Some employment/economic numbers from the last month/quarter/year.

[Direckshun]

As the recovery continues. There's a bunch of stuff on this but they don't all warrant their own threads so here's a compendium of economic information.

The economy last year experienced a net-improvement of 2.17 million jobs (private sector gained 2.24), which is better than every single year of the Bush Presidency except one (2005).

The jobs report of the fourth quarter of 2012 has been revised upward, now saying we added 600,000+ jobs from October through December.

The GDP actually contracted 0.1% in that quarter, however. The first contraction in 13 quarters -- though revisions will probably change that to a slight expansion -- largely because of Hurricane Sandy and vast layoffs in the defense sector.

The initial estimate is that we added 157,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate actually jumped, however, from 7.8% to 7.9%. As the economy gets better, more people are entering the job market.

The government continues to be the main holder-backer of a faster recovery, as reduced government payrolls have weighed down employment figures.

The Institute for Supply Management said its index of Manufacturing activity grew to 53.1, according to the Institute for Supply Management, which is a big jump up.

The Dow jumped above 1,500 earlier this month. After today's jobs report, it launched above 1,400.

What's driving the jump up in employment? Mostly, construction, buoyed by about 30,000 new hires, which indicates more homes are being built.





You're welcome.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You said that the recovery is slow as you'd expect it to be given that we had the 2nd worst economic downturn in US history. I don't know if it was the 2nd worst downturn or not, but for the sake of argument we'll say that it was. My rebuttal was that we didn't have a recovery this bad the last time we had the 2nd worst downturn in US history, so I don't see any reason why we should expect it this time on that basis alone.

This is our second credit crisis driven recession (the other one was the Great Depression).

If you were actually interested in the truth, you would have taken time to read Reinhardt's and Rogoff's work on this. Instead, you insist on gop talking points. You are quite the one trick pony.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

2. The Great Depression is not the only reference we have to look back on. The energy crises of the late '70s, the post-Civil War problems, and the Panic of 1837 come to mind.

3. That said, I think this has a pretty good case to be the "Second Worst", given if nothing else its longevity.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

5. I admit I haven't kept up on the "people leaving the work force" argument, but as it's almost exclusively championed by the super-far Obama-hatin' right, I suspect that it's them trying to find numbers to make it look like (or more like) Obama's recovery is a flop. This is hunch rather than deduction, but it smells a lot like that Unskewed Polls baloney they tried to convince everyone of a few months ago. If I'm wrong, please school me.

6. There is no number six. That's about it.

The Great Depression is the only real comparable situation to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The energy crisis and associated recession were not driven by credit. 1837 and post Civil War period are both prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve so you're not comparing apples to apples because the financial landscape was vastly different.

On the labor force participation rates and associated unemployment number crap. That's just nonsense from people who don't understand the methodologies or statistics. The BLS is very open about all of this stuff and there is a lot of ink spilled on this topic. Prison bitch's source is disgraceful for someone that carries the CFA title. There is no analysis. It is blatantly biased low rate amateur work.

[HonestChieffan]

82 million millenials
77 million boomers


Math wont support the stupid point made by KC Nitwit

Try again ****wad

[KC native]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

82 million millenials
77 million boomers


Math wont support the stupid point made by KC Nitwit

Try again ****wad

Ah that's rich. disHonest thinks he made a point.

First off, what dates are you counting for millenials? What dates for boomers? How about a link or source for your claims? I know that's not going to happen because you are full of shit, but I can ask.

Did I say that was the only reason for the decline? No, I didn't.

We know that labor force participation rates are going to decline due to demographics alone. We also know they are going to decline due to increasing automation of industrial processes and manufacturing.

Blaming it on the recession alone is not sufficient. Blaming it on Barack Obama is ****ing delusional.

[Prison Bitch]

Labor participation plummeted just about the time the economy tanked. Saying its driven by retirees is spectacularly stupid for anyone to actually argue. But that's what we've come to expect from the Obamabots

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Labor participation plummeted just about the time the economy tanked. Saying its driven by retirees is spectacularly stupid for anyone to actually argue. But that's what we've come to expect from the Obamabots

You are ****ing dipshit. It has gone done for several reasons. Multivariate analysis is always required when it comes to complex things like the economy and it's measurement metrics.

[Direckshun]

Welp, good news.

As I said in the OP, it was going to be likely that the GDP actually grew in 2012's fourth quarter, rather than the 0.1% shrinkage originally reported.

Turns out, it's actually grown. At least 0.2% according to one source. 0.5% according to another.

So that's something.

The downside is that it's projected the trade deficit will actually grow in 2013, since America's recovery is projected to be stronger than just about all of its allies.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm not sure where you're getting the 17.8% and 17.9%?

The unemployment rate (i.e. the U3 measurement) is now 7.9%, up from 7.8%.

That was a goof. I added the extra digit in there by mistake. I, of course, meant 7.8 and 7.9.

The U6 measurement of unemployment, the one that rightwingers love now because it's always higher, includes the unemployed, those who've dropped out of the workforce, and the underemployed, and is just a hair above 14% and falling. And that's the highest unemployment measurement we have.

The U-3 rate inching up to 7.9% is almost certainly due to people entering the workforce, because as the OP stated, our economy gained 157,000 jobs in January.

Fair enough. Good description. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I didn't read all of this, but from what little I gagged down, I want my 10 seconds back. Pure garbage.

Your disapproval means I must have done something right. Thanks to you, too!

[stonedstooge]

Nancy Pelosi on Fox News Sunday Morning. Has anyone suggested this lady be checked for Alzheimers?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

Nancy Pelosi on Fox News Sunday Morning. Has anyone suggested this lady be checked for Alzheimers?

Good God that was painful.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by KC native

You are ****ing dipshit. It has gone done for several reasons. Multivariate analysis is always required when it comes to complex things like the economy and it's measurement metrics.

LOL. You really hate when somebody dares speak ill of your High Priest.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

LOL. You really hate when somebody dares speak ill of your High Priest.

JFC you are one dense mother****er.

Presidents are mostly irrelevant to the economy.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by KC native

JFC you are one dense mother****er.

Presidents are mostly irrelevant to the economy.

Well sweet Jeezus hallelujah! This would be vital information for you to pass along to Obama. Who's blamed the last President for 5 full years now. A vast majority of Democrats in the 2012 exit polls blamed George W. for our economic woes, too.


Why don't you spend more time educating fellow Democrats rather than me?

[Direckshun]

Four full years, actually.

As if that needed to be said.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Four full years, actually.

As if that needed to be said.

Well at least you admit Barry has been blaming Bush for everything~