More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[Trajan]

Q- net jobs- when they calculate the rate of jobs created, if we need say 135k a month to reach new entrant parity, does 135K lower the unemployment rate?

 

[8537]

so, if we continued to create 120k jobs a month, and we had the same number comparatively dropping from the work force, how long until the rate is 5%?

about 11 years.

really?ok, and?

Yes, really. What else would you like to know?

 

[Mr.Nick]

"Practicing microeconomics"? How does one practice micro?

How can someone claiming a hypothesis that GDP never shrinks also claim that Macro is the problem?

Macro is the problem...

Macroeconomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would look to the Euro as an example of that....

What, specifically, is the "problem" with macro?

How about the notion of a global economy???

That is just for starters...

 

[8537]

Q- net jobs- when they calculate the rate of jobs created, if we need say 135k a month to reach new entrant parity, does 135K lower the unemployment rate?

The number needed to maintain parity is dynamic - and will gradually decrease over the next couple decades.

 

[likeabird03]

I like this report because it illustrates that continued cuts to government aren't derailing the economy, contrary what liberals say.

 

[8537]

Macro is the problem...

Macroeconomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would look to the Euro as an example of that....

What, specifically, is the "problem" with macro?

How about the notion of a global economy???

That is just for starters...

You are confused. Macroeconomics isn't a policy. it's an area of study. The most ardent Austrian economists - from Hayek to Von Mises to Rothbard - are Macroeconomists. They study macroeconomics. They reach different policy prescriptions than other people who study macroeconomics, but they are macroeconomists nonetheless.

Ditto, Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson, Fisher etc....

 

[Mr.Nick]

If you were so ******* smart you would refute my argument dummy....

It's too stupid, it's not an argument, idiot.

If you had 4 to 7 more brain-cells, you'd read it back to yourself and realize how stupid it really is. N'aw, can't go doing that, though.

Keep talking shit then maybe you will show how smart you are...

 

[Trajan]

Partly b/c 120k people got jobs, partly because 315k are no longer counted.

Add the 315k back, unemployment still dropped by 120k.

see 474.

474 is irrelevant. In what world can 315k people per month, every month, drop from the workforce? You do realize, collecting unemployment - for most of the unemployed - is how they feed their ******* mouths, right?

don't get nasty dude. I have spoken to you civilly I beleive...yes?

and from the new republic, Galston-

First: Despite the growth of the working-age population over the past four years, the labor force (roughly, the sum of those employed plus job-seekers) has not expanded. For various reasons, more and more Americans have been dropping out of the labor force. If Americans of working age were participating in the labor force at the same rate as they were at the onset of the recession, the labor force would be nearly 5 million people larger, and unemployment would be significantly worse in both absolute and percentage terms.

Second: Despite the modest economic recovery since the recession ended in mid-2009, total employment remains more than 5.5 million below the level of 2007 and about 1.6 million below where it was when President Obama took office.

Third: To regain full employment (5 percent, which happens to be the same as the level when the recession began) with the pre-recessionary labor force participation rate, we would need 150.7 million jobs—10.1 million more than we have today. That’s a reasonable measure of the hole we’re still in, two and a half years since the official end of the recession.

William Galston: Our Deeply Daunting Jobs Hole | The New Republic

 

[Mr.Nick]

What, specifically, is the "problem" with macro?

How about the notion of a global economy???

That is just for starters...

You are confused. Macroeconomics isn't a policy. it's an area of study. The most ardent Austrian economists - from Hayek to Von Mises to Rothbard - are Macroeconomists. They study macroeconomics. They reach different policy prescriptions than other people who study macroeconomics, but they are macroeconomists nonetheless.

Ditto, Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson, Fisher etc....

No, I'm not confused.

I promote and wish to practice Austrian School.... I'm a real capitalist...

I don't believe in global markets....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unemployment rate falls to 8.6% in November


(AP) Washington (AP) —The unemployment rate fell last month to its lowest level in more than two and a half years, as employers stepped up hiring in response to the slowly improving economy.

