• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Economy Added 162,000 Jobs in March, Most in 3 Years

SouthernDemocrat said:
This is great news. Obviously job creation will have to get over 200k a month before the unemployment rate starts to decline, but the psychological effect of this is very good. This is the first time in 2 years the economy has actually created new jobs. If the trend continues, it will definitely help out with the anxiety of workers / consumers.
Click to expand...
it's very positive. i just got a raise after foregoing one last year.
 
Arch Enemy said:
The only way you would make any difference in that margin is if you came up with 15 million jobs. Don't be naive, celebrate the good as it happens.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one being naive. It's the golden guy who thinks a 300k month is going to destroy Republican momentum in November.
 
can i use this?

During the Clinton years we created 23 million new jobs, median income went up ever single year, the poverty rate declined every single year, and his Administration left office with a budget surplus. It took the Republicans years to royally f*** that all up, and climbing out of this hole and back into prosperity is not going to happen overnight.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The right wingers are astounding. They would bitch if they were hung with a new rope. We created 162,000 jobs last month, to anyone who does not have there head up Glenn Becks ass, that is a good thing.
Click to expand...
On a scale of 1 to 10, how "good" is it?
 
Taylor said:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how "good" is it?
Click to expand...

Relative to where we have been for the last 3 years, it is a 10. Relative to the economy of the post war era as a whole, it is a 5.
 
Taylor said:
I'm not the one being naive. It's the golden guy who thinks a 300k month is going to destroy Republican momentum in November.
Click to expand...

Wait what Republican momentum?

I know of an independent/Libertarian moment that argues against both Republicans and Democrats, but I don't think America wants to see the Old, Red Guard back in power.
 
American said:
Obama needs more than 300,000 jobs to help his problem. That's nothing.
Click to expand...

No! The economy is not about Obama, it's about the state of our country. It may benefit him(or hurt him dependent on the actual state), but it is not about him. I really do get the impression that some of you on the right want the economy to stay bad so you can benefit from it politically, which is just sad.
 
Redress said:
No! The economy is not about Obama, it's about the state of our country. It may benefit him(or hurt him dependent on the actual state), but it is not about him. I really do get the impression that some of you on the right want the economy to stay bad so you can benefit from it politically, which is just sad.
Click to expand...
It's very much about Obama. It's the reason Obama is president.
 
Taylor said:
It's very much about Obama. It's the reason Obama is president.
Click to expand...

Nope. Its about the desire for validation. It is the desire to be declared correct and have more ammunition to enforce a particular vision on the country.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Relative to where we have been for the last 3 years, it is a 10. Relative to the economy of the post war era as a whole, it is a 5.
Click to expand...

It's a 3 or 4 compared to the last 2 years. 3 years is a bit of a stretch. We hit 7% first in Dec 2008. I'll have to go back to Obama's promise which was, in hindsight, insanely naive if not an outright lie... Obama promised the creation of 2.5 million new jobs in November 2008.

As of February 2009, job losses were at 3.6 million. While the hemorrhaging has slowed, we're still not creating jobs... we're simply losing less...

As has been identified in other threads - the actual unemployment number is closer to 17%-18%. Don't think a little positive growth due to artificial stimulation with federal money paying for the temporary jobs will do much long term. Our job losses will get meaningful recovery once housing, once economic stability by banks, and lending occurs as well as when people can get out from under their mortgages, foreclosures, etc.

Graph: Unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted)
 
Arch Enemy said:
Wait what Republican momentum?

I know of an independent/Libertarian moment that argues against both Republicans and Democrats, but I don't think America wants to see the Old, Red Guard back in power.
Click to expand...
Independents didn't exactly want "Old Blue" in power, either. But look where we are? Any reasonably intelligent person knows that we only have two choices in this country.
 
Taylor said:
It's very much about Obama. It's the reason Obama is president.
Click to expand...

Only if the only thing you can see is winning and losing politically. For most of us, this is about the health of the countries economy, and we all benefit when the economy is in good health. Why do you right wingers hate the country so much you would rather we had a poor economy?

Note: I used some sarcasm above.
 
So... any Democrats want to compare these numbers with Bush's "jobless recovery," and what Democrats were calling "the worst recovery since the Great Depression?"

Or are we still too busy doing cartwheels?
 
Last edited:
This job growth is an encouraging development. Such job growth will need to accelerate and be maintained if the nation's high unemployment rate is to begin a sustained descent toward a level closer to full employment. The handoff from the public sector's support of aggregate demand through substantial fiscal stimulus to the private sector in coming months will have risks, so the job growth numbers could prove volatile. Ultimately, the private sector will need to regain confidence that rising demand will be sustained. Only then will hiring pick up and continue at a rate necessary to materially reduce the nation's unemployment rate. Gimmicks e.g., tax cuts aimed at creating jobs, will do little. A sustained expansion of aggregate demand will do most to build and maintain private sector confidence.

Although it took time for positive job creation to develop, it is not accurate to argue that the fiscal stimulus efforts delayed job creation. If mainstream economic principles are relevant, the fiscal stimulus mitigated the extent of the collapse in aggregate demand and prevented things from becoming worse than they would have been in the absence of such a stimulus.

In its April 2009 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) explained the merits of fiscal stimulus:

In view of the extent of the downturn and the limits on monetary policy's effectiveness, fiscal policy must play a crucial part in providing short-term support to the global economy... [F]iscal policy can be particularly effective in shortening the duration of recessions, whereas the impact of monetary policy is reduced.

Why then did the unemployment rate rise above the thresholds widely cited by proponents of the fiscal stimulus? Because the collapse in aggregate demand was even worse than had been expected. As the IMF accurately noted, "By any measure, this downturn represents by far the deepest global recession since the Great Depression."

Beyond the transitional issues related to the withdrawal of the stimulus, specifically the timing and speed of the withdrawal, there remains the medium-term and beyond need for credible fiscal consolidation. To be credible, the strategy will need to consider revenue and spending. Moreover, politically difficult as it might be, a strategy for addressing the medium- to long-term imbalances in the nation's mandatory spending programs will be required for the fiscal consolidation program to be credible. The nation simply cannot grow its way out of its looming fiscal imbalances. Tax hikes (modest, if spending is put on a sustainable path), discretionary spending reductions, and mandatory spending reform will all be required for the nation to effectively address its medium- to long-term imbalances. Considering that the largest imbalances in mandatory spending are associated with health costs, the nation will need to focus on curbing excessive growth in national health expenditures. Such expenditures cannot grow at a multiple of GDP indefinitely. The most recent health legislation expanded coverage, but did not address that issue.

To facilitate public fiscal consolidation efforts, the private sector will need to grow more competitive. The nation's chronic trade deficits are not the result of "unfair" trade terms. There are real competitiveness issues involved, and additional emergent ones. Failure to tackle competitiveness issues that lie at the heart of chronic trade imbalances will mitigate long-term growth in employment and incomes. Such an outcome would have an adverse impact on the nation's fiscal situation e.g., in the form of slower tax revenue growth. Households will also need to be more prudent about debt accumulation and more aggressive in increasing private saving.
 
Redress said:
Only if the only thing you can see is winning and losing politically. For most of us, this is about the health of the countries economy, and we all benefit when the economy is in good health.
Click to expand...
I see. You're "above" this political stuff. :roll:

If all the "most of you" care about is the country's economy, then you won't mind us voting Democrats out of office. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you take issue with any of the comments being made about Obama.

So long as the economy is in good health, eh? :lol:
 
Taylor said:
So... any Democrats want to compare these numbers with Bush's "jobless recovery," and what Democrats were calling "the worst recovery since the Great Depression?"

Or are we still too busy doing cartwheels?
Click to expand...

Why don't we face reality and compare it to the total meltdown of the economy under Bush, the disaster that led to these employment numbers making front page news?
 
WillRockwell said:
Why don't we face reality and compare it to the total meltdown of the economy under Bush, the disaster that led to these employment numbers making front page news?
Click to expand...
Why don't we stay on topic and discuss the recovery from said recession?
 
Why don't we stay on topic and discuss the March jobs report which IMO was modestly positive.
 
It takes a moment to fully sink in how bad our economy has been in the past two years: this report marks only “the second month of jobs growth since the recession began in December 2007.”¹
 
March jobs report shows growth

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy gained more jobs in March than any other month in the last three years, according to a government report released Friday.

The Labor Department said the economy gained 162,000 jobs in the month, compared to a revised reading of a 14,000 job loss in February. That makes March only the third month of gains since the recession began.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a gain of 184,000 jobs. But despite missing forecasts, the March number was generally not seen as a disappointment by economists, because revisions in January and February readings added a combined 62,000 additional jobs.
Click to expand...

March jobs report shows employers hiring again - Apr. 2, 2010
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom