"Jobless Recovery"

[Tigermike 3,054]

Jobs are always good news. http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/03/todays-jobs-report-good-news-america/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Another Obama economy accomplishment.....,.,.added more to the national debt than a lot of his predecessors put together (all of them?).

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Another Obama economy accomplishment.....,.,.added more to the national debt than a lot of his predecessors put together (all of them?).

Have you ever wondered how much of that was bringing two unfunded wars onto the books and, the cost of Medicare Part D?

[homersapien 11,453]

Another Obama economy accomplishment.....,.,.added more to the national debt than a lot of his predecessors put together (all of them?).

Have you ever wondered how much of that was bringing two unfunded wars onto the books and, the cost of Medicare Part D?

You forgot the Wall Street bailout.

[TheBlueVue 177]

One other interesting fact:

In terms of job creation, every single year under Bush started out worse than this (so far 1.4 million jobs have been created in 2014).

It's the economy, stupid ...

Speaking of the comparative economies of BHO vs GWB:

"In the four and a half years since the close of 2008, the American economy has grown at the inflation-adjusted rate of 1.6% per year.

Is this number, 1.6%, any good? Let’s compare it to that obtained by President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. From the beginning of 2001 until the close of 2008—the W. term—economic growth averaged 1.7% per year.

So W. wins by a nose. But as everyone knows, Bush came into office in the midst (as it turns out, at the peak) of one of the great historic booms in modern American economic history. From 1982 to 2000, the American economy expanded at a 3.7% rate. This included a big kick at the end of that run, 1995-2000, that measured 4.2% per year.

The base, the denominator, of the W. record, was therefore notably high. When we say that the Bush record of economic growth was 1.7%, greater by a hair than Obama’s current 1.6%, we should also account for the fact that the predicate of the comparison is highly differential. Bush started from a high base and came in low. Obama started from a low base and came in worse."

Read it all right here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2013/10/01/obamas-economy-is-worse-than-bushs-by-obamas-own-numbers/

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion but not their own facts.

[homersapien 11,453]

Or in other words,

Bush inherited a great economy that continued to do well for a while so he piled on deficient spending - including a war - until the wheels fell off when the financial market tanked due to a lack of regulation. He left office with the economy in a frightening free fall.

Obama inherited the fall and trough of this major recession - bordering on depression - which is slowly crawling out of the hole at a slow rate that is more or less typical of such recessions and it's even worse than it seems because the basis for improvement is lower than it was for the thriving economy Bush inherited.

I just don't see a lot for a Bush fan to celebrate about this.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

One other interesting fact:

In terms of job creation, every single year under Bush started out worse than this (so far 1.4 million jobs have been created in 2014).

It's the economy, stupid ...

Speaking of the comparative economies of BHO vs GWB:

"In the four and a half years since the close of 2008, the American economy has grown at the inflation-adjusted rate of 1.6% per year.

Is this number, 1.6%, any good? Let’s compare it to that obtained by President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. From the beginning of 2001 until the close of 2008—the W. term—economic growth averaged 1.7% per year.

So W. wins by a nose. But as everyone knows, Bush came into office in the midst (as it turns out, at the peak) of one of the great historic booms in modern American economic history. From 1982 to 2000, the American economy expanded at a 3.7% rate. This included a big kick at the end of that run, 1995-2000, that measured 4.2% per year.

The base, the denominator, of the W. record, was therefore notably high. When we say that the Bush record of economic growth was 1.7%, greater by a hair than Obama’s current 1.6%, we should also account for the fact that the predicate of the comparison is highly differential. Bush started from a high base and came in low. Obama started from a low base and came in worse."

Read it all right here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2013/10/01/obamas-economy-is-worse-than-bushs-by-obamas-own-numbers/

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion but not their own facts.

Boy, that's some crazy spin.

[TheBlueVue 177]

One other interesting fact:

In terms of job creation, every single year under Bush started out worse than this (so far 1.4 million jobs have been created in 2014).

It's the economy, stupid ...

Speaking of the comparative economies of BHO vs GWB:

"In the four and a half years since the close of 2008, the American economy has grown at the inflation-adjusted rate of 1.6% per year.

Is this number, 1.6%, any good? Let's compare it to that obtained by President Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. From the beginning of 2001 until the close of 2008—the W. term—economic growth averaged 1.7% per year.

So W. wins by a nose. But as everyone knows, Bush came into office in the midst (as it turns out, at the peak) of one of the great historic booms in modern American economic history. From 1982 to 2000, the American economy expanded at a 3.7% rate. This included a big kick at the end of that run, 1995-2000, that measured 4.2% per year.

The base, the denominator, of the W. record, was therefore notably high. When we say that the Bush record of economic growth was 1.7%, greater by a hair than Obama's current 1.6%, we should also account for the fact that the predicate of the comparison is highly differential. Bush started from a high base and came in low. Obama started from a low base and came in worse."

Read it all right here:

http://www.forbes.co...as-own-numbers/

Everyone is entitled to there own opinion but not their own facts.

Boy, that's some crazy spin.

Slice it anyway you like, as much as you hated and criticized W, yaboy barry has delivered LESS in the complete absence of spin. Putting it down there where even your liberal progressive authoritarian mind can get to it, my post was in repsonse to one that claimed that Bush's economy was comparatively worse than Obamas every year. I think that is clearly proven false and that was all I was pointing out.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Report shows tech is forcing full-time employees into part-time work (2 graphs)

Image Credit: @BarackObama

July 5, 2014 9:31 AM

Gregory Ferenstein

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released a widely celebrated jobs report this week, showing 288,000 jobs were added in June, bringing unemployment closer to pre-recession levels.

