http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/04/unemployment_rate_falls_to_9.html


Things continue to start looking better

Still only gained 36,000 jobs, far below what was expected.
Things are stabilizing in my view.

And it still dropped to 9%

Yes, but I expect it to stay between 8.7-9.7% for a little while.
Also, the real unemployment rate is still pretty bad, over 10%.

This is good news of course, but we are not even close to be out of the woods yet.

uh huh, sure. Real unemployment is in double figures. Not the number the government likes to make up.

I always chuckle when there is a story about the economy turning around because the stock market is going higher or unemployment dropped a fraction of a percent. Wow, I guess I'll go out and find a job now.

ccrunner609;664969 wrote:Do you realize that the million jobs that have been created in the past year, only 50,000 were private sector jobs?

Besides that number only represents the ammount of people that are still actively unemployed. The drop from 9.4 to 9.0 only represents the people that dropped off the radar.....either quit looking for a job or stopped claims for unemplyment. Those 36,000 new jobs arent even close to the 200,000 needed per month to keep up.

Whats going on in the private sector is that many companies are taking their profits that they could use for producing more overhead (filling a job) and they are invessting it. Thats why the stock market is taking off. THe economy is creeping back and the $ out there is getting dumped into investing and not job creation.

Companies got to get rich before they can hire.[/QUOTE

EXACTLY!

ccrunner609;664969 wrote:Do you realize that the million jobs that have been created in the past year, only 50,000 were private sector jobs?

Besides that number only represents the ammount of people that are still actively unemployed. The drop from 9.4 to 9.0 only represents the people that dropped off the radar.....either quit looking for a job or stopped claims for unemplyment. Those 36,000 new jobs arent even close to the 200,000 needed per month to keep up.

Whats going on in the private sector is that many companies are taking their profits that they could use for producing more overhead (filling a job) and they are invessting it. Thats why the stock market is taking off. THe economy is creeping back and the $ out there is getting dumped into investing and not job creation.

Companies got to get rich before they can hire.

I agree with everything said there.

ccrunner609;664969 wrote:Do you realize that the million jobs that have been created in the past year, only 50,000 were private sector jobs?

Besides that number only represents the ammount of people that are still actively unemployed. The drop from 9.4 to 9.0 only represents the people that dropped off the radar.....either quit looking for a job or stopped claims for unemplyment. Those 36,000 new jobs arent even close to the 200,000 needed per month to keep up.

Whats going on in the private sector is that many companies are taking their profits that they could use for producing more overhead (filling a job) and they are invessting it. Thats why the stock market is taking off. THe economy is creeping back and the $ out there is getting dumped into investing and not job creation.

Companies got to get rich before they can hire.

+1

ccrunner609;664969 wrote:Do you realize that the million jobs that have been created in the past year, only 50,000 were private sector jobs?

Besides that number only represents the ammount of people that are still actively unemployed. The drop from 9.4 to 9.0 only represents the people that dropped off the radar.....either quit looking for a job or stopped claims for unemplyment. Those 36,000 new jobs arent even close to the 200,000 needed per month to keep up.

Whats going on in the private sector is that many companies are taking their profits that they could use for producing more overhead (filling a job) and they are invessting it. Thats why the stock market is taking off. THe economy is creeping back and the $ out there is getting dumped into investing and not job creation.

Companies got to get rich before they can hire.

Best post on this thread. Naive Ty Webb buying into more of the government Kool-aid. That drop, as others have stated, only means that people have stopped pursuing looking for a job and are now off the radar.

dwccrew;665120 wrote:Best post on this thread. Naive Ty Webb buying into more of the government Kool-aid. That drop, as others have stated, only means that people have stopped pursuing looking for a job and are now off the radar.

This does happen. I was actually in that "drop off" statistic about five months into being unemployed. I spent between 4 and 5 months collecting unemployment. After that, I was making too much for myself in affiliate marketing (all unstable commission stuff) to collect unemployment. Still not "employed" at the time, but not collecting either. Spent 8 months off the unemployment grid.

ccrunner609;665240 wrote:I hope Ty was enlightened some.......he and many on the left think that this is a good sign for our administrations policies. Not yet young Jedi, not yet. What our administration is doing has nothing and almost no affect on the unemployment numbers and stock market.

