Unemployment rate rises, jobs increase?

posted at 12:00 pm on May 6, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’m still technically on vacation and not following too much in the news, except for a couple of stories of continuing import.  Obviously, I wrote a few days ago about Osama bin Laden’s rendezvous with Navy SEALs and justice, and the other is the economy.  When I return from vacation on Monday, I’ll have more to say about the terrible Q1 GDP numbers, which the bin Laden mission mainly obscured, but the 1.8% annualized growth rate plays indirectly into today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics announcement that the unemployment rate in April rose to 9.0%, going up from 8.8% in March.  At the same time, however, we added more jobs in a month than we had since massive hiring for the Census last year:

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 244,000 in April, and the unemployment rate edged up to 9.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in several service-providing industries, manufacturing, and mining.

That didn’t actually make much of a dent in the unemployment figures, though:

The number of unemployed persons, at 13.7 million, changed little in April. The unemployment rate edged up from 8.8 to 9.0 percent over the
month but was 0.8 percentage point lower than in November. The labor force also was little changed in April. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.8 percent), adult women (7.9 percent), teenagers (24.9 percent),
whites (8.0 percent), blacks (16.1 percent), and Hispanics (11.8 percent) showed little change in April. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.4 percent,
not seasonally adjusted.

Even more interesting, short-term unemployment spiked upward:

The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 242,000 in April. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for27 weeks and over) declined by 283,000 to 5.8 million; their share of unemployment declined to 43.4 percent.

That makes sense, considering yesterday’s announcement that weekly initial jobless claims have surged now for at least four weeks in a row, spiking upward 43,000 in a single week to reach the same level we saw for most of 2010:

In the week ending April 30, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 474,000, an increase of 43,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 431,000. The 4-week moving average was 431,250, an increase of 22,250 from the previous week’s revised average of 409,000.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.0 percent for the week ending April 23, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week’s unrevised rate of 2.9 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending April 23 was 3,733,000, an increase of 74,000 from the preceding week’s revised level of 3,659,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,700,750, a decrease of 1,250 from the preceding week’s revised average of 3,702,000.

The rise in unemployment and in job creation could be good news, in that previously discouraged workers might be coming back to the work force.  However, that doesn’t appear to be the case.   The percentage of re-entrants among the unemployed actually held steady in for the past six months at 2.2%, and is actually lower than last April’s 2.4%.  New entrants among the unemployed have held steady at 0.9%.  The only real improvement in the profile has come from job losers and those completing temporary jobs, now 5.3% from last April’s 6.0% and January’s 5.6%.  The number of people marginally attached to the workforce slightly rose from last year’s April figure by 34,000.

What does this mean?  Well, adding 244K jobs is always good news, although it’s going to take years to make up the job losses at this rate as the National Journal notes; it will take 2.5 years to make up the raw numbers, and several years beyond that to make up the difference in population growth.  Furthermore, with growth settling down to 1.8%, it’s unlikely that the American economy will even keep its current pace of job creation.  A growth rate of 1.8% will lose jobs rather than create them, and we’re more likely to see the unemployment rate go up again.

Reuters reports it as unalloyed good news:

U.S. private employers shrugged off high energy prices to add jobs at the fastest pace in five years in April, pointing to underlying strength in the economy, even as the jobless rate rose to 9.0 percent.

Private sector hiring, including a big jump in the retail sector, boosted overall nonfarm payrolls by 244,000, the largest increase in 11 months, the Labor Department said on Friday. Economists had expected a gain of only 186,000.

The White House came close to declaring “mission accomplished”:

The unemployment rate in April backed away from a two-year low of 8.8 percent. It is derived from a separate survey of households, which showed a sharp decline in employment and a modest rise in the size of the labor force.

Economists, however, place more weight on the larger, less-volatile survey of employers.

The White House welcomed the report, which it said was a sign the jobless rate would soon recede.

“If you’re putting up jobs numbers like the ones we have been putting up in the last three months — quarter million a month — steadily that’s going to bring the unemployment rate down,” White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told CNBC.

That would be true if we could break into real GDP growth on a consistent basis.  So far, though, we have spent more time in the 1s and 2s than even in the 3s — and that only for one quarter before sinking to last quarter’s 1.8%.  It’s better news than losing jobs or failing to keep pace with population growth, as we did for almost the entire past three years, but the rapid increase in weekly claims and the drop in GDP growth are both danger signals that we haven’t yet come close to turning the corner.

