Obama hails economy's 3.2% growth rate

[Douger]

National Inflation Association

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-closed-in-Puerto-Rico-apf-1507617949.html?x=0

 

[FA_Q2]

GDP is up for three consecutive quarters signaling the end of the recession. This was registered as the worst recession in 70 years and it is encouraging that it has recovered as quickly as it has.

Jobs, which always lag other indicators are showing signs of a turnaround also

How can anyone be disappointed with this?

It is not disappointment, it is trepidation when you look at factors that can drag us back down deeper than we ever have been. The deficit and unemployment are not small things and they are not very promising factors.

 

[Political Junky]

GDP is up for three consecutive quarters signaling the end of the recession. This was registered as the worst recession in 70 years and it is encouraging that it has recovered as quickly as it has.

Jobs, which always lag other indicators are showing signs of a turnaround also

How can anyone be disappointed with this?

Because these are the same "patiots" that want to see our economy continue to fail, just as they wanted to see another 9/11 style attack to help turn John McCain's campaign around, to get "their" party back in power....how sad is that?

Ain't no one going to hire because they're all waiting to see how much Obama care is going to cost. (but we already know that it is costing some big employers millions or billions don't we). Then we'll wait to see how much cap and tax will cost. Then we'll wait to see how much an investment tax will cost. Oh and there is always the VAT to wait for.

Taxes are going nowhere but up and we will have a so called recovery that will stall with unemployment higher than it was before the bust.

But we'll all praise the fucking government for any anemic growth. And let's not forget that Obama's plans for reducing the deficit (It's hard to type that without laughing) are predicated on better than 4% growth for years.

We are sliding deeper into the pit folks.

95% of Americans have had a tax cut under Obama.

 

[FA_Q2]

Because these are the same "patiots" that want to see our economy continue to fail, just as they wanted to see another 9/11 style attack to help turn John McCain's campaign around, to get "their" party back in power....how sad is that?

Ain't no one going to hire because they're all waiting to see how much Obama care is going to cost. (but we already know that it is costing some big employers millions or billions don't we). Then we'll wait to see how much cap and tax will cost. Then we'll wait to see how much an investment tax will cost. Oh and there is always the VAT to wait for.

Taxes are going nowhere but up and we will have a so called recovery that will stall with unemployment higher than it was before the bust.

But we'll all praise the fucking government for any anemic growth. And let's not forget that Obama's plans for reducing the deficit (It's hard to type that without laughing) are predicated on better than 4% growth for years.

We are sliding deeper into the pit folks.

95% of Americans have had a tax cut under Obama.

And spending INCREASED. That does not work out. Cuts now that cause HUGE tax increases after the next election cycle are not tax cuts, they are hidden tax increases, political trickery if you will. And, before you get into a Bush tizzy, YES bush did the same thing and it was bunk then as well. Just because he did it does not make it okay now. It actually makes it worse as creating a failed policy is bad but continuing a failed policy is plain dumb.

 

[antagon]

there's a major difference in deficit spending in a recovery effort and growing the debt in the middle of an expansion. that's one contrast between the obama and the bush at the moment, and incidental to the state of the economy and the limited options available to the government, today.

 

[pinqy]

reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.

this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.

 

[antagon]

reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.

this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.

but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.

 

[pinqy]

Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.

No, it's simple math. Looking at the seasonally adjusted numbers:
In February, 138,641,000 people were employed. By March, 2,295,000 became unemployed, 3,665,000 lost/left their job and were not looking for work. And 23,000 left the population (died, left the country, went to prison, joined the military, whatever). So 132,658,000 remained employed from Feb to Mar.

In Feb, there were 14,871,000 unemployed (defined as looking for work). By March, 2,583,000 found work, 2,797,000 were no longer looking, and 2,000 are other. 9,489,000 remained unemployed.

In Feb, there were 83,487,000 not working or looking for work. By March 3,582,000 found jobs, 3,205,000 started looking but hadn't found work yet, and 185,000 left the population.

