About today's "Employment Numbers":

[PROGRESSIVE1]

The reality is, George W. Bush will be the FIRST pResident since Herbert Hoover to have a NET LOSS OF JOBS. Even Carter had a net gain of jobs when his term ended.

The fact that we have a net loss of jobs is a sign of weakness in the economy. Unless the Shrub can "create" 3-4 million new jobs by November 2nd, there is NO reason to give him another chance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. ZWhcih is one point to HAMMER HOME

[Teaser]

2. Exactly..

although I have a sneaking suspicioun the next job report will have 900,000 new jobs added to the mix...:)

[Trajan]

3. The GOP have single handedly destroyed the American Dream ....

And they blame everyone .. ANYONE ... but themselves ....

It is our duty as patriotic americans to toss them over the gunwales ...

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Jobs Are An INPUT Into Long Term Growth

I demonstrated in a mathematical model, published back in 1994, that job growth is not an outcome of GDP growth, but rather, a lever to creating stable future growth.

The primary lever to this is really the interaction between the total number of people working and the median household income. These three factors (two main effects and the interaction) have strong effect on the continued development of the consumption curve. It also has a massive effect on increases in gov't revenues.

The stability, robustness, and scope of the middle class is what drives an economy. This paper, peer reviewed by the way, basically was a stake in the heart of supplyside. Rich people don't grow the economy. Middle class people do!

Fewer jobs, and a stagnant median household income (actually lower in real terms, after inflation), is not a recipe for economic vibrancy.
The Professor

[papau]

5. Carter added over 10 million jobs in 4 years- but media implies bad times?

Carter had great job growth - Feb 77 was his first month and was 80987, and Feb 2001 was 91098, so Carter added 10,111 jobs in 4 years - but you would not suspect that reading our "liberal media"- our not right wing GOP controlled - they just act that way - media.

:-(

National Employment, Hours and Earnings

Series Id: CEU0000000001Not Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1976 77376 77605 78214 79042 79534 80164 79393 79659 80362 80593 80953 81129 79502
1977 79540 79747 80604 81539 82376 83338 82677 82971 83922 84423 84868 85105 82593
1978 83442 83738 84732 86037 86842 87830 87002 87305 87932 88549 89099 89408 86826
1979 87650 87889 88792 89313 90125 90970 89975 90071 90614 91087 91285 91412 89932
1980 89628 89761 90321 90743 90759 90918 89577 89860 90525 91123 91469 91655 90528
1981 89831 89978 90513 91150 91640 92288 91363 91370 91867 92045 91879 91546 91289


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1976 78506 78817 79049 79293 79311 79376 79546 79704 79892 79905 80237 80448
1977 80692 80987 81391 81730 82089 82488 82836 83074 83532 83794 84173 84408
1978 84595 84948 85461 86163 86509 86951 87205 87481 87618 87954 88391 88674
1979 88811 89054 89480 89418 89790 90108 90214 90296 90323 90480 90574 90669
1980 90800 90879 90991 90846 90415 90095 89832 90092 90205 90485 90741 90936
1981 91031 91098 91202 91276 91286 91482 91594 91558 91471 91371 91162 90884

[Jacobin]

6. Inflation was bad and interest rates were 18%

It sucked. I lived through it. Not saying its all Jimmy's fault, but his economic team was not the best

[tritsofme]

7. If you want double digit inflation we can have all the jobs you

want.

That's what was so amazing about the 1990s. Low interest rates, low inflation and 20 million jobs!

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Theoretical Basis?

On what is that conclusion based? Macroeconomic hypotheticals? Econometric modeling from live data? Or just a guess?
The Professor

[tritsofme]

10. My old friend the Phillip's Curve.

I suppose the 90s made mincemeat of that theory, but it still makes a lot of sense to me.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. I've Spent 25 Years Debunking Conventional Economic Theory

Polydimensional, non-linear modeling is my life!

There are LOADS of such things, like Phillips, for which there are actually no data to support.

There is no statistical basis to support that there is a identifiable threshhold. The other shortcoming of the Phillips Curve is that it presumes that the additional goods and services provided by these newly hired people would, at some defined point, exceed the diminished return threshhold. There is no basis in the data for believing that either.

This is really a four dimensional intersection, and as you know, the Phillips Curve fits nicely on a textbook page. I tend not to put much faith in any theoreticals/hypotheticals that underestimate the dimensional depth of the causes and effects.

The Professor

[tritsofme]

12. Well that's why you're a professor,

and I'm not.

You say there is no trade-off between inflation and unemployment?

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Nothing Clear

If the goods and services provided by those employed are sufficient to absorb the cash flow, and if the velocity of money increases to allow the same number of dollars to stay in circulation (the M1 stays the same, but the rate of circulation increases), then no.

Inflation is leveraged far more on the rate of goods & services and available liquidity pursuing it, than by how many people are spending that liquidity. The Phillips curve is, IMO, a mere hypothetical based on Austrian school theories. There is no basis in fact for it. Same as with the infamous Laffer Curve.
The Professor

[papau]

15. Well said - but not as easy to model - :-)

:toast:

:-)

[papau]

14. Even with inflation after tax, and after inflation income grew nicely

The Game was to make folks fear key words - rather than reality.

So Inflation and short term interest rates were a bad -

and folks should not look at their improved standard of living.

It was an interesting proof that folks can be made to vote to cut their own throats!

Indeed the oil shock adjustment was handled well by Carter - and he should have tried to sell Bush's "we have turned the corner" as t inflation/interest, pledging to maintain the same growth with lower inflation. It is interesting that Carters 3.3% average annual GDP growth is about the same as Reagan's 3.4% - and Carter did not blow through 1.8 trillion of stimulus dollars/deficit to get to his 3.3%.

:-)

[tritsofme]

16. I don't know about yourself

But the 1970s were a bad time for me. I did much better in the 80s, probably due to be older and more established in my field, but it was very hard to keep up with the inflation, and I still cringe when I think of the interest I paid with my first mortgage.

[papau]

18. A world of good average results does not help if you're hurting!

But the GOP game is to say our average results are better than you - ans esp. that evil Carter.

And it turns out that the actual numbers show that is a lie.

Reagan did not average a huge increase in either new jobs or GDP growth over Carter.

But you would not know that reading our US "liberal" media.

Sorry the 70's were rough - but I agree back in the old days, with age came more money - which may explain the 80's and 70's for both of us! :-)

So why did that pattern stop when I got old?

:-(

:-)

[rockymountaindem]

8. It's not like today brings great jobs news anyway.

The economy needs to generate a certain number of jobs to keep pace with the growing workforce as population increases. I've heard estimates ranging from 150k to 250k, so even at the low end this jobs report means we aren't keeping pace with growth. So, even with all the people who are already unemployed (especially those whose benefits have expired and aren't counted anymore), if 150 thousand young people went out looking for a job, and as many as possible got one, 8000 didn't get a job and nobody else got one, either.

Bush* will try to tout this, but it will fall flat. A seemingly big number is one thing, but if everyone you know still didn't get a job (which they probably didn't) then it still looks pretty bad.

[kentuck]

17. I've heard that also.......

150,000 + jobs just to stay even with the number entering the job market....But the unemployment rate declined to 5.4%... from 5.5%. Also, it is my understanding that approximately there are 1.2 million people for each point of unemployment, so .1% drop would be over 100K people that have dropped off the rolls and are no longer counted at all, so the unemployment rate drops by that amount.