Jobs miss big, unemployment rate falls to 16-year low

Fenton said:

Obama threw a massive wet blanket on our economy. 1.5 percent growth per year and a economy so anemic it had to be propped up with 8 years of FED zero interest rate policies

His tax policies and legislation are still in place

Click to expand...

Those Bush tax cuts Obama made permanent are adding to the debt. Unfunded tax cuts are a form of welfare. Once you hand them out, the recipients feel entitled to them in perpetuity.

<alt>doxygen said:

Those Bush tax cuts Obama made permanent are adding to the debt. Unfunded tax cuts are a form of welfare. Once you hand them out, the recipients feel entitled to them in perpetuity.

Click to expand...

In other words, once congress critters decide to spend more than they dare ask for in taxation and realize that they still get re-elected at a rate of over 90% it then becomes standard operating procedure to borrow and spend.

upsideguy said:

That is a cop-out. The number of discouraged workers is very low number and easy to track. The discouraged worker adds .2 points to the unemployment rate, making it climb to 4.5% (u-4) from 4.3% (u-3), not terribly material.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Many people like citing the U-6 rate, which also includes those marginally attached to the workforce. That number is also the lowest it has been in a decade.

The labor participation rate was often cited by Republicans a some measure that the economy wasn't doing as well as expected. However, the make-up of the "not in workforce" (those not participating) is substantially comprised of the retired, the stay-at-home moms, students and the disabled. It is more of a demographic than a statement on the health of the economy The fact that people CHOOSE not to participate is generally a sign of a good economy.

Underemployment
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

Click to expand...

I want to address one point here. In the '90's in California (construction) we ran out of labor, and the Mexican invasion hadn't really hadn't ginned up yet. We were hiring people off welfare, we had adults who had never had a job before, we had ex con's and reforming gang bangers, single mothers. It was something. But the point is that certainly some of these people moved on to better jobs elsewhere as their "interface with the work world" improved as the social squints say, and contributed to society and to their own social progress.

So there is a real human component in the U6 numbers. Hiring off the U6 rolls, you are often saving money on some social program or another, and getting these souls to pay taxes. It's the best thing for everyone.

ttwtt78640 said:

In other words, once congress critters decide to spend more than they dare ask for in taxation and realize that they still get re-elected at a rate of over 90% it then becomes standard operating procedure to borrow and spend.

Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately. In that particular case, the 2nd round Bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset, but we were in or coming out of (depending on your perspective) a very deep recession so reinstating those taxes was even more politically untenable than it normally would have been.

Your statement is also true in the larger sense. Both sides borrow and spend, then scream about the debt/deficit when out of power. The only difference between dems and reps seems to be the attitude towards trying to up taxes at all and what they throw the 'spend' money at.

Pretty sad state of affairs.

I still think the 90+% re-election rate could be somewhat helped by actually getting rid of gerrymandering.

Okay...May was a lousy month....at best.

Employment was up only 138,000 for May. Plus, adjustments took 66,000 off the previous two months - so now they were only 174,000 and (yuch) 50,000 for April and March, respectively.
That means the average over the last three months is only 120,000.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm


It gets worse from there...

The Household survey showed 233,000 LESS people employed in May (seasonally adjusted).

And 367,000 LESS people were employed full time in May over April (seasonally adjusted).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm


Finally, the Employment-population ratio - which is a far better employment indicator than the U-3 imo - went down last month and has not budged since February (up is good, down is bad).
And the employment-population ratio for ages 25-54 (the heart of the economy), went down as well last month (both seasonally adjusted).

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060


Overall, it was a lousy month...bordering on flat out bad.

<alt>doxygen said:

Those Bush tax cuts Obama made permanent are adding to the debt. Unfunded tax cuts are a form of welfare. Once you hand them out, the recipients feel entitled to them in perpetuity.

Click to expand...

20 Tax increases in ObamaCare....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...b-creators-and-investors-in-obama-budget/amp/

And then there's the law itself, which targeted the Middle classes discretionary income via higher premiums and dedcutibles.

Average deducible for a individual on the Gold plan is 6000.00 bucks, over 10,000 for a family.

If a premium is what it cost you to have insurance, a dedcutible os what it cost to use that insurance. Less money in comsumers pockets mean less money spent on everything else.
We are a consumer driven economy.

Also Corporate tax rates need to come down as do taxes for bringing capital back into the States as does the Capital gains tax which is at 24 percent now.