I believe the stock market is only going to get stronger because the fact that its safer to invest your worth then to invest in hiring someone.

I would say the administration as well as at the end of the Bush administration, saved the economy from the abyss. Obama then started to rebound it and now it has leveled out. The problem he is having now is how to grow it more.

ptown_trojans_1;665252 wrote:I would say the administration as well as at the end of the Bush administration, saved the economy from the abyss. Obama then started to rebound it and now it has leveled out. The problem he is having now is how to grow it more.

See, I'm not so sure the Executive Branch has much control over making things economically better. I do think they can make things worse, but it seems like the best thing the nation's Executor can do is leave the economy alone. The reality is, an economy cannot sustain a high level forever. It will dip from time to time, but so long as the economy is allowed to work out its problems, it will rebound.

It reminds me of Manny Ramirez (odd comparison, I know). Manny has always been a great hitter, but even he goes through slumps ... but Manny has learned the secret to getting out of a slump as effectively as possible: don't adjust to the slump. Simply do what you did that made you so great, and eventually, you will come out of it. Watch Ramirez when he slumps. He doesn't adjust his swing, his stance, or anything else. He just swings like he always does ... and it works.

Our economy, the way it was meant to run, can function like that. If the way it runs is left alone, it will slump, but it will also rebound as well as it ever could, because the principles that made it so effective in the first place would be (ideally) left alone.

Side Note: Slump Buster = 200LB Hottie!

september63;665279 wrote:Side Note: Slump Buster = 200LB Hottie!

O-Trap;665270 wrote:Our economy, the way it was meant to run, can function like that. If the way it runs is left alone, it will slump, but it will also rebound as well as it ever could, because the principles that made it so effective in the first place would be (ideally) left alone.

Agreed. And I'm of the opinion that when the Feds step in to "fix" the economy with nonsense like porkulus, it's like feeding sugar to a starving person. It may have a very short-term energizing effect but then the buzz wears off you still have a starving person except he now has dental problems.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan

ccrunner609;665387 wrote:Saved what? The only thing they saved where the financials institutions. Propped them up, they took the money and hid it away.

I agree. The banks made out and paid out their bonus checks on the taxpayer dime. But has it helped the economy and the average unemployed worker?

I'm amazed that 9% is the new "stable"... the new norm. I remember when anything above 5% was problematic.

Like ptown said, we're not out of the woods yet. I had hoped that extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all would provide some "certainty" to businesses, but it appears that they are still focusing on growth outside of the United States. As an example, I just returned from two weeks in Mexico where my former company is ramping up their foreign operations. The domestic side is improving, but not at the rate the Mexican operation is. They are also putting serious money into their operations in China, Brazil, Ukraine, Russia and India. Meanwhile, the domestic operations receive precious little capital for growth.

ccrunner609;665387 wrote:Saved what? The only thing they saved where the financials institutions. Propped them up, they took the money and hid it away.

You think GM would have survived? What about all the auto parts suppliers? Not a chance. Unemployment would have it 20% without the stimulus and bailouts.

Actions taken by the late Bush and early Obama administrations in my view, as well as other macro economists, brought the economy back from the brink of total collapse. The finical institutions were and still are the backbone of the stockmarket and some of the largest liquid assets. If those institutions had fallen, the markets would have continued to collapse. Yet, it is hard to prove a counter factual, and I get that.

We are now back from that abyss, stabilized, meaning it is not getting worse. It is not going to get better really either. We are in a period of holding, status quo, and everyone is trying to figure out how to grow the economy.

I really don't want to read the report, as I find government reports to be God's gift for insomnia.

What I find really odd is that only 36,000 jobs were created, and the rate went down a huge amount...0.4%. Just working the math a little backwards, if there are 140,000,000 Americans employed, then 0.4% = 560,000 newly employed Americans. Thinking of this in yet another way, if 36,000 jobs = a .4% drop, then does adding 100,000 jobs, which is regarded as the benchmark for an expanding economy, equal a 1.1% drop in unemployment? I'm being somewhat facetious, but it's for a reason.

I'm happy we are growing jobs, but I'm most concerned about the goverment's report wherein they have tainted, twisted, and logically paralyzed the bottom line. The take-home that the vast majority of Americans will remember is that the unemployment rate went down 0.4% and that is just flat out incorrect. While I'm certain there is some formula...somewhere...that gives them the ability to report this number, it just isn't reflective of reality.

stlouiedipalma;665451 wrote:Like ptown said, we're not out of the woods yet. I had hoped that extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all would provide some "certainty" to businesses, but it appears that they are still focusing on growth outside of the United States. As an example, I just returned from two weeks in Mexico where my former company is ramping up their foreign operations. The domestic side is improving, but not at the rate the Mexican operation is. They are also putting serious money into their operations in China, Brazil, Ukraine, Russia and India. Meanwhile, the domestic operations receive precious little capital for growth.

You have to wonder why they're putting serious money into offshore operations. Could it be that American-based companies have discovered that human resources are far less expensive there than here?

I'm not saying that these are moral or ethical choices being made by American businesses, but they are certainly the economically prudent moves. The executive boardrooms have an obligation to please the stakeholders. If I were sitting in those chairs, I'd be tempted to make similar choices.

After decades of being the only game in town the American worker is now "victim" of Big Labor excess, Big Government over-regulation (labor laws, minimum wage laws, environmental laws, etc.), and cheaper labor offered by improved infrastructure in emerging economies. Big Business, like it or not, still wants to turn a profit. Greedy bastards, eh?

The wealth America created since WWII has slowly but steadily been exported.

Equilibrium in the marketplace is the only solution. American labor markets must adjust to foreign competition. Becoming more efficient and pricing our labor to compete globally must happen.

Protectionist policies by the Feds will only make things worse. It will NOT stimulate domestic employment but it WILL increase the cost of goods and services being produced offshore. Again when gubmint tries to fix things, it only contributes to the problem.

We certainly have a perplexing and tough road ahead, but I'm confident in American resolve. We always find a way out.

ccrunner609;665482 wrote:Sure they would of.....they would of went through the bankrupcy procedures and came out the other end smaller and leaner.

And all of their UAW contracts would have been in the incinerator. THAT was the major reason Obama saved them from bankruptcy court.

BGFalcons82;665483 wrote:And all of their UAW contracts would have been in the incinerator. THAT was the major reason Obama saved them from bankruptcy court.

Yes it was...but you can't get a leftist to admit it.

ptown_trojans_1;665461 wrote:Actions taken by the late Bush and early Obama administrations in my view, as well as other macro economists, brought the economy back from the brink of total collapse. The finical institutions were and still are the backbone of the stockmarket and some of the largest liquid assets. If those institutions had fallen, the markets would have continued to collapse. Yet, it is hard to prove a counter factual, and I get that.

We are now back from that abyss, stabilized, meaning it is not getting worse. It is not going to get better really either. We are in a period of holding, status quo, and everyone is trying to figure out how to grow the economy.

Indeed. I don't disagree with any of this, but I'd suggest that the reason for the economic problems in the first place were because the economy had been "tweaked" too much already. It's like telling a lie. At some point, you might have to tell another one to hold the first one up. If someone doesn't lie in the first place, that second lie becomes unnecessary.

Bush's stimulus and Obama's stimulus might have prevented a total collapse at the time, but it seems as though it has intensified the problems that will eventually arise when we face a similar problem again.

Ty Webb;664938 wrote:http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/04/unemployment_rate_falls_to_9.html


Things continue to start looking better

Dream on brother, dream on ........... they had to varporize 600,000 from the unemployment roles in order for the math to arrive at 9%; total manipulation of reality.

U6 unemployment of about 18% is STAGGERING, and the socialist/marxist policy agenda of the current administration (including all cabinet positions) will never help the situation. Put your head back in the sand.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf