68,000 jobs ADDED, not 750,000 jobs LOST.

[Atman]

Is 68,000 a great number? No. But it is still a POSITIVE number, unlike the massive hemmoraging of jobs under W. It is important to keep this in perspective while wringing your hands. The media won't frame it in any sort of positive light because it doesn't serve their interests to do so.

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. As is explained every single month,

68,000 jobs added is not even enough to keep up with the number of new entries into the workforce. That is why 68,000 jobs added is actually a negative number.

We can't win in November by burying our heads in the sand and pretending that this isn't bad news.

[Atman]

3. ADDED as opposed to LOST.

No one is burying their head in sand. I am stating a fact. I didn't say it was great news, I am merely reminding everyone that the media will frame even the addition of jobs, any jobs, as a negative as long as it suits their interest.

[Pale Blue Dot]

4. Did you read what I wrote?

I know it's confusing, but because the number of new entrants in the workforce is around 150,000 every month, this number reported IS actually a net loss of about 70,000 jobs. Hence the unemployment rate going from 8.1% to 8.2%.

[uponit7771]

7. Net positive CREATION is negative? We're not beating churn but POSITIVE is the correct direction

...vs negative...

We can't bury our heads in the sand and call positive job creation, regardless of whether it beats churn, negative news either

[Roland99]

12. If it takes 150,000 new jobs *each* month to maintain equilibrium, how is 68,000 good?

That means we're shy by 82,000 jobs of just breaking even.

When we don't get 150,000 net new jobs each month, that means more people are unemployed or have left the labor force.

Go look at the declining trend on the Labor Force Participation Rate (and note that unemployment is not declining) if you don't believe me.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[Atman]

13. No, Roland...you're starting from a different place.

These are jobs ADDED. Real jobs. It doesn't mean we LOST 82,000 jobs. We didn't gain them, but we didn't LOSE them. However, we did ADD 68,000, which is still, by any measure, better than LOSING 750,000 under the policies Mitt Rmoney wants to return to.

.

[Roland99]

14. I'll agree 68,000 new jobs is better than an actual negative number but you're missing the point.

we *need* 150,000 jobs each month, on average, to maintain equilibrium with the birth/death ration and the LFPR.

Have you not seen the reports that we need nearly 300,000 jobs each month for the next few years to even get back to the point where we were before Bush's recession?

Do you see the point yet?

68,000 each month will only mean more and more people who are in the work force aren't finding a job.

Check these:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/how-many-jobs-are-needed-over-next-year.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/overly-optimistic-once-again/ (assumes 125k/mo due to lowered LFPR nowadays)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/09/highlights-and-lowlights-from-marchs-jobs-report-/ (assumes 100k/mo needed due to demographic changes in the population)

[Roland99]

15. and, look at the trend downward now (March and April were revised down, too)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/payroll-postmortem


And look at the negative job outlook views from the Chicago Fed:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chicago-pmi-plunges-527-lowest-print-september-2009

[girl gone mad]

36. How can this be explained any simpler?

The economy must create 150,000 jobs per month just to keep even. Anything below that is, in fact, a net negative for the employment level.

[Atman]

8. Of course I read what you wrote, and you are wrong.

The reason the unemployment rate ticked up by 1/10th of 1% is because 650,000 people apparently felt the economy was improving enough for them to RETURN TO THE WORKFORCE.

IOW, 650,000 people who last month said they weren't even looking for work, now say they are once again looking for a job. That is the reason, not because of your "net loss" figure, which is bullshit. You can't lose something that wasn't counted in the first place. The 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth is never calculated into the figure you're projecting. You're making stuff up, because you LOVE hand-wringing.

I'm merely trying to point out, once again, that there was a GAIN of 68,000 jobs instead of a LOSS of 750,000.

[caseymoz]

25. Meaning 582,000 people are being teased this month.

That is with 650,000 more people re-entering the workforce for 68,000 jobs. You know they'll get optimistic the next time there's a surge. BTW, that's by the figures you've counted.