Additionally, from Feb to Mar, 370,000 joined the population (turned 16, immigrated, left the military, released from prison, etc). 82,000 became employed, 16 million became unemployed, 272,000 weren't looking for work.

Source: BLS Labor Force Status Flows

In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.

How is that difficult math?

 

[pinqy]

reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.

this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.

but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.

Again, that's untrue. Whether or not someone has ever received or been eligible for unemployment has NEVER EVER been part of the Unemployment calculations. Here's the definition:

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment
data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Bolding mine. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Unemployment level and rate is not from any "rolls," or list, but from a monthly survey that's been conducted by the Census Bureau since 1941. You can be unemployed even if you've never held a job.

 

[antagon]

this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.

but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.

Again, that's untrue. Whether or not someone has ever received or been eligible for unemployment has NEVER EVER been part of the Unemployment calculations. Here's the definition:

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment
data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Bolding mine. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Unemployment level and rate is not from any "rolls," or list, but from a monthly survey that's been conducted by the Census Bureau since 1941. You can be unemployed even if you've never held a job.

in their survey, the bls classes workers as marginally attached or discouraged, and ouala! - the unemployment rate is capped at 10 points for the u-3, while the unemployment i'm talking about is flexed to the u-6 index.

see the drop-off?

thats a chart of bls stats from wiki.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.

No, it's simple math. Looking at the seasonally adjusted numbers:
In February, 138,641,000 people were employed. By March, 2,295,000 became unemployed, 3,665,000 lost/left their job and were not looking for work. And 23,000 left the population (died, left the country, went to prison, joined the military, whatever). So 132,658,000 remained employed from Feb to Mar.

In Feb, there were 14,871,000 unemployed (defined as looking for work). By March, 2,583,000 found work, 2,797,000 were no longer looking, and 2,000 are other. 9,489,000 remained unemployed.

In Feb, there were 83,487,000 not working or looking for work. By March 3,582,000 found jobs, 3,205,000 started looking but hadn't found work yet, and 185,000 left the population.

Additionally, from Feb to Mar, 370,000 joined the population (turned 16, immigrated, left the military, released from prison, etc). 82,000 became employed, 16 million became unemployed, 272,000 weren't looking for work.

Source: BLS Labor Force Status Flows

In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.

How is that difficult math?

Very nice, now tell me why is it I don't remember hearing about all these adjusted numbers? And if 700,000 more people are working why didn't the unemployment percentage change? Just doesn't figure. But then I'm just an ole retired Sergeant, what do I and common sense know.

 

[antagon]

statistics aren't common sense, Ollie. instead, they're complicated bits of math. nevertheless, the variables input into the equations are more arbitrary than pinqy thinks. the most important thing to remember is what the 'popular' unemployment stat is: the seasonally adjusted u-3. that's the one that is always quoted.

for my answer to your question... you're a common-sense man; the reason why it stays put is because it is fixed by the u >3 stats. they keep moving.

that's just my opinion. i get the impression politicians and the wider economy (to be fair) will suffer from publishing the 18% u-6 numbers, so they buffer the published account or interpret the survey responses to represent a grim, but better 10.xx% outlook.

dont forget 700k does not represent a massive portion of the labor force, either. it may not make a ripple in the stat.

 

[boedicca]

reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned. that is not new smoke nor mirrors. looking at the reagan recovery specifically, employment stubbornly lagged behind other indicators. reaganomics had many merits, however, there's thin ice supporting strong job creation early in any reagan expansion.

the obama approach is different than reagan's in some ways. while income tax rates are considerably lower than they were in the early 80's, there's no room or intent to lop them any lower. the opposite is actually indicated, however, that didn't hamper an employment-rich expansion under clinton. writing off obama's policies doesn't indicate that you've considered their aim. heavy-handed supply-side economics is not the only approach to running an economy, and its not without its many flaws, either.

i think america's credit dependency is really showing itself at this point. my clientele has shifted to cash-holders at the upper and lower extremes of the income spread, where credit card deals from the middle class paid the bills during the boom. institutional deals are all from the government at the moment, specifically the millitary, whereas homebuilders were tendiring the most in '05, '06. that's just a narrow perspective, but some others echo it at the chamber of commerce. the middle class needs to find a medium of cash and credit where they relied entirely on credit before. i think that is the key to shift gears on the recovery.

obama and his boys are right to backtrack on their job optimism. 8%, peak, anyone?

Obama's stats exclude the long term unemployed who have quit looking as well - so you are making a specious comparison. U6 unemployment, which includes them, is currently 17%.

You continue to neglect the spending binge and the massive debt accumulation in which Obama is engaged - while noting we have a credit dependency. The biggest credit dependency is more government debt to fuel spending; this relationship is stunting economic and job growth. And Obama is going to raise taxes in the midst of it.

The only 8% unemployment we are likely to see is when more people quit being counted under the U3 definition, and move into U6.

 

[boedicca]

reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned.

this is untrue. Length of unemployment has never ever been a factor in calculating the unemployment level or rate. Perhaps what you're referring to are people who left the labor market and then re-entered later. That's not "long-term unemployment", that's people deciding not to look for work for whatever reason and then deciding to look for work.

but, pinqy, the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now. 'not deciding to look for work for whatever reason' is not the driving force of the masses falling off the long term unemployment rolls. not now, not ever.

There are several unemployment measures:

- U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
- U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
- U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
- U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
- U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
- U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).


Unemployment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shadow stats provides a more consistent view by adjusting for the change in methodology that the BLS implemented in 1994. Their version of U6 is approx. 22%:

Alternate Unemployment Charts

 

[boedicca]

In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.

How is that difficult math?

They didn't LEAVE the labor force - the government stopped counting them. It doesn't count long time discouraged workers who would like a job but can't find them.

The total number of Unemployed has increased, not decreased.

 

[pinqy]

Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.

No, it's simple math. Looking at the seasonally adjusted numbers:
In February, 138,641,000 people were employed. By March, 2,295,000 became unemployed, 3,665,000 lost/left their job and were not looking for work. And 23,000 left the population (died, left the country, went to prison, joined the military, whatever). So 132,658,000 remained employed from Feb to Mar.

In Feb, there were 14,871,000 unemployed (defined as looking for work). By March, 2,583,000 found work, 2,797,000 were no longer looking, and 2,000 are other. 9,489,000 remained unemployed.

In Feb, there were 83,487,000 not working or looking for work. By March 3,582,000 found jobs, 3,205,000 started looking but hadn't found work yet, and 185,000 left the population.

Additionally, from Feb to Mar, 370,000 joined the population (turned 16, immigrated, left the military, released from prison, etc). 82,000 became employed, 16 million became unemployed, 272,000 weren't looking for work.

Source: BLS Labor Force Status Flows

In short, from Feb to Mar, 5.5 million people became unemployed, but 6.2 million became employed, and several more million left the labor force or the population.

How is that difficult math?

Very nice, now tell me why is it I don't remember hearing about all these adjusted numbers? And if 700,000 more people are working why didn't the unemployment percentage change? Just doesn't figure. But then I'm just an ole retired Sergeant, what do I and common sense know.

The link I gave is a research series...it's not offical and not published except on the website. What's officially published is just the net change...total number employed one month, total employed next month.

And while more people were employed, more people were also unemployed, so the numerator went up, and so did the denominator, and it worked out that the percentage was approx the same. The UE rate = Unemployment/(Unemployed + Employed). So in Feb it was 14,871,000/(14,871,000+138,641,000) = 9.7
In March, it was 15,005,000/(15,005,000 + 138,905,000) = 9.7

 

[pinqy]

They didn't LEAVE the labor force - the government stopped counting them. It doesn't count long time discouraged workers who would like a job but can't find them.

The total number of Unemployed has increased, not decreased.