Update: Jen Rubin talks to an economist who explains that the numbers are actually worse than people think:

The economy added 244,000 jobs but the unemployment rate went up to 9 percent. Is this a political problem for President Obama — as the economy improves, more enter the workforce and the unemployment rate looks horrible?

It’s actually even worse than it looks. The unemployment rate went up because of a divergence of the surveys, not an increase in the number of people looking for jobs. In the household survey, which determines the unemployment rate, we lost 190,000 jobs in April, and only 15,000 new people entered the workforce. Hopefully, the two?????? surveys will both indicate robust job growth soon, but not this month.

There is certainly danger for the president in the number of discouraged workers who are not in the labor market. As they reenter, a rising unemployment rate will be a headline risk for the White House. But we have to start creating jobs on a robust consistent basis before that happens, and despite a good headline number today, we are still looking at a very mixed job market.

What was the highest unemployment rate, post-Great Depression, for which an incumbent President won re-election?  7.2% in 1984.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Most unexpected it is.

Wyznowski on May 6, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 244,000 in April

67,000 of which are at McDonalds, and 150,000 of which are guesses.

Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM

62,000 McJobs. Would you like fries with that?

Drained Brain on May 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Heh, I didn’t even have to look at the name to know it was Ed once I saw the unemployed stormtrooper.

Doughboy on May 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Some interesting links from the headline thread regarding 62k of the jobs being added by McDonald’s, and some other information.

BadgerHawk on May 6, 2011 at 12:05 PM

*facepalm*

pambi on May 6, 2011 at 12:06 PM

62,000 McJobs. Would you like fries with that?

Drained Brain on May 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM

/#Winning
Obama

Lance Murdock on May 6, 2011 at 12:07 PM

As mentioned, Obama’s healthcare waiver program has nicely nudged McDonalds into highly visible hiring of 62,000 part time workers.

Freddy on May 6, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Welcome back Ed. Hope you had a wonderful trip with your wife. Nice to have your postings up again, although the the others did a swell job while you were away.

CBP on May 6, 2011 at 12:07 PM

TIP

Obama: “Don’t Get Between Michelle & A Tamale” (VIDEO)

Finally Obama says something that he can back up with evidence.

Nearly Nobody on May 6, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Would You Like Some Apple Pie With Your Economic Recovery?

Seriously, though, the media spin on rising funemployment is just mind-boggling.

This takes the cake.

President Obama’s good week just got a little better — 244,000 new jobs in April.

JammieWearingFool on May 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The “I’ve got good news, and bad news” gambit. I’m all for looking for the positive, but this still looks and feels bad.

Until there is real demonstratable growth, in jobs and GDP, we’re still mired in a very bad spot.

juanito on May 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM

“Mission accomplished” alright.Obama has accomplished the biggest destruction of America since Jimmy Carter. Job well done Barry…./s

sandee on May 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM

OT: Greece is threatening to leave the Euro, since they just realized they can’t pay back their debt unless they can inflate the currency.

Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I wonder if the New York Times is reporting yesterday’s Tigers-Yankees game as a 3-6 win for the Yankees with the Bronx Bombers winning the series 1 game to 3.

bw222 on May 6, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Per Fortune’s Dan Primack: Everybody (including Drudge) is walking back the McD’s 62,000 number. It occurred too late to be counted this month and won’t be included until next month.

ChrisB on May 6, 2011 at 12:10 PM

So, just to be clear: Since 2008, the US has lost 9.1 million full time jobs, and added 2.3 million part time jobs.

Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Safe travels Ed, so happy you were able to enjoy Italia :)

cmsinaz on May 6, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yeah, great news, 5.5 million of us are losing our unemployment this week or next, so that will make the unemployment numbers look even better next month. :( I couldn’t work at Mickey D’s, and I’ve had exactly one phone call from an employer in nearly a year. Things are really looking up /sarc

Mini-14 on May 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Per Fortune’s Dan Primack: Everybody (including Drudge) is walking back the McD’s 62,000 number. It occurred too late to be counted this month and won’t be included until next month.

ChrisB on May 6, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Those that have received a paycheck are included.

Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Yeah awesome wow magnificent job by the POTUS super cool joy!

Meanwhile, people need to take out a 2nd mortgage to fill their gas tank or buy a cart of groceries that isn’t just Ramen noodles.

Bishop on May 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM

EEEEEEEEEED!

Abby Adams on May 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM

ED!!! You’re back!!! YAY!!!!

cynccook on May 6, 2011 at 12:19 PM

“If you’re putting up jobs numbers like the ones we have been putting up in the last three months — quarter million a month — steadily that’s going to bring the unemployment rate down,” White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told CNBC.