You're right, a stagnating recovery is far better than a collapsing economy. It's still not good news. Then again, the last 3 months have been good news, and you can't judge the turn of an economy by a single month.

So, this is actually insignificant as good or bad news.

And some of us don't need good news to get out of bed in the morning. We just do it. Citing bad news is not hand-wringing.

[Atman]

27. I think you're totally correct...there is a tease factor.

Unfortunately (or maybe, fortunately) there isn't a "Tease Factor" number the government puts out. But the government does measure the number of people re-entering the workforce. So those numbers are calculated into the larger picture, and thus our unemployment numbers. But it doesn't mean these people should must disappear and not be counted.

[Lionessa]

21. Additionally that 150K needed is an average, so let's consider which months there are graduates

entering, or wanting to enter, the workforce en masse..... May - June. So it's probably even worse for May and we'll see about June than those averages you mention show.

[coalition_unwilling]

51. Actually, on a technical note, I believe the .1% uptick in the UE rate was due to people re-entering

the labor force who had previously been out of it, not new entrants into the workforce.

A technicality, admittedly, and I agree with your overall thrust.

I blame Boner.

[caseymoz]

24. Actually 240,000 enter the workforce per month

On average. Those are new workers. Meaning: a gross gain of 68,000 jobs equals a net loss of about 172,000. This is why (you may have also noticed) unemployment went up from 8.1-8.2 percent.

It's like you're considering assets and not liabilities, or revenue and not expenses. Or you're listening to the good news and not the bad news. You can't spin this. It's a loss.

It's not the media spinning it, unless they somehow spun the previous several months as net losses too. Why did they change their mind this month?

It could have been worse. But that's true of every month, when it's not better.

[Demeter]

32. PBD, Phone Home!

We miss you!



Love, SMW and WEE

[WI_DEM]

2. true, but we can't just whistle in the dark,either.

Certainly Obama brought us back from the brink of depression. Unfortunately, the uninformed voter is always willing to repeat history and they will listen to Romney and the media about how weak the jobs picture is and that unemployment ticked up. Much of this is due to the GOP sabotaging the president and the economy, too. But unless the jobs picture improves in the next five months it could be a very close election and close enough that Romney can steal it.

[qazplm]

6. we still have june

and july and august and september jobs reports to come.

IF the numbers are still bad in those four months, then yeah romney probably wins, but two bad months is not going to decide the election.

[Lionessa]

22. Unfortunately unless the admin stops doing the same things and expecting different results,

regardless of the election, a whole lot of us will be screwn. I don't see any indication Obama has any inclination to do anything different over the summer, perhaps less even since he'll be busy campaigning instead of his job.

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec...nt

Sid

[seabeyond]

9. i stopped listening to or believing the numbers since bushco. they would put out a number for the

public and a couple weeks later adjust the number to a loss.

has tht changed? because, as i said, i stopped believing in the numbers

[hughee99]

40. That trend actually started long before *.

Even under Clinton, the numbers would be significantly revised (sometimes up, sometimes down) weeks or months later.

[spanone]

10. the liberal media m$nbc is pounding on the negative...doncha love 'em

[bhikkhu]

16. ...which ignores that there just might be some constraints to real growth

or some limits to the resources of the planet that impact the ability to freely grow the economy and provide endless jobs and prosperity, without concern for energy issues, climate issues, environmental issues, etc.

The repugs are consistent in their message that they just don't care and would rape the planet for growth and profit as long as they damn well please. But on the other side, there is a promise to do the opposite, yet an expectation that we can have all the benefits of growth with none of the costs.

...in any case, ideology aside, we are more or less up against resource constraints globally and the continued slow growth everywhere is a call to adjust the baseline and stop creating narratives that blame ideologies for the fact that there is a limit to the size of the planet, and to the populations we can prosperously sustain here.

[girl gone mad]

37. There are constraints, but we are not close to hitting those constraints.

In particular, our productive capacity is severely underutilized due to the high level of unemployment.

