http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/07/news/economy/jobs_april/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T3

Quote :

"April Jobs report: Best gain in four years NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In another sign that the recovery in the U.S. economy is taking hold, employers added significantly more jobs to payrolls in April, according to a government report released Friday. There was a gain of 290,000 jobs in the month, up from a revised 230,000 jobs added in March. It was the largest number of jobs added to the labor force since March 2006. The results were much better than expected. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a gain of 187,000 jobs. After nearly two years of job losses, the economy has now added jobs in five of the last six months. With upward revisions for both March and February, there has been a gain of 573,000 jobs since the start of the year. "It clearly shows that this economic recovery can no longer be seen as a jobless one," said Bart van Ark, chief economist of The Conference Board, a leading business research firm."

5/7/2010 2:10:27 PM

Why does all this look strangely familiar from another thread?

5/7/2010 2:11:39 PM

Because it is modeled off Pryderi's old thread from last month that had fallen off the front page entitled: "162,000 jobs added in March, most in 3 years"

5/7/2010 2:14:27 PM

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 2:23 PM. Reason : let's take a look at the bigger picture]

5/7/2010 2:20:11 PM

glad we are telling the whole story and not just pieces of it...
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Quote :

" Employment Situation Summary Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-10-0589 until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, May 7, 2010 Technical information: Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/cps Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * http://www.bls.gov/ces Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2010 Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 in April, the unemployment rate edged up to 9.9 percent, and the labor force increased sharply, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in manufactur- ing, professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospi- tality. Federal government employment also rose, reflecting continued hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Household Survey Data In April, the number of unemployed persons was 15.3 million, and the unem- ployment rate edged up to 9.9 percent. The rate had been 9.7 percent for the first 3 months of this year. (See table A-1.) "

In April, the number of unemployed persons was 15.3 million, and the unem-
ployment rate edged up to 9.9 percent. The rate had been 9.7 percent for the
first 3 months of this year.

Quote :

""It clearly shows that this economic recovery can no longer be seen as a jobless one," "

yes clearly

wasn't there a thread a while back about posting the extremes to move the median perception... is that what you are doing Supplanter?

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 2:24:41 PM

Same article, next few paragraphs:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/07/news/economy/jobs_april/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T3

Quote :

"The rise in the unemployment rate is actually a sign of improving perception of labor market conditions. The increase was due to an uptick in job seekers who had previously been discouraged and dropped out of the job market. There was a jump of 805,000 workers returning to the labor force in April alone. "When you think about the force it takes to get 800,000 beaten-down people off the couch and back on the street looking for work, that's pretty significant," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute."

"extremes to move the median perception"

That thread was about those on the far left doing things like calling all soldiers war criminals or those on the far right calling the president a Muslim foreigner communist, not something as mundane as official jobs reports. If you think discussing official jobs reports is extreme, then I'd wager you are starting farther from center than am I.

Besides, we all knows medians are less sensitive to outliers than means

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 2:49:00 PM

i don't really see how anyone would try to paint the picture that things haven't been getting better recently. Even if you don't want to attribute it to the stimulus, things have definitely begun to plateau.

We have a long way to go (like figuring out what to do about the loss of manufacturing, and the unsustainability of a purely consumer-spending based economy), but at least now we have some breathing room to work on long term solutions.

maybe it was the stimulus, maybe it wasn't, but things aren't as bad as they used to be.

5/7/2010 2:55:48 PM

The stimulus was presented as a method to minimize unemployment during the recession. There was no question that the recession would end eventually. As such, that the recession is ending says nothing about stimulus.

5/7/2010 6:09:47 PM

that is perhaps true

but there were also many, many people predicting doom and gloom, some saying the stimulus would cause this doom and gloom. This has yet to happen, and there's no sign it is actually going to happen. Worst case scenario, the stimulus did nothing, best case it helped.

It's not foregone that the stimulus did nothing, considering that things picked up more quickly than most people expected.