Well that certainly explains why the jobless rate went back up! Remember when the jobless rate dropped .02%? It was heralded as GREAT NEWS! Now the rate goes back up that same .02% and it’s reported as ‘no big deal’.

GarandFan on May 6, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I’m glad to see that the red head on the cell phone got a job!..:)

Dire Straits on May 6, 2011 at 12:20 PM

C-BS Radio “News” left the 9% part until the very end.

I’m surprised they “reported” it at all.

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Those that have received a paycheck are included.

Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM

None have as of the reporting date, so that is why the McD’s 62K won’t show up until May’s report.

ChrisB on May 6, 2011 at 12:22 PM

It could be a good thing that unemployment is rising. It could mean that people are re-entering the workforce and looking for jobs again, thinking they might be out there.

Gotta give a few months to tell, really.

lorien1973 on May 6, 2011 at 12:23 PM

vinoblogging?

ted c on May 6, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Nothing out of this regime – especially economic numbers – can be trusted.

I suspect if we knew the real numbers, there would be rioting in the streets.

Rebar on May 6, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Nearly Nobody on May 6, 2011 at 12:07 PM

LOL Obviously Michelle’s never met a tamale she didn’t like.

Funny though. All this time in the WH and I never once heard, or seen a picture or video of Michell scarfing down Mexican food. It’s always been burgers and fries, ice cream, or some fancy French food or something.

I guess though….if you put salsa on all those things, it counts as Mexican? LOL

Welcome home Ed. Great to see you back. You and Allah put the site in good hands though. It’s been one interesting week. Like a book you can’t put down. Loved the pictures of you, and your beautiful first mate. Have a great weekend!

capejasmine on May 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Ok. I must be an economic dunce, but how can the unemployment go up to 9% when 244,000 new jobs were added?

sandee on May 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM

The MISERY INDEX has been in double digits for 18 months during President Obama.

It was in double digits for only 7 months during BOTH terms of President GW BUSH.

One wonders if there are any homeless people anymore, or if that only happens during Republican admins??

originalpechanga on May 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM

’m glad to see that the red head on the cell phone got a job!..:)

Dire Straits on May 6, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Yeah, she’s now a government employee-churning out daily contradictory and fabricated reports of the Bin Laden raid. For this she gets 150 k, a car, health benefits and a pension.

MaiDee on May 6, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Cavuto was on Fox this morning explaining how an increase in jobs doesn’t really affect the unemployment rate. It is because more of the discouraged people are now looking for work because there are a few more opportunities for jobs. He also said that in order to get that unemployment rate down to 6% we would have have a gain of 300K every month for the next 3 years. Anyone seeing that happen?

Voter from WA State on May 6, 2011 at 12:34 PM

On paper yes, in reality no….

sandee on May 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Unemployment is well over 9% I assure you. When the metirecs say that the economy is bad, the Fed simply changes the metrics. Problem solved!

Inflation anyone?

spec_ops_mateo on May 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM

New unemployment claims jump 43,000 to 474,000 in a WEEK, while somehow 244,000 new jobs were created in a MONTH. Fuzzy math, anyone?

Steve Z on May 6, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Seriously, someone with some Photoshop skills needs to make a poster with Obama in a Mickey D’s hat with 9.0% Unemployment stamped at the bottom and him asking, “Would you like some fries with that?”

If I had the skills, I’d be on it!

UnderstandingisPower on May 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Yeah, great news, 5.5 million of us are losing our unemployment this week or next, so that will make the unemployment numbers look even better next month. :( I couldn’t work at Mickey D’s, and I’ve had exactly one phone call from an employer in nearly a year. Things are really looking up /sarc

Mini-14 on May 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I wish you the best.
This can’t last forever. You can do this.
I’m sorry this is so hard. I wish this would just be over!

petunia on May 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM

While the administration and news media are really pounding home the non-farm payroll portion of the April 2011 employment situation report, if you look closer at the household survey portion of the report, you’ll find that 190,000 fewer Americans were counted as having jobs in April 2011 than had jobs in March 2011.

This is also the portion of the report where the unemployment rate is calculated, which is the major reason why we saw this rate rise from 8.8% to 9.0% in April 2011.

Interesting tidbits: McDonald’s was responsible for adding 62,000 to the non-farm payroll number in April 2011, but the total number of employed teens (Age 16-19) in the U.S. fell during the month by 84,000.

