Too little, too late

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

It may be too little too late, but maybe people expect too much. The recovery in jobs looks pretty good to me (especially considering that everyone said this would be a jobless recovery).

Of course I am not and have not been unemployed, so it is easy for me to look at the graph and think a lot of progress has been made since Obama took over in Jan 2009. Someone who was and still is unemployed might not see it the same way.

Establishment.JPG


barfo

It's going to have to be +800 for May, June, July, August, and September to impress enough people by election time.
 
It's going to have to be +800 for May, June, July, August, and September to impress enough people by election time.

My, that's highly specific. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

barfo
 
My, that's highly specific. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

barfo

Lose 7M jobs, gain back 1M, it's not going to make people happy. Lose 7M jobs, gain back 4M, and there will be that many less people upset about being unemployed.
 
Lose 7M jobs, gain back 1M, it's not going to make people happy. Lose 7M jobs, gain back 4M, and there will be that many less people upset about being unemployed.

So more jobs is better? I don't think that's a keen insight or controversial. ;) I think the question is, how did you come to the specific numbers that will need to happen for Democrats to see a benefit, relative to where they stand now, from the recovering economy.
 
So more jobs is better? I don't think that's a keen insight or controversial. ;) I think the question is, how did you come to the specific numbers that will need to happen for Democrats to see a benefit, relative to where they stand now, from the recovering economy.

At barfo's pace (his graph), the economy won't recover all the jobs lost on Obama's watch by the 2012 election, let alone the 2010 one. What makes you think that a trickle of new jobs against massive losses of jobs on the Dems' watch is going to make people feel good about their policies? Maybe it's the generous extended unemployment benefits!

NOT. I think people want good jobs.

(the 800K jobs gained figure I suggest is the kind of jobs lost figure in barfo's graph, get it?)
 
At barfo's pace (his graph), the economy won't recover all the jobs lost on Obama's watch by the 2012 election, let alone the 2010 one. What makes you think that a trickle of new jobs against massive losses of jobs on the Dems' watch is going to make people feel good about their policies?

People are already unhappy about the economy. The Democrats are already expected to lose seats. The baseline is not "0 seats lost." The baseline is some number of seats lost, and the question is whether the current positive job growth will help Democrats stem that loss or not. You claimed that for the Democrats to see any benefits (i.e. help stem loss of seats), they'll need to gain 800K jobs per month from now til the election. You still haven't given reasoning or evidence for why that is so. Obviously, more job growth will be better for the incumbent party, but that doesn't in any way suggest that some job growth, even if it doesn't completely wipe out the job losses, won't help the incumbent party to some extent.
 
So, horrific job loss has to be followed by immediate and almost equal job growth?
 
People are already unhappy about the economy. The Democrats are already expected to lose seats. The baseline is not "0 seats lost." The baseline is some number of seats lost, and the question is whether the current positive job growth will help Democrats stem that loss or not. You claimed that for the Democrats to see any benefits (i.e. help stem loss of seats), they'll need to gain 800K jobs per month from now til the election. You still haven't given reasoning or evidence for why that is so. Obviously, more job growth will be better for the incumbent party, but that doesn't in any way suggest that some job growth, even if it doesn't completely wipe out the job losses, won't help the incumbent party to some extent.

Consider the baseline +7 GOP seats in the senate, +27 in the house.

So, horrific job loss has to be followed by immediate and almost equal job growth?

To make a difference in the November elections, yes.
 
At barfo's pace (his graph), the economy won't recover all the jobs lost on Obama's watch by the 2012 election, let alone the 2010 one.

Wow, that's some horrific DennyMath (TM). If the trend on the graph continues until the 2012 election, we will recover all the jobs lost since Jan 20 2009 and many more. In fact, the trendline says that we'd be adding something like 2.3 million new jobs *per month* by election day. That probably won't happen, but even if the job growth flattens out at the existing level (instead of continuing to trend upwards), we'd still more than make back all the jobs lost since Jan 20 2009.

barfo
 
Oh, Denny. Denny, Denny, Denny.
Did you read that article you just quoted? It says 8M lost since December 2007. When did Obama take office? Was it in December 2007? No, it was in January 2009. Since Obama took office, things have been getting better on the job-loss front. As the graph shows.

barfo


delong-unemployment-rate-forecast.jpg
 
[video=youtube;QuLa1cVwJNY]
 
[video=youtube;Cxxe-KKTzjU]
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy


Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON – The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.

"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Stocks slid as investors' already bleak view of the world economy worsened with another drop in the euro and the disappointing U.S. employment news. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 250 points in early afternoon trading.

In a separate report, a private research group said its index of leading economic indicators dipped slightly in April. It was the first decline in more than a year. Six of the 10 components on the Conference Board's index deteriorated. Among them: U.S. residents filed fewer applications to build homes; vendors were slower in delivering supplies to companies; the unemployed filed more claims for jobless aid; and consumers' confidence dropped.

Lawmakers responded Thursday to the persistently high jobless rate by announcing a deal to extend expanded unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed through the end of the year. Laid off workers would also continue to get subsidies to buy health insurance through the COBRA program.

House leaders plan to vote on the bill Friday, with the Senate voting next week.

Employers are hiring again, but not at levels needed to make a dent in the unemployment rate, which increased in April to 9.9 percent. An improving economy has lured those who had given up looking for work back into the labor market. The jump in the unemployment rate came even though payrolls rose last month by 290,000 jobs, the biggest gain in four years.

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York, said he believed the unemployment rate would hold at 9.9 percent in May while payroll jobs could increase as much as 250,000. He said that figure would include an expected 150,000 temporary government workers hired to conduct the census.

After peaking at 651,000 in March 2009, weekly jobless claims fell rapidly through much of last year. But this year the improvements have leveled out.

Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, said one reason the improvements have stalled is that small businesses are having trouble getting loans. They create half of the new jobs in the country.

The Labor Department said the number of people receiving jobless benefits fell by 40,000 to 4.63 million for the week ending May 8.

However, that figure does not include unemployed workers who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits. An additional 5.3 million workers are receiving extended benefits paid for by the federal government for the week ending May 1.
 
^^^ barfo's favorite graph may be a wee bit influenced by all the census workers (temporary!) hired.
 
^^^ barfo's favorite graph may be a wee bit influenced by all the census workers (temporary!) hired.

A wee bit, but note that your article is talking about 150,000 hired in May. May isn't on the graph.
April's number was apparently 66,000.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top