U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5%

[boedicca]

BTW....why in the hell are the Democrats doing handsprings over a lousy 8.5%.

Bush averaged 5.9%.

On his worst day he never had 8.5%.

Obama has the worst employment rate since FDR and he's bragging about it.

His worst day being the day he left office, leaving Obama an economy that was losing 800k jobs a month.

Hahaha. Now that you've made your little joke, go look at the BLS stat on Total Labor Force and Total Employed over the time sequences.

 

[Sundial]

The economy lost 653K private sector jobs during Bush's eight years; it's lost 1,053K during Obama's to date. If 653K is bad, then you must think that over a million lost jobs is even worse.

And if you really want to dig in:

Temporary Help Service workers decreased by 596K during Bush's eight years, so the entire decrease can be attributed to temporary workers. Temporary Help Service employment has increased by 335K during the Obama era, which means an even greater loss in full time jobs.

Well, your numbers are wrong.

Bush:
2009-02-01 110,260,000
2001-02-01 111,624,000
.................... -1,364,000

Obama:
2011-12-01 109,928,000
2009-02-01 110,260,000
...................... -332 000


That's private sector workers from the establishment survey.
You can find the number here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

The good thing for Obama is that Bush's 8 years are over. Obama still has 5 years left. And more importantly, Obama's numbers are moving in the right direction. 200k+ jobs were created last month. At that rate, there will be another 2 million more jobs by the time the election rolls around.

No, you are using the wrong data. The relevant starting months are January, not February. The BLS data is the end of the month, not the beginning (moron).

(000s):

January, 2001: 111,634K
January, 2009: 110,981K
.................... -653K

January, 2009: 110,981K
December, 2012: 109,928K
.................... -1,053K

You can use January 1st, if you like, instead of February 1st.

It seems a little unfair to me, to blame Obama for the 700-800k jobs lost that month, when he didn't take office until the 22nd.

Whey do you think January 1st means the end of the month?

 

[Sundial]

BTW....why in the hell are the Democrats doing handsprings over a lousy 8.5%.

Bush averaged 5.9%.

On his worst day he never had 8.5%.

Obama has the worst employment rate since FDR and he's bragging about it.

His worst day being the day he left office, leaving Obama an economy that was losing 800k jobs a month.

Hahaha. Now that you've made your little joke, go look at the BLS stat on Total Labor Force and Total Employed over the time sequences.

Why not just tell me what you're trying to say, instead of making assignments.

 

[boedicca]

Well, your numbers are wrong.

Bush:
2009-02-01 110,260,000
2001-02-01 111,624,000
.................... -1,364,000

Obama:
2011-12-01 109,928,000
2009-02-01 110,260,000
...................... -332 000


That's private sector workers from the establishment survey.
You can find the number here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

The good thing for Obama is that Bush's 8 years are over. Obama still has 5 years left. And more importantly, Obama's numbers are moving in the right direction. 200k+ jobs were created last month. At that rate, there will be another 2 million more jobs by the time the election rolls around.

No, you are using the wrong data. The relevant starting months are January, not February. The BLS data is the end of the month, not the beginning (moron).

(000s):

January, 2001: 111,634K
January, 2009: 110,981K
.................... -653K

January, 2009: 110,981K
December, 2012: 109,928K
.................... -1,053K

You can use January 1st, if you like, instead of February 1st.

It seems a little unfair to me, to blame Obama for the 700-800k jobs lost that month, when he didn't take office until the 22nd.

Whey do you think January 1st means the end of the month?

It's no more unfair than blaming Bush for the dotcom implosion. The February change in employment happened on Obama's watch. His policies are responsible for the worst recovery, ever. If he hadn't exploded the size of government and sucked the oxygen out of the economy, we should have seen at least 3-4M jobs created by now. We haven't. And the results fall far short of what his administration promised they would be.

That's the Obama Record.

 

[boedicca]

His worst day being the day he left office, leaving Obama an economy that was losing 800k jobs a month.

Hahaha. Now that you've made your little joke, go look at the BLS stat on Total Labor Force and Total Employed over the time sequences.

Why not just tell me what you're trying to say, instead of making assignments.

I'm showing how you don't understand the BLS data.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Unemployment has averaged 9.4% since the stimulus.... great job!!