We can look for this kind of displacement to continue a while longer as people who lost their jobs in the automotive industry meltdown back in early 2009 are now seeing their 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits run out.

ironman on May 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Ok. I must be an economic dunce, but how can the unemployment go up to 9% when 244,000 new jobs were added?

sandee on May 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM

To be considered unemployed, someone must have been actively looking for work. People who become discouraged and stop looking for a new job are no longer considered unemployed and aren’t counted as part of the labor force. If some of those discouraged workers begin looking for jobs again, then they are again counted as unemployed and as part of the labor force. Also, a certain amount of net job growth is necessary to keep pace with increase in the labor force caused by population growth.

DKCZ on May 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Ok. I must be an economic dunce, but how can the unemployment go up to 9% when 244,000 new jobs were added?

sandee on May 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I THINK… it’s because the U-3 number, which this is, reports people out of work but looking for work. The U-9? number is the people out of work and no longer looking for work because they got discouraged.

So, the U-3 reflects 244,000 people that got work and a larger number that got dis-discouraged and started looking for work again.

Right?

UnderstandingisPower on May 6, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Also, the net job growth number comes from the establishment survey while the unemployment number comes from the household survey, and these data source aren’t exactly comparable.

DKCZ on May 6, 2011 at 12:46 PM

The media keeps playing on the margin in their never-ending crusade to shill for 0bama. The bottom line is that this economy is at best stagnant and has been so for some time. Obama and his merry band of Marxists have put the nation in a slow state of rot and the press is frantically obsessed trying to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.

rplat on May 6, 2011 at 12:47 PM

The MISERY INDEX has been in double digits for 18 months during President Obama.

It was in double digits for only 7 months during BOTH terms of President GW BUSH.

One wonders if there are any homeless people anymore, or if that only happens during Republican admins??

originalpechanga on May 6, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Mitt tried to bring this up and got caught up in a stupid lynching accusation… it is not a coincidense that the media was so quick to stop talk of the Misery Index with charges of racism.

If we reinstated that Carter era measure Obama would be taking the blame for all the misery caused by his policies or lack thereof.

Publicize the Misery Index… like those running totals of public debt… have a sort of forecast

Today the misery index is at whatever%, and the forecast for tomorrow is a high of 100% misery…

Or something better than I came up with… if you have a blog… publicize the number!

petunia on May 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM

It’s a disaster.

forest on May 6, 2011 at 12:51 PM

McDonald’s to..the ..rescue..McDonald’s to ..the.. rescue.. go McDonald’s!

tinkerthinker on May 6, 2011 at 12:52 PM

It’s ridiculous that in the year 2011, the govt to rely on surveys to figure out the unemployment rate. This is what it did 60 years ago.

How hard is it to use IRS data and census data and figure out how many people are working and divide that by the total number of adults 18-65 using census data? Even a govt employee could figure that one out.

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Some interesting links from the headline thread regarding 62k of the jobs being added by McDonald’s, and some other information.

BadgerHawk on May 6, 2011 at 12:05 PM

People like to think of “jobs” as magically appearing, growing on trees or materializing out of the ether. It’s better to look at regional and micro scenarios and think, where will new jobs come from? If you look at the past 10 years of US economic growth, some troubling trends become clear. These aren’t things that any President can readily fix.

1. Middle class incomes have been stagnant or shrinking for the past decade.

2. Job losses to developing countries like China have intensified, evidenced by a ballooning trade deficit. US corporations are hiring more abroad, even to meet demand for products and services sold to US customers.

3. During the last economic boom, nearly all job growth was driven by finance and housing jobs. Many of these jobs were no more permanent than census hiring and will never return.

4. Companies that are successfully competing with China have done so by cutting staff and investing on automation – robotics.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM

New unemployment claims jump 43,000 to 474,000 in a WEEK, while somehow 244,000 new jobs were created in a MONTH. Fuzzy math, anyone?

Steve Z on May 6, 2011 at 12:40 PM

That’s how liberal math works. 1+1=26

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 12:58 PM

These aren’t things that any President can readily fix.
bayam on May 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM

LOL. Yeah I’m sure that’s exactly what you were saying 2001-2008 right? LOL!

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 12:59 PM

wb Ed!

How many days will it take for the revision in the numbers to come out?

Sekhmet on May 6, 2011 at 12:59 PM

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM
2. Job losses to developing countries like China have intensified, evidenced by a ballooning trade deficit. US corporations are hiring more abroad, even to meet demand for products and services sold to US customers.