We can put people back to work and it doesn't have to involve increases in energy consumption. Unemployed people are still using energy, driving around, eating, etc.

[madrchsod]

11. depends on where you live

around here there are jobs.new hires,temp,and call backs.

the biggest factor is the perception of how people feel about their situation. second is if they see others who are finding work or gone back to work.

[Woody Woodpecker]

17. And O is ahead by 1 for June.

My wife starts work this Monday.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

18. I love the fact that Obama is going to get blamed...NOT

Republicans are not doing jack but fighting against him at every turn. He can't DO anything, but of course the economy, that was in the toilet when he inherited it, is his fault. Pisses me off.

[Lionessa]

19. Oh, please, grow up. Last month's 115K was revised to 77K, so how low do you think that 69K

will be after it's revised next month?

And it only counts private sector jobs iirc, lots of public sector jobs are still being shed, y'know teachers and all.

If you really see this as good or even acceptable news 4 years, FOUR YEARS, after the crash, then you must be off your rocker.

[cthulu2016]

20. It includes public and private, but

other than that I agree with your post

[Atman]

26. "Grow up" yourself. You missed the point entirely...

The media fed us this "revisionist" bullshit for eight years, and stuck a 4.5% unemployment rate up our collective ass, even when Bush's policies were shedding 750,000 JOBS PER MONTH! And somehow the media was always able to smell petunias in W's farts. But now, we're ADDING jobs. ADDING JOBS. Is it enough? No. Is it strong? No. But, is it NEGATIVE by 750,000? FUCKING NO.

I keep hearing these media douche bags talking about how fast we're supposed to come out of a recession, as if this were a measurable thing, you know, because we do this all the time. But we don't do this all the time. This is historic in nature. So cut the dude some fucking slack...this isn't "Read my lips," or "Oops, no WMD under here," this is a major historic event which, by the time the full implications are outlined in the history books, many of us will be long since dead.

So, again, is 68,000 jobs ADDED a great measure of success? Arguably, no. But is it better than the 750,000 jobs per month LOST under the plan Mitt Rmoney wants to go back to? Is there even a discussion point here???

[Dawson Leery]

28. +1

[sad sally]

47. Labor shows 13,000 government jobs were cut in May - for the 10th straight month.

[Cronkite]

23. It isn't just jobs.......

http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfm?navItemNumber=12942

Look at the Prices - It collapsed. In order to maintain sales prices have had to be adjusted. This is bad news and is a sign employment is going to take a hit.

[okieinpain]

41. but gas prices are down.

[Cronkite]

43. These are the prices manufacturers are getting for their products, nothing to do with gas.

Lower prices = lower profitability= cost cutting= fewer jobs.

[okieinpain]

45. all true, but gas perices are

down. that has got to be good for something. becaause when they where up it was president Obama's fault.

[sad sally]

48. Not everywhere. Here in western Washington state we paid $4.27 (regular) yesterday.

[Roland99]

29. Here's a very simple analogy as to why this is a "negative" number >>>>

1) Suppose your monthly income is variable but averages $150,000.

2) Suppose your monthly expenses are fixed at $150,000.

3) Suppose your monthly income one month drops to only $68,000.

4) Did you make money in that month or not? No. You lost $82,000. Or, rather, you're $82,000 in the hole.



Now, is that better than losing $891,000 in a month (Bush's worst month was a 741,000 job loss in Jan. 2009)? Sure...but it's still losing money.

[Atman]

30. Sorry, Roland. You're an outlier.

You refuse to discuss the fact presented to you, only the facts you want to hear.

If Barry had seven oranges, and Willard took five apples, would it make any more sense than your argument?

I think not.

[Roland99]

31. I know of no other way to explain this to you (others have tried, as well) although I made it simple

you are refusing to see the facts for some unknown reason.


Good luck in your "reality"


BTW, I'm guessing you didn't click any of the links I posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=752667



Oh well...what's the point...you won't listen to reason anyway.

[just1voice]

35. "You're an outlier." You atman, could not be more wrong

Roland is an extensive poster here on DU and especially on the business end of things at the stock market watch board. Roland is in fact an expert with years of experience in analyzing data and that data and its implications.

[girl gone mad]

38. Stop and take some deep breaths.

Roland is telling you the facts.

[JoePhilly]

33. Change item #3 to -750,000 and recalculate the "hole".

[Roland99]

34. I already did in my note at the bottom of my post.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Just keep swinging, your bound to hit something eventually.

Trying to spin the abysmal results of a counter-productive policy into a positive only works as long as the suckers can't see what's happening to and going on around them.

And in preparation for the inevitable response, yes it could be worse.

[KoKo]

42. You really need to get into the "weeds" of those numbers.

Just so you get the "revisions" in jobs numbers from the past two months...get the "Birth/Death Index" under control and look at the "Part Time" and those who've given up looking for employment and the rest of the statistics.

It looks great as a Post for Obama...but...digging into those weeds...is kind of a gloomy picture.

But, BE HAPPY!

[Atman]

44. Did we LOSE 750,000 jobs last month?

That is all I posted. 68,000 may not be what we would like to see, but it is POSITIVE number, not -750,000/mo as we had under W. How is this not an improvement?

[Pale Blue Dot]

46. Let's try this one more time.

Say I run a soup kitchen. I have 150,000 new clients every month. Last month I created 68,000 new pancakes. Did I have enough to feed all of my new clients? No.

Yes, that is better than having 150,000 new clients and LOSING 750,000 pancakes. But ONLY because it is less bad, NOT because it is positive.

[sweetapogee]

49. Basically

are you saying that the economy is out of the shrub shit-can and Obama can run on a prosperity ticket?

[coalition_unwilling]

50. It's a dead cat bounce is what it is. Yeah positive 68,000 is better than

negative 750,000. But it's not enough to keep up with the natural growth in the labor force.

The real question, imo, is who gets the blame for this: Obama who put forth the $450 billion American Jobs Act last fall only to have it deep-sixed by the Do-Nothing Congress or the 2010 Congress which campaigned on 'Jobs, jobs, jobs' and then failed to put forth a single jobs bill.

If the American people can't get that simple little frame, they deserve Romney and 25% unemployment.

[moose65]

52. I have a question

And I'm serious about this: when the report says that "69,000 jobs were added" does that mean that it's 69,000 jobs that did not exist in the previous month? For instance, let's say that a business has an employee who retires or quits a job, and then someone else is hired in his/her place. Is that considered a "new" job? Is it only considered new if a business adds another employee in a position that didn't exist before? Are only fulltime jobs counted?

There's more than one way that an unemployed person or a recent college grad can enter the workforce. It could be a new job at an existing business or a new business. It could be as a replacement for a retiree or for someone who has left for a different job. Are all of those counted in the jobs report?

[SGMRTDARMY]

53. Thats a damn good question

I suspect that alot of those jobs supposedly created are people retiring and someone unemployed getting hired in that open spot, and with so many re-entering the jobs market and not enough jobs created, thats why the unemployment rate ticked up. If this trend continues, I believe we're in for a rough ride in Nov.

Just my opinion

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

54. There was a very dramatic spike in job seekers

according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I don't know very much about economics or how to interpret this but this Yahoo news article from yesterday says there was an unexpected rise in the number of people seeking work that would account for the poor job numbers in May. The number of people employed actually rose by 422,000 but the number of people looking for work really spiked to 635,000.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/may-jobs-report-disappoints-across-board-125911006.html

"...Labor Force Rises. There's an odd wrinkle here. The unemployment rate is derived from the household survey, in which BLS calls people and asks them about their employment status. The rate is calculated by dividing the number of people estimated to be unemployed into the size of the labor force. When the labor force shrinks, the unemployment rate can fall even if the number of people who say they're working doesn't rise. But that's not what happened this month. In May, according to the BLS, the labor force actually grew by 635,000 — which means a lot of people who had been sitting on the sidelines jumped back in. The number of people employed, according to the Household survey, rose by 422,000 in the month. ..."