The Labor Department says the unemployment rate dropped sharply to 8.6% last month, from 9% in October. The rate hasn't been that low since March 2009, during the depths of the recession.
Employers added 120,000 jobs last month. And the previous two months were revised up to show that 72,000 more jobs added — the fourth straight month the government revised prior months higher.
Still, one reason the unemployment rate fell so much was because roughly 315,000 people gave up looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This is bullshit...
Here's how it works. As with base line budgeting, the unemployment figures put out by the Labor Dept are based on skewed numbers.
The latest report suggests that 120,000 jobs were created. What the report does not state is those jobs are mostly temporary seasonal/holiday retail jobs.
Additionally the Labor Dept report includes the 315,000 people who have stopped looking for work or have exhausted their unemployment benefits. The Labor Dept no longer counts those people are unemployed...As far as the Labor Dept is concerned 430,000 jobs were created.
I knew you libs would crow about this.
Now you know the facts. You can piss your underroos now.
Quite frankly I am sick of dishonest government. These people are trash.

 

[Trajan]

Q- net jobs- when they calculate the rate of jobs created, if we need say 135k a month to reach new entrant parity, does 135K lower the unemployment rate?

The number needed to maintain parity is dynamic - and will gradually decrease over the next couple decades.

you know, you have done this before. you are moving the goal posts. I posted links for you too.


so, read my missive from NR above and let me ask you a question to fashion the point I am trying to make. on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being boffo, how would you rate this 'job report'?

 

[8537]

How about the notion of a global economy???

That is just for starters...

You are confused. Macroeconomics isn't a policy. it's an area of study. The most ardent Austrian economists - from Hayek to Von Mises to Rothbard - are Macroeconomists. They study macroeconomics. They reach different policy prescriptions than other people who study macroeconomics, but they are macroeconomists nonetheless.

Ditto, Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson, Fisher etc....

No, I'm not confused.

I promote and wish to practice Austrian School.... I'm a real capitalist...

I don't believe in global markets....

Yes, you are confused. Hayek and Von Mises "practiced" macroeconomics. In fact, Austrian economics is almost exclusively a theory of Macroeconomics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh, great. TneverM will be cackling and crowing about this all day today.

Too bad she won't correct herself when the numbers get revised down the road.

Pay no attention to the christmas ornaments. It has nothing to do with the employment spike. Its all Barack, just ask the lefties.

let's try this one more time for those who remain blissfully ignorant: The numbers are seasonally adjusted to remove the variation associated with holiday hiring

They rig the numbers and the game depending on the agenda.
Four years ago you fuckers were whining about the "McDonalds" economy. That although unemployment was 5% under most of Bush 43's administrations, you lefties claimed those were lower paying service and retail jobs. According to you, they didn't count.
Now that your side has the White House, these numbers are met with utter orgasmic joy.
What a crock of hypocritical shit.

 

[8537]

Q- net jobs- when they calculate the rate of jobs created, if we need say 135k a month to reach new entrant parity, does 135K lower the unemployment rate?

The number needed to maintain parity is dynamic - and will gradually decrease over the next couple decades.

you know, you have done this before. you are moving the goal posts. I posted links for you too.

I moved no goalpost. I simply responded to your claim of 135K needed to maintain parity. Parity is an always-moving target. in the late 1990's we needed 200K jobs just to "maintain parity".

so, read my missive from NR above and let me ask you a question to fashion the point I am trying to make. on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being boffo, how would you rate this 'job report'?

I'd rate it a 5. If you have a point to "fashion", we could save some time if you'd just state it instead.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't even know why the **** I'm being attacked...

God forbid capitalism and got forbid the government is lying to you about the GDP....

The ******* CBO lies, the unemployment formula is flawed but the GDP is accurate???

If I had a bridge to sell I'm sure I could sell it to those who want to believe..

 

[8537]

Pay no attention to the christmas ornaments. It has nothing to do with the employment spike. Its all Barack, just ask the lefties.

let's try this one more time for those who remain blissfully ignorant: The numbers are seasonally adjusted to remove the variation associated with holiday hiring

They rig the numbers and the game depending on the agenda.

Four years ago you fuckers were whining about the "McDonalds" economy. That although unemployment was 5% under most of Bush 43's administrations, you lefties claimed those were lower paying service and retail jobs. According to you, they didn't count.

According to me? Can you go find me saying such things? Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[8537]

I don't even know why the **** I'm being attacked...

pointing out that you are woefully ignorant isn't an attack. It's a fact.