It’s overwhelmingly great news for much of the economy, but lurking in the shadows is a force displacing more people into part-time work or out of the labor market altogether.

Technology displaces jobs through a number of mechanisms: globalization, automation, and decreased wages in low-pay work. While it is difficult to know if the trends from the most recent jobs report are cyclical or permanent, the report shows, at the very least, that the associations we see between technology and the economy are not reversing.

Not returning to work

Economists “keep expecting people who have become discouraged during the recession and slow recovery to start looking for work again,” wrote the Wall Street Journal’s Phill Izzo, “But that hasn’t happened. In fact, the number of unemployed who were re-entering the labor market actually fell in June.”

The graph below from Fivethirtyeight shows the economy is still full of discouraged people not looking for work (“discouraged workers”)

Retiring baby boomers account for some of the declining participation rate in the job market, but not all of it. Globalization and automation is also shrinking the total U.S. workforce. “Fax machines, e-mail, and the internet enable a growing number of contingent workers to provide services from their homes or other non-traditional sites.This, in turn, permits firms to reduce costs by reducing the size of their facilities and paying only for work actually needed,” explained Stephen F. Befort in the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law [PDF].

Economist Peter Kuhn finds that people who make more are working more, while those making less are working less, because the inequality of each hour of work is growing, providing less incentive for low-payed people to find work.

Part-time working

When firms do need work, they may not be hiring full-time workers. In June, much of the jobs bump is due to a 275,000 increase part-time workers.

The graph below from The Atlantic shows the share of the economy that is part-time work (blue) vs. the unemployment rate. Part-time work has not dropped as steadily as the unemployment rate.

New technology platforms for part-time work, or “contingent workers”, are helping the unemployed find work. Brian Chesky last week explained how flexible work platforms, such as Task Rabbit, or his own housing rental service, Airbnb, are helping beleaguered citizens pick up work through occasional gigs.

For a service like car ride sharing app, Uber, it is both destroying traditional jobs in the Taxi industry, but giving new jobs to part-time workers who drive their regular cars as cabs. In this regard, technology both displaces workers and helps others find new hope.

The jobs report is good news, but it has not reversed the long-term trends towards discouraged and part-time workers.

link

And this.

Just in time to celebrate Independence Day, our illusionist government came out with “great ‘job numbers’” to keep the fireworks flying high, exploding in spectacular multi-colored brightness, lifting our spirits of eternal hope for a “recuperated” economy following course to a Dow Industrials that would surpass the 17,000 mark on the day 288,000 jobs were said to be added by employers to their payrolls, 73,000 more than economists had predicted. Five straight months with job creation exceeding 200,000; the unemployment rate dropping all the way to 6.1 percent, the lowest level in almost six years, and a radiant and jubilatory Wall Street which has restored the pre-recession lost value to the Squires’ 401k’s.

But all of this hoopla is an exercise in farce-economics, stats in Affluence Economics that have little to do with the economic condition of the have-nots, where unemployment rates, jobs created and rate of inflation need to be extracted from other data applicable to them, stats that reflect Have-nots Economics, not Washington’s generic bull****.

Jobs created and rate of unemployment need to have realistic basis, not the joke that it is today where stats for underemployed or chronically unemployed are not part of the picture. According to OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) we are now at Full Employment here in the US since the measured unemployment level is within the 4 to 6.4% range. “Fool” employment, I feel, since US true unemployment rate (if properly measured) is probably in the 15 to 20% range.

But where have-nots are brutally-penalized most is in the measurement of inflation, as much of their revenue comes from fixed sources (retirement, social benefits, etc.) that use those inflation figures, nowadays 50 to 200 percent off the mark, since the basket of goods consumed by the poor is totally different from that of the affluent 20 percent. A 25 percent increase in food prices may not be that meaningful to that remaining middle class, but it is critical to those at the poverty level, or even 10-20 percent higher. Where the government has told us we have averaged a 1.9 annual rate of inflation in the past four years, for the have-nots the figure is probably closer to 6 percent (over 200 percent more). Great savings for our illusionist government now able to invest more money in weapons for the Pentagon!

We needn’t worry about terrorism coming to America from outside our borders; we are seeding terrorism right here, in our “land of opportunity” garden, an extremely bitter plant of discontent that will make terrorists of our neighbors and poison us all.

Happy Independence Day to the Haves, and a

Happy Dependence Day to the Have-nots!

ZERO HEDGE

The strong June jobs report was good news for the American worker and investors cheered, sending the Dow above 17,000. But there were some important glitches in the report.

First, the good news: 288,000 jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls, easily beating the consensus forecast of 215,000 new payrolls. There was a gain of 262,000 in the private sector. This marks the fifth consecutive monthly increase of 200,000 or more jobs, the best five-month stretch since early 2006. As for the unemployment rate, it dropped from 6.3 to 6.1 percent.

This has always been a rather lopsided economic expansion. For example, auto sales surged to 16.9 million in June, a very good number. And the energy sector has been strong for many years. But consumer spending actually fell in April and May. And long-term business investment — a huge job creator — remains in the doldrums.

The latest Business Roundtable survey shows a slowdown in capex spending plans. The National Association for Business Economics predicts only a bit more than 3 percent business-investment growth. And the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) says only 24 percent of small-business owners plan capital outlays in the next three to six months.

The paradox is, while companies seem more willing to hire, they are not willing to make long-term investments in the economy. It's not hard to guess that this corporate caution stems in large part from tax and regulatory uncertainties, and frankly, a White House that is anti-business.

LINK

Cutting to the nitty gritty, it ain't ever as good as they tell you.

[RunInRed 16,489]

Boy, that's some crazy spin.

That fact this, is their response, is telling beyond wildest imaginations.