Don’t forget the undocumented work force undermining the wage/job pool.

tinkerthinker on May 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM

It was in double digits for only 7 months during BOTH terms of President GW BUSH.

Was that before or after the financial crisis nearly triggered another great depression? Perhaps the long-term effects of a balance sheet recession could be more severe than any single leader can overcome in a few years. This country may be fortunate merely to escape a Japan-style 10 year period of stagnation with even higher unemployment.

If there are things that can be done to revive this country, it’s going to demand greater imagination than drilling for more oil or giving corporations more tax breaks.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Don’t forget the undocumented work force undermining the wage/job pool.

tinkerthinker on May 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I do agree that if you have to compete with the undocumented labor force, then you’re really screwed in this economy.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM

1. Middle class incomes have been stagnant or shrinking for the past decade.

WRONG. Check IRS data and see for yourself. All income levels are higher today than 10 years ago. Yet most income levels are LOWER today than 2 years ago.

2. Job losses to developing countries like China have intensified, evidenced by a ballooning trade deficit. US corporations are hiring more abroad, even to meet demand for products and services sold to US customers.

WRONG! Trade deficits do not affect labor markets as you claim. In the 1980s we had huge trade deficits and yet 22 million new jobs were created.

3. During the last economic boom, nearly all job growth was driven by finance and housing jobs. Many of these jobs were no more permanent than census hiring and will never return.

WRONG! The biggest growth in labor was in education, health care and govt.

4. Companies that are successfully competing with China have done so by cutting staff and investing on automation – robotics.

WRONG! American companies for the most part do not compete with China. American companies outsource their production to China. You’re comparing apples to Chevrolets.


You missed the obvious:

5. The US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Canada’s rate is 15% and their economy is booming. Our rate is 35% and we’re in a depression.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:04 PM

+244,000 Jobs

-67,000 McDonald’s Jobs

-175,000 Birth Death ratio

equals +7,000 jobs actually created…..this report is a Disaster

QE 3 !!!!!!

LordMaximus on May 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM

If there are things that can be done to revive this country, it’s going to demand greater imagination than drilling for more oil or giving corporations more tax breaks.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Like taxing everything that moves or breathes?

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:06 PM

LOL. Yeah I’m sure that’s exactly what you were saying 2001-2008 right? LOL!

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Yes, that’s exactly what I was saying during the Bush years on Ed’s blog. It was clear that our ‘semi-trade’ policies with countries like China were bleeding US wealth to foreign nations and that the economic bubble of the time was going to eventually collapse. My biggest problem with Bush at that time, by far, was the budget deficit.

Trump is out of his mind to suggest a 25% China tax, but the underlying problem is very real.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Looks like the dead cat is falling back down.

Gallup: 51%
Ras: 50%

WOW!! What an Osama bounce…a whole 2-4%!!

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:09 PM

-67,000 McDonald’s Jobs

I guess that has been retracted. They will show up in Mays faked numbers.

sandee on May 6, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Nothing out of this regime – especially economic numbers – can be trusted.

I suspect if we knew the real numbers, there would be rioting in the streets.

Rebar on May 6, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Correct. They have been adjusting the numbers for months.

I’m tempted to ask: “You want fries with that?”

We’ve had over two years of BS out of Failbama and the clown posse. Employers haven’t shrugged off the high fuel prices.

The media socialists would be screaming from the rafters day after day if a republican was in office and we all know it.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2011 at 1:10 PM

My biggest problem with Bush at that time, by far, was the budget deficit.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM

LOL. So you had problems with Bush deficits in the $300B range. But you’re OK with Obama’s deficits in the $1.5T range?

You’re a real trip dude.

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:10 PM

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:01 PM
If there are things that can be done to revive this country, it’s going to demand greater imagination than drilling for more oil or giving corporations more tax breaks

I guess you have to decide if you want a socialist totalitarian gov. or a capitalists free market…

tinkerthinker on May 6, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Check IRS data and see for yourself. All income levels are higher today than 10 years ago. Yet most income levels are LOWER today than 2 years ago.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/

Trade deficits do not affect labor markets as you claim. In the 1980s we had huge trade deficits and yet 22 million new jobs were created.

Trade deficits matter despite your overly simplistic data point.

The biggest growth in labor was in education, health care and govt.

Public sector and health care job growth were significant but are not going to sustain this country or create wealth.

Canada’s rate is 15% and their economy is booming. Our rate is 35% and we’re in a depression.