5/7/2010 6:31:30 PM

The next couple months numbers are going to be great as we hire the bulk of 600k people for the census. (no joke)

5/7/2010 6:33:22 PM

^

Quote :

"Broad-based gains: The job picture got a lift from the addition of 66,000 jobs by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is in the process of completing the once-in-a-decade headcount of the U.S. population. But the gains went far beyond that one-time Census boost, as private sector employers added 231,000 jobs. And the gains were broad based, as nearly two-thirds of industries across the private sector added jobs rather than cutting staff."

5/7/2010 6:40:17 PM

Quote :

"Worst case scenario, the stimulus did nothing, best case it helped."

I disagree. Worst case scenario, the stimulus deepened the recession and built the debt which will make Americans poorer going forward. Best case scenario, the stimulus helped the most influential among us prosper during an otherwise deep recession.

5/7/2010 7:28:34 PM

Quote :

"What we see in Greece is a preview of things to come"

Quote :

"There was no question that the recession would end eventually."

Quote :

"posting the extremes"

From those objecting to these numbers can we get a consensus? Is this recovering economy just something that would have happened anyways, or is it not a recovery and instead signs of coming disaster as in Greece, or are jobs numbers just plain extremism? The first 2 objections seem to be pulling in opposite directions, and the 3rd just seems unfounded altogether.

5/7/2010 8:11:08 PM

A couple of people mentioned manufacturing jobs in this thread without numbers.

http://www.webcpa.com/news/US-Added-290000-Jobs-April-54146-1.html

Quote :

"In addition, 44,000 manufacturing jobs were created in April, the largest increase since 1998. "

[/extremism]

5/7/2010 9:11:24 PM

how many so called new jobs are temporary census jobs or government jobs. if the private sector is not hiring or expanding then the economy aint going no where any time fast

5/7/2010 9:56:39 PM

you dumbass: moron bolded it in his post above

5/7/2010 10:35:22 PM

A little under 23% of them. But even with the March numbers, which was a month that was more winter than spring, in Pryderi's thread they were still discounted as census & summer jobs, and as a 1 time thing rather than a trend.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2010 10:58:56 PM

Quote :

"The next couple months"

The bulk of the census' hiring of (total) 600k jobs are in the next two months. moron

5/8/2010 8:03:03 AM

I am one of those temporary census workers (haven't been able to find a full time job in my field since completing my degree at NC State last year.)

[Edited on May 8, 2010 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/8/2010 5:10:31 PM

eyedrb blathered:

Quote :

"The bulk of the census' hiring of (total) 600k jobs are in the next two months. moron"

You got owned, just shut up.

[Edited on May 8, 2010 at 10:12 PM. Reason : //]

5/8/2010 10:11:50 PM

dude all these 'jobs' are temp workers for the census. duurrrrrr

5/10/2010 3:07:07 PM

Lots of jobs are being created for temporary oil spill clean-up crews.

Makes you wonder why the spill really happened

I'm kidding, fuck the anti-environmentalists who let things like this happen. But at least some people will get to work for it.

5/12/2010 3:45:59 AM

Before the "YAY YAY YAY Obama done saved our jobs"..... with the report that just came out:

Quote :

"POLITICO Breaking News: ----------------------------------------------------- The nation's economy added 431,000 jobs in the month of May, and the unemployment rate dipped to 9.7 percent, the government reported Friday. That's less job growth than many expected, and will not provide a boost to the Obama Administration. The government said that 411,000 of the jobs created in May were temporary positions with the once-a-decade US Census, and not the kind of employment that can drive a sustained economic recovery. That meant that the overall private sector employment growth for the month was anemic - up by just 41,000."

6/4/2010 8:58:10 AM

When I was growing up everyone wanted to be a pilot or a doctor or a lawyer. No one ever said I wanna be a temporary US census worker.


Good job obama. There are only two places where socialism can work. In heaven where they don't need it and in hell where they already have it.

6/4/2010 11:46:16 AM

Only in America, where the economy creates 41,000 jobs, can people bitch about employment figures. It's as if those 41,000 positions aren't significant.

And can we please shut up about the number of people involved in the census? It's constitutionally required, and it's not done for free.

6/4/2010 11:52:44 AM

Sure, they're significant..but that's effectively giving everyone at State a job. One college's-worth of people. In the WHOLE country.
Maybe I'm peeved for getting laid off after 6 months, but 41k jobs isn't ANYWHERE near amazing, in a country of over 300 million.

6/4/2010 12:17:09 PM

My point is that it could have been a negative number. We should be pleased to see evidence of growth, even if it's not fully accelerated. Better that there be any sort of private sector growth at all.

6/4/2010 12:23:46 PM

Quote :

"41k jobs isn't ANYWHERE near amazing, in a country of over 300 million."

this would make sense if 300 million were unemployed.

6/4/2010 12:24:15 PM

^^You can always be optimistic. Even on months where we lose jobs, "Hey at least we didnt lose 1 million jobs". The economy needs 125k jobs created each month to keep up with the workforce increase, so anything less than that, is negative in my opinion.

6/4/2010 12:45:58 PM

Quote :

"My point is that it could have been a negative number. We should be pleased to see evidence of growth, even if it's not fully accelerated. Better that there be any sort of private sector growth at all."

Our economy is structurally unsound. Marginal increases in employment don't mean much, especially when we think about how the government comes up with the numbers. People that have stopped looking for work or are underemployed aren't even included in the unemployment figure.

The harsh reality is that we've lost a lot of jobs, and most of them aren't simply going to "come back." The government has made the United States an uncompetitive place to run a business, unless of course you're a TBTF, in which case you don't have to adhere to any sort of viable business model.

6/4/2010 1:06:06 PM

i agree, other countries can't even hire people quick enough because they have so many jobs

6/4/2010 1:12:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

When you factor in that our real unemployment rate is more like 17-18% right now, we rank right up there with countries like Serbia and Iraq. Sweet.

6/4/2010 2:57:48 PM

Quote :

"We've dubbed this chart the "Scariest Job Chart Ever," as it shows how the decline in employment is WAY uglier than in past recessions. Calculated Risk has updated it with the latest numbers from this morning, and now it looks even scarier. Why? Check out the two red lines at the bottom. The solid one includes Census hiring, while the dotted line doesn't include it. What's clear is that while we still have a rebound including Census hiring, we're already flattening out on the dotted line. This is a shape not seen on the other lines. suggesting that the fall is extremely deep, and the recovery is shallow."

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-scariest-job-chart-ever-just-got-even-scarier-2010-6?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CS_COTD_060410#ixzz0pw9ToOdf

6/4/2010 9:14:53 PM

that's proof that Obama is a shitty president

6/4/2010 11:51:24 PM

obama's months go up

6/4/2010 11:56:06 PM

I was not aware he had only been president for 6 months. wow!

6/4/2010 11:57:42 PM

As hope for new jobs increases more people that had given up on getting a job attempt to enter the work force. This temporarily increases the jobless rate even though there is job growth.

I have taken 1 undergrad economic course.

FEEL THE WEIGHT OF MY WORDS!!11111

[Edited on June 5, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : sd]

6/5/2010 12:52:36 PM

Quote :

"You got owned, just shut up. "

So 414k census workers out of the 430k jobs last month? Still owned, pryderi?

6/5/2010 4:40:11 PM

why are people on here down on census workers?

6/5/2010 5:39:03 PM

I dont think people are down on census workers at all.

I think what people are upset about is the crock of shit the admin and some news programs are trying to feed us. For example when the jobs report came out I was at lunch and CNN was on TV. They were giddy talking about how great the jobs report was. They ran a headline that it was the "largest job gain in a decade". But its full of fluff(temp census jobs). It is not a true measure and people with any sense knew this. That is why, later, cnn.com would write an article on how the dow dropped 300 points on a "weak jobs report".

The father of one of my friends is doing the census and he says its pretty much a waste. They got on them for "doing too much". They are supposed to do only one house an hour. So they told them at the rate they are going they would be done in 2 weeks, so they shoudl slow down. Stories like that piss people off, bc its just another example of govt waste/inefficiency.

