Jobs report: how is this a recovery?

[Flint]

There is something I have never quite understood. For the past 2 to 3 months the administration has been giddy that jobs are coming back. In March there were 120,000 new jobs created yet the best weekly first time unemployment claims is 350,000 a week. This is 1.4 million new people losing jobs and 120,000 a month finding jobs. How is this a recovery or am I reading the data wrong?

 

[Bache Tehroon]

Anyone who names this a recovery or decline is an idiot.

I don't care for your GOP vs. Democrat wars here. The reality always lies somewhere outside the intelligence spectrum of those who get involved in these silly arguments.

This is the demise of traditional production jobs and the surge of low-paying service-based opportunities heavily dependent upon cheap goods produced in developing nations. Recovery or no recovery, this is what it's going to look like for a very long time.

The days of retirement at 60 and living 25-30 years on retirement funds are over. Retirement was never a "given" in human history. It's a fairly recent phenomenon enabled by the strength of the American middle-class. That strength was always going to be temporary. Slavery never went away. It's now resurfacing in a different shape under the corporate umbrella. Those who couldn't see through this were either blind or plain f***ing idiots.

Sorry I interrupted the party-war. Go on now everyone.

 

[Flint]

Now that you feel better do you want to answer the question?BTW, there is no party war, not in this thread anyway.

 

[mashdi]

BTW, there is no party war, not in this thread anyway.

Be patient.it's early doors yet.and remember : If you build it they will come.

 

[Mahdi]

There is something I have never quite understood. For the past 2 to 3 months the administration has been giddy that jobs are coming back. In March there were 120,000 new jobs created yet the best weekly first time unemployment claims is 350,000 a week. This is 1.4 million new people losing jobs and 120,000 a month finding jobs. How is this a recovery or am I reading the data wrong?

1.4 million people lose jobs and 12000 people find jobs in a month??? Or what is your narrative here? Anyway, March numbers were disappointing but overall over the past year the unemployment rate has fallen. Of course, we all know that Obama was responsible for Lehman, the Housing bubble and 9.5% unemployment, but still.

 

[Flint]

1.4 million people lose jobs and 12000 people find jobs in a month???

Other than misquoting me(I said, 120,000 not 12000), yes, that is what I said. You don't like 120,000,make that 200,000. The question still stands. And how does unemployment fall when there are 350,000 new people every week filing for unemployment?

 

[khodam]

There is something I have never quite understood. For the past 2 to 3 months the administration has been giddy that jobs are coming back. In March there were 120,000 new jobs created yet the best weekly first time unemployment claims is 350,000 a week. This is 1.4 million new people losing jobs and 120,000 a month finding jobs. How is this a recovery or am I reading the data wrong?

Your calculation is wrong. 350,000 new jobless claims means that those many people lost their jobs. But a comparable number have earned jobs, mostly jobs that existed before, including those jobs vacated by the previous group. 120000 were hired in new jobs, i.e. positions that did not exist before. So the total number of people hired in not 120000, but 120000 plus those who filled the vacated positions of 350000. You won't know the exact number of people hired from new jobless claims, but you can calculate that from total employment data. New jobless claims is not really a measure of employment as much as it is a measure of the volatility of the job market.

 

[Playboy]

the official unemployment rate of 8.2% does not tell the whole story in the us.to get the real unemployment rate you need to look at the u6 rate, which tracks not only those out of work but those who’ve essentially given up looking for work.that rate stands at 14.6%.

​

 

[Flint]

Your calculation is wrong. 350,000 new jobless claims means that those many people lost their jobs. But a comparable number have earned jobs, mostly jobs that existed before, including those jobs vacated by the previous group. 120000 were hired in new jobs, i.e. positions that did not exist before. So the total number of people hired in not 120000, but 120000 plus those who filled the vacated positions of 350000. You won't know the exact number of people hired from new jobless claims, but you can calculate that from total employment data. New jobless claims is not really a measure of employment as much as it is a measure of the volatility of the job market.

So if an unemployed person gets hired he is not reported in employment data unless it is a "new" job? What is a new job anyway? Let's go the source at the BLS"Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March"It makes no distinction about old or new jobs. It says employment. If a company fills an old position, it is still a job but it is not a "new" job.