When Trumps policies are in effect, and ObamaCare is history, then its Trumps economy

<alt>doxygen said:

Yes, unfortunately. In that particular case, the 2nd round Bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset, but we were in or coming out of (depending on your perspective) a very deep recession so reinstating those taxes was even more politically untenable than it normally would have been.

Your statement is also true in the larger sense. Both sides borrow and spend, then scream about the debt/deficit when out of power. The only difference between dems and reps seems to be the attitude towards trying to up taxes at all and what they throw the 'spend' money at.

Pretty sad state of affairs.

Click to expand...

Yep, the idea that taxes can be raised "when things get better" or that "growth will make revenues catch up with spending" are both simply excuses to keep on borrowing to cover ever more federal government spending. The bottom line is that neither the party for a bigger federal government nor the party for a huge federal government are apt to worry about incurring ever more debt - so long as future generations remain unable to vote.

Full-Time Jobs Tumble By 367,000, Biggest Drop In Three Years

'While on the surface, the payrolls report, the wage growth and the unemployment rate (which dropped for all the wrong reasons) were disappointing, a quick look inside the underlying data reveals even more troubling trends, such as that in addition to the number of employed workers dropping by 233K according to the household survey, the composition of these jobs raised even more red flags because in May the US lost 367,000 full time jobs offset by the gain of 133,000 part time jobs.'

Full-Time Jobs Tumble By 367,000, Biggest Drop In Three Years | Zero Hedge

Fenton said:

20 Tax increases in ObamaCare....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...b-creators-and-investors-in-obama-budget/amp/

And then there's the law itself, which targeted the Middle classes discretionary income via higher premiums and dedcutibles.

Average deducible for a individual on the Gold plan is 6000.00 bucks, over 10,000 for a family.

If a premium is what it cost you to have insurance, a dedcutible os what it cost to use that insurance. Less money in comsumers pockets mean less money spent on everything else.
We are a consumer driven economy.

Also Corporate tax rates need to come down as do taxes for bringing capital back into the States as does the Capital gains tax which is at 24 percent now.

When Trumps policies are in effect, and ObamaCare is history, then its Trumps economy

Click to expand...

The bolded I agree with.

Your Obamacare numbers are off, but I'm not a fan of the ACA so I'm not going there.

I guess you liked it better when the Republicans cut taxes twice and passed Medicare D with no plan to pay for it (aka taxes), and fought 2 wars off the books using emergency supplementals. That money all went straight to the debt despite the silly accounting tricks.

DA60 said:

Okay...May was a lousy month....at best.

Employment was up only 138,000 for May. Plus, adjustments took 66,000 off the previous two months - so now they were only 174,000 and (yuch) 50,000 for April and March, respectively.
That means the average over the last three months is only 120,000.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm


It gets worse from there...

The Household survey showed 233,000 LESS people employed in May (seasonally adjusted).

And 367,000 LESS people were employed full time in May over April (seasonally adjusted).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm


Finally, the Employment-population ratio - which is a far better employment indicator than the U-3 imo - went down last month and has not budged since February (up is good, down is bad).
And the employment-population ratio for ages 25-54 (the heart of the economy), went down as well last month (both seasonally adjusted).

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060


Overall, it was a lousy month...bordering on flat out bad.

Click to expand...

Agree. It is a single datapoint, which must be considered with similar datapoints (March, April, June and July) before any real comment is meaningful.

<alt>doxygen said:

I think that's been an issue for a couple of decades, and since (forget the BS stats) inflation hasn't stopped creeping, everything upper-middle class and below is being pushed down.

Click to expand...

Real wages have not changed much since the 1960s and that is a problem. Pew did a study, that showed average hourly wages in 1964 (with 2014 dollar value) was 19.18 dollars. In 2014, it was 20.67 dollars... that is next to no growth over 40 years.

PeteEU said:

Real wages have not changed much since the 1960s and that is a problem. Pew did a study, that showed average hourly wages in 1964 (with 2014 dollar value) was 19.18 dollars. In 2014, it was 20.67 dollars... that is next to no growth over 40 years.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's bad when you factor everything in. There was also a complete shift in the paradigm regarding retirement funding. Blue collar jobs used to have retirement benefits - pensions; white collar, the same but better. People tended to get one job and make a career at one place. By the time I started, it was 401K's for retirement and companies had started viewing their employees as expendable cogs. I lucked out due to my career choice, but I actually understand what many of these blue collar Trumpters want. Problem? It's not coming back. The horse left the barn and was made into dog food and glue back in the 70's/80's. Wiping out 'illegals' and 'Muslims' would change nothing about it.

