• 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. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008[W:489, 497]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tettsuo

Compassion is Strength
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
3,748
Reaction score
2,752
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

Payrolls rebounded in April following an even bigger setback a month earlier than previously estimated, a sign companies are confident the U.S. economy will reboot after stagnating early this year. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.4 percent.
The 223,000 net increase in employment followed an 85,000 gain in March that was the smallest since June 2012, figures from the Labor Department showed Friday in Washington. The jobless rate fell to the lowest since May 2008 as more Americans entered the labor force and found work. Average hourly earnings climbed less than forecast.
Construction and health care were among the industries that accelerated the pace of hiring last month as the economy emerged from temporary setbacks that included bad weather and a labor dispute at West Coast ports. Such job growth and steadily rising wages may keep the Federal Reserve on track to raise its benchmark interest rate later this year.

“It is a respectable bounce -- anything 200,000 or higher is going to lead to further diminishment of slack in the labor market,” Kathy Bostjancic, a U.S. financial economist at Oxford Economics USA Inc. in New York, said before the report. The breakneck pace of hiring at the end of 2014 was “unhealthy and unsustainable, and going forward we expect more moderate gains, but still strong.”
The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 96 economists called for a 228,000 advance, with estimates ranging from gains of 175,000 to 327,000. March was revised from a previously reported 126,000 advance. Revisions to prior reports subtracted a total of 39,000 jobs to overall payrolls in the previous two months.
[h=2]To calculate the data, the Labor Department surveys businesses for the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. The span between the agency’s April and March employment surveys was five weeks, rather than the typical four.

Participation Rate[/h]The participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people who are employed or looking for work, increased to 62.8 percent from 62.7 percent in March, which matched the lowest since 1978.
Wage growth remains limited, with average hourly earnings rising 0.1 percent in April after a revised 0.2 percent gain that was weaker than initially reported. Compared with a year earlier, hourly pay was up 2.2 percent last month, less than the Bloomberg median estimate of 2.3 percent.
The average work week for all employees held at 34.5 hours.
[h=2]Construction Employment[/h]Employment in health services increased 55,600 in April after a 30,600 gain the month before. Construction companies took on 45,000 workers in April, the most since January 2014.
The slowdown tied to cheaper oil prices persisted in April. The mining industry, which includes oil extraction and services, lost 15,000 jobs last month, the most since May 2009.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her colleagues will use the data to help them parse the strength of the economy as they consider raising interest rates for the first time since 2006. Officials, who dropped a promise in March to be patient on raising rates, say they can act at any policy meeting, beginning with their gathering on June 16-17. Most expect them to move later this year.

Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?
 
Good news, albeit the downward revisions for prior months. Hopefully the labor market will continue to regain momentum.
 
As usual, people read the headlines and little else...this was a fair at best (I would call it borderline lousy) jobs report.

In the household data -

- only 192,000 more people were employed AND March was revised downwards to just 34,000!?!
- the 16-19 AND the 25-54 age ranges (the latter the backbone of the economy) both had less people employed in April.
- there were 252,000 less Americans employed full time in April.

- since January, there are only 61,000 more Americans employed full time...but 192,000 more who are part time.
- and since January, there are less people employed in the important 35-54 age group (as usual since the 'recovery' began' - the over 55's get FAR AND AWAY most of the new employed).

So, in April, there are over 1/4 million less Americans employed full time AND the most important age groups (25-54) show a net loss of employed.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Always look past the headlines.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?

I'd love to. Perhaps you could list some of the economy boosting legislative and/or regulatory initiatives President Obama has pushed for and championed that show how good he's been for the economy so I could concede your point. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
 
Who in this country would think that unemployment dropping is bad news?

The U-3 (the official 'unemployment rate') means almost nothing, imo.

You do realize that the U-3 could theoretically be almost zero even though NO ONE is employed?
 
People with a disease called Obama-hate-itis.

It has nothing to do with hate. I don't hate Obama. You're asking for people to give him credit for the unemployment rate. I asked you why. What specifically has Obama done to bring the unemployment rate to where it is today? What specific policy did he implement since January of 2009 that resulted in this number?
 
Who in this country would think that unemployment dropping is bad news?

it depends on why unemployment is dropping. if it is dropping because of a massive leave of people from the work force it isn't a good thing.
if you read the actual numbers this is still a pretty crummy jobs report.
 
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?

Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-93194000

Good for all but 94 million Americans it seems.
 
W

Actually, its quite good for the 94 million Americans that are retired, stay at home moms, students and disabled.... the healthy workforce continues to provide the economic prosperity to allow these persons to not have to work, as clearly they do not want to....