Yes, that’s the key difference between the US and Canadian economies. After all, most US corporations actually pay a 35% rate! It’s not possible that Canada’s export driven economy or highly regulated financial markets helped it avoid the massive recession witnessed by the US.
Massive job growth would occur if the US corp tax rate were lower, it’s so simple!

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM

President Obama’s good week just got a little better — 244,000 new jobs in April.

JammieWearingFool on May 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM

An expert on Fox just said we would have to have 36 consecutive months at this rate just to drop the number down to 7.5%.

carbon_footprint on May 6, 2011 at 1:20 PM

I guess you have to decide if you want a socialist totalitarian gov. or a capitalists free market…

tinkerthinker on May 6, 2011 at 1:11 PM

If reality were as simple as some forms of conservative dogma then Google and Facebook would have been founded by followers of Glenn Beck.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Check IRS data and see for yourself. All income levels are higher today than 10 years ago. Yet most income levels are LOWER today than 2 years ago.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/

LOL. I said check IRS data and you link to a NY Times OP-ED.

Trade deficits do not affect labor markets as you claim. In the 1980s we had huge trade deficits and yet 22 million new jobs were created.

Trade deficits matter despite your overly simplistic data point.

No they don’t. I didn’t say that, a guy named Adam Smith said it. You may have hear of hi, he wrote some stuff.

The biggest growth in labor was in education, health care and govt.

Public sector and health care job growth were significant but are not going to sustain this country or create wealth.

Wait. You said the “almost all” growth was housing/finance. Now you say public sector and health care was “significant”. Make up your mind.

Canada’s rate is 15% and their economy is booming. Our rate is 35% and we’re in a depression.

Yes, that’s the key difference between the US and Canadian economies. After all, most US corporations actually pay a 35% rate! It’s not possible that Canada’s export driven economy or highly regulated financial markets helped it avoid the massive recession witnessed by the US.
Massive job growth would occur if the US corp tax rate were lower, it’s so simple!


Yep, it really is that simple. Oh wait, export driven? You mean like oil? You mean like allowing oil to be extracted and exported? Hmmmm. Why can’t the US do that? Oh I know, because Obama won’t allow it.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM

FAIL ON ALL FRONTS BAYAM.

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM

If reality were as simple as some forms of conservative dogma then Google and Facebook would have been founded by followers of Glenn Beck.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:20 PM

That may be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on HA. And that’s saying a lot seeing how Ernesto writes a lot here.

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Bayam:

please name 5 companies like facebook, google, amazon, ebay, microsoft, etc that were started in s socialist/communist country….

Where is the ebay from Sweden? Where is the Cisco from Denmark? Where is the Apple from Finland? Where is the Facebook from Cuba?

Don’t bother there are none. When the ogvt controls the economy there is no innovation. There is no innovation because there is no incentive to succeed. What’s the point of starting a $1b company if the govt will take 95% of it away from you?

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Wow you are totally full of shit regarding wages chump. After the high tech bubble burst middle income wages have been heading south.

Not to mention that a ton of good paying high tech work from assembly to engineering have been shipped off shore.

angryred is correct.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Unexpectedly unexpected unexpectedness unexpects unexpectitude unexpectionally.

Expectorate!

TallDave on May 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM

I’m approaching five straight years of unemployment, even though I did go back to school to get a leg up.

Yipee!

madmonkphotog on May 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Good news!!
If we add 350,000 jobs per month for 3 years, our unemployment will be back in the Bush Presidency range.
244,000 jobs every month will do nothing.
As goood as Obama is, shouldn’t I expect him to leave office with the same numbers he had going in?

seven on May 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM

3. During the last economic boom, nearly all job growth was driven by finance and housing jobs. Many of these jobs were no more permanent than census hiring and will never return.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM

From 2000 to 2008, the number of jobs in finance increased by 854,000 and the number of jobs in construction increased by 1,043,000. This compares to an increase of 3,300,000 in health-care, 1,914,000 in education, 1,148,000 in accommodation and food services, and 1,096,000 in professional and technical services.

Interestingly, the sector with the largest percentage growth over this period was mining, which grew by 72%, providing 344,000 more jobs.

