More bad news for the Tea Party: U.S. economy added 200K jobs in October

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Nov 8, 2013.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
  2. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    May 27, 2009
    Unless they were all government jobs why is that bad news?

    here are some other numbers…

  3. Tomorrow macrumors 604


    Mar 2, 2008
    Always a day away
    How is this bad news for the Tea Party, or anyone else? :confused:
  4. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    And you completely omit the big portion regarding the numbers today:

    If the shutdown hadn't had occurred, those 448,000 people would not have been accounted for, dropping the unemployment rate back down to 7.2%, or possibly less. Now that the government is open, and holiday jobs are being filled, that rate will go down even further.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the unemployment rate dips below 7% by the time Obama leaves office.

  5. palmerc2 macrumors 68000


    Feb 29, 2008
    Los Angeles
    It's the cool thing to do to blame republicans for just about everything.
  6. stubeeef macrumors 68030


    Aug 10, 2004
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn


    Jul 11, 2003

    The labor force participation rates do suck but are weighed down from all the boomers retiring, some earlier than they expected or wanted to.
  8. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Nov 8, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2013

    jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    It is bad news for anyone who wants President Obama to fail. I'm sure you recall Rush Limbaugh saying on Day 1 that he wants Obama to fail. But, a little googling and here is a start from Paul Krugman:

    It is hard to escape the notion that "Tea Party" has less to do with deficits or pragmatic governance, and more to do with wanting to see the poor punished for the sins of the financial industry. Read the rest of the Krugman article and you will see what I mean.

    No, not all Republicans. Just the Tea Party.

    Oh, by the way, mentioned before, but, the deficit has now returned to the normal range after the Great Recession crisis.


    This is the graph that I posted previously

  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    About those people "leaving the labor force" ...

    I haven't looked any of this up, but Baby Boomers are hitting the age of retirement. Isn't it possible that a good number of those leaving the labor force are retiring Boomers?

    If so, I'd once again be amazed at how large population trends—that can be seen coming for decades—still surprise some people.
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    It is possible, but, given the numbers I am seeing, that doesn't look like the complete explanation. Check this out:


    These things require a real demographer to sort out, which I am definitely not, but, it looks like young people, particularly under-30's without college degrees, have much lower participation rates than before. And, many older people are continuing to work longer than in the past.

    I think the real message is that employment is way down among young/unskilled-to-semi-skilled, men.

    Yes, it is amazing. Or, it could be, but, our media tend to focus on one crisis after another. It wasn't a crisis 20 years ago.
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Wasn't trying to say it was the "complete explanation".

    Just suggested it will be a continuing trend for years to come.

    Interesting information though.
  12. jbachandouris macrumors 601


    Aug 18, 2009
    Upstate NY
    Sorry, I don't care what fake numbers you put out, the job picture is NOT getting better. People are leaving the workforce not because of retirement, but because they can't find a job after being laid off.

    And when you are no longer eligible to receive unemployment, you are no longer counted as being unemployed. On what planet does that make sense?

    The jobs that are being created are mainly part time service/retail jobs. You don't know how many people I know that are working 3-4 jobs to make up for the 1 job that laid them off.

    I decided to go back to school as I have a family and want to do better for them.
  13. localoid macrumors 68020


    Feb 20, 2007
    America's Third World
    Actually, that's not true.

    See: How the Government Measures Unemployment

  14. thermodynamic Suspended


    May 3, 2009
    Because low paying jobs can't "put food on your family", as they say? Why are jobs so low everywhere else when, a decade or so ago, the private sector paid more for the same types of work?

    (PS: If you hate big government, look up how much bigger Reagan and Bush made it ;) )
  15. samcraig macrumors P6

    Jun 22, 2009
    What kind of jobs do you think Trump can create? White collar executives? Not likely.
  16. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    Why are you responding to a three year old post?
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
  18. Populism macrumors regular


    Jun 11, 2014
    He wasn't. He was bumping.
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    A large part of the doubt about BLS numbers stems from the known fact that more small businesses are folding than are starting up. Such startups have historically been a main cause of increasing employment. This is an area known as the "birth-death model" and the BLS is regarded with suspicion by many analysts. Chuck Butler of is one of these, and comments regularly in the bank's daily newsletter "The Daily Pfennig".

    Further, what is not reported, publically, is the quality of the jobs. What has been happening for quite a while is that the jobs lost were relatively high pay. Jobs created have been lower pay--which has led to all the "burger flipper" stories.

    I have been reading that IRS income has been flat-to-down, which is not indicative of increasing employment.

    Further note that it takes some 120,000 new jobs per month to keep up with population growth.
  20. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2011
    Yes it is great we added 200K jobs, I have lost any confidence in the unemployment rate.

    As long as those who " have stopped looking for work" are not counted, then the number means little. A real unemployment number needs to account for these people.
  21. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    Desertrat, you raise a lot of interesting questions about decades-long trends. I don't think they have simple answers.

    I have also read that in recent years, small businesses have not been adding to employment as they once did. I do think that the direct and indirect cost of healthcare finance is one of the reasons. But, I also think that the growth of "Amazon"-like shopping (mailorder -> internet-order) is probably the reason. Most people like to go shopping in market areas where there are lots of small shops. But, unless they actually buy enough stuff there, instead of going home and buying it via their browser, those types of small businesses are doomed.

    I'm uncertain what the government should do to favor formation and growth of small businesses. What are your ideas?

    Sure, the children of the successful hardware shop owner of the past are now rolling-skating their way around Amazon warehouses. Even if they got paid the same, it wouldn't be the same thing, would it? But, what to do about it?

    According to the article, 550,000+ jobs in the last two months. And, the jobs are paying better now. I'm not being a Pollyanna. Things actually are getting better. Long-term, though, the government will need to do something to give small businesses a boost over mega-corporations, if we actually want small, local businesses to exist. What that something is, though -- what do you think?
  22. Dmunjal, Aug 7, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2016

    Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Jun 20, 2010
    I think those job numbers are suspect.

    Here's what I think we should do to encourage small business development. Get rid of onerous regulations. A good example is Dodd-Frank. It is so complicated than only the large banks can afford to comply. Smaller community banks have been going out out of business since it passed.

    It also applies to other industries. In fact, big business lobbies for regulations as an obstacle to small business from gaining traction.
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    People are leaving the workforce? :mad: Bloody idle rich who scammed all of us during the bubble and its aftermath....?
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Jan 31, 2010
    Midlife, Midwest

    Consolidation in the number of small banking industry has been going on for decades. And the most recent trend has little, if anything, to do with Dodd-Frank.

    Let's make this very clear: A small bank is inherently inefficient. Even more so in an era of low interest rates. When banks were paying 5% on savings accounts and lending money out to businesses and mortgages at 8% or 9%, community banking was a relatively straightforward business. Not so much in an ultra-low interest rate environment such as we have today.

    But from the simple perspective of scale - a relatively tiny (ie. assets of less than $1 billion) bank makes little sense. A bank that small still needs a similar sized data-processing and regulatory compliance operation as a bank ten times its size. It has an administrative and back-office "tail" that is out of proportion to the number of loans it makes.

    Lastly, there is little - if any - evidence to suggest that the decline in small community banks has impacted the ability of businesses, entrepreneurs, or consumers to gain access to loans or other forms of capital. Rather the opposite, in fact, with the rise of the internet and other alternative funding sources.

    Dodd-Frank was passed in response to the devastating effects of a decade or more of bad decisions on the part of the US financial industry. We're still paying for cleaning that up.

    Let's not let a bunch of Republican talking point malarkey obscure that fact.

Share This Page