unsustainable. This has been common throughout the western economies, as we can see by the numbers, and had to come to a head eventually. It is a cultural problem as well as an economical problem. The problem with Obama is that he encouraged people to believe he was part of the solution, with no evidence that this could possibly be true, when he was obviously in over his head. The voters should have got smart when he said he would redistribute the wealth of the country.

Just like a person who lands a good job may think "Now I can borrow more money to live better now, based on money i'll have in the future" so did governments think "Our economies are growing well, now we can burrow money to spend more today based on where we predict our economy will be in the future" or a bank may say "People and government are spending a lot more, therefore we loan money to companies seeking to start up or expand because we know from individual/gov't consumption and where we predict it will be in the future, that the investment will pay off."

Right, but when an individual does it the impact is on the individual but when a government does it the impact is on the entire country. This is a problem many western democracies are facing. The boomers, my generation, has been the greediest generation ever, and their children are no different.

Unfortunately everyone was wrong, the economy was built on credit based on the "faith" that the economy will reach a certain rise by the time those loans come due. Thats what happened to Greece for example, they took loans assuming their economy would be a certain size, and therefore they would be bringing in X amount of revenue, by the time the loans were due unfortunately their economy didn't grow as expected and they've defaulted if it weren't for the bailouts. They may still default.

If we rely on politicians to predict whether the economy will improve or not, knowing that their furture depends on our vote, then naturally they well tell the voters what they want to hear. We know that but we keep falling repeatedly for the same craziness. We deserve what we get for listening to these people and allowing them to gamble with our futures. We can't blame them for doing what they do any more than we can blame sharks for doing what they do.

This recession is a global phenomenon, and has its roots in many more things than US Presidential policy, and its still being experienced the global economy is still correcting itself for the mistakes that millions of people made that contributed to the problem. Sure some contributed more than others, that company that defaults on its multi-million dollar loan to the bank affects the banks health more than an individual defaulting on a 1000 dollar loan, but all contribute. No single person caused this and no single person is going to solve it.

Governments caused it and they created weaker cultures. The two are connected and your stats above regarding unemployment indicate that.

Also don't forget the massive boom in commodity prices in the late 2000s, when crude oil is 30 bucks a barrel in 2005 and you have a 5 year construction plan you may leave yourself some wiggle room in your project in case gas gets more expensive. May if it goes to 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 bucks? Surely preparing for 100 is excessive especially when everyone is building(this is pre-subprime crisis) and we can't hedge our bets so much we gotta use every dime to build more, risk be damned. How about if crude oil shoots to almost 150 bucks in 2008, just three years later. How many companies and projects were crunched by that massive unexpected cost of business increase?

It should not have been unexpected. When the government became involved in the mortgage business the end was nigh.

I have confidence in the ability of people to adapt but i have no such confidence in governments. Put them in control of anything and it will be a boondoggle. You mention energy, but how has the department of energy ever helped any situation? And of course they have never developed any energy either.

 

[danarhea]

You are right and yes I did smile big time...............

How American of you................... Not.

 

[Grant]

Lets not blow this out of proportion, its the jobs report from a single month. And lets not overstate the role of the President in the economy, the current unemployment rate is a result of the recession that started in 2008 which is obviously not the fault of Obama. And its not the fault of Bush either if you think I was about to go that route, it was set off by an over-reliance on credit(both by banks, individuals and states) based on far overoptimistic visions of the future. Just like a person who lands a good job may think "Now I can borrow more money to live better now, based on money i'll have in the future" so did governments think "Our economies are growing well, now we can burrow money to spend more today based on where we predict our economy will be in the future" or a bank may say "People and government are spending a lot more, therefore we loan money to companies seeking to start up or expand because we know from individual/gov't consumption and where we predict it will be in the future, that the investment will pay off."

Unfortunately everyone was wrong, the economy was built on credit based on the "faith" that the economy will reach a certain rise by the time those loans come due. Thats what happened to Greece for example, they took loans assuming their economy would be a certain size, and therefore they would be bringing in X amount of revenue, by the time the loans were due unfortunately their economy didn't grow as expected and they've defaulted if it weren't for the bailouts. They may still default.

This recession is a global phenomenon, and has its roots in many more things than US Presidential policy, and its still being experienced the global economy is still correcting itself for the mistakes that millions of people made that contributed to the problem. Sure some contributed more than others, that company that defaults on its multi-million dollar loan to the bank affects the banks health more than an individual defaulting on a 1000 dollar loan, but all contribute. No single person caused this and no single person is going to solve it.

Also don't forget the massive boom in commodity prices in the late 2000s, when crude oil is 30 bucks a barrel in 2005 and you have a 5 year construction plan you may leave yourself some wiggle room in your project in case gas gets more expensive. May if it goes to 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 bucks? Surely preparing for 100 is excessive especially when everyone is building(this is pre-subprime crisis) and we can't hedge our bets so much we gotta use every dime to build more, risk be damned. How about if crude oil shoots to almost 150 bucks in 2008, just three years later. How many companies and projects were crunched by that massive unexpected cost of business increase?

Just read this and it sums it all up much better than I ever could. Mark Steyn: U.S., Europe on different paths to same place | years, whether, germans - Opinion - The Orange County Register

 

[samsmart]

It's also an attempt to educate the public to vote for someone of character and experience rather than fashion or ideology

And it's too bad that the Republican Party has nobody who fits that description.

 

[Helix]

at least in this thread, the hacks are honest about rooting for the economy to fail.

 

[Grant]

And it's too bad that the Republican Party has nobody who fits that description.

Perhaps they should have a close look at the two candidates, as well as their selections for VP, and ask themselves who has has the most experience making high level decisions in leadership positions, enjoyed success in the business world as well as politics, called in to settle emergencies when large problems occur, and led an honorable drug free life.

If Barrack Obama is defeated can you ever imagine him being invited to serve on any nigh level board anywhere? Perhaps he will continue writing autobiographies but I see no future for him outside politics in the practical world.

Maybe he can find work as a non tenured substitute teacher in Wisconsin.