Unemployment drops to 8.9%

[Toro]

It's up because Obama dumped about $800 billion in stimulus money that wasn't needed. But the logic goes much deeper than simply saying "the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007." You need to look at why the economy was so frail before that and the fact that the Democrats had no solutions.

I'll say it again, if anyone did not see the imminent crash after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, you weren't paying attention. But the market is still extremely fragile. All eyes are on Washington and the oil markets now.

Good for you for missing the fall, but the market didn't go down because of the Democrats. It went down because the housing market was in the biggest bubble of all time and the financial system was rotten. If you look at the deterioration of other markets, financial markets began to deteriorate in 2006, long before Democrats took power. Spreads in mortgage markets, CMBS, and other risk assets began to widen in the Spring of 2006. It should also be noted that this occurred across many different countries no matter whom was in power, conservative, socialist, left, right. It didn't matter. This was a massive bubble that was going to collapse no matter who was in power.

In fairness, I would say the Republican majority has helped fuel this bounce over the past few months as it lessened the odds of any more anti-business legislation passing.

 

[Defiant1]

I'll take this as you don't believe passing that kind of legislation creates jobs.

Now that we've got that out of the way..I've got some land in Florida I am interested in selling at a very reasonable price.

And if that's not something you like..there's a bridge in Brooklyn I am selling cheap as well.

You really have no idea how this country works, do you. Sad.

The saddest thing is these people are allowed to vote.

 

[xsited1]

It's up because Obama dumped about $800 billion in stimulus money that wasn't needed. But the logic goes much deeper than simply saying "the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007." You need to look at why the economy was so frail before that and the fact that the Democrats had no solutions.

I'll say it again, if anyone did not see the imminent crash after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, you weren't paying attention. But the market is still extremely fragile. All eyes are on Washington and the oil markets now.

Good for you for missing the fall, but the market didn't go down because of the Democrats. It went down because the housing market was in the biggest bubble of all time and the financial system was rotten. If you look at the deterioration of other markets, financial markets began to deteriorate in 2006, long before Democrats took power. Spreads in mortgage markets, CMBS, and other risk assets began to widen in the Spring of 2006. It should also be noted that this occurred across many different countries no matter whom was in power, conservative, socialist, left, right. It didn't matter. This was a massive bubble that was going to collapse no matter who was in power.

In fairness, I would say the Republican majority has helped fuel this bounce over the past few months as it lessened the odds of any more anti-business legislation passing.

It did indeed fall as a result of what the Democrats did and their willing Republican accomplices. For anyone interested, there's a great book on the subject:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Caused-Financial-Crisis-Jeffrey-Friedman/dp/0812221184/]Amazon.com: What Caused the Financial Crisis (9780812221183): Jeffrey Friedman, Richard A. Posner: Books[/ame]


And little article to get anyone interested started:

Causes of the Crisis: Three Myths about the Crisis: Bonuses, Irrationality, and Capitalism

Unfortunately, what is done or not done in Washington has a major effect on the markets. What the Fed does also has a major effect. As one investor used to say, "Don't fight the Fed."

One thing I missed, though is the rebound sending the DOW over 11,000 back in (I think) May of last year. I did not think it would get that high. But when it was pretty certain the Democrats would lose a lot of seats, that started the climb back up. Now we're sitting on a house of cards so I'm being very cautious.

 

[Trajan]

The Republicans have had control of ONE part of congress for 2 months now, and you're attributing last month's unemployment figures to them? LOL.

That's funny.

The Recession ended in the summer of 09 yet here it is 2011 and we're just now seeing an improvement?

Well, ether the improvement that is being reported is bull shit in an attempt to make Obama look good or it has something to do with changes that have taken place since 09. And the biggest change is the balance of power has swung back to the right. Which means businesses don't feel as threatened as they used to. They have a bit more optimism.

Truth is things aren't improving. They've just changed the way we report the numbers.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator... You'll notice it was the last one up as well.

How about gdp as an indicator is that laggin too? come now.

its been 20 months since the end of the recession, whats this all about?



The February Employment Situation Summary (030411, Morning)
Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 8:19 am

First, a flashback for historical context — In May 1984, the 20th month after the 1980s recession ended, the economy on Ronald Reagan’s watch added 308,000 seasonally adjusted jobs (280,000 of them in the private sector), when the workforce was 25%-30% smaller:

BLSseasAdj1982to1985

February 2011 was the 20th month after the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy’s recession officially ended. As shown here, the first 19 post-recession months have seen a net LOSS of 228,000 jobs. Perhaps today’s employment report will finally get that number into positive territory.

Given the hints I’ve seen that the press is going to break out the pom-poms today if the numbers come in good, we should recognize that even if they do, the POR Economy’s post-recession performance will still be over 4.8 million jobs behind Reagan’s economy — the equivalent of well over 6 million if adjusted for population size.BizzyBlog

BizzyBlog

 

[Toro]

It's up because Obama dumped about $800 billion in stimulus money that wasn't needed. But the logic goes much deeper than simply saying "the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007." You need to look at why the economy was so frail before that and the fact that the Democrats had no solutions.

I'll say it again, if anyone did not see the imminent crash after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, you weren't paying attention. But the market is still extremely fragile. All eyes are on Washington and the oil markets now.

Good for you for missing the fall, but the market didn't go down because of the Democrats. It went down because the housing market was in the biggest bubble of all time and the financial system was rotten. If you look at the deterioration of other markets, financial markets began to deteriorate in 2006, long before Democrats took power. Spreads in mortgage markets, CMBS, and other risk assets began to widen in the Spring of 2006. It should also be noted that this occurred across many different countries no matter whom was in power, conservative, socialist, left, right. It didn't matter. This was a massive bubble that was going to collapse no matter who was in power.

In fairness, I would say the Republican majority has helped fuel this bounce over the past few months as it lessened the odds of any more anti-business legislation passing.

It did indeed fall as a result of what the Democrats did and their willing Republican accomplices. For anyone interested, there's a great book on the subject:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Caused-Financial-Crisis-Jeffrey-Friedman/dp/0812221184/]Amazon.com: What Caused the Financial Crisis (9780812221183): Jeffrey Friedman, Richard A. Posner: Books[/ame]


And little article to get anyone interested started:

Causes of the Crisis: Three Myths about the Crisis: Bonuses, Irrationality, and Capitalism

Unfortunately, what is done or not done in Washington has a major effect on the markets. What the Fed does also has a major effect. As one investor used to say, "Don't fight the Fed."

One thing I missed, though is the rebound sending the DOW over 11,000 back in (I think) May of last year. I did not think it would get that high. But when it was pretty certain the Democrats would lose a lot of seats, that started the climb back up. Now we're sitting on a house of cards so I'm being very cautious.

I just can't tell you how wrong this passage on that blog is.

But in reality, very sober housing experts and economists (including Ben Bernanke) agreed that there was no bubble, and there was nothing “irrational” about this consensus. After all, housing prices had risen steadily since the Depression as the U.S. population grew and its affluence increased. Why shouldn’t people keep buying bigger, more expensive homes? There had never been a significant nationwide housing bubble, and housing speculation in “hot” markets such as Miami and Las Vegas could be quite rationally dismissed as localized. Those who dismissed the bubble may have been wrong--but they had good reasons for their error; there was nothing irrational about it. Likewise for those who participated in the bubble. For instance, Peter Wallison points out that in most states, “no-recourse” laws effectively removed penalties from home buyers and house flippers who walked away from their mortgages if their investments went sour.[1] So there was a legally sanctioned incentive to gamble on rising prices, and it was hardly irrational for people to take advantage of this incentive by buying into the bubble.

Although careful scholars have grouped psychologically established behavioral biases under the term "irrationality," in the present context the term can easily become an emotionally satisfying but non-explanatory explanation for people’s mistakes. In retrospect, housing investments premised on ever-rising prices can be labeled “irrational,” but the label explains nothing about why people actually made their mistakes.

This is why economics is so fucked up. It reminds me of listening to economists many years ago arguing that the stock market didn't actually crash in 1987. It is just staggering that these economists would argue today that there was no irrational bubble.

The fact that economists are so blinded by their own models does not obviate that an irrational bubble was occurring. After reading that passage, its hard to take the rest of their arguments seriously, even if they are correct.

 

[rdean]

Just republican being elected to office and controlling the house encourages businesses to start to hiring because there is more certainty. You think passing laws and government spending is what creates jobs which is wrong.

Yea, certainty they will work to send jobs to China. Like they did from 2001 to 2008. 2.4 million jobs. Must be part of that, "Contract ON America". How'd that work out?

 

[Trajan]

The is is all just so much schlock….. if anyone is seriously wondering why no one trusts the gov., any gov. anymore this sure gilds the Lilly.
Oh, and by no means is this a dem. only game either, but this really took off after the reporting methodology morhped under Clinton.

lets recap, the last 4 months-



Nov 2010- 39,000 jobs created, rise in rate by .4% to 9.8%.
Dec 2010- 103,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4% to 9.4%
Jan 2011- 36,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4 % to 9.0%
Feb . 2011- 192,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .1% to 8.9%.

See? Does the above make sense to anyone even on an intuitive level?

Yes.

They are two different sampling methodologies. At inflection points, they can differ wildly. And the household survey usually leads the nonfarm payrolls. They are also subject to revisions, often a few years afterwards. For example, from 1981 through 1988, employment data was revised upwards 11 times.

This is good news. The economy is beginning to accelerate. If the economy starts cranking out 200k jobs a month regularly, unemployment will continue to fall. Of course, you'd like it to be better, but its hard to argue that this bad.

If oil spikes to $150, however, all bets are off.

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

 

[Rozman]

Maybe if Obama had spent 3 trillion more on the Stimulus he would have gotten the unemployment down to 8.8% today instead of 8.9%

 

[Toro]

okay, so it appears, that you don't out much stock in the IBD article? Thats fine...I mean I hate to say it, but i have time, I am working. We'll see next month and the month there after, if we add 50k net puts opwer month I guess that will work but god, how long will it take to gain real ground? Is this what a trillion dollars bought us? a net 50-65k a month?

and see this is where I need further explanation in that how does the employment- unemployment statistics account for the people coming back, won't that drive the unemployment number back up as people came back to the market and get added to the roles of 'recognized unemployed' instead of being vaporized to the 'not looking for work' metric?

and no I am not trying to be a party pooper, I am just tired of the mixed messages and the fact that we have to have an involved discussion each and every time these numbers come out because the accounting ,methodology cannot be explained in simple terms everyone can recognize. Not many have the patience for this.

Generally, there are mixed messages at inflection points. The economy usually doesn't start producing 700k jobs overnight. It builds over time. One should look at all the data holistically, and the trend is towards improvement. New claims fell to 370k on Thursday, for example.

Frankly, though, I don't expect the rate of employment growth to grow fast compared to other recoveries. This is a very different type of recession and there is still too much capacity in the economy that will only be eliminated with time. The last recovery was relatively weak and was highly dependent on a housing bubble that should never existed. This recovery will be weak too.

 

[MaggieMae]

February jobs report: Unemployment falls as hiring picks up - Mar. 4, 2011

The private sector is driving a recovery. That is very good!

Yes, it is very good. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, I told everyone I cared about to take their money out of the stock market because it's going to crash. Now that we have some real conservatives in the House, I've been slowly putting money back in and cautiously telling others to do the same. We may actually see a real recovery if the conservatives don't cave-in and sell America short again.

Correct. Businesses were just waiting for conservatives to get voted back in before they stopped hoarding huge amounts of cash and allowing people to remain unemployed, while they were free to scream and yell that they were being so put upon by the Democrats. Now aren't they special? I wonder how those unemployed schmucks who are aware of that fact will vote next time around. For the greedy bastards or for the ones who fought for their continuation of unemployment benefits while the fat cats waited for another golden parachute for themselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe if Obama had spent 3 trillion more on the Stimulus he would have gotten the unemployment down to 8.8% today instead of 8.9%

Probably so..

Also if he didn't waste 40% of the stimulus on tax cuts to appease the Republicans

 

[MaggieMae]

Just republican being elected to office and controlling the house encourages businesses to start to hiring because there is more certainty. You think passing laws and government spending is what creates jobs which is wrong.

You are delusional. Got turn FOX back on and let them feed you some more "news." The economic cycle is leading to jobs growth. GOP majority in the House has nothing to do with it. They will prove to be just what they are, obstructionalist.

They just can't stand any kind of good news at all. I've resigned myself to it. They WANT the economy to stink, they WANT things to get even worse. And it's obvious why. These are the same "patriots" who bullshit their way into having people believe they care about the country.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is not improvement.

From the BLS report:

- The labor force participation rate remained at 64.2% (it was also 64l.2% in January); a year ago it was 64.8%.
- This means 1.5M people are no longer counted in the labor force adjusted for population growth and the annual decrease in participation.
- If those 1.5M people were still counted, the unemployment rate would be 9.8%

The unemployment rate has gone down because more people have given up looking for work due to lack of jobs.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age


Methdology: (# in 1,000s)

Civilian population 238,851
Feb 2010 Paricipation Rate 64.8%
Civilian Labor force at 2/10 rate 154,775
Civilial Labor force 2/11 rate 153,246
The Missing People 1,529
2/11 Reported U-3 Unemployment 13,673
U3 Adjusted for Missing People 15,202
Adjusted U3 Unemployment Rate 9.8%

The number of "long-term" unemployed, people out of work six months or more, sank to 5.99 million, a decline of 217,000 from January.

"- This means 1.5M people are no longer counted in the labor force adjusted for population growth and the annual decrease in participation.
- If those 1.5M people were still counted, the unemployment rate would be 9.8%

The unemployment rate has gone down because more people have given up looking for work due to lack of jobs."

Yes that does affect the reality. And the real shame of the existing new jobs picture is that because of gas and food hikes, the new income can't be spent in the economy as purchasing power is flat. So much for NEW job creation. Spring hiring for summer employment usually starts in March and April so we might look forward to job hikes.

I wonder where they are? On the streets? Collecting <gasp> welfare?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They're not counting the two million that dropped into the abyss supposedly. I'd love to see some real economic growth but you can't put lipstick on a pig and expect beauty.

 

[rightwinger]

Just republican being elected to office and controlling the house encourages businesses to start to hiring because there is more certainty. You think passing laws and government spending is what creates jobs which is wrong.

You are delusional. Got turn FOX back on and let them feed you some more "news." The economic cycle is leading to jobs growth. GOP majority in the House has nothing to do with it. They will prove to be just what they are, obstructionalist.

They just can't stand any kind of good news at all. I've resigned myself to it. They WANT the economy to stink, they WANT things to get even worse. And it's obvious why. These are the same "patriots" who bullshit their way into having people believe they care about the country.

I don't see how you can root against your country

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, it is very good. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, I told everyone I cared about to take their money out of the stock market because it's going to crash. Now that we have some real conservatives in the House, I've been slowly putting money back in and cautiously telling others to do the same. We may actually see a real recovery if the conservatives don't cave-in and sell America short again.

So the GOP holds majority in the house and have done nothing to create jobs and you will give them credit for the jobs improvement...yeah....

We are just crawling out of the hole that GW left for us.

Of course. Businesses are hiring because they see positive changes are coming in Washington. That's the way the world works. Even the stock market goes up on something positive that may happen in the future. Why don't you know this???

What positive changes? The demise of the EPA? Ain't gonna happen. Overturning health care reform? Also ain't gonna happen entirely, plus it seems they'll have to remain jittery through 2014 because most of the mandates don't go into effect until then, and anything could happen in the meantime. The stock market won't crash because Wall Street investors continue to put their money in overseas interests since they can no longer play god with the housing market.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just republican being elected to office and controlling the house encourages businesses to start to hiring because there is more certainty. You think passing laws and government spending is what creates jobs which is wrong.

Really?

If the congress passes a bill to repair infrastructure - No jobs are created?
If the congress passes a bill to buy a weapons system - No jobs are created?
If the congress passes a bill to modernize telecommunications - No jobs are created?

Seriously?

But no response. Translation: Sallow is correct, but I can't bring myself to admit it or pretend to ignore it.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'll take this as you don't believe passing that kind of legislation creates jobs.

Now that we've got that out of the way..I've got some land in Florida I am interested in selling at a very reasonable price.