DKCZ on May 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – Refocusing on the nation’s economic struggles, President Barack Obama welcomed news Friday that the economy added more than 200,000 jobs last month, exceeding expectations. “We are regaining our footing,” he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9N22C280&show_article=1

There is clueless and then there is malicious. The guy is such a low life.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Wait. You said the “almost all” growth was housing/finance. Now you say public sector and health care was “significant”. Make up your mind

Your attempts to rebut the existence of a major economic trend with a tangentially related statistic are amusing but don’t actually lend to a meaningful discussion. No one seriously questions the stagnation of US middle class income, adjusted for inflation:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-09-10-census-healthcare_N.htm

No one seriously disputes the central role of the finance and housing driven economy of the past decade in driving job growth.

These aren’t even political issues, so I guess you’re simply looking at a way to express your deep-seated anger at the world by chasing meaningless arguments.

please name 5 companies like facebook, google, amazon, ebay, microsoft, etc that were started in s socialist/communist country…

Why did you list a group of high growth companies started by Democrats and Liberals? What’s your underlying point here?

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Why did you list a group of high growth companies started by Democrats and Liberals? What’s your underlying point here?

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Are you really this thick? The point is that all these companies could only have been started in the evil capitalist system we have in the US. It is beyond ironic that the very same system that allowed these companies to be started are often started by people who want to destroy the system.

Again I ask how many of these types of companies have been started outside of the US in your Marxist paradises? The answer is NONE. Why do you think that is? The US has 5% of the population yet almost 100% of the world’s largest tech companies started in the past 20 years are American. Is it good weather in Silicon Valley? No. It’s the fact that capitalism allows innovation which is almost unheard of outside of this country. And yet fools like you want to destroy capitalism and replace with Marxism.

As for the stagnant incomes, first you refer to a link at the NY Times. The USA Today. Try some links to actual data and not op-ed pieces. IRS data clearly shows income increased for all income levels 2001-2008. It FELL significantly in 2009 and 2010.

And you first said the last boom was only because of finance/housing where “almost all” the jobs were created. You are wrong. Again, using pesky facts that you seem to despise in lieu of MSM op=ed pieces, the # of jobs created in education, health care and govt was far more than jobs in housing/finance during the last boom. These are facts. Why are you so pigheaded as to not accept these as such?

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM

There is clueless and then there is malicious. The guy is such a low life.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2011 at 2:02 PM

The guy likes his Kobe beef and having the keys to Air Force One. You can’t blame him for wanting another 4 years in office, even if it means having to lie through his teeth to get re-elected.

UltimateBob on May 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Seriously, someone with some Photoshop skills needs to make a poster with Obama in a Mickey D’s hat with 9.0% Unemployment stamped at the bottom and him asking, “Would you like some fries with that?”

If I had the skills, I’d be on it!

UnderstandingisPower on May 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM

I’ve been waiting for one showing little Bammie in a full SEAL outfit, -no joy. Perhaps it’s racist to Photoshop little Bammie.

PS: How about “would you like some lies with that”?

slickwillie2001 on May 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM

2005: 5% unemployment = Second Great Depression

2011: 9% unemployment = booming economy

We have always been at war with Eurasia

angryed on May 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM

What was the highest unemployment rate, post-Great Depression, for which an incumbent President won re-election? 7.2% in 1984.

This bears repeating. Also, the incumbent in 1984 was very popular and won a 49 state landslide during the re-election.

bammie is NOT that popular.

karenhasfreedom on May 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM

This bears repeating. Also, the incumbent in 1984 was very popular and won a 49 state landslide during the re-election.

bammie is NOT that popular.

Screwed up my quotes before. Sigh.

karenhasfreedom on May 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM

There is a long way to go but those are the best numbers in over five years. I’d like to see some details on the quality and value of the kind of jobs being created in this recovery. Getting people employed is critical to the economy but people returning to work won;t be happy if they are still experiencing a serious decline in income.

lexhamfox on May 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Ok this is great news! Oh, wait. What I learned in 2nd grade math tells me that we lost 474,000 jobs and added 244,000. I think that is still a loss of 230,000 jobs.

Even if you wanted to use new math, we would still be losing at least 100,000 a month. At this rate I think everyone will be unemployed by 2014, more or less.

Sporty1946 on May 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Wow you are totally full of shit regarding wages chump. After the high tech bubble burst middle income wages have been heading south.

Not to mention that a ton of good paying high tech work from assembly to engineering have been shipped off shore.

angryred is correct.

You’re confused, my point is that wages have been stagnant and/or falling while high tech jobs are being shipped aboard. You’re agreeing with me and disagreeing with that other commenter.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM

education, health care and govt was far more than jobs in housing/finance during the last boom. These are facts. Why are you so pigheaded as to not accept these as such?

