110
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 02:36 am
Whats going at over there with the Associated Press, can't they figure out a way to make this story look better for their side? Maybe it is just getting almost impossible to spin the stories enough anymore, maybe the competition is too tough anymore?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/job-losses-worse/

"Job Losses About to Get Worse

AP

When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."

old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 03:33 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."


The "year that ended in March 2009" describes the time frame between April 2008 and March 2009, right?

So, job losses during that period were even worse than originally estimated? That doesn't sound good.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:28 am
The numbers are out for January:
U-3...the widely cited statistic for unemployment, dropped, unexpectedly, to 9.7% from 10.0%.
That is good, but U-3 excludes people who are unemployed and who -for the moment- have given up looking.
U-6...is a number many of us follow more closely, tracking people who have jobs but aren't getting the number of hours they want. That fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The average work week increased slightly.
I find it troubling that workers aged 55 and over are gaining employment, but they are returning to jobs that pay less than what they used to earn.
This creates a downward pressure on wages overall which is not good for a consumer driven economy like ours.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:35 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."


The "year that ended in March 2009" describes the time frame between April 2008 and March 2009, right?

So, job losses during that period were even worse than originally estimated? That doesn't sound good.

Thats what it sounds like, but now that leaves me wondering, why that time frame, that does not match up to anything, such as a fiscal year. That seems to be more ancient history than would be deserving of updates? March, 2009 was almost a year ago. Is this an effort by Obama's people to fudge the numbers to lay more blame onto Bush? Keep a sharp eye out on this.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:38 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
When the Labor Department releases the January unemployment report Friday, it will also update its estimate of jobs lost in the year that ended in March 2009. The number is expected to rise by roughly 800,000, raising the number of jobs shed during the recession to around 8 million."


The "year that ended in March 2009" describes the time frame between April 2008 and March 2009, right?

So, job losses during that period were even worse than originally estimated? That doesn't sound good.

Thats what it sounds like, but now that leaves me wondering, why that time frame, that does not match up to anything, such as a fiscal year. That seems to be more ancient history than would be deserving of updates? March, 2009 was almost a year ago. Is this an effort by Obama's people to fudge the numbers to lay more blame onto Bush? Keep a sharp eye out on this.


Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:39 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The numbers are out for January:
U-3...the widely cited statistic for unemployment, dropped, unexpectedly, to 9.7% from 10.0%.
That is good, but U-3 excludes people who are unemployed and who -for the moment- have given up looking.
U-6...is a number many of us follow more closely, tracking people who have jobs but aren't getting the number of hours they want. That fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The average work week increased slightly.
I find it troubling that workers aged 55 and over are gaining employment, but they are returning to jobs that pay less than what they used to earn.
This creates a downward pressure on wages overall which is not good for a consumer driven economy like ours.

rjb, the thing to remember about this is that this number is accomplished with a telephone survey. It is much like a poll, and I believe it is subject to the temptations of the people gathering the information to skew the numbers if they want to. When driving in to work, a guy calling a local talk show said he was highly skeptical of the number, given their are no new jobs being added, and I agree. If there is any skullduggery going on, we will find out about it however.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:41 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

The numbers are out for January:
U-3...the widely cited statistic for unemployment, dropped, unexpectedly, to 9.7% from 10.0%.
That is good, but U-3 excludes people who are unemployed and who -for the moment- have given up looking.
U-6...is a number many of us follow more closely, tracking people who have jobs but aren't getting the number of hours they want. That fell from 17.3% to 16.5%. The average work week increased slightly.
I find it troubling that workers aged 55 and over are gaining employment, but they are returning to jobs that pay less than what they used to earn.
This creates a downward pressure on wages overall which is not good for a consumer driven economy like ours.

rjb, the thing to remember about this is that this number is accomplished with a telephone survey. It is much like a poll, and I believe it is subject to the temptations of the people gathering the information to skew the numbers if they want to. When driving in to work, a guy calling a local talk show said he was highly skeptical of the number, given their are no new jobs being added, and I agree. If there is any skullduggery going on, we will find out about it however.


Rolling Eyes

Is there anything which Obama's minions don't manipulate, in your mind, Okie?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Seriously, cyclops, how do you change numbers that are a year old. That is telling me that either some hanky panky is going on, or the numbers they are doing there in the first place are rather worthless, and neither of the two possibilities are very encouraging about the work our government is doing. And you guys want these people to take care of our health, come on folks, get real.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:44 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Seriously, cyclops, how do you change numbers that are a year old. That is telling me that either some hanky panky is going on, or the numbers they are doing there in the first place are rather worthless, and neither of the two possibilities are very encouraging about the work our government is doing. And you guys want these people to take care of our health, come on folks, get real.


C'mon, Okie. Ask yourself: how would they change numbers which were a year old?

Perhaps they are using data which is more complete now then it was then?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:46 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is there anything which Obama's minions don't manipulate, in your mind, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

I have not yet been highly suspicious of Obama cooking numbers yet, although a mild suspicion has been lurking, but moreso about what he may do in the future than up until now. Knowing a bit about his personality, I would not be surprised to see this become a bigger issue with this administration. We already know that many things have been misrepresented during the health care debate, but so far we have not seen any great suspicions in regard to the Labor Department, but it would not surprise me at all. I am not yet making any assertions, but lets just say we need to keep a sharp watch on it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:49 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is there anything which Obama's minions don't manipulate, in your mind, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

I have not yet been highly suspicious of Obama cooking numbers yet, although a mild suspicion has been lurking, but moreso about what he may do in the future than up until now. Knowing a bit about his personality, I would not be surprised to see this become a bigger issue with this administration. We already know that many things have been misrepresented during the health care debate, but so far we have not seen any great suspicions in regard to the Labor Department, but it would not surprise me at all. I am not yet making any assertions, but lets just say we need to keep a sharp watch on it.


Ooh, well, I'll be sure to keep a sharp eye on them then, based on your evidence-less suspicions!

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:51 am
@okie,
Are you ready for the 2010 Census?
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 10:51 am
@okie,
I read that the numbers are adjusted this time EVERY year based on tax returns received from businesses which have much better detail than the phone surveys you referenced.

Business tax returns detail how many employees they hire/fire/pay, etc. When that's turned into the government they then adjust their job numbers based on ACTUAL data.

I think you really need to relax on Obama somewhat; you're going to have a hard time living through his administration otherwise. You're starting to sound similar to those vehement anti-bush people.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:03 am
@maporsche,
The difference as I see it is that Bush was an honorable man, a man that believed in the things I believe in, but I don't find the same personality in Obama, I do not think he shares the same American values, such as free markets capitalism, I do not trust him at all. I hope you are right about the numbers, that they were legitimately obtained, perhaps they were. I think some of the stuff Bush was accused of was totally ridiculous, but all of the stuff I am saying about Obama is absolutely true. I either post an opinion, which everyone knows is an opinion, and also information about Obama which I believe to be absolutely true. As I have already said, I am making no accusations about his fudging numbers, that would take a willing bureaucrats to help him do that, but I am simply saying I am going to keep a sharp eye on it. I think it is more likely that fudging could happen when it is the Whitehouse that is putting out numbers rather than a bureaucracy, at this point.

I also found the following in a websearch:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2444931/posts

"The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:08 am
@realjohnboy,
No to be honest, I am not that jazzed with it. I anticipate it will be a long bunch of questions that should not be their business. I think the Census Bureau has long overstepped its bounds in what it constitutionally was mandated to do, and that it should be reigned in. Of course, I don't look for that to happen until conservatives once again have some say in what is going to come down. I think Obama saw the Census Bureau as one big bureaucracy he could use to accomplish his leftist agenda.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:15 am
@okie,
You do realize the questions are posted on the census site, don' you okie?
Which of the 10 questions do you find fault with?

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/text/text-form.php
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:19 am
Back to the economy and labor market,

Here's an optimistic forecast from New Republic Online:

Quote:
The Labor Market: Turning the Corner [Bob Stein]

The labor market has clearly turned the corner and will improve substantially in the year ahead. Although payrolls fell slightly in January, civilian employment " an alternative measure of jobs that includes self-employment " soared 785,000. In the past three months, private payrolls have declined an average of 20,000, while civilian employment has increased an average of 110,000. One reason payrolls seem to be lagging a little is that companies are aggressively expanding hours. Total hours have increased at a 1.8 percent annual rate in the past three months, the equivalent of about 200,000 jobs per month. In other words, the demand for labor is there, it’s just that firms are meeting it by increasing hours. But they can’t do this forever, so we are likely on the cusp of large payroll gains. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has dropped to 9.7 percent from 10.1 percent and even the more comprehensive measure of unemployment (that includes “discouraged workers” and those working part-time but who say they want full-time hours) has dropped to 16.5 percent from 17.4 percent. Payroll gains have gone from being isolated in education/health and then temps to now manufacturing and retail. The share of industries increasing payrolls is 47 percent versus 17 percent at the low in March 2009. Given the rapid economic growth we’ve had since the fall, job gains will get much more widespread in the months ahead.

" Bob Stein is senior economist with First Trust Advisers.

02/05 12:12 PMShare


This is bad news for the Republicans, if it's true. A strongly rebounding economy this year will not fit their doom-and-gloom scenario in the election period.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Can you give a link to the full article, please? The snippet you quote does not discuss the petering-out of the boost from the stimulus money.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:32 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Can you give a link to the full article, please? The snippet you quote does not discuss the petering-out of the boost from the stimulus money.


That's the full article- it was just a post on The Corner.

I know that some of the stim funds are close to being exhausted, but I'm quite sure that there are a lot of projects which will just now be beginning - one of the big criticisms was that lots of the spending in the Stim bill didn't phase in until 2010, remember?

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I see. If that's the best reason The New Republic can give us for optimism, I'm afraid there's not much reason for optimism. Extrapolation of current output trends is not a good argument when you know that input trends are going to reverse.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/23/2014 at 12:33:04