It did increase, yes. And the number of employed also increased. So the rate stayed the same. And "Discouraged" does not mean "long term." Someone who was laid off in January, looked for a little bit, and stopped looking early February would still be counted as discouraged if they say they weren't looking because they didn't think they'd find a job.

And you're being dishonest. While the U-6 does include the Discouraged, it also includes all other marginally attached (who didn't "give up" but stopped looking for reasons other than the belief they couldn't find a job) and people working part time because their hours have been cut or couldn't find a full time job. It's dishonest to only characterize the U-6 as "the long term unemployed who have quit looking." Including the Discouraged workers (the U-4) only raises the rate to 10.3. So quit claiming adding discouraged makes the rate over 17% when it's a flat out lie.

And they DID leave the labor force...they're not working and not looking for work. They're not participating in the labor market, so they're not part of the labor force.

 

[antagon]

reagan's stats...

Obama's stats exclude the long term unemployed who have quit looking as well - so you are making a specious comparison. U6 unemployment, which includes them, is currently 17%.

You continue to neglect the spending binge and the massive debt accumulation in which Obama is engaged - while noting we have a credit dependency. The biggest credit dependency is more government debt to fuel spending; this relationship is stunting economic and job growth. And Obama is going to raise taxes in the midst of it.

The only 8% unemployment we are likely to see is when more people quit being counted under the U3 definition, and move into U6.

i was going on about the u-6 with pinqy earlier in the thread. you have to understand that the u-5 before 1994 was similar to the u-3 now, and that the bls in the 80s did the same deal with their 7-tier accounting as is done now with 6-tiers. before 94, the tiers above the published rate only published half of the underutilized/alternative demographics like discouraged and marginally attached. reagan's employment situation, for that reason, entailed the same accounting preference to reclassify long-term/excess unemployment. in fact, it did not account for another half of the alt unemployment that the upper rates do now. the comparison is specious on semantic grounds, or in favor of the current, more comprehensive accounting. do you subscribe to a fallacy about CPS1994?

on spending, i would say that the government is not leading by example in terms of credit dependency. all the same, i challenge your assertion that this spending will stunt economic and job growth on the basis that i had earlier: that you are convinced that heavy handed supply-side solutions are the only that work in an economy. that position is wrong. there are merits and pitfalls to supply-side macroeconomics and its alternatives which one must understand to speak credibly on the point. it makes real economic consideration difficult with a strong partisan bias such as yours, and such as what our politicians have.

specifically in a contraction, where deflation is indicated as robust and wide-spread in the economy, in our case to the tune of $17,000,000,000,000 or so, inflationary practices are, indeed, welcomed. they prevent stagflation in the money supply like we had in the great depression, or which japan suffered from in the 90s, when the government took insufficient or late action. conservatives (not to be confused with conservative economists) believe that the government should contract their investment in the economy, and leave deflation to work itself out. that, boe, will precipitate a depression by way of the stagflationary devices i'd mentioned. it is safe to say we would not be debating positive news in this thread with that philosophy emplaced.

yes, obama will raise taxes. i dont feel that the indications which you read into moderate and targeted rises in taxation, particularly from the stimulus rates we now have, are substantive. maybe you could elucidate.

 

[boedicca]

And they DID leave the labor force...they're not working and not looking for work. They're not participating in the labor market, so they're not part of the labor force.

That is spin. People who are long term discouraged workers generally want to be part of the labor force.

 

[pinqy]

And they DID leave the labor force...they're not working and not looking for work. They're not participating in the labor market, so they're not part of the labor force.

That is spin. People who are long term discouraged workers generally want to be part of the labor force.

It's been the definition since 1941. So fairly well established methodology that the most objective way to know if someone wants a job is whether or not they're looking for one.

And again, Discouraged does NOT mean "long term." It just means the person isn't looking for worth and claims they believe they won't find one. How does someone's belief help us know what the real conditions are? Or that they're honest in their belief? There were still discouraged workers when the UE rate was 3%.