6/5/2010 6:33:23 PM

If anything, what you just described is why investors are a bunch of dumbasses. If the ups and downs of the stock market can be blamed on a poor jobs report, I don't think the report is to blame.

6/5/2010 7:17:37 PM

You are missing the point I believe. Investors are constantly monitoring thier risk. If the economy is showing sustainable signs then people will invest more, if it shows things arent going so well they tend to take their investments out. And really you are just talking about 3% or so, not like 60% drop because of a jobs report. But it was enough to enough to scare some people.

6/5/2010 8:19:19 PM

Census jobs are not productive. It's just taking more money from the public pool of taxes, which is less money that can be properly allocated by the free market.

6/6/2010 12:52:17 PM

^ that's the sort of sentiment that i don't understand. the constitution requires it, so why are you complaining about tax money being used to complete it?

6/6/2010 1:03:03 PM

The constitution mandates that we find out how many people are living in each area. It was never intended as a way to "create jobs." It was just so we know how many people are living in the country so voting districts and taxing could be done correctly. Certainly, the census as it exists today does far more than the constitution mandates. It collects a lot of other information, like race, and the entire process is terribly inefficient, because of things like eyedrb mentioned.

Jobs can be created in a couple of ways. The normal way is through private enterprise. Some private citizen has an idea for a good or service they can produce and make a profit. Their business might start out just being them. They have to underconsume (save) in order to be able to start that business, or get a loan, but that's risky. Once their business begins to grow, and there is more work to do than they are capable of doing themselves, they hire employees. When that hiring takes place, we have "job creation."

The other way to create jobs, which you seem to be very fond of, is through the government. The government can confiscate a percentage of the wages received by the citizens, and pay other citizens to do work. For instance, the government could hire 100,000 people to dig ditches, then hire another 100,000 to fill ditches. Those 200,000 people would benefit greatly from that. Unfortunately, no real value has been created through that process. Nothing was produced that can be bought or sold, so it's just money down the toilet. That's exactly what the census is.

Yes, the constitution requires it. Does it require that we pay people 16.25 an hour or more to work at a snail's pace, though? I mean, Jesus Christ...there are people busting their ass for minimum wage in this country, and we're trying to say that census workers deserve those kinds of wages? Everyone I've talked to that's worked for the census says it's easy as shit.

6/6/2010 1:19:15 PM

Quote :

"It collects a lot of other information, like race, and the entire process is terribly inefficient, because of things like eyedrb mentioned. "

It collects about the same amount of information, arguably less, than it used to at its inception. And i somehow doubt eyedrb was accurately informed that census workers are only allowed to do 1 house per hour... his (and your) propensity to believe this just shows how irrationally you're really looking at this issue.

Quote :

"The other way to create jobs, which you seem to be very fond of, is through the government. The government can confiscate a percentage of the wages received by the citizens, and pay other citizens to do work. For instance, the government could hire 100,000 people to dig ditches, then hire another 100,000 to fill ditches. Those 200,000 people would benefit greatly from that. Unfortunately, no real value has been created through that process. Nothing was produced that can be bought or sold, so it's just money down the toilet. That's exactly what the census is. "

thankfully, the gov. doesn't do this. Instead, they pay people to perform research so that we can have things like nuclear energy, radio communications, the Internet, computer processors, etc., that have been the backbone of America's wealth and strength for the past century. They build roads and highways so people can go on vacations and transport goods, they funded railways, telegraph systems, and the (world renowned at the time) postal system.

It's mindboggling that you don't realize how much gov. spending has done to create "real" jobs, and can do.

There are a lot of reasons why the US was THE super power in the 20th century, and a weak gov. isn't among them.

6/6/2010 2:04:21 PM

Quote :

"It collects about the same amount of information, arguably less, than it used to at its inception. And i somehow doubt eyedrb was accurately informed that census workers are only allowed to do 1 house per hour... his (and your) propensity to believe this just shows how irrationally you're really looking at this issue."

