Jobs: +115k, 8.1%. Things are... not getting worse!
Depends what number you look at, really. Unemployment went down, but then there's this.
So you're saying that we're finally back to Reagan levels?
All the various unemployment numbers are confusing in their own way, this one confuses based on the fact that we do have an aging population. The two real economic numbers to consider are.
GDP
Fraction of wealth concentrated in top 1 and 0.1%
Maximize the first, minimize the latter and you are out of a recession.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.
Jobs: +115k, 8.1%. Things are... not getting worse!
Depends what number you look at, really. Unemployment went down, but then there's this.
Old people.
Lmao....its Definetly old people!
Quite the opposite, actually
Old people are working more than ever, young people are falling out of the labor force. The younger you are, the worse the damage is. We're at 80's level employment rates, despite the fact that back then it was still considered normal for most women to not work.
The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.
? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.
You have to understand, when these financial reports come out, they’re giving discrete measurements. Trying to divine any long term trends or meanings in those numbers is like trying to read tea leaves. If you are able to do so, I would suggest you invest in the stock market and make yourself very wealthy.
That being said, the market is very finicky right now. There’s one of these figures released about once a day, and the market will react pretty decisively to them. It’ll be as likely to jump 200 points as it is to drop 200 the next day. This is good news for day traders.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.
? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.
I'm pretty sure this was more of a wealth-redistribution sentiment. Or probably more accurate, to say that the amount of money that the top 0.1% have should be the amount of money that the top 80% has. Advocating less of a wealth gap, basically.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?)150k a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
Edit: Updated with the correct number.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be the Tree of Life. He's still, you know, crazy, but you can't fault him for moderately imaginative religious imagery, I guess.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
150k. So far, on track, on average. Current estimates for the last six months or so (the 150k figure was presented early February around when the January report came out and looked back 3 months, so...):
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
I think the 280k a month number is for a robust recovery, so 115k would be considered a weak recovery. Still a recovery, but not as good as we want it to be. The real question is, what is the Republican plan for doing better? Cutting taxes on the rich and slashing spending? They should look at other countries that are already doing this and see if that's really what they want to do.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
I think the 280k a month number is for a robust recovery, so 115k would be considered a weak recovery. Still a recovery, but not as good as we want it to be. The real question is, what is the Republican plan for doing better? Cutting taxes on the rich and slashing spending? They should look at other countries that are already doing this and see if that's really what they want to do.
But, see, we'll cut even more taxes and slash even more spending.
It'll totes work.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think we have to hit 100k a month to keep lowering unemployment, but 150k to be doing it well.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
The amount of wealth the people in the top 0.1% have should be more in the hands of the 'top' 80%.
? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.
I'm pretty sure this was more of a wealth-redistribution sentiment. Or probably more accurate, to say that the amount of money that the top 0.1% have should be the amount of money that the top 80% has. Advocating less of a wealth gap, basically.
Yes, thought this was fairly obviously what I meant.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
As of April, there are now more private sector jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when President Obama took office. You read that right. We have now replaced all of the private sector jobs lost while Obama has been president. And that was no mean feat, given that over the course of 2009, the private sector shed about 4.2 million jobs.
As of April, there are now more private sector jobs in the United States than there were in January 2009, when President Obama took office. You read that right. We have now replaced all of the private sector jobs lost while Obama has been president. And that was no mean feat, given that over the course of 2009, the private sector shed about 4.2 million jobs.
Spoiler'd For Big Chart
:shock: Holy shit, that's a pretty big milestone. If that doesn't become a major talking point, we deserve to be subjugated to our new free market overlords.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I've twitted and facebook'd it and will be shoving it in people's faces when they rant about how we need austerity.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Somewhat because it ignores increases or decreases in the potential labor force over that time span. Also that chart is ignoring all the jobs we lost from the beginning of the recession.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
it just seems like bad messaging. "We've replaced every job lost since Obama took office" is the same as saying "private employment hasn't grown at all since Obama took office."
much better to just talk about month to month gains
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.
LET THE FREE MARKET LOOSE
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.
It's happened a grand total of five times in 50 years. That's the point. He is expecting, demanding, and promising something completely unrealistic.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Was it Nate Silver who said we should be looking for about ~280k(?) a month to be doing ok?
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.
It's happened a grand total of five times in 50 years. That's the point. He is expecting, demanding, and promising something completely unrealistic.
It's happened before after a sharp recession. It's not an unrealistic goal. If the government took strong action (of fiscal stimulus) they could add 500,000 jobs each month and bring us back to full employment within a year.
Of course Romney's proposed solution of "continue laying off government employees" would only make it worse. But I don't like it when democrats act as though the current course of action is perfectly fine.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The current course of action isn't fine, but Romney's being an idiot here.
The things Romney wants to do would not bring any of his stated goals.
Also, the current course of action is basically hamstrung by Republican douchebaggery. They refuse to do the things we need to do.
Posts
All the various unemployment numbers are confusing in their own way, this one confuses based on the fact that we do have an aging population. The two real economic numbers to consider are.
GDP
Fraction of wealth concentrated in top 1 and 0.1%
Maximize the first, minimize the latter and you are out of a recession.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Old people are working more than ever, young people are falling out of the labor force. The younger you are, the worse the damage is. We're at 80's level employment rates, despite the fact that back then it was still considered normal for most women to not work.
? I'm a bit confused, you think that the top 0.1% should earn (on average) 800 times more than the average wage of the top 80%? I think that that might be a bit skewed for my taste.
That being said, the market is very finicky right now. There’s one of these figures released about once a day, and the market will react pretty decisively to them. It’ll be as likely to jump 200 points as it is to drop 200 the next day. This is good news for day traders.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
I'm pretty sure this was more of a wealth-redistribution sentiment. Or probably more accurate, to say that the amount of money that the top 0.1% have should be the amount of money that the top 80% has. Advocating less of a wealth gap, basically.
So are we counting 115k as crappy but at least not in the wrong direction?
Edit: Updated with the correct number.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be the Tree of Life. He's still, you know, crazy, but you can't fault him for moderately imaginative religious imagery, I guess.
Twitch Stream
150k. So far, on track, on average. Current estimates for the last six months or so (the 150k figure was presented early February around when the January report came out and looked back 3 months, so...):
April: 115k
March: 154k
Feb: 259k
Jan: 275k
Dec: 223k
Nov: 157k
I think the 280k a month number is for a robust recovery, so 115k would be considered a weak recovery. Still a recovery, but not as good as we want it to be. The real question is, what is the Republican plan for doing better? Cutting taxes on the rich and slashing spending? They should look at other countries that are already doing this and see if that's really what they want to do.
Derp. I found it: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/obamas-magic-number-150000-jobs-per-month/
But, see, we'll cut even more taxes and slash even more spending.
It'll totes work.
It's not great numbers, but Romney has no real narrative to counter the fact that consistent growth is happening.
If Obama couldn't grow the economy at all, I think people would be willing to change just about anything just for change's sake, but Romney now has to actively come up with an economic recovery package that both reasonably can argue it will create more jobs than Obama and still sate his GOP overlords' demands for cutting taxes, growing corporate wealth, and shrinking the government.
His "If we just give companies more money, they'll give you jobs!" shtick has failed to catch on already, so he'll have to go back to the drawing board.
Ask, and ye shall receive. Romney’s job creation goal: 4 percent unemployment and 500,000 jobs per month. O_o
Yes, thought this was fairly obviously what I meant.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
This is a realistic and noble goal.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/478368/478368/
Spoiler'd For Big Chart
:shock: Holy shit, that's a pretty big milestone. If that doesn't become a major talking point, we deserve to be subjugated to our new free market overlords.
DO YOUR DUTY!
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But this is politics, baby, image image image.
Might as well say, "Romney's Economic Recovery Plan: More People With Jobs Making Money, Details TBA."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
OK, whoever made that graph has some issues with the word "trough". You don't get to go below zero after the worst point.
much better to just talk about month to month gains
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Is that not just tracking how many jobs are created month to month?
The trough in question isn't related to jobs but GDP growth.
Well... I mean, not that I think President Romney would have a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing that goal, but that is the goal we should be working towards.
LET THE FREE MARKET LOOSE
It's happened a grand total of five times in 50 years. That's the point. He is expecting, demanding, and promising something completely unrealistic.
Shut it down.
Of course Romney's proposed solution of "continue laying off government employees" would only make it worse. But I don't like it when democrats act as though the current course of action is perfectly fine.
The things Romney wants to do would not bring any of his stated goals.
Also, the current course of action is basically hamstrung by Republican douchebaggery. They refuse to do the things we need to do.
Yes I do fucking want it redistributed downward, it's the only sensible thing to do given where this is heading.