<alt>doxygen said:

Those Bush tax cuts Obama made permanent are adding to the debt. Unfunded tax cuts are a form of welfare. Once you hand them out, the recipients feel entitled to them in perpetuity.

Click to expand...

You have been indoctrinated well into believing that you keeping more of what you earn or anyone else doing the same thing has to be funded by the federal govt. There is no question that the left has to be the most poorly informed people on the planet. Tax cuts are NOT an expense and you keeping more of what you earn means the govt. needs less as you are capable of taking care of yourself. In addition every dollar that stays in the state because of tax cuts is a dollar to solve state and local issues. What part of that don't you understand?

DA60 said:

Okay...May was a lousy month....at best.

Employment was up only 138,000 for May. Plus, adjustments took 66,000 off the previous two months - so now they were only 174,000 and (yuch) 50,000 for April and March, respectively.
That means the average over the last three months is only 120,000.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm


It gets worse from there...

The Household survey showed 233,000 LESS people employed in May (seasonally adjusted).

And 367,000 LESS people were employed full time in May over April (seasonally adjusted).

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm


Finally, the Employment-population ratio - which is a far better employment indicator than the U-3 imo - went down last month and has not budged since February (up is good, down is bad).
And the employment-population ratio for ages 25-54 (the heart of the economy), went down as well last month (both seasonally adjusted).

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060


Overall, it was a lousy month...bordering on flat out bad.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out which you ignored the numbers inside the numbers are much better than you want to let on. You buy the headlines and ignore the context. How many people are unemployed this month, last month or the month before? how many people are discouraged this month, last month, or the month before? What is the U-6 rate this month, last month, and the month before? How about the part time for economic reasons, this month, last month, and the month before? Reviewing the total numbers in context destroy your opinions and the headlines, By the way what is your definition of full employment? 4.3%??

Conservative said:

You have been indoctrinated well into believing that you keeping more of what you earn or anyone else doing the same thing has to be funded by the federal govt. There is no question that the left has to be the most poorly informed people on the planet. Tax cuts are NOT an expense and you keeping more of what you earn means the govt. needs less as you are capable of taking care of yourself. In addition every dollar that stays in the state because of tax cuts is a dollar to solve state and local issues. What part of that don't you understand?

Click to expand...

The part where Republicans (so called conservatives) never spend less, make the state less draconian or pay down the debt. Your post is boilerplate right wing nonsense.

They will cut parts of the state that keep their masters from making easier profits while growing the parts of the state that profit their masters. There are numerous examples but you'd need to open your eyes to reality to see them.

<alt>doxygen said:

The part where Republicans (so called conservatives) never spend less, make the state less draconian or pay down the debt. Your post is boilerplate right wing nonsense.

They will cut parts of the state that keep their masters from making easier profits while growing the parts of the state that profit their masters. There are numerous examples but you'd need to open your eyes to reality to see them.

Click to expand...

The part about having to pay for tax cuts is leftwing nonsense and you know it. Tax cuts aren't an expense and thus don't have to be paid for by anyone. Absolutely stunning how poorly informed far too many people are

Trumps proposed budget is less than Obama's so when was the last time any President proposed less of a budget than the previous year?

DA60 said:

'The pace of job creation in the US slowed more than expected in May, and less participation in the labor market helped to push the unemployment rate to a 16-year low.

The economy added 138,000 nonfarm payrolls while the unemployment rate fell to 4.3%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said in its monthly report on Friday.'

US jobs report shows slower hiring, lower unemployment rate in May - Business Insider


Thoughts?


(it was actually a lousy report - but I don't have time to go into the details right now)

Click to expand...

This is still fallout from the Obama administration, and we are still under the Obama budget until October. Here's my take:

1) It's not as rosy as it looks at first glance. A lot of people are gone from the unemployment rolls, and a lot of the employment is actually underemployment.

2) Trump's people, of course, are going to attempt to take credit for the last 80 months of job growth. Simply put, this is dishonest.

3) Democrats, of course, are going to pin slower job growth on Trump. Simply put, this is also dishonest, since the economy is still feeling the Obama effect, and therefore Obama is responsible for that..