 

[Billy000]

Private employers added 212,00 jobs, moving the total of private-sector jobs created in 2011 to 1.9 million. Governments, particularly at the local level, cut jobs — 12,000 last month — holding overall job growth for the year to 1.6 million.

U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5% - The Washington Post

Did I hear someone say no private sector jobs were being created?

Of course no one would give Obama credit for any of this.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Private employers added 212,00 jobs, moving the total of private-sector jobs created in 2011 to 1.9 million. Governments, particularly at the local level, cut jobs — 12,000 last month — holding overall job growth for the year to 1.6 million.

U.S. adds 200,000 jobs in Dec.; unemployment drops to 8.5% - The Washington Post

Did I hear someone say no private sector jobs were being created?

Of course no one would give Obama credit for any of this.

Oh, we give Obama full credit for the worst recovery on record.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, your numbers are wrong.

Bush:
2009-02-01 110,260,000
2001-02-01 111,624,000
.................... -1,364,000

Obama:
2011-12-01 109,928,000
2009-02-01 110,260,000
...................... -332 000


That's private sector workers from the establishment survey.
You can find the number here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

The good thing for Obama is that Bush's 8 years are over. Obama still has 5 years left. And more importantly, Obama's numbers are moving in the right direction. 200k+ jobs were created last month. At that rate, there will be another 2 million more jobs by the time the election rolls around.

No, you are using the wrong data. The relevant starting months are January, not February. The BLS data is the end of the month, not the beginning (moron).

(000s):

January, 2001: 111,634K
January, 2009: 110,981K
.................... -653K

January, 2009: 110,981K
December, 2012: 109,928K
.................... -1,053K

You can use January 1st, if you like, instead of February 1st.

It seems a little unfair to me, to blame Obama for the 700-800k jobs lost that month, when he didn't take office until the 22nd.

Whey do you think January 1st means the end of the month?

That would only work if Obama was an outsider.

Obama and the Democrat controlled Senate has everything to do with it, so he still gets full credit. He and his buds set the whole thing up.

 

[Trajan]

Those jobs numbers are better, but the question is if they will continue or not. 2012 does not look promising, there's nothing you can point to and say this is why the economy will take off. In fact there are some reason why it won't, troubles in europe, china, the middle east. We've done nothing here in the US to improve the climate for business, so while we may see modest improvements for a time, it's not likely to be sustained.

exactly. and I hope folks don't take my pooh pooh attitude as knee jerk obama bashing, its not, I just find it hard to get all excited, (after the recession having ended 29 months ago), over a net 80,000 jobs, if that....meanwhile another 50K left the workforce to boot

 

[The T]

Unemployment has averaged 9.4% since the stimulus.... great job!!

Despite proclimations for 2 years from VP Biteme touting "Summer Of Recovery"

 

[The T]

BTW....why in the hell are the Democrats doing handsprings over a lousy 8.5%.

Bush averaged 5.9%.

On his worst day he never had 8.5%.

Obama has the worst employment rate since FDR and he's bragging about it.

I remember when the left was shouting that 5.9% unemployment was the equivalent of the Great Depression.

And Obama uses it at every campaign stop.

 

[Sundial]

Those jobs numbers are better, but the question is if they will continue or not. 2012 does not look promising, there's nothing you can point to and say this is why the economy will take off. In fact there are some reason why it won't, troubles in europe, china, the middle east. We've done nothing here in the US to improve the climate for business, so while we may see modest improvements for a time, it's not likely to be sustained.

Here's why it'll be sustained.

First of all, if you look at the numbers closely, they're a long-term trend. Private sector job growth has been 100-200k range for almost two years.

It can be confusing, because there's two different surveys, and because sometimes they include public sector jobs and sometimes they don't. If you include public sector jobs, the numbers are worse, because states and local governments have been laying people off. (You'd think conservatives would gleeful, because they're constantly calling for firing everybody who works for the government. But they're equally happy to point to those layoffs as evidence that the economy sucks.)

But anyway, this isn't something that just happened last month. It's part of a trend, that's accelerating.

In economies like ours, trends - either for the good or for the bad - tend to reinforce themselves. When companies hire, more people have money to spend. When people spend, companies sell more products, profits increase, and they hire more. Etc., etc.

Of course, it's possible something could happen that would throw the economy off track - but probably not what's happening in Europe. What's happening in Europe is actually a pretty good illustration of why we did the right thing here - massively increase Federal spending, in order to contain (and ultimately reverse) the damage - and what they did there (try to cut budgets at a time when their economy was suffering.)

Of course, if we try to massively cut the Federal budget, we'd get the same results here. But that's unlikely. Gridlock pretty much guarantees we're going to spend more than we take in long - at least long enough for the economy to recover.

 

[mudwhistle]

Those jobs numbers are better, but the question is if they will continue or not. 2012 does not look promising, there's nothing you can point to and say this is why the economy will take off. In fact there are some reason why it won't, troubles in europe, china, the middle east. We've done nothing here in the US to improve the climate for business, so while we may see modest improvements for a time, it's not likely to be sustained.

exactly. and I hope folks don't take my pooh pooh attitude as knee jerk obama bashing, its not, I just find it hard to get all excited, (after the recession having ended 29 months ago), over a net 80,000 jobs, if that....meanwhile another 50K left the workforce to boot

Yes.....the Recession ended shortly after Osama took office yet it's taken till now for "his policies" to have any effect.

 

[mudwhistle]

At the same time Obama is bragging about how he's turning the economy around he also doing what he's been doing to ruin it since before he took office.

In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."

He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. He wasn't kidding.

In January, 2011 the Obama Administration, for the first time ever, blocked an already approved bid to build one of the largest mountaintop removal coal mines in Appalachian history.

And, today it was reported that Obama's energy plans will cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket Just as he promised.

Via US News and World Reports:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

"Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges," said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. "Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized," he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits .

Read more: Articles: How To Win Power by Selling Out Your Own Union

 

[Flopper]

Go Obama!!!!!

Hi, you have received -116 reputation points from KissMy.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Idiot

Regards,
KissMy

Note: This is an automated message.

KissMy negged me for the above post. Holy shit, for only saying "Go Obama!!!!!"

Some people neg you because you're the opposition telling them something they don't want to hear. No true Obama hater is going to be happy with anything that will improve his chance of reelection.

 

[Billy000]

Those jobs numbers are better, but the question is if they will continue or not. 2012 does not look promising, there's nothing you can point to and say this is why the economy will take off. In fact there are some reason why it won't, troubles in europe, china, the middle east. We've done nothing here in the US to improve the climate for business, so while we may see modest improvements for a time, it's not likely to be sustained.

Here's why it'll be sustained.

First of all, if you look at the numbers closely, they're a long-term trend. Private sector job growth has been 100-200k range for almost two years.

It can be confusing, because there's two different surveys, and because sometimes they include public sector jobs and sometimes they don't. If you include public sector jobs, the numbers are worse, because states and local governments have been laying people off. (You'd think conservatives would gleeful, because they're constantly calling for firing everybody who works for the government. But they're equally happy to point to those layoffs as evidence that the economy sucks.)

But anyway, this isn't something that just happened last month. It's part of a trend, that's accelerating.

In economies like ours, trends - either for the good or for the bad - tend to reinforce themselves. When companies hire, more people have money to spend. When people spend, companies sell more products, profits increase, and they hire more. Etc., etc.

Of course, it's possible something could happen that would throw the economy off track - but probably not what's happening in Europe. What's happening in Europe is actually a pretty good illustration of why we did the right thing here - massively increase Federal spending, in order to contain (and ultimately reverse) the damage - and what they did there (try to cut budgets at a time when their economy was suffering.)

Of course, if we try to massively cut the Federal budget, we'd get the same results here. But that's unlikely. Gridlock pretty much guarantees we're going to spend more than we take in long - at least long enough for the economy to recover.

I do hope you are right. I like to believe that you are right

 

[Flopper]

How many of those jobs are seasonal? Not all of them-but I'm willing to bet a big portion were.

I don't think there is any way to know for sure since year over year comparisons can be deceiving because of many other changing factors.

However last December unemployment was 9.4% down .4% from Nov. This Dec it's 8.5% down only .1% from Nov.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Dems are bragging about these numbers.
But the truth is it is a mark as to how bad their polciies are. We should have been here at least a year ago. This is the slowest recovery on record. And it only kicked in when the GOP took the House, blocking further damage.

 

[Billy000]

The Dems are bragging about these numbers.
But the truth is it is a mark as to how bad their polciies are. We should have been here at least a year ago. This is the slowest recovery on record. And it only kicked in when the GOP took the House, blocking further damage.

That is such horseshit. Okay, tell me what exactly did the GOP do that helped the economy?