Labor market data suggest economy strengthening

Comments (21)
Bakhtin wrote:

Lets wait for the predictable “The figure is fake, The real unemployment figure is blah blah blah” comment.

Obama’s success is killing the GOP.

Jan 09, 2014 8:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Bakhtin, can we agree that the labor force is considerably smaller than historically it has been? As the labor force becomes smaller, it is not surprising to see fewer claims. I am not saying the sky is falling, but I am saying that as there are fewer people working, it follows that there are fewer who are going to lose jobs and file claims. You and Flash and Alkaline, and US fail to look at teh whole picture and want to focus only on a single piece of news that fits your narrow and unrealistic view of what is happening. What you fail to take into account is number of people now out of labor force, number of people working far below a recent position, number of hours people are working the disappearance of sustainable jobs, and the time it is taking to find work after college graduation. As a moment in time, this is good news, in the big picture, it means very little

Jan 09, 2014 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

The ADP report comes two days ahead of the government’s nonfarm payroll report, a measure of the labor market that is more comprehensive and includes both public and private sector employment. Analysts are looking for 196,000 jobs to have been added in December, along with a rise in private payrolls of 195,000. Both numbers would represent slight declines from November.

Jan 09, 2014 10:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

End of the article tells the tale of why now and why in the future these numbers look “good”. Got to dig deeper lemmings…but that’s why you are lemmings…

The unemployment rate is forecast to be steady at a five-year low of 7.0 percent.

There is, however, a risk of a stronger number in the wake of reports on Wednesday showing the fastest pace of private hiring in 13 months in December and small businesses creating the most jobs in nearly eight years.

The claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid rose 50,000 to 2.87 million in the week ended December 28.

A total of 4.19 million people were receiving benefits under all programs in the week ended December 21. With benefits for more than a million long-term unemployed Americans having expired on December 28, that figure should decline sharply in the weeks ahead.

Jan 09, 2014 10:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@gcf1965- They don’t want to look at the whole picture because it goes against their theme. You and I are willing to see it for what it is. Between now and the election you will not hear very much bad news coming out of the mainstream media about the state of the country.

Jan 09, 2014 10:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

Exactly @gcf1965, the Labor Force Participation Rate is the only thing we should all be focused on now.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Jan 09, 2014 10:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Based on Obama’s statement a few days ago where he said unemployment benefits helps employment; it would not surprise me to find out they are now adding those folks that receive unemployment benefits to the number of employed in the calculation. The guy has a real warped way of thinking. Democrats are not good at economics.

Jan 09, 2014 10:23am EST  --  Report as abuse

@gcf1965, you said ‘can we agree that the labor force is considerably smaller than historically it has been?’ No we can not, BECAUSE IT IS NOT. Refer to http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref1, as you can see the number of people in the USA labor force has steadily increased over the years, with a slowdown in rate of growth since the recession.

You refer to the big picture, have I ever said the labor market is ‘healthy’ or ‘good’? No I have not, have I seen any of the other more ‘liberal’ posters say this? No, what we are saying is that the labor market is slowly healing and it could be healing A LOT faster if the GOP was not so stuck on doing whatever they can to make Obama a failure. Is there a lot more that can be done to help the job market?, of course there is, but all of them require acts of Congress, and we all know that the GOP will not allow anything to happen that could possibly make Obama look good.

Here are some things that can be done in the short term…

1. Pass something like the jobs bill proposed by Obama in 2011, although would not be the same as some time as passed.
2. stop with the whole fiscal austerity BS till we are in the clear. Heck if we had been doing fiscal stimulus there would have been no need for the FED to do monetary stimulus, you may notice that they did not really get heavy on the monetary stimulus till after the fiscal stimulus from the ARA passed in 2009 wore off.

And here are a couple long term measures, because the biggest problem with our economy, and the job market, is the vast amount of income inequality in this nation…

1. Pass a bill to raise the minimum wage to something like $10/ hour and peg increases to inflation.
2. Pass comprehensive tax reform that restores a truly progressive tax system that will make it impossible for someone like Mitt Romney paying less in taxes (as a %) then a lower middle class worker.

So that is the big picture, what specific proposals would you propose to help the job market and what evidence do you have that they will work. I add the evidence part because I know you are going to come back with something like ‘repeal Obamacare’, where there is no evidence that this would help the job market. (in fact it is just the opposite)

Jan 09, 2014 10:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Knock Knock.

Who’s there.

Obama was right. The plan is working.

Jan 09, 2014 11:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

It is a good thing that the GOP has been able to hold back some of the liberal policy by having a majority in the House. We are able to see that this has at least slowed the awful slide in the economy that Obama had put us into during his first term, when the liberals held a majority in both houses and the presidency. Just imagine how bad it could have been if we had left the liberals completely in charge of the economy. Liberals are bad at economics.

Jan 09, 2014 11:42am EST  --  Report as abuse

@USAPragmatist2: re:”vast amount of income inequality in this nation…” I hear this a lot and I guess I don’t really understand the position from a what should be “done” about it from your perspective. I only say “your” because at least I can read and appreciate your arguments. As a conservative, I also agree there is a significant inequity, however, I don’t believe you should play Robin Hood and rob from the rich and give to the poor. The issue is driven based on how we, collectively, value things. We do not value, or greatly anyway, fast-food. As such, those that produce it aren’t paid very much. We value companies whose stock rises, because it returns something to us. As such, we pay those who make that happen, albeit absurdly at times. So, I’m wondering, do you force fit a government imposed solution which causes gridlock and pisses people off, or do you work to improve how we value things? Video game stocks take off until we are starving. At that point, migrant farm workers will be paid more than everyone. Thoughts?

Jan 09, 2014 11:42am EST  --  Report as abuse

@bluewater, It is a tough balance to find between being too ‘socialist’ or too ‘unregulated capitalistic’. Like most societal things it usually follows a pendulum type pattern swinging back and forth and over correcting. As of now, after 20-30 year of ‘trickle-down’, the pendulum is too far to the unregulated capitalistic side. this is what concentrated the wealth in the top. This income inequality lowers the overall spending power of the consumer, hurting the economy overall, but as we have seen the last 6 years, those at the top still get theirs.

I do not think that a fast-food worker with at best a High School education has the same value as someone with a technical degree like a programmer. But at the same time I think we undervalue these workers and by paying them a sub-standard wage we minimize their contributions to society making it more likely that they will need government assistance also. It takes many types and we all live in this same society together, and we will prosper much better overall if we do not dismiss segments of our society by not paying a living wage.

It is obviously more complex then these simple responses, but hopefully that gave some insight into my thought process.

Jan 09, 2014 12:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

There we go… in the second post, and then a bunch of other righties all saying the same thing.

Lets throw some facts at this – guaranteed to scare the righties away.

Fact one) “Bakhtin, can we agree that the labor force is considerably smaller than historically it has been? ” is simply, factually, wrong. The US labor force right now is larger than it has ever been (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CLF16OV.txt) and is growing at around 0.6% per year. (ILO figure)

This, of course, is why the unemployment figure is so stagnant. The economy is creating jobs (average of 182,000 per month from June 2012 to June2013) but that is barely keeping pace with the growing labour force. It is not because there are no new jobs – that is a Republican lie.

Fact 2) The labour participation rate that righties love to go on about peaked in 2000 at 67.3%, and has been falling ever since, and currently stands at 63.5%. Yes Republicans: that is the historic reality. Labour force participation fell throughout the last Republican regime, but righties never mention that because they never look at the big picture.

Fact 3) Working hours have remained stable. It has not declined as Republicans claim – that is another lie.

In June 2005 the average working week for non-farm labour was 33.7 hours (BLS figure). In June 2012 it was 34.5 hours (BLS figure). If anything, higher than under Republican regime, but not by much.

Jan 09, 2014 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4824 wrote:
“Democrats are not good at economics.”

Then why is the US economy now so much better than the recession Republicans left? Every time I ask you to explain this you run away, and pop up in some other thread posting the same old nonsense.

Jan 09, 2014 12:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

4824: If you would take the time to do a little research you’d know that our economy performs better under Democratic Administrations than Republican. That’s a fact. Think about it. Romney and the Republicans wanted to slash spending during a recovery from a recession. That’s crazy. You recover from a recession from MORE spending, because the populous doesn’t have the money to spend, so the government steps in to take up the slack. Republicans and Democrats alike have done this. Suddenly Republicans want to do the opposite. That’s why we can’t afford to put Republicans in charge. They do things because it would make them popular with their base, and when the results are a diminished economy, they merely blame Democrats. It’s that simple.

I’d like to make a recommendation to you, something that would lend some credibility to your posts. Try not to post a statement without first offering some proof to back up your statement. With Google it’s easy to do. One word of caution. Your source is important. On the internet you can pretty much find whatever you want. The important thing is to use CREDIBLE sources, sources that have researched their findings, and when applicable, sources that have the numbers to back up their statements. Spend a few minutes researching your topic before filling your post full of blather.

Jan 09, 2014 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ochun005 wrote:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US-LaborForce-Participation-v-total-unemployment-rate.jpg

Jan 09, 2014 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jambrytay wrote:

I like how the administration’s clever policies are being lauded while the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented actions and $4T in liabilities are conveniently not mentioned.

Jan 09, 2014 1:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

4825 writes: “It is a good thing that the GOP has been able to hold back some of the liberal policy by having a majority in the House. We are able to see that this has at least slowed the awful slide in the economy.”

Yes, Bohner and Michele Bachmann fixed the economy. Was it the shutdown or was it the 7th “Birth Certificate Inquiry” that put us back on the right track.

GOP. Good joke.

Jan 09, 2014 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse

4825 said ‘We are able to see that this has at least slowed the awful slide in the economy that Obama had put us into during his first term’

Just another rightie/Obama hater who we can dismiss because not rooted in reality:

Dec 2008 (month before Obama took over):
GDP SHRINKING at 7-8% rate
LOSING ~750K jobs a month

Dec 2012 (end of his first term)
GDP GROWING at ~2% rate (better now)
GAINING ~150K jobs a month

So according to the reality 4825 lives in, the economy was doing worse in Dec 2012 then Dec 2008, laughable!

Jan 09, 2014 1:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“Tea Party Grimaces at Good Economic News, Promises to Reverse It.”

Jan 09, 2014 3:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Chige wrote:

Him not knowing (even if true) is not good enough. The employees will generally do what their boss would like them to do. In that case they (the staff in question) may purposely not tell Christie about it, knowing that is better for the boss to not know the “dirty details”. His staff has to handle the dirty details, this is their job and that is why they are hired. The whole thing just tells me what kind of a culture is being promoted by Christie as the leader of his staff. Keep in mind these are people very close to him. No trusted employee will do that unless they knew that their boss would have approved it.
As Democrat leaning independent I liked Christie, I liked how he handled the conference too, but even if I believed that he did not know about it, I would still not trust him going forward.

Jan 09, 2014 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.