I don't know about the one house per hour thing, but a couple people from my work did the census thing for a bit, and they said there's really no accountability as far as how fast you work. If you're working for an actual business, they're going to be monitoring you in the field to make sure you aren't fucking around. The census bureau doesn't do that, they just take your word for it. In any case, they don't really need to be collecting any information other than how many people are in each building.

Do you really think 16.25 an hour is fair compensation for a census worker, given what people are making right now in the private sector?

Quote :

"thankfully, the gov. doesn't do this. Instead, they pay people to perform research so that we can have things like nuclear energy, radio communications, the Internet, computer processors, etc., that have been the backbone of America's wealth and strength for the past century."

Come on man, really? You're going to credit the federal government with those advances in technology? Their "research" made it all possible? I'm not buying it.

Quote :

"They build roads and highways so people can go on vacations and transport goods, they funded railways, telegraph systems, and the (world renowned at the time) postal system."

The argument you're making here is essentially "hey look, government did a few useful things. Therefore, you should support everything it does, no matter how much it costs, and no matter where the money comes from." Sure, railways and the postal service are good, but I don't think they're services that the free market was incapable of providing. And, given how shitty the USPS is now, that's not a great example.

The "positive" services that the government has provided is a small fraction of the total money spent. We've spent untold trillions on destructive wars, social safety net ponzi schemes, and general inefficiency that comes about when a bureaucracy is made to handle a task. The government has no incentive to operate efficiently, because there's no limit to how much money they can create. A business has to operate within the confines of its budget, and must constantly work to improve its product in order to stay competitive.

Quote :

"It's mindboggling that you don't realize how much gov. spending has done to create "real" jobs, and can do."

Do you think it would be a good idea for the government to provide a job for every person that isn't employed, and then tax appropriately to pay for those people's wages? If not, why not? We could eliminate unemployment over night.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 2:26:08 PM

^^
Any first-year economics student will tell you the government can provide economic value through the provision of certain public goods, including items like infrastructure that you mentioned.

But what portion of anything you just said requires paying Census workers $16+/hr?

d357r0y3r beat me to the punch so I'll just quote him: "The argument you're making here is essentially 'hey look, government did a few useful things. Therefore, you should support everything it does, no matter how much it costs, and no matter where the money comes from.' "

---

Quote :

"moron: There are a lot of reasons why the US was THE super power in the 20th century, and a weak gov. isn't among them."

True. But there are also roughly -0- examples in history of a country attaining greatness solely due to a strong government. 

6/6/2010 2:28:02 PM

I think the only point I'd like to make here is that harshing on the census is a nitpicky thing to do. There are far better examples of government waste and inefficiency, compared to one item that happens once every ten years.

6/6/2010 2:39:20 PM

Quote :

"True. But there are also roughly -0- examples in history of a country attaining greatness solely due to a strong government. "

I don't believe i suggested otherwise... but a gov. that encourages progress and development is ALWAYS a factor.

Quote :

"The argument you're making here is essentially "hey look, government did a few useful things. Therefore, you should support everything it does, no matter how much it costs, and no matter where the money comes from." Sure, railways and the postal service are good, but I don't think they're services that the free market was incapable of providing. And, given how shitty the USPS is now, that's not a great example. "

How did you get this from what i was saying? You made the claim that gov. spending is always worthless, and I was pointing out it wasn't, and isn't most of the time.

Quote :

"Come on man, really? You're going to credit the federal government with those advances in technology? Their "research" made it all possible? I'm not buying it. "

You are not familiar with reality, I see...
click:
http://mediasite.online.ncsu.edu/online/FileServer/Presentation/38d970d3f0724ee188c274afaf299a1d/slide_0015_full.jpg

Quote :

"Do you really think 16.25 an hour is fair compensation for a census worker, given what people are making right now in the private sector? "

It may be, or it may not be, I'm not familiar enough with what they do to say for sure. But i don't see any obvious reason why it's NOT fair compensation.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 2:43:35 PM