• 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!

Only 115,000 jobs added in April; unemployment rate dips to 8.1 percent

Republicans HAVE proposed alternatives. But Obama and his buddies won't hold any debates. Why do you think THAT is?

Actually Obama is scheduled to debate Romney 4 times. Republicans will get their opportunity to provide their alternatives during that time. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Obama not holding debates.
 
One can only surmise that it's the result of a fundamental ignorance of economics. No one disputes that government CAN mess up the economy, e.g. by crowding out investment, pushing interest rates too high, or fueling an asset bubble, but none of those things are happening now. What's happened under Obama is that the Fed has kept interest rates near zero, which helps business and the markets, they've kept inflation, if anything, too low, which helps consumers, they've passed a payroll tax cut to help working people, and they passed a large stimulus bill which primarily helped the states forestall layoffs.

One can argue that these are bad policies in the long run, due to debt overhang, but you can't realistically argue that these policies have slowed employment growth up until now ... or even that they haven't helped bolster employment growth. If the government had not done these things the current situation would certainly be much worse.

As Peabody noted, this is a lot of horse manure, not only in what in inaccurately states, but also in what it leaves out.

Obamacare is a product solely of this President, and the short-lived and disasterous Democrat Congress. That's not "debt over-hang", that's debt bottomless pit.

Obama has increased the rate of debt accumulation four-fold. His disasterous economic policies not only have wasted a couple trillion taxpayer dollars more than was needed, but has kept $2-3 T in private money out of our market. The beauty with such as Reagan, for example, is that he got that money into the market. Obama is chasing it out. Deliberately so.
 
Amazing, just amazing all of the right wingers who expect government to be the solution to the problem. Change the president, and unemployment will drop, and we'll all live happily ever after.

Its the President's socialist mindset that's ****ed....

The Socialism bit was tried at Plymouth Rock and quite a few colonists starved to death before they abandoned it. It was tried in Soviet Russia...and failed. It was tried in Cuba...and it's failing. It has been tried in Europe...and it's failing. Do you have to try it again and have it fail for you before you learn the lesson?

Thats, the issue
 
To believe the unemployment rate has fallen is the denial of reality...and the proof of a need for a head examination.

You have to keep in mind that AdamT is a proven liar and he's always known for spouting lies and/or false facts on other threads such as Obama's auto bailouts saved MILLIONS and MILLIONS of jobs or that the effect of the trillion spent on the stimulous caused 23 consecutive months of job growth.
 
Actually Obama is scheduled to debate Romney 4 times. Republicans will get their opportunity to provide their alternatives during that time. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Obama not holding debates.

I don't think he was referring to presidential campaign debates ( which are virtually worthless).. I think he was speaking more towards congressional policy debates.. in which case, the primary culprit would be Harry Reid, not Obama.. Harry doesn't like debates to happen, that much is crystal clear.. and he gets the filibusters in return for killing debate.
 
that is a misrepresentation. we think that government is a large part of the problem; and so if you reduce or get rid of the ways in which government is holding us back, then the economy will surge ahead.

1/3 of all layoffs in 2011 were Govt. jobs and they are still declining. Romney promises to cut more govt. jobs and workers pay too. Is that what you mean by getting out of the way? It sounds like more fairytale economics to me. Cutting jobs and pay will raise unemployment not lower it. It has already happened in Europe
 
Last edited:
Its the President's socialist mindset that's ****ed....

The Socialism bit was tried at Plymouth Rock and quite a few colonists starved to death before they abandoned it. It was tried in Soviet Russia...and failed. It was tried in Cuba...and it's failing. It has been tried in Europe...and it's failing. Do you have to try it again and have it fail for you before you learn the lesson?

Thats, the issue

The only thing they are trying in Europe is the Conservative austerity budgets they passed and it is making things worse as predicted. But you want to try it here anyway. Whos' the one beating the dead horse now?
 
that is a misrepresentation. we think that government is a large part of the problem; and so if you reduce or get rid of the ways in which government is holding us back, then the economy will surge ahead.

Ahhh, the faith based approach. Please explain how cutting government spending will boost both consumer and investment demand.
 
and hopefully a reduction in government spending.

A reduction in government spending with levels of high unemployment is a recipe for failure. Of course, i do not expect you to understand why.
 
1/3 of all layoffs in 2011 were Govt. jobs and they are still declining. Romney promises to cut more govt. jobs and workers pay too. Is that what you mean by getting out of the way? It sounds like more fairytale economics to me. Cutting jobs and pay will raise unemployment not lower it. It has already happened in Europe

In Jan 2011 there were 22,128,000 Government workers nationwide. In Dec 2011 there were 22,333,000, that's a net increase of 205,000 employees. In Jan 2009 when Obama took office there were 22,471,000 Government workers nationwide, as of April 2012 22,404,000. Since Obama took office we have all of 67,000 less Government employees.

Source: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands] Check the box Government in the Non Seasonally adjusted for the raw data.
 
Last edited:
Then what it says is incorrect. While changing leaders is no guarantee of success, to not change this one is a guarantee of failure.

Nonsense. We are a mixed economy that is dominated by market orientated ideals. How does changing the President allow the construction industry to thrive? Analysis of previous employment reports during normal expansionary periods shows that construction employment (you know, people building new residential, commercial, and industrial structures) is a key driver of employment growth during the spring and early summer months. So please explain your argument in detail; two sentences does not cut it!
 
Anyone who seriously believes the unemployment rate has fallen has a serious problem and seriously needs to have their head examined.

What's seriously pathetic about our citizens is that a lot of them will seriously believe it.

Houston...we have a serious problem.

Perhaps you do not understand exactly what unemployment (and its calculations) encompasses. Perhaps this will be of some help.
 
Agreed.

No one person, or even a handful, left or right, will lift us out of this mess. That's quite evident.

It will take a major political action by the great majority at or near the center of the political spectrum to ever create the reparative political action America's citizens need.

You are aware that the current employment status of the U.S. is not politically driven?!?! Right?
 
Wait, you mean to tell me that quadrupling our debt for a handful of failed companies to continue to exist while they continue to cut jobs and their overall growth so that their executives can keep their lifestyles is NOT the way out of this mess?? say it isn't so!

You drew a conclusion and assumed an inference that I did not make. And all the debt increasing didn't come from just a few companies that failed but from a financial sector that held the balance of the markets in their grasp. Maybe exerting a little of that regulatory control would've stemmed the losses of toxic paper that amassed over the last decade.
 
Ahhh, the faith based approach. Please explain how cutting government spending will boost both consumer and investment demand.

A reduction in government spending with levels of high unemployment is a recipe for failure. Of course, i do not expect you to understand why.

Can't see anything in your posts that makes sense. Looks like kicking the can still to me, and the cliff is right over there ......

Consider this. Is it possible to get government more out of the picture so that more private commerce gets back in the picture ?

Can you explain for us why such as California and Illinois are going over a fiscal cliff all by themselves, while other states that faced their own fiscal disasters, such as Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, and Virginia, have actually reversed that destiny ?
 
The question about job growth brings up another question or two ..

.. Does anyone know how many jobs were added last period and how many jobs were lost last period, so that a net jobs gained/lost figure can be presented?

Also, does anyone know how many living-wage jobs were added last period and how many living-wage jobs were lost last period, so that a net living-wage jobs gained/lost figure can be presented?

This should suffice.
 
Consider this. Is it possible to get government more out of the picture so that more private commerce gets back in the picture ?

The issue is not that government is crowding out private industry (to even mention such a thing is silly given the state of interest rate differentials between corporate and government debt as well as the current level of labor market slack).

Can you explain for us why such as California and Illinois are going over a fiscal cliff all by themselves, while other states that faced their own fiscal disasters, such as Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, and Virginia, have actually reversed that destiny ?

Of course, but you will first have to explain to me how the fiscal pictures of these respective states have anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm not saying your comment is un-interesting. It is just a tangent (red herring).

Edit: maybe this will give you a better account as to how cutting government spending will inversely impact our nations economic growth at this stage.
 
Last edited:
The issue is not that government is crowding out private industry (to even mention such a thing is silly given the state of interest rate differentials between corporate and government debt as well as the current level of labor market slack).

Its actually chasing it out. But your assumption is illuminating. ;)


Of course, but you will first have to explain to me how the fiscal pictures of these respective states have anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm not saying your comment is un-interesting. It is just a tangent (red herring).

What the state models indicate is that government, in this case comparing apples to apples with different states, can create both a fiscally successful environment, and a fiscally destructive environment. For those that want to know, info so as to compare is easily available.
 
Its actually chasing it out. But your assumption is illuminating. ;)

Nonsense. The issue is lack of aggregate demand (which can be confirmed by analyzing aggregate sales). If you bothered to read the NIPA table i provided, you will see a dramatic shortfall in private domestic investment that continues to burden employment.

