Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 153

Thread: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

  1. #91
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    175k jobs a month is like trying to fill a swimming pool with a table spoon. we need to create 150k to 200k a month just to keep up with population growth. We have the lowest labor participation rate in the last 40 years. if we had the same labor participation rate as we did 5 years ago unemployment would be about 9%
    There is nor has there ever been an official number of jobs required to meet population growth or lower employment. The number required is ever changing based on a handful of metrics.
    Last edited by a351; 06-11-13 at 07:12 PM. Reason: Typo.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    There is nor has their ever been an official number of jobs required to meet population growth or lower employment. The number required is ever changing based on a handful of metrics.
    True.

    But apparently the Fed has a number in mind.


    Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View


    'Chairman Ben S. Bernanke needs to see four months of job growth averaging at least 200,000 to justify reducing the pace of asset purchases, according to Vincent Reinhart, a former director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs. Roberto Perli, a former researcher in the division, said the central bank would need to see that pace “through the summer.”
    “They would see that as confirmation that the economy is on a self-sustaining trajectory and they would thus be confident that they could reduce the pace” of quantitative easing, said Perli, a partner at Cornerstone Macro LP in Washington.'


    Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View - Bloomberg

  3. #93
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    True.

    But apparently the Fed has a number in mind.


    Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View


    'Chairman Ben S. Bernanke needs to see four months of job growth averaging at least 200,000 to justify reducing the pace of asset purchases, according to Vincent Reinhart, a former director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs. Roberto Perli, a former researcher in the division, said the central bank would need to see that pace “through the summer.”
    “They would see that as confirmation that the economy is on a self-sustaining trajectory and they would thus be confident that they could reduce the pace” of quantitative easing, said Perli, a partner at Cornerstone Macro LP in Washington.'


    Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View - Bloomberg
    For growth and an opportune moment to wind down easing, yes. Separate issue entirely.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    While millions lose their jobs, we create 175,000. WOW, let's party.
    And food stamps are at an all time high! Breakout the champagne!

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    For growth and an opportune moment to wind down easing, yes. Separate issue entirely.
    Uhhh...no.

    Talking about Moon landings would be a 'separate issue entirely'.


    Separate from your point...maybe.

    Separate from the OP...hardly.

    Since American economic growth is (IMO) at present, almost entirely dependent on Fed QE's/artificially low interest rates, then it is certainly relevant what the Fed's 'tipping point' maybe.


    Just because I quote a post, doesn't mean I am necessarily talking about the same, exact issue discussed within it.
    Last edited by DA60; 06-11-13 at 08:06 PM.

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    There is nor has there ever been an official number of jobs required to meet population growth or lower employment. The number required is ever changing based on a handful of metrics.
    But there sure as hell is an undeniable unofficial range, and its currently around 135-145K per month with regards to an increase in the workforce.

    Here's the facts. Since Obama was sworn in, Jan 2009, thru Dec 2012, there have been all of 3,918,000 non-farm jobs added.
    ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaeu.txt

    That amounts to 81,625 per month. Of well over 50K per month less than we would need to keep unemployment level. Yet "unemployment" is where it was when he took office !!!!

    Almost 2.5 million more folks not working !! Obamanomics is not only a massive fail, but the Democrats hide behind smoke-and-mirrors. And pretending there's "no official number".

  7. #97
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,564

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    If facts mislead you from what you want to believe, that says much more about you than me. I cannot tell you how hard I laughed when I read this comment of yours. Apparently, now, using facts is discouraged in conversation. Great.
    More of the same. Willful misunderstanding, I guess. That is just strange that it caused you to laugh. Again, misleading, a cornerstone of the left.

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    the categories fastest growing in may were food service (38,000 jobs) and temps (26k)

    hardly american-dream material

    more broadly, the las vegas sun, sunday:

    Obama falls flat on economy | Las Vegas Review-Journal

    You don’t have to be a financial whiz to know that the economy isn’t good. Times are tough, and they’ve been tough for some time. The middle class has shrunk; wealth has diminished; poverty is up; and unemployment, especially for minorities, is nothing short of miserable.

    But how bad is it, really?

    Up until very recently, this was hard to quantify and thus became in large part a political argument. Today, however, enough time has passed that economists now have data points to scientifically put President Barack Obama’s economic policy in its proper place.

    On the old legacy-o-meter, things aren’t looking good for Obama and his supporters, who so desperately wanted him to succeed.

    I’m tempted to compare Obama’s performance on the economy to this year’s Phoenix Suns basketball team. But that might be too harsh — on the Suns.

    President Obama, meanwhile, kept the same economic game plan and failed policies in place for 4˝ years. Clear evidence is mounting to show that Obama’s stubbornness (or shall we call it ignorance) might earn him the title of Worst Economic President Ever.

    An overreach, you say? Au contraire, mon ami. Ponder this: In what historians consider one of the most unsuccessful presidential terms in modern history, Jimmy Carter still produced four times as much economic growth as Barack Obama. If that doesn’t put it into perspective for you, nothing will.

    Because historically speaking, the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.

    [Forbes] points out that the record shows it takes an average of two years for the economy to recover all the jobs lost after a recession. But in the 4˝ years of Obama’s reign, he has failed to accomplish that, and it’s now been 5˝ years since the previous jobs peak.

    In an article for Investor’s Business Daily: “Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9 percent ... but average annual real GDP growth during Obama’s entire first term was less than half as much at a pitiful 0.8 percent.”

    That performance will establish Obama firmly as the worst president ever on the economy. Obama’s GDP growth is less than half as much as the worst president in the past 60 years.

    Let that process slowly. That means that if President Obama could go back in time and find a way to double his GDP performance, he’d still hold the record for the worst economic president in the past 60 years.

    That’s bad. So bad, in fact, I want to circle back and apologize to the Phoenix Suns. You’re bad, but you’re not Obama bad.
    a trillion in "stimulus," approaching 4T in qe...

    what happens when borrowing costs are allowed to correct themselves?

    abc emphasizes that the tepidity of the may jobs report is good news for the dow---bernanke will keep rates (artificially) low

    Jobs Report: Unemployment Rate Rises to 7.6 Percent as 175,000 Jobs Are Added - ABC News

  9. #99
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Yes, you are right.

    I was thinking of something else, sorry.
    Sincerely, thank you for double checking to make sure you weren't putting out wrong information.


    But how the heck does the labor force growing help the economy if the Labor Force Participation Rate is dropping like a stone over the last few years?
    It doesn't, necessarily. I was mostly just contradicting the claim that the Labor Force was declining, when it is growing, though not as fast as the population.

    That just means that more and more people who don't have a job - but want one - are not being counted by the BLS as in the Labor Force.
    Why does it mean that? The number of people who don't want a job...and the percent of people not in the labor force who don't want a job, have been increasing. Some of it is retirees, some of it is spouses deciding to stay home with the kids, and a lot of it are students.


    If you are looking for a job but have given up looking because you cannot find one...you are still unemployed.
    Why? Seriously...what is the practical difference between someone not trying to work because they don't think they'll get a job, and someone not trying to work because they don't or can't work? Who is more likely to get a job?

    It's a question of what you're trying to measure. The point of measuring unemployment is to see how many people who could be working...who could have been hired in a particular month...are not working. People not looking for work could not have been hired...could not have been working.

    Analogy time....if you're a retailer and you sell out of a particular item. You sold 150. You find out that 180 people came to your store to buy it. And you find out that 20 people called the store, or found out from someone who called or visited, that you were out and so didn't show up. And you find out there were 10 more people who say they wanted it, but didn't check to see if you had any either by contacting you or a friend.

    How many could you have sold if you had had enough inventory? Obviously the 150 you did sell. Obviously the 30 more from the people who showed up and walked away empty handed. We can also assume the 20 people who called or asked would have showed up and bought if they knew there was inventory. So that's 200 we know, or are fairly certain you could have sold.

    But what about the 10 people who didn't show or check. Can you say that they would have bought if there was enough inventory? No. Regardless of your inventory, they wouldn't have shown up anyway, even though they say they wanted it.

    Now, it's useful to know that there are 10 more people who might buy the item sometime in the future, but you can't say that for the particular day in question that you could have sold 210, but you can say you could have sold 200.

    Does that make more sense? That "but they still didn't get the item they wanted" doesn't mean they would have gotten it if you had enough.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  10. #100
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,280

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    For growth and an opportune moment to wind down easing, yes. Separate issue entirely.
    But QE has NO effect on jobs. No effect on the free market so why is Bernake contiuing ?

    There's only one right amswer.

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •