Economy adds 175,000 jobs in February

[JimH52]

Jobs report: Hiring picked up in February - Mar. 7, 2014

This should be good news for everyone.....but I am sure the GOP will spin their dismay.

 

[bedowin62]

i'm sure left-wing nutjobs bragging about it still cant find a reason that welfare, food stamps and unemployment have to remain at RECORD LEVELS; levels set as an EMERGENCY AT THE END OF THE BUSH YEARS AND BEGINNING OF THE OBAMA YEARS


idiots and hypocrites

 

[JimH52]

i'm sure left-wing nutjobs bragging about it still cant find a reason that welfare, food stamps and unemployment have to remain at RECORD LEVELS; levels set as an EMERGENCY AT THE END OF THE BUSH YEARS AND BEGINNING OF THE OBAMA YEARS


idiots and hypocrites

Ahhhh, the Spin Begins!

 

[rightwinger]

Good to hear given the horrific weather last month

 

[bedowin62]

i'm sure left-wing nutjobs bragging about it still cant find a reason that welfare, food stamps and unemployment have to remain at RECORD LEVELS; levels set as an EMERGENCY AT THE END OF THE BUSH YEARS AND BEGINNING OF THE OBAMA YEARS


idiots and hypocrites

Ahhhh, the Spin Begins!

who is spinning?


you are. if they are real job increases how can welfare, food stamps and unemployment NOT be able to be reduced by one cent or one day of eligibility?

 

[DGS49]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

 

[rightwinger]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

 

[bedowin62]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

Democrat MAJORITY RULE FOR TWO YEARS
that's what i call it

 

[bedowin62]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

funny how the same idiots still using that talking point to try to say how much better things are now; cant explain why we still have levels of RECORD WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS and funding at the EMERGENCY LEVELS from that period; and call other people heartless for asking why if things are so much better now why cant that be reduced from the EMERGENCY LEVELS set when all those jobs were being lost


you left-wng idiots are amazing.

 

[Oldstyle]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

You can say that again! What's amusing is that this Administration has been SO bad with the economy that numbers that would have been considered awful for past administrations are seen as great for this one. Talk about lowered expectations...

 

[Oldstyle]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

I would call that a severe recession, Winger. Your problem is that recessions are typically followed by rather intense periods of rebound economic growth...something that we have not seen under the Obama Presidency. He's overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

 

[rightwinger]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

I would call that a severe recession, Winger. Your problem is that recessions are typically followed by rather intense periods of rebound economic growth...something that we have not seen under the Obama Presidency. He's overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

Thats true

Because typically you do not try to balance your budget and slash government hiring when you are trying to get out of a severe recession

 

[bedowin62]

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

I would call that a severe recession, Winger. Your problem is that recessions are typically followed by rather intense periods of rebound economic growth...something that we have not seen under the Obama Presidency. He's overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

Thats true

Because typically you do not try to balance your budget and slash government hiring when you are trying to get out of a severe recession

you're a babbling idiot; even left-wing factcheck.org admits government has grown under obama. your idiotic post didnt address the point; periods of sharp economic downturn are almost always followed by sharp upturns; a V-shape. that hasnt happened with obama.

why?

 

[Oldstyle]

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

I would call that a severe recession, Winger. Your problem is that recessions are typically followed by rather intense periods of rebound economic growth...something that we have not seen under the Obama Presidency. He's overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

Thats true

Because typically you do not try to balance your budget and slash government hiring when you are trying to get out of a severe recession

Who did either of those things, Winger? Obama spent huge amounts of money and government hiring was going up even as the Private Sector was losing jobs at a staggering rate. Government hiring only went down when the Obama Stimulus ran out and the majority of that was at the State and local levels that by law HAVE to have a balanced budget. It's become painfully obvious over the past 5 years that Barack Obama really doesn't have a plan to improve the economy...he wants extra spending to put a band aid on things but he's clueless as to how to really create jobs.

 

[rightwinger]

I would call that a severe recession, Winger. Your problem is that recessions are typically followed by rather intense periods of rebound economic growth...something that we have not seen under the Obama Presidency. He's overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

Thats true

Because typically you do not try to balance your budget and slash government hiring when you are trying to get out of a severe recession

Who did either of those things, Winger? Obama spent huge amounts of money and government hiring was going up even as the Private Sector was losing jobs at a staggering rate. Government hiring only went down when the Obama Stimulus ran out and the majority of that was at the State and local levels that by law HAVE to have a balanced budget. It's become painfully obvious over the past 5 years that Barack Obama really doesn't have a plan to improve the economy...he wants extra spending to put a band aid on things but he's clueless as to how to really create jobs.