You don’t know how to interpret labor and income statistics. In any case, labor department and census statistics are the numbers used by Wall Street to measure household income.

You’re only looking at jobs created within a given sector, not jobs that were created across the broader economy as a consequence of consumer spending enabled by the building boom and housing bubble.

And I hate to break it to you, but government hiring doesn’t trigger sustainable economic growth, nor do jobs related to taking care of grandma in the nursing home.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Why did you list a group of high growth companies started by Democrats and Liberals? What’s your underlying point here?

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

The point is that all these companies could only have been started in the evil capitalist system we have in the US. It is beyond ironic that the very same system that allowed these companies to be started are often started by people who want to destroy the system.

Perhaps Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs really don’t want to destroy the system. Given their position at the commanding heights of the economy, they obviously have a different perspective than you and deserve some respect.

Anyway, your position is bizarre. It’s like saying you love rock and roll despite the Beatles and Rolling Stones. At the end of the day, money and success talks.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM

They aren’t stagnant, they’re falling quite a lot and the value of those wages has plummeted further still.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Yeah you’re right, Bayam. Red you’re out in the weeds regarding wages. They’ve tanked since late 2001.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Net Jobs gain – 7000

Yep 7k only

Caststeel on May 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Why did you list a group of high growth companies started by Democrats and Liberals? What’s your underlying point here?

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

The point is that all these companies could only have been started in the evil capitalist system we have in the US. It is beyond ironic that the very same system that allowed these companies to be started are often started by people who want to destroy the system.

Perhaps Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs really don’t want to destroy the system. Given their position at the commanding heights of the economy, they obviously have a different perspective than you and deserve some respect.

Anyway, your position is bizarre. It’s like saying you love rock and roll despite the Beatles and Rolling Stones. At the end of the day, money and success talks.

bayam on May 6, 2011 at 4:15 P

Interesting.

I think that it’s not beyond the realm of reason to understand that all social groupings are inherently, well, socialist, in their nature. Capitalism is based upon winners vs. losers from the free market standpoint and masters vs. servants from the organizational standpoint. If so, then that fits perfectly into the Liberal mindset. There must be an enlightened, wise Patriarch to oversee the masses.

Every business, every military organization is a de facto commune. How can military professionals (like Powell or Smedley Butler) be Libtards? Easy. Military commanders “get” the idea of an ordered system with centralized command and control-same as any successful businessman.

The social consciousness of the Captains of Industry made it so that they contributed (shared) their wealth with the masses in the form of public museums, art galleries, education and other endowments, willingness to pay more in taxes, and even to support and co-opt major religious institutions.

Under them, government expanded its control over the People of the U.S. and other countries…always for our own good of course, because being successful was a Calvinist/Progressive/Fascist view that the (enlightened, morally/intellectually superior) cream naturally rises to the top. The masters have a moral obligation to take care of their pets and draft animals.

I don’t get why most Conservatives complain about “government interference” and “crony Capitalism” and the like when this has been going on for over 100 years? Maybe I missed the tooth and claw battle between the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Flaglers and others against the heavy hand of government? The Heroes of Capitalism have historically been the champions of Socialism. What they did complain about and fight against was labor unions-and those are the enemies of the modern Conservative…?

Serious disconnects with reality and who has actually been behind eroding our Liberty.

Was it Anarchists and bearded intellectual college professors and slum denizen Communists that set up the Federal Reserve System? or any of the other totalitarian socialist programs and government controls we complain about here? Did I miss the part about Nixon and Ronald the Great dismantling the Great Society and New Deal programs?

Most of them are in on it, and the rest are merely complicit and know they’re powerless to do anything about it. In short, we’ve been had. Stop being ignorant and quit supporting those who are enslaving us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I think that Samuel Clemmons (a.k.a. Mark Twain) once said something like, “There are lies, [bleep]ed lies and statistics.”

Bigfoot on May 6, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I wish you the best.
This can’t last forever. You can do this.
I’m sorry this is so hard. I wish this would just be over!

petunia on May 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Thanks for the encouragement, I’ve been busy today taking care of some obligations that will keep the bills paid this month. Next month I guess I’ll be living in the car, unless something changes. :(

Mini-14 on May 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Thanks for the encouragement, I’ve been busy today taking care of some obligations that will keep the bills paid this month. Next month I guess I’ll be living in the car, unless something changes. :(

Mini-14 on May 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM

It’s not great pay, but if you can find work that requires advanced English or reading skills, it can add up:

http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome?variant=worker

bayam on May 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM