Let the good times roll -- 248,000 new jobs

[Ted Striker]

Speaking of politics:

In January, employers added enough payroll jobs to regain all those lost since the peak in February 2001, a month before an eight- month recession started, and enough to give President George W. Bush a net gain during his first term in office.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


heres one: $1.6 trillion added to the national debt, not including interest that we're paying now

heres another site

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

By 1981, there was $1 trillion worth of debt. Debt happens. Maybe you should understand you can't get rid of it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

doesnt change the fact that reagan added on top of that 1.6 tri. and debt only happens when you are irresponsible.

[Giancarlo]

You are being irresponsible. You aren't mature in your responses. I'm tired of these "Reagan added this deficit" argument. First off, it is a natural occurrance. Man, you are a disgrace to libertarianism. Real libertarians praise Reagan.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ted, you are assuming that the 5.4 percent is over the same number of people as the 5.2 percent.

If the number of people in the workforce grows, it is entirely possible for 5.4 percent to both increase the percentage unemployed, yet also show a net increase in the numbers of jobs.

Also, the number of people counted as unemployed do not include all the people who are of working age, without jobs.

I suggest you start looking as to how the unemployment numbers are calculated. It's quite enlightening, and essential if one is to understand what changes in the rate mean.

Also, as for the mcJobs charge, you're right. The metric for the average compensation holding steady could also represent a majority of the jobs created as low paying ones, while a minority of high paying jobs even things out again.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ted, you are assuming that the 5.4 percent is over the same number of people as the 5.2 percent.

If the number of people in the workforce grows, it is entirely possible for 5.4 percent to both increase the percentage unemployed, yet also show a net increase in the numbers of jobs.

Also, the number of people counted as unemployed do not include all the people who are of working age, without jobs.

I suggest you start looking as to how the unemployment numbers are calculated. It's quite enlightening, and essential if one is to understand what changes in the rate mean.

First of all, no, and secondly,

So what ?

If the workforce grows, FOR WHATEVER REASON, that just means even more people need jobs, and the rate should keep up with it.

That's like praising a company that had higher revenues but its profitablity went down.

Thanks for the pretension though!

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You are being irresponsible. You aren't mature in your responses. I'm tired of these "Reagan added this deficit" argument. First off, it is a natural occurrance. Man, you are a disgrace to libertarianism. Real libertarians praise Reagan.

Yes, damn that libertarian war on drugs and interventionist foreign policy

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boshko
Hey, as long as the weakness of the dollar continues I'm happy. It seems like every week the currency markets give me a raise in dollar terms

Well for us British the US has become an absolute bargain basement with the prices. I remember a few years ago in Portugal when I was in holiday (before the Euro) and the Germans were absolutely cringing at the cost and supping really slowly and eating small amounts. The British with the considerably more favourable exchange rate were buying a jug each and buying mountains of food

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS


Look at the chart again, keeping in mind that the entire year 1980 was under Carter.

If you insist on holding that opinion afterwards, then there's nothing that the doctor can do to help you.

You should know that in 1979 the Fed took drastic measures to combat inflation which caused the worse recession since the Great Depression. The Fed and probably Nixon deserve most of the blame for what happened. Carter was just the presiding president when the **** hit the fan. It's actually a good thing that Carter appointed a Fed chief that understood the problem and took appropriate measures before it was too late.

[Brundlefly]

Re: Let the good times roll -- 248,000 new jobs

Originally posted by DanS
Good news. 262,000 new non-farm jobs were announced for February and downward revision of 14,000 was made for January's job numbers, leaving a net +248,000 new jobs announced. The economy went completely into expansion in January (net jobs from the last peak of February '01 to January '05 finally were positive).

The underlying components of this job growth are healthy. Over 90% of the new jobs are in the private sector. Another couple of months of this and the private sector can be said to finally be completely in expansion mode.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5992efa4-8cb3-11d9-a9e4-00000e2511c8.html

How many of those new jobs went to H1B Visa holders? Probably a good chunk now that the election has passed...

[pchang]

Originally posted by Ted Striker



What part of :



Doesn't make sense?

DUH

thanks

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...DxE&refer=home

Did you even bother to read the posts that explain how these unemployment numbers are calculated? Did you read the posts that talk about how population growth really adds to the workforce?

[pchang]

H1B visas are capped by Federal law. Congress has not changed this law since the election.

[GePap]

I see these farcical threads are back.

Thought pchang is right, the total number of unepmloyed must have gone down, if only because about 100,000+ jobs were added, on top of the 100,000+ just to keep up with population growth.

I think saying how many jobs were gained while stating the # of jobs needed simply to keep up with population growth would make a better statistic, since adding 90,000 jobs in a month would actually mean an increase in people out of work since the job market would have grown by more than that number in that same month.

[pchang]

Hurray. Although, most demographers think that population growth adds about 150,000 to the working age group every month.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
If the workforce grows, FOR WHATEVER REASON, that just means even more people need jobs, and the rate should keep up with it.

That's like praising a company that had higher revenues but its profitablity went down.

Thanks for the pretension though!

Your logic is entirely self serving. When the official unemployment number goes down, you rail (and rightly so) on its innacurracy because it doesn't count those who gave up on looking for work. On the other hand, when the REAL unemployment number goes down, you don't want to acknowledge the people who have given up looking for work but now change their minds and instead want to go on the official unemployment number. Frankly, I thought you would be better than this.