Now it's time to take a hard look at the real facts. We are not pulling out of the recession as fast as our political critters would like to have us believe, although things have improved somewhat. Bear in mind that, after the crash in 1929, the market did not reach that level again until 1953, and it took massive Federal spending as a result of WWII to get it there when it did. Although the stock market itself did not crash like 1929 in 2007, we still are in terrible shape, and will be for a generation. It's not an easy fix at all, except in the minds of all the mindless people who watch network TV and think it can be done immediately because McGuyver saved the world in an hour (minus the time for commercials). Don't expect either Republicans or Democrats to fix the economy, no matter what their fat mouths bloviate. The hurt is going to stay with us for a while longer. We will just have to live with that for now.

danarhea said:

Don't expect either Republicans or Democrats to fix the economy, no matter what their fat mouths bloviate. The hurt is going to stay with us for a while longer. We will just have to live with that for now.

Click to expand...

This is true, though I would add that government policy can make things worse, or better. Our politicians could do a lot better, and could make things better. They've decided not to.

Conservative said:

As I pointed out which you ignored the numbers inside the numbers are much better than you want to let on. You buy the headlines and ignore the context. How many people are unemployed this month, last month or the month before? how many people are discouraged this month, last month, or the month before? What is the U-6 rate this month, last month, and the month before? How about the part time for economic reasons, this month, last month, and the month before? Reviewing the total numbers in context destroy your opinions and the headlines, By the way what is your definition of full employment? 4.3%??

Click to expand...

Wow, you have really drank the Kool Aid. You never used to blurt out this nonsense. Now that you are a Trumpbot...you do. Sad.

Here are your words from January 2016:

'Look, love your posts but not your knit picking. I stand by my post and the context in which it was given per the thread topic. Anyone who thinks that the unemployment rate truly indicates the state of the economy today is out of touch with reality. your defense of BLS is noted but the reality is anytime anyone points to BLS data and ties it to the state of the economy the comments are suspect at best. The low information voter (Obama supporters) is going to buy the low unemployment rate as an indication of success by Obama and that couldn't be further from the truth.'

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...y-just-9-charts-w-64-a-28.html#post1065437752

So before the unemployment rate means nothing...and now that Trump is in office...it means everything? Got it.

DA60 said:

Wow, you have really drank the Kool Aid. You never used to blurt out this nonsense. Now that you are a Trumpbot...you do. Sad.

Here are your words from January 2016:

'Look, love your posts but not your knit picking. I stand by my post and the context in which it was given per the thread topic. Anyone who thinks that the unemployment rate truly indicates the state of the economy today is out of touch with reality. your defense of BLS is noted but the reality is anytime anyone points to BLS data and ties it to the state of the economy the comments are suspect at best. The low information voter (Obama supporters) is going to buy the low unemployment rate as an indication of success by Obama and that couldn't be further from the truth.'

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...y-just-9-charts-w-64-a-28.html#post1065437752

So before the unemployment rate means nothing...and now that Trump is in office...it means everything? Got it.

Click to expand...

Yep, stand by that post because the issue was the official unemployment rate(U-3) and the headlines which you continue to spout. The official unemployment rate does mean nothing regarding the state of the economy it is the U-6 rate that matters, it is the number of discouraged workers, the part time for economic reasons.

Conservative said:

Yep, stand by that post because the issue was the official unemployment rate(U-3) and the headlines which you continue to spout. The official unemployment rate does mean nothing regarding the state of the economy it is the U-6 rate that matters, it is the number of discouraged workers, the part time for economic reasons.

Click to expand...

If the U-3 means nothing...than why did you ask me if 4.3% means full employment?

:roll:

If I go back and check your previous posts, I will find all kinds of examples of this.

You have gone completely two-faced on the data...because before it was Obama in the WH. And now your boy is in, you are digging for every piece of obscure data that you can to defend him.

Pathetic. And I thought you had common sense and integrity on this stuff. I was DEAD WRONG.

You are just another Trumpbot who has drank the Kool Aid...no matter how bad it gets, he is always doing fantastic. You are almost as bad as mmi was...the very guy you were debating in that link I posted from last year.

Like I said...sad.


Okay...let's keep it simple.

Last month there were 223,000 LESS people employed (according to the Household survey) and 367,000 LESS full time jobs last month...the biggest full time jobs loss in years.

Are you saying that these numbers indicate it was a good month for employment in May...yes or no?

Remember when 45 used to mock the jobs and employment data and call it fake?

Parrish said:

Remember when 45 used to mock the jobs and employment data and call it fake?

Click to expand...

You or what is '45'?

DA60 said:

You or what is '45'?

Click to expand...

The current occupant of the WH.

Parrish said:

The current occupant of the WH.

Click to expand...

Oh...yes, that is true, he did mock the numbers BIG TIME.