Crowding out can only occur as the interest rate on government debt diverges from the interest rate on corporate debt. Given 8.1% unemployment, debt spreads on equal grade securities being minuscule (if not negative), there is nothing you can provide that makes the case for such a notion.

What the state models indicate is that government, in this case comparing apples to apples with different states, can create both a fiscally successful environment, and a fiscally destructive environment. For those that want to know, info so as to compare is easily available.

Come on now.... If you can relate this statement above to this thread, then by all means. I however believe you are offering this tangent as a means of hiding from the discussion at hand.
 
Last edited:
But...but....the Dow Jones is up!

Once again proving "growth" doesn't always mean jobs. This is why the Fed is supposed to balance inflation and unemployment, not inflation and growth.
 
Question regarding these numbers that come out. Hopefully someone can answer them unbiasedly.

When they state 115,000 new jobs does this simply mean jobs created? Does it factor in jobs lost? For instance if this week we have 100 jobs and we add in 30 new jobs, but lose 15 jobs in that same span did we create 30 new jobs or 15? The reason I ask (other than I dont know) is that 115,000 jobs added would be a great thing IMO if means we now have 115,000 more jobs in this country than we had previously. However if we created 115,000 new jobs but lost 300,000 then I am not so impressed.

Furthermore, how is the 8.1% unemployment determined?
 
Question regarding these numbers that come out. Hopefully someone can answer them unbiasedly.

When they state 115,000 new jobs does this simply mean jobs created? Does it factor in jobs lost? For instance if this week we have 100 jobs and we add in 30 new jobs, but lose 15 jobs in that same span did we create 30 new jobs or 15? The reason I ask (other than I dont know) is that 115,000 jobs added would be a great thing IMO if means we now have 115,000 more jobs in this country than we had previously. However if we created 115,000 new jobs but lost 300,000 then I am not so impressed.

Furthermore, how is the 8.1% unemployment determined?

Today's employment report has two main segments, the current population survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate(s) and current employment statistics, which is based on payroll data to derive the "jobs" number of 115,000 this month.

The CPS essentially surveys 50,000 households every month (on the 12th i believe) and takes into consideration different geographical locations of the nation to provide a well rounded report. Then, the BLS employs various time-series statistical techniques that take into consideration previous data to derive the unemployment rate, number of people employed, non-civilian population, etc.... According to this survey and the techniques involved, the U3 unemployment rate fell from 8.2% to 8.1%.

The CES surveys 400,000 businesses that employ something like 50 million employees. Similar to the CPS, the CES uses time-series analysis to derive the "job gains" or "job losses" figure along with various industry breakdowns (like how many construction jobs were lost or gained). According to the establishment data, 115,000 jobs were created in April, while the figures from February and March were revised upward from 240,000 to 259,000 and from 120,000 to 154,000 respectively.

As far as the unemployment rate is concerned, they simply take the figures derived from the data and simply divide each respective employment statistic (from U1 to U6) by the number of people in the workforce. Remember, unemployment is defined as a person who is actively seeking employment, but for some reason is unable to find said employment. The UE rate is simply the ratio that is extrapolated using the data and statistics derived from the survey.

Given that the CPS and the CES differ in population parameters, it is entirely possible for there to be positive CES data and positive CPS unemployment ratios and vise versa (negative job gains and falling unemployment rates).
 
Last edited:
Amazing, just amazing all of the right wingers who expect government to be the solution to the problem. Change the president, and unemployment will drop, and we'll all live happily ever after.

The country is in deep doo doo, no question. Unemployment is much higher than advertised. Fewer than half of recent college grads have jobs that reflect their level of education. The rest are either unemployed or flipping burgers (or similar). The high school dropouts, and there are a lot of them, are pretty much unemployable. What are they doing? Meanwhile, since fewer are paying taxes, being unemployed and all, and since the feds have been on a spending spree for decades now, we seem to be acquiring something of a debt.

The Congress is dysfunctional, totally tied up in knots with hyperpartisan lack of willingness to do anything that makes the dreaded other side look good, regardless of what is needed for the country.

and we're looking for a superman to ride his white horse into the White House and set it all right. It ain't gonna happen, folks. No one person is going to get us out of the doldrums we're in now.

Half the battle is for the president to stop acting like he can fix it with more government and taxes. Private business doesn't like more government; it likes less.

The private sector is scared senseless of what Obama might do next to them. Take away that fear, and let private enterprise get to work on the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom