Jobs Report Still Not Pretty: The Ticker

[xchrom]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/jobs-report-still-not-pretty-the-ticker.html



The U.S. economy beat expectations last month, adding 200,000 jobs in December. That means the jobs picture is slightly less grim this month. Slightly.

Here's the Hamilton Project's assessment of prospects for the unemployed:

No matter how long a worker has been unemployed, the odds that they find a job are far lower than before the recession. Furthermore, the odds of experiencing long-term unemployment are highly related to losing a job in a particularly hard-hit industry, like construction or manufacturing, and are disproportionately concentrated in certain distressed states.

The jobs gap is still 12.1 million jobs. At a rate of 208,000 new jobs per month, it will take slightly more than 12 years to close that gap, according to the Hamilton Project, a public policy group started in 2006 by the Brookings Institution. For the unemployed, the U.S. labor market remains the worst since the Great Depression.

[eridani]

1. Has there been at any time whatsoever un US history--

--when there was ZERO job growth for 25 friggin years?

[ProSense]

2. Interesting

The jobs gap is still 12.1 million jobs. At a rate of 208,000 new jobs per month, it will take slightly more than 12 years to close that gap, according to the Hamilton Project, a public policy group started in 2006 by the Brookings Institution. For the unemployed, the U.S. labor market remains the worst since the Great Depression.

Based on the job growth of the moment, it went from 27 years, to 19 years and now it's 12 years.

The point is that things are improving, but the situation is still not adequate. The goal is obviously to ensure that the job creation numbers continue to increase, more rapidly is better.

In fact, 225,000 would bring the number down from 12 years to nine years. Monthly job creation of 250,000 would bring it down to seven years, and 300,000 would bring it down to five years, erasing the jobs deficit. It would take 325,000 jobs to erase the deficit in four years.

This is a huge hole, and pessimism is understood.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Employment Expectations

<...>

Let me give two back-of-the-envelope ways to think about how inadequate 200,000 jobs a month is.

First, note that there are still about 6 million fewer jobs than there were at the end of 2007 — and that we would normally have expected to have added around 5 million jobs over a four-year period. So we’re 11 million jobs down — and we need at least 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with working-age population growth. Do the math, and you’ll see that it would take 9 or 10 years of growth at this rate to restore full employment.

Alternatively, note that during the Clinton years — all 8 of them — the economy added around 230,000 jobs a month. As it did that, the unemployment rate fell about 3 1/2 percentage points — which is about what we’d need from here to get back to something that felt like full employment. Again, this suggests that we’re looking at something like a decade-long haul to have full recovery.

So yes, this is better news than we’ve been having. But it’s still vastly inadequate.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/the-soft-bigotry-of-low-employment-expectations/

So to erase the current jobs deficit in four years, a monthly job creation of 100,000 jobs more than the average job creation during the Clinton years is needed.

This was a huge hole, but there is no denying that things are improving.

EPI: A solid step in the right direction for the labor market
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137284

[RC]

3. And still no one is talking about Living Wage Jobs.

Only jobs. Comparing some jobs that pay a little better, against part time, minimum wage, no benefit jobs. Not really much of an improvement.
For an actual recovery, we need Living-Wage-Jobs with benefits. That is not happening. They are not even talking about it. Just jobs.
Even if everyone had one or more 'just job', there still would not be much of a recovery. Without Living-Wage-Jobs, wiht everyone having a 'job', we could still end up at the bottom of third world status.

We are being had here people. We are being fed the notion jobs is enough. Working 25 hours a week is not much of an improvement over working 20 hours a week.

Whenever jobs are mentioned, bring up Living-Wage-Jobs. Ask "Where are they?"

There is a reason I hyphenate 'Living-Wage-Jobs'. To tie Living, Wages and Jobs together. For the working class, none of those can stand alone and survive.

[xchrom]

4. agreed. nt

[spanone]

5. prettier.