More economic good news: Economy adds 223,000 jobs, unemployment drops to 5.3%

[boedicca]

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

Your calculations reveal your level of desperation. I have never seen someone use population increases in order to degrade good employment numbers, What will you use next? Maybe you can point out that the economy is not improving as much as it appears because....Obama is left handed! WOW! Maybe you can use that logic next time the economy improves.

Of course you can't handle MATH!

You need to keep the "obama is left handed" arugument in your bag. Never know when you might need it.....

Clearly post #72 scares you so you have to deflect with blithering nonsense.

But that's not a surprise. You haven't posted one intelligent thing ever on USMB.

 

[JimH52]

The thread title is inaccurate. Here's the correct one:

Increasingly desperate progressives misuse employment statistics in order to mask the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. The Labor Force Participation Rate dropped from 62.9% in May to 62.6% in June....the lowest rate since 1977.

Yep. like I said earlier. under a Republican. 200, 000 jobs they would be calling it a FAILURE

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

Here's THE MATH that shows the Success of Reaganomics vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics:

View attachment 43731


At a similar point in his Presidency, Reagan created 12.3M Employed with an increase in the Civilian Population of 13.3M. 92% of the people entering the workforce became employed. By the time Reagan left office, that ratio was 104%!

At this point in the Obama Presidency, The Won has created 6.6M Employed for an increase in the Civilian Population of 16.1M. That's a ratio of only 41%.

And thus we see the Enormous Success of Reaganism vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

The End.

Of course Reagan increased the military 46% over the level that it was when he became President. He ballooned the deficit, while Obama decreased the increase in the deficit. Trickle down worked for the 1%ers, not so much for middle America.

 

[JimH52]

As the economy improves into 2016, the GOP will become more and more desperate. Thank goodness you will have Trump to carry your banner into the elections!

 

[boedicca]

Yep. like I said earlier. under a Republican. 200, 000 jobs they would be calling it a FAILURE

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

Here's THE MATH that shows the Success of Reaganomics vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics:

View attachment 43731


At a similar point in his Presidency, Reagan created 12.3M Employed with an increase in the Civilian Population of 13.3M. 92% of the people entering the workforce became employed. By the time Reagan left office, that ratio was 104%!

At this point in the Obama Presidency, The Won has created 6.6M Employed for an increase in the Civilian Population of 16.1M. That's a ratio of only 41%.

And thus we see the Enormous Success of Reaganism vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

The End.

Of course Reagan increased the military 46% over the level that it was when he became President. He ballooned the deficit, while Obama decreased the increase in the deficit. Trickle down worked for the 1%ers, not so much for middle America.

The Civilian Population statistics exclude Military Personnel, bub. So another lame deflection by you.

I realize it's above your pay level, but actually looking at the data before you spew unfounded claims wouldn't hurt.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As the economy improves into 2016, the GOP will become more and more desperate. Thank goodness you will have Trump to carry your banner into the elections!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Of course Reagan increased the military 46% over the level that it was when he became President. He ballooned the deficit, while Obama decreased the increase in the deficit. Trickle down worked for the 1%ers, not so much for middle America.

Since 2009......
Top 7% income earners.......INCOME ROSE 33% (a record)
Remaining 93% WORKING Americans..........INCOME DECLINE 5%

So who is the President using Trickle down economics again??
Under this administration it is simply outstanding to be ultra-wealthy.

 

[pinqy]

432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. .

What are you talking about? You know you can't compare the two different surveys. The Current Employment Statistics show a gain of 223,000 jobs and the Current Population Survey shows a loss of 56,000 employed. You can't compare the two.

I'm using actual data from the BLS data look up tables for my more detailed analysis - not the spin figures from the PR department.

I also used Table A-1, the Employment Situation Summary which is an exhibit to the press release.

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

 

[boedicca]

I did the math m

432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. .

What are you talking about? You know you can't compare the two different surveys. The Current Employment Statistics show a gain of 223,000 jobs and the Current Population Survey shows a loss of 56,000 employed. You can't compare the two.

I'm using actual data from the BLS data look up tables for my more detailed analysis - not the spin figures from the PR department.

I also used Table A-1, the Employment Situation Summary which is an exhibit to the press release.

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

 

[Faun]

The thread title is inaccurate. Here's the correct one:

Increasingly desperate progressives misuse employment statistics in order to mask the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. The Labor Force Participation Rate dropped from 62.9% in May to 62.6% in June....the lowest rate since 1977.

Yep. like I said earlier. under a Republican. 200, 000 jobs they would be calling it a FAILURE

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[JimH52]

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

Here's THE MATH that shows the Success of Reaganomics vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics:

View attachment 43731


At a similar point in his Presidency, Reagan created 12.3M Employed with an increase in the Civilian Population of 13.3M. 92% of the people entering the workforce became employed. By the time Reagan left office, that ratio was 104%!

At this point in the Obama Presidency, The Won has created 6.6M Employed for an increase in the Civilian Population of 16.1M. That's a ratio of only 41%.

And thus we see the Enormous Success of Reaganism vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

The End.

Of course Reagan increased the military 46% over the level that it was when he became President. He ballooned the deficit, while Obama decreased the increase in the deficit. Trickle down worked for the 1%ers, not so much for middle America.

The Civilian Population statistics exclude Military Personnel, bub. So another lame deflection by you.

I realize it's above your pay level, but actually looking at the data before you spew unfounded claims wouldn't hurt.