And if that's not something you like..there's a bridge in Brooklyn I am selling cheap as well.

You really have no idea how this country works, do you. Sad.

Well I for one am waiting for you or one of your other compadres to enlighten us. So far, all I've seen is blah blah blah and a goofy picture.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just republican being elected to office and controlling the house encourages businesses to start to hiring because there is more certainty. You think passing laws and government spending is what creates jobs which is wrong.

Really?

If the congress passes a bill to repair infrastructure - No jobs are created?
If the congress passes a bill to buy a weapons system - No jobs are created?
If the congress passes a bill to modernize telecommunications - No jobs are created?

Seriously?

Seriously. Government jobs are just a transfer of tax dollars from one group to another.

So if tens of thousands of jobs are created by the private sector as a result of a government project (i.e., Apollo, which is the best and biggest example), those jobs are also only costing other taxpayers who aren't affiliated with the project in any way? Of course not. This is where that argument falls apart, completely.

 

[MaggieMae]

The is is all just so much schlock….. if anyone is seriously wondering why no one trusts the gov., any gov. anymore this sure gilds the Lilly.
Oh, and by no means is this a dem. only game either, but this really took off after the reporting methodology morhped under Clinton.

lets recap, the last 4 months-



Nov 2010- 39,000 jobs created, rise in rate by .4% to 9.8%.
Dec 2010- 103,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4% to 9.4%
Jan 2011- 36,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .4 % to 9.0%
Feb . 2011- 192,000 jobs created, drop in rate by .1% to 8.9%.

See? Does the above make sense to anyone even on an intuitive level? And course obama has taken any opportunity drops, raise etc. to make it appears as iof all is well, everything is moving ahead according to plan….just a few jump starts that’s all…


and so, all that glitters, is not gold. see article below, I read this 2 days ago.....I'll take their word over a hand picked favorite of the AP who have been wrong so many times its ridiculous.....

Layoffs At Pre-Recession Level; Job Openings Down 30%
By SCOTT STODDARD, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 03/02/2011 06:50 PM ET

Twenty months after the worst recession in decades, job creation remains anemic, weighing on economic growth and making it even harder for the long-term jobless to find work.

Don't blame layoffs. They spiked in 2009 but have returned to pre-slump levels, according to Labor Department data. But job openings remain 30% below their level when the downturn hit in December 2007. Gross hiring is down by 843,000 jobs.
While the economy has grown modestly in recent quarters, hiring remains depressed due to uncertainty about future demand, concerns about government policies and efficiency gains that have let companies do more with less.

"It's the drop in job openings, not the increase in job losses that is responsible for so much of the increase in unemployment," said James Sherk, a labor policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.


Labor is expected to report Friday that the U.S. added a net 183,000 jobs in February, the most since last May. The jobless rate is seen ticking up 0.1 point to 9.1% as more people entered the labor force. Many of those new or returning job-seekers will likely find only disappointment.

December job openings fell by 139,000 to 3.06 million, the third straight decline, according to Labor's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. January's JOLTS survey is due March 11.


There were 4.7 job-seekers for each opening in December, off a peak of 6.3 in July 2009 but still far above the 1.15 ratio typical before the recession, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
"We are still very near the bottom of a very huge crater," said Heidi Shierholz, an EPI labor economist.

The U.S. has expanded for six quarters, but growth has been modest by historical standards. Strong head winds remain, from a still-moribund housing market to $100 oil and looming fiscal tightening at all levels of government.
Uncertainty about ObamaCare costs have also made firms cautious about hiring, analysts said.

More at-
Stocks, Investing, Business and Financial News from Investor's Business Daily NewsAndAnalysis/Article/ 564756/201103021850/Job- Creation-Remains-Anemic.htm

As I said in another thread, no one, not a single person from Obama on down has ever promised there would be an explosion of jobs available either in the near or even the far future. They ALL have said, unequivocably, that unemployment will remain sluggish.

The debate that everything should be hunky-dory by now should be OVER, because it is what it is, and no amount of backtracking and blame is going to change the circumstances that keep unemployment high. This WAS the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it's high time people acknowledged that and learned to live with the consequences.