 

[khodam]

So if an unemployed person gets hired he is not reported in employment data unless it is a "new" job? What is a new job anyway? Let's go the source at the BLS"Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March"It makes no distinction about old or new jobs. It says employment. If a company fills an old position, it is still a job but it is not a "new" job.

That 120000 is the net number of jobs added. If a company fires someone and hires someone else instead, there is no job created. Here is the original report:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The language they use is this:

"Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March. In the prior 3 months, payroll employment had risen by an average of 246,000 per month. Private-sector employment grew by 121,000 in March, including gains in manufacturing, food services and drinking places, and health care [...]"

So 120000 is the growth in employment or the number of people hired minus those who lost their jobs. In other words, the number is the net "new jobs" or net jobs created.

 

[masoudA]

so many replies - but no answer!!
flint is asking a very simple question.

 

[Flint]

So 120000 is the growth in employment or the number of people hired minus those who lost their jobs. In other words, the number is the net "new jobs" or net jobs created.

So in one month 1.4 millions lost their jobs and 1.512 millions found jobs, old or new they are still jobs. If that was the case I suspect we'd hear about it in that way.

 

[Mahdi]

Other than misquoting me(I said, 120,000 not 12000), yes, that is what I said. You don't like 120,000,make that 200,000. The question still stands. And how does unemployment fall when there are 350,000 new people every week filing for unemployment?

Sorry, thin fingers, unintentional typo. But khodam has already explained it. But do the maths yourself. According to what you just posted, there are 1 million newly unemployed every month. Over 6 months, that would be 6 million. How did the unemployment rate go down? More importantly, how come you still have a supermarket next door that still provides you with groceries?

 

[Mahdi]

So in one month 1.4 millions lost their jobs and 1.512 millions found jobs, old or new they are still jobs. If that was the case I suspect we'd hear about it in that way.

You hear it that way. It's new jobs created. A job existing before is not new.

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[jspworld]

The United States economy is definitely improving and is shaming Europe. The jobs will come - UK is bad too, US are not the only ones. Just think if Mitt Romney is President, then we'll ALL be worrying!

 

[Flint]

You hear it that way. It's new jobs created. A job existing before is not new.

Fine. 120,000 new jobs are created. This does not diminish the fact that 1.4 million people lost their jobs. This is what it says in the article: " Employers added 120,000 jobs last month" Based on this wording an employer can add a job and lay off 5. If you say the employee added a new job you'd be right.

 

[Mahdi]

Fine. 120,000 new jobs are created. This does not diminish the fact that 1.4 million people lost their jobs. This is what it says in the article: " Employers added 120,000 jobs last month" Based on this wording an employer can add a job and lay off 5. If you say the employee added a new job you'd be right.

No, if an employer lays off 5 and adds 1, he has destroyed 4, not created 1. It's about net addition or substraction.

Again, do the maths, you say there are every month 1 million new unemployed, which is fair enough. I don't know where exactly you live, but 1 million is roughly a 130th of the US work force. You live in an area with 10000 people in the work force and all of a sudden 75 lose their job, and then another 75 and given that 150 people have less money to spend all of a sudden since they are unemployed, every business around them will suffer too. So by multipliers, around 600-900 people will suffer since you have to add family members dependent on the work force etc and those 150 out of work will only lead to more people getting unemployed since the US economy is pretty much dependent on consumption and so on..Now make that trend continue over 4-5 months. How, after that period, will you be able to buy groceries or anything else when roughly 20% of the inhabitants in your area are unemployed, underemployed or have no regular revenue, business will close down etc.?

 

[khodam]

Fine. 120,000 new jobs are created. This does not diminish the fact that 1.4 million people lost their jobs. This is what it says in the article: " Employers added 120,000 jobs last month" Based on this wording an employer can add a job and lay off 5. If you say the employee added a new job you'd be right.

Seriously, why do you try so hard to fit the low IQ conservative stereotype?

You made a post and your mistake was pointed out. Don't you think the right thing to do is to just accept that you were wrong? Is it really that hard?

 

[Flint]

Your first third of your post has nothing to to do with the rest of it. If you are arguing that unemployment is bad, I am with you. What's that got to do with the topic at hand?

>>No, if an employer lays off 5 and adds 1, he has destroyed 4, not created 1<<

I am not sure it is reported that way. This is your interpretation.