You really lack understanding, don't you. The jobs in the private sector increased equally as Reagan built the military and ballooned the deficit. Any average economist can tell you that.

 

[boedicca]

Yep. like I said earlier. under a Republican. 200, 000 jobs they would be calling it a FAILURE

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

 

[boedicca]

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

Here's THE MATH that shows the Success of Reaganomics vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics:

View attachment 43731


At a similar point in his Presidency, Reagan created 12.3M Employed with an increase in the Civilian Population of 13.3M. 92% of the people entering the workforce became employed. By the time Reagan left office, that ratio was 104%!

At this point in the Obama Presidency, The Won has created 6.6M Employed for an increase in the Civilian Population of 16.1M. That's a ratio of only 41%.

And thus we see the Enormous Success of Reaganism vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

The End.

Of course Reagan increased the military 46% over the level that it was when he became President. He ballooned the deficit, while Obama decreased the increase in the deficit. Trickle down worked for the 1%ers, not so much for middle America.

The Civilian Population statistics exclude Military Personnel, bub. So another lame deflection by you.

I realize it's above your pay level, but actually looking at the data before you spew unfounded claims wouldn't hurt.

You really lack understanding, don't you. The jobs in the private sector increased equally as Reagan built the military and ballooned the deficit. Any average economist can tell you that.

Obama has Ballooned the Deficit more than anyone ever in all of history - so WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

Bzzzt. You lose again.

 

[Faun]

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

 

[pinqy]

A Very Interesting bit of Math:

The Civilian population increased by 208K
The amount of people who dropped out of the workforce is 432K
The total of these two figures is 640K

Those Not In The Labor Force increased by 640K

Civ Pop Increase + Drop Outs = Total decrease in the Labor Force

Well, yeah, that's an identity. Labor Force plus Not in the Labor Force = Population. So the change in labor force plus the change in not in the labor force will always equal the change in population.

This means that the economy didn't create one new job for the increased population.

I'm not clear on what you think the difference is between jobs and employment.

Jobs are Destroyed as well as Created.

The "Jobs Created" number is the NET CHANGE in non-farm payroll jobs. Lost jobs are already included.

Also, with multiple part time jobs, some people are counted multiple times in the jobs creation. Three lousy part time jobs do not equal three more people beiing employed.

This is true, but there's no way around it....you can't fgure that out in a payroll survey. From the household survey the number of multiple job holders is 7 million.

The more realistic way to look at the stats is to look at the people who are classified as Employed.

The focus should be on Employed Individuals.

Look at the accuracy though (I show that in another post). The Employed data are more comprehensive and give us better demographic detail, but they're not that accurate for month to month change.
Plus, with the non-farm payroll data, we can benchmark that with the business filings of payroll numbers for UI taxes.

In short "jobs numbers" are less inclusive and do include people who have more than one job for each job, but the accuracy of what we do have is a lot greater.

 

[boedicca]

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

 

[pinqy]

I did the math m

432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. .

What are you talking about? You know you can't compare the two different surveys. The Current Employment Statistics show a gain of 223,000 jobs and the Current Population Survey shows a loss of 56,000 employed. You can't compare the two.

I'm using actual data from the BLS data look up tables for my more detailed analysis - not the spin figures from the PR department.

I also used Table A-1, the Employment Situation Summary which is an exhibit to the press release.

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

 

[JimH52]

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

Here's THE MATH that shows the Success of Reaganomics vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics:

View attachment 43731


At a similar point in his Presidency, Reagan created 12.3M Employed with an increase in the Civilian Population of 13.3M. 92% of the people entering the workforce became employed. By the time Reagan left office, that ratio was 104%!

At this point in the Obama Presidency, The Won has created 6.6M Employed for an increase in the Civilian Population of 16.1M. That's a ratio of only 41%.

And thus we see the Enormous Success of Reaganism vs. the Epic Fail of Obamanomics.

The End.

Of course Reagan increased the military 46% over the level that it was when he became President. He ballooned the deficit, while Obama decreased the increase in the deficit. Trickle down worked for the 1%ers, not so much for middle America.

The Civilian Population statistics exclude Military Personnel, bub. So another lame deflection by you.

I realize it's above your pay level, but actually looking at the data before you spew unfounded claims wouldn't hurt.

You really lack understanding, don't you. The jobs in the private sector increased equally as Reagan built the military and ballooned the deficit. Any average economist can tell you that.

Obama has Ballooned the Deficit more than anyone ever in all of history - so WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

Bzzzt. You lose again.

Even though Obama has to bail out the mess that Bush left, the percentage of increase in the US deficit during his years is about half of what Reagan left. Reagan great economy was balanced on the back of the US deficit.

US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. Also seeDid Reaganomics Work?

Barack Obama:Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009

 

[boedicca]

I did the math m

432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. .

What are you talking about? You know you can't compare the two different surveys. The Current Employment Statistics show a gain of 223,000 jobs and the Current Population Survey shows a loss of 56,000 employed. You can't compare the two.

I'm using actual data from the BLS data look up tables for my more detailed analysis - not the spin figures from the PR department.

I also used Table A-1, the Employment Situation Summary which is an exhibit to the press release.

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

 

[JimH52]

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

The recovering alcoholic started two wars and then gave a tax break to the wealthy. It was a first for the United States.

 

[boedicca]

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

The recovering alcoholic started two wars and then gave a tax break to the wealthy. It was a first for the United States.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of Obama vs. Reagan.