Government hiring is down under Obama and the deficit has been cut in half. Not normally conducive to getting out of a recession quickly

Reagan tripled his debt and increased government hiring during his recovery

 

[Oldstyle]

Thats true

Because typically you do not try to balance your budget and slash government hiring when you are trying to get out of a severe recession

Who did either of those things, Winger? Obama spent huge amounts of money and government hiring was going up even as the Private Sector was losing jobs at a staggering rate. Government hiring only went down when the Obama Stimulus ran out and the majority of that was at the State and local levels that by law HAVE to have a balanced budget. It's become painfully obvious over the past 5 years that Barack Obama really doesn't have a plan to improve the economy...he wants extra spending to put a band aid on things but he's clueless as to how to really create jobs.

Government hiring is down under Obama and the deficit has been cut in half. Not normally conducive to getting out of a recession quickly

Reagan tripled his debt and increased government hiring during his recovery

You liberals never cease to amuse. Both of the things you "credit" to Obama came about not because he wanted them to but because of his failures. States and local governments had to lay off workers because the economy was still horrible even after the Obama Stimulus and non-stop Quantitative Easing by the Fed. Fed hiring hasn't gone down much at all because the Federal Government doesn't have to have a balanced budget. As for the deficit reductions? Come on, Winger...those were accomplished because of the sequester cuts not because of anything Barry did. If he'd gotten his way we'd be spending a LOT more than we have been.

Reagan tripled a small amount of debt. His spending PALES when compared to Barack Obama's! Government hiring went up during Reagan's two terms because the economy improved by leaps and bounds from what it was under Carter.

 

[JimH52]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

Suppose we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, what would you call that?

Then it would be called an economy that is out of control. The welfare and food stamps are still high because there are may that have still not recovered from the Bush Crash.

 

[oldfart]

I hate to interrupt such an entertaining exchange of invective, but I found a couple of things interesting in the figures. First a caveat, you will go nuts if you you try to draw conclusions from one month's data. You need at least three months to get any idea of a trend in labor statistics.

The civilian non-institutional population has been growing at an average of 176k per month for the last four months. For four years the biggest phenomena in the labor market has been the decrease in the labor force. In fact, in February, the labor force was only 13,000 higher than February of 2013. But in the last four months the labor force has had positive growth in three of the four, and the average gain is 253,000 per month. The striking fact is that for the first time in five years, the labor force is growing faster than population! This explains the increase in the unemployment rate. People are returning to the labor force.

The second thing is that the broader U-6 measure is monotonically decreasing each month, from 13.7% last October to 12.6% in February. This supports the observation of the above paragraph.

This does not mean that we are seeing an employment recovery, but it does mean that we have seen the bottom of the slide where labor force was declining. I think we will be in this mode for about another year. The minimum unemployment rate will stay near 6.5%, but U-6 will continue to decline to maybe 11.5% by the end of the year. This isn't great news, but at least the trend is in the right direction.

You may now return to the previously scheduled food fight.

 

[edthecynic]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

That BULLSHIT has been "battered" because it is total BULLSHIT! The entire American POPULATION doesn't even increase by 220,000 people each month.

Before the Boomers started retiring it only took 125,000 new jobs per month to keep up with monthly workforce growth. Now that Boomers are retiring at a rate of over 200,000 per month with many of those jobs being filled after they retire, the job creation rate to keep with new entrants into the workforce can be as little as 50,000 to 80,000 new jobs per month.

 

[bedowin62]

The economy normally has to add about 220,000 jobs a month to keep pace with increases in the workforce. This general rule has been battered a bit in recent years as people drop out of the job market in record numbers, but bragging about adding 175k jobs in a month is like a baseball player bragging about hitting .225.

It's nothing to brag about.

That BULLSHIT has been "battered" because it is total BULLSHIT! The entire American POPULATION doesn't even increase by 220,000 people each month.

Before the Boomers started retiring it only took 125,000 new jobs per month to keep up with monthly workforce growth. Now that Boomers are retiring at a rate of over 200,000 per month with many of those jobs being filled after they retire, the job creation rate to keep with new entrants into the workforce can be as little as 50,000 to 80,000 new jobs per month.

you are a moron lying to himself; baby boomers have been retiring at a stable more or less constant rate for about a decade