I don’t know where you went to school but I was taught the number to keep up with population growth and immigration is 200K, not 125K.

“Accelerating”?

Breaking: Q4 GDP drops to -0.1%

Er, accelerating…yeah, sure…downwards.

Keeping with a pattern we’ve seen over the last few years of stronger than expected job growth in January. Given the stronger than expected December economic numbers that have come out this month (durable goods was a blowout +4.6%), we won’t be surprised to see +200K job growth in the January report. Will probably cool somewhat later this Spring, if the pattern holds …

TouchdownBuddha on January 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM

You are the most retarded democrat cheerleader ever to grace the pages of HA.

The December 2012 report, which reported job gains of 215,000, was revised downward by 30,000 to 185,000 jobs.

Does anybody have stats for how often this has happened? It would also be interesting to see the Obama admin as compared to say, the Bush admin. How can people get things so consistently wrong (and always to their benefit or at least to make them initially look better) and still have a job?

I have basically come to the opinion that these numbers — all of them, good or bad — mean nothing. The margin of error on these government statistics outweigh their descriptive value, not to mention any predictive value they might have once had.

We’ll be just as well off throwing darts at a dartboard.

PackerBronco on January 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Who said that isn’t happening now?

Yes, you have created seven more jobs under the BLS accounting system (U3 number). Anyone who had a job for any hours counts as “employed”, even if you’re just walking the neighbors dog for $5.

The U6 numbers get into the marginally employed, part-time for economic reasons, etc. But the U6 numbers are almost never reported.

Daisy_WI on January 30, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Actually, it only reduces the U-3 number if the freshly-minted 28-hour-a-week employee doesn’t already have a 28-hour-a-week job. it does, however, increase the number of jobs regardless of whether the person who fills it is getting a second job.

Pretty soon, we’ll have more jobs (CES measure) than workers (CPS measure).

I have had people tell me that this is another example of how Obamacare will create jobs.

earlgrey133 on January 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Did Bastiat live in vain? It sure seems that way at times.

We’ll be just as well off throwing darts at a dartboard.

If I run a restaurant, and have 20 people working 40 hours a week, and I cut their hours to 30 hours a week to avoid Obamacare, and add another seven 30 hour employees to make up the slack, does that get reported as seven “jobs created”, or is it a wash?

Because if that counts as “jobs created”, we are going to see some pretty favorable numbers over the next few months as employers scramble to get their employees under 32 hours to avoid the Obamacare penalties. And these positive numbers will have nothing to do with people being better off. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Haiku Guy on January 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM

And with simple common sense reasoning, you’ve come across the biggest unreported historical issue regarding the workforce in Socialist/Fascist states: unemployment is always low, because underemployment is massive. Redistribution, when it leads to the equality seen as its goal results in all being equally poor, with what little money left for the people flowing right back into the government.

So indeed, over the mid-term we will have higher rates of employment, but the next generation will have 29.5 hour a week jobs, for under 75% of the wage, just enough to make them working poor unable to avoid the burdens of government mandates and penalties.

Then of course, the next left-wing bastion for the working class will see how unfair that is and demand business to increase benefits for part-time workers, destroying what’s left of this nation’s entrepreneurs and moving us a bit closer to outright Communism. Unsustainable by design.

If I run a restaurant, and have 20 people working 40 hours a week, and I cut their hours to 30 hours a week to avoid Obamacare, and add another seven 30 hour employees to make up the slack, does that get reported as seven “jobs created”, or is it a wash?

Yes, you have created seven more jobs under the BLS accounting system (U3 number). Anyone who had a job for any hours counts as “employed”, even if you’re just walking the neighbors dog for $5.

The U6 numbers get into the marginally employed, part-time for economic reasons, etc. But the U6 numbers are almost never reported.

They aren’t actually surprised. They’re “surprised” in the way that every piece of bad economic news is “unexpected.”

Doomberg on January 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM

They’re surprised when the unexpected reality doesn’t match with the feel-good liberal propaganda.

If I run a restaurant, and have 20 people working 40 hours a week, and I cut their hours to 30 hours a week to avoid Obamacare, and add another seven 30 hour employees to make up the slack, does that get reported as seven “jobs created”, or is it a wash?

Because if that counts as “jobs created”, we are going to see some pretty favorable numbers over the next few months as employers scramble to get their employees under 32 hours to avoid the Obamacare penalties. And these positive numbers will have nothing to do with people being better off. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Haiku Guy on January 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM

First, you need to cut their hours to under 30 – 30 is the point where you need to pay for their PlaceboCare.

Second, that’s 7 “jobs created” on the CES, though if your employees are interviewed for the CPS, they’ll likely be counted as forced to work part-time due to economic conditions while they want to work full-time and thus included in the U-6 number.

Haiku Guy on January 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Excellent question HG, but I think we already know the answer, and it’s not good.

Jobs, courtesy of govt. regulation, do not create wealth or a higher standard of living.

earlgrey133 on January 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Of course not Earl, and any reasonable person would understand this. We are not surrounded with reasonable people.

Man, you are being a debbie downer. We are soon to have legions of government workers administering ObamaCare! Jobs by the millions…

Outlander on January 30, 2013 at 11:06 AM

You are kind of right. I know someone who works for a hospital group that has about 8,000 employees total. Maybe as much as 10,000. Anyway they had to hire 150 new people to support the structure required for implementing Obamacare.

I have had people tell me that this is another example of how Obamacare will create jobs. This stupidity saddens me a great deal, as the administration could just as easily mandate weekly haircuts and then we’d have a boom in the barber business.

Jobs, courtesy of govt. regulation, do not create wealth or a higher standard of living.

They never look at the entire picture, so as a result they’re always surprised by “unintended consequences” – which could have been easily predicted if they considered the whole picture.

What “unintended” consequences? I believe the consequences were and are fully intended and understood in considering the whole picture. If anyone acts “surprised” its simply theatrical.

That’s the real story right there.
They never look at the entire picture, so as a result they’re always surprised by “unintended consequences” – which could have been easily predicted if they considered the whole picture.

dentarthurdent on January 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM

They aren’t actually surprised. They’re “surprised” in the way that every piece of bad economic news is “unexpected.”

Remember, the official Obama line is that the economy was “fixed” back in June 2009 or so, so every piece of bad news since then has been treated as a shock by the MSM in order to protect Obama.

Wigglesworth on January 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Two points of order:

- The federal share of the GDP is basically military, roads, and buildings, while the majority of federal spending (welfare) is not considered part of GDP. Spending on the military did drop in absolute terms.
- Real GDP also takes inflation into account, and is currently based on chained 2005 dollars.

Because if that counts as “jobs created”, we are going to see some pretty favorable numbers over the next few months as employers scramble to get their employees under 32 hours to avoid the Obamacare penalties. And these positive numbers will have nothing to do with people being better off. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Haiku Guy on January 30, 2013 at 11:16 AM

That’s the real story right there.
They never look at the entire picture, so as a result they’re always surprised by “unintended consequences” – which could have been easily predicted if they considered the whole picture.