I do hope you are not cursed with the ignorance that too many have that the "Not in Labor Force" number is somehow a bad thing ythat changes in that number are indicative of economic health. It seems too many people like to use this statistic without having a clue what it is...
 
The U-3 (the official 'unemployment rate') means almost nothing, imo.

You do realize that the U-3 could theoretically be almost zero even though NO ONE is employed?

Why do you just make up **** like that? It is not mathematically possible. But go ahead.... make up some numbers and show us your equation. If no one was employed, the UE rate would be 100% Good Lord!, you don't even know how percentages work!!!

Yes, I know, you'll do the math, realize you're wrong, but won't be able to admit it and just insult me.
 
There seems to be a pattern forming here. But of course, the naysayers are going to deride this good news as well.

U.S. Unemployment Falls to Lowest Level Since May 2008 - Bloomberg Business

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Can someone in the right please concede that Obama is, and has been, GOOD for the economy?

Just as soon as you can show us what policies he put in place that responsible for this....

IMO, when the market sees a more conservative gov't coming, it expands, when it sees a more liberal gov't coming, it contracts. I think that this is a sign that the market is anticipating a conservative Pres. or a more conservative Congress. But that's just a theory that I'm still watching for more evidence to support.
 
Why do you just make up **** like that? It is not mathematically possible. But go ahead.... make up some numbers and show us your equation. If no one was employed, the UE rate would be 100% Good Lord!, you don't even know how percentages work!!!

Yes, I know, you'll do the math, realize you're wrong, but won't be able to admit it and just insult me.

Correction

First he'll shout "KEYNES!!!!" and then he will insult you.
 
People with a disease called Obama-hate-itis.
and the typical liberal card.

it has nothing to do with Obama except for the crappy job reports that continue to come out since he has been president.
if you look past the headline and actually read the report it is pretty crappy.

who care about 200k part time employed people. people want full time jobs.
ol yea companies run into major financial costs by employing full time people now thanks to Obama.

with all the constant minimum wage hikes going on around the country younger people are being cut out of jobs.
people that are 55 and older still have issues finding work as there is someone else to do it cheaper.

The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 241,000
to 2.7 million in April. The number of long-term unemployed (those
jobless for 27 weeks or more) changed little at 2.5 million, accounting
for 29.0 percent of the unemployed.

In April, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, little changed over the year. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior
12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

this isn't anything to get excited about. the U3 number is a joke of a measure and everyone knows it.
 
People with a disease called Obama-hate-itis.

Really??

Here's tb's post:
I think this is very good news. But what specific Obama policy brought unemployment down? How is this attributable to him?

The only part you quoted was
I think this is very good news.

You ignored the rest of tb's post and only focused on the part you liked. How about answering the question how this can be attributed to the President?
 
Why do you just make up **** like that? It is not mathematically possible. But go ahead.... make up some numbers and show us your equation. If no one was employed, the UE rate would be 100% Good Lord!, you don't even know how percentages work!!!

Yes, I know, you'll do the math, realize you're wrong, but won't be able to admit it and just insult me.

you are wrong on that. the U3 number only counts those people "in the job market" if everyone stopped looking for work the unemployement rate would be 0% according to the U3 number. the u3 number does not include those types of people.

however if you look at the U5 and U6 numbers they do and give a much better reflection of the job market in general.
you don't understand what you are looking at.
 
No president can take direct credit for decreasing unemployment unless it's the government doing the hiring. So these questions asking me for specific legislation that leads to an increase in hiring are in and of themselves nonsensical.
 
BTW - since the beginning of the 'Great Recession', despite roughly $12 trillion (gov't./Fed) in debt and ZIRP thrown at the economy over roughly 7 1/2 years:

- there are still over 4 MILLION less people employed in the 25-54 age range (the backbone of the economy).

- there are 656,000 LESS Americans employed full time (but 2,998,000 more Americans employed part time).


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01042008.pdf

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators


Money well spent - don't make me laugh.
 
who care about 200k part time employed people. people want full time jobs.
Where are you getting that number from? There were 6,580,000 in April who wanted and were available for full time work but worked less during the reference week due to slow business or couldn't find full time job. That's down 125,000 since March.

The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 241,000
to 2.7 million in April. The number of long-term unemployed (those
jobless for 27 weeks or more) changed little at 2.5 million, accounting
for 29.0 percent of the unemployed.[/quote]
That's good news. The long term had been growing. That it's steady/starting to drop is good. The percent of people who are unemployed because they quit has gone up. The percent of people unemployed because they're starting to look again, is up. Those involuntarily unemployed have gone down.

In April, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, little changed over the year. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior
12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
And the number of people marginally attached due to discouragement dropped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom