Unemployment up but the media claims that is good news.

[PSGator66]

And to think this is where some people get their information from! Don't pee on my let and tell me it's raining.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...-As-Good-Thing

[DaveFla]

Amazing. Not a word from our resident Obama lemmings.

[Dreamliner]

The Obama recovery is working so well that two-thirds say they're delaying retirement.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Amazing. Not a word from our resident Obama lemmings.

Give it time, they are currently in a high level meeting to see how to spin it

[VAg8r1]

The economy sucks. The equity markets must not have gotten the word with the DOW and S&P 500 at their highest levels since 2007. The unemployment rate rose because more potential workers entered the job market, not as the result of a decline in employment. I distinctly recall that the righties had been telling us that the declines in the workforce were bad news regardless of the UER. Now it's the UER that matters and an increase in the workforce is irrelevant.

Some of the bad news.

Manufacturing in U.S. Grew More Than Forecast in January
By Shobhana Chandra - Feb 1, 2013 10:48 AM ET

Manufacturing in the U.S. expanded more than forecast in January, reaching a nine-month high and showing the industry is starting to improve.

Toyota, Ford Lead Carmakers Beating U.S. Sales Estimates
By Craig Trudell - Feb 1, 2013 12:40 PM ET

Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) and Ford Motor Co. led the four largest automakers by U.S. sales in reporting January gains that topped estimates, as buyers return to showrooms to begin a fourth consecutive year of growth.

U.S. Michigan Consumer Sentiment Increase May Boost Spending
By Jeanna Smialek - Feb 1, 2013 10:23 AM ET

Confidence among American households unexpectedly rose last month in a possible benefit to consumer spending, the largest part of the economy.

The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan index of consumer sentiment climbed to 73.8 in January from 72.9 in December. The gauge was projected to drop to 71.5, according to the median forecast of 62 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. It compared with a preliminary reading of 71.3.

U.S. Payrolls Rose in January After Jumping at End of 2012
By Alex Kowalski - Feb 1, 2013 11:22 AM ET

Payrolls Rose in January, Jumping at End of 2012

Hiring increased in January after accelerating more than previously estimated at the end of 2012, evidence the U.S. labor market was making progress even as lawmakers quarreled over the federal budget.

Bloomberg

[VAg8r1]

One more from the same website

Larger Payroll Gains Signal U.S. Job Market Healing: Economy
By Alex Kowalski - Feb 1, 2013 1:41 PM ET

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Hiring increased in January after accelerating more than previously estimated at the end 2012. Payrolls rose 157,000 following a revised 196,000 advance in the prior month and a 247,000 surge in November, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The jobless rate increased to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent. Peter Cook and Michael McKee report on Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop." (Source: Bloomberg)

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, talks about the January jobs data released today and the implications for the economy. Payrolls rose 157,000 in January following a revised 196,000 advance in the prior month and a 247,000 surge in November, Labor Department figures showed in Washington. Krueger speaks with Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers." (Source: Bloomberg)

Employers added 157,000 workers following a revised 196,000 advance the prior month and a 247,000 surge in November, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Revisions added a total of 127,000 jobs to the count in the last two months of 2012. A separate survey of households showed the unemployment rate unexpectedly rose to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Give it time, they are currently in a high level meeting to see how to spin it

No need. We already have a great example of how to spin it from many on this board. When the rate goes down, focus on the raw numbers. When the raw numbers look better, focus on the unemployment rate. When both the raw figures look good, focus on the participation rate. When the participation rate looks better, focus on the U6. Etc...Etc...Etc...

If none of them are bad, just claim it is a conspiracy.

What the report announced: a higher unemployment rate than previously thought due to an increase in the number of people in the labor force. We added jobs this month. We added more jobs than previously thought in November and December (the adjustments added 127,000 extra jobs than initially thought). The population also increased by more than we previously thought.

The extra 138K people were distributed as 127K extra employed, 9K extra unemployed, and 2K extra not in the labor force.

Because of the fact that the BLS changes population estimates in January, simple analysis like "The U3 went up" are difficult, as the actual effect of the labor market is often swamped in January. Or as the BLS says:

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments affect the comparability of household data series over time.

BTW, the market reaction to today's report:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^dji;range=1d;co mpare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=o n;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Yes that is an approximately 58 point rise between 9-9:30AM (the report is released at 8:30). For the day, we are currently up over 150 (at 2PM).

So it isn't just the media that finds it as good news, it is the markets. I guess they must be in on the conspiracy.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

The economy sucks. The equity markets must not have gotten the word with the DOW and S&P 500 at their highest levels since 2007. The unemployment rate rose because more potential workers entered the job market, not as the result of a decline in employment. I distinctly recall that the righties had been telling us that the declines in the workforce were bad news regardless of the UER. Now it's the UER that matters and an increase in the workforce is irrelevant.

Some of the bad news.






Bloomberg

The markets are largely reacting that interest rates are going to remain low because of the dismal jobs numbers. In addition the economy contracted in Q4, so really there is not much good news in terms of getting back to full employment. These jobs number really don't even keep up with population growth.

[wgbgator]

The slight % change doesnt really mean much:

The headline number out of today's BLS jobs report is 157,000 new jobs. Not bad, but not great. As ever, the better information is in the revisions to past months. Here we have November up to 247,000 (from 161,000) and December up to 196,000 (from 155,000). As revised, those are both really solid months and good data estimates.

The better news is that the payroll survey also did a re-benchmarking and found 422,000 missing jobs from last year. The last re-benchmarking from September also found almost 400,000 new jobs. That's a recovery pattern—as the economy churns upward, initial estimates tend to undercount.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/..._new_jobs.html

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The markets are largely reacting that interest rates are going to remain low because of the dismal jobs numbers. In addition the economy contracted in Q4, so really there is not much good news in terms of getting back to full employment. These jobs number really don't even keep up with population growth.

Yes the economy contracted and job growth numbers are slow because of a decline in government employment and growth. Shouldn't you be happy about that? I thought that was what conservatives wanted.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Yes the economy contracted and job growth numbers are slow because of a decline in government employment and growth. Shouldn't you be happy about that? I thought that was what conservatives wanted.

I think they are estatic that they can get what they want and also use it as an attack of poor performance of their political opponents.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Yes the economy contracted and job growth numbers are slow because of a decline in government employment and growth. Shouldn't you be happy about that? I thought that was what conservatives wanted.

Why should I be happy about that? Do you think I want to see people unemployed and families hurt? It is an argument that the economy is not doing well and I honestly believe we have a president who has other interests. It's a plausible argument, so there is no need to imply (or say in wgb's case) that I'm happy about a large number of people being unemployed for the last 4+ years.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Why should I be happy about that? Do you think I want to see people unemployed and families hurt? It is an argument that the economy is not doing well and I honestly believe we have a president who has other interests. It's a plausible argument, so there is no need to imply (or say in wgb's case) that I'm happy about a large number of people being unemployed for the last 4+ years.

So if your concern is unemployment in the short run, you should probably be advocating against cuts in government employment and spending. 9000 families lost a government worker last month. Let me know when you start advocating for their continued employment in government instead of advocating for cuts in government.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So if your concern is unemployment in the short run, you should probably be advocating against cuts in government employment and spending. 9000 families lost a government worker last month. Let me know when you start advocating for their continued employment in government instead of advocating for cuts in government.

I'm sorry but disagree on the premise that we can't afford it and need to concentrate on expanding the private sector.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

The economy sucks. The equity markets must not have gotten the word with the DOW and S&P 500 at their highest levels since 2007. The unemployment rate rose because more potential workers entered the job market, not as the result of a decline in employment. I distinctly recall that the righties had been telling us that the declines in the workforce were bad news regardless of the UER. Now it's the UER that matters and an increase in the workforce is irrelevant.

Isn't if funny how they say it's bad news when the unemployment rate goes down because more people left the workforce. And they say it's bad news when unemployment goes up because more people entered the workforce. They just want to say it's bad news no matter what.

[108]

the bad news is that we have a sputtering economy that isn't going to magically get better with either liberal or conservative ideas

you can't just fix a lack of demand

people know the good ole pre bubble days aren't coming back, nor is there a president at the helm who is going to just look the other way and let one happen, leading to a massive recession

the economy will have to come back the hard way...

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I'm sorry but disagree on the premise that we can't afford it and need to concentrate on expanding the private sector.

Two Presidents:
President 1: 1,913,000 private sector jobs gained. 719K public sector jobs lost.
President 2: 665,000 private sector jobs lost. 1,748,000 public sector jobs gained.

So under each President, similar total job growth. However, under 1 President all of it and a lot more was private sector, while under the other all of it and a lot more was public sector.

Which did you support?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Two Presidents:
President 1: 1,913,000 private sector jobs gained. 719K public sector jobs lost.
President 2: 665,000 private sector jobs lost. 1,748,000 public sector jobs gained.

So under each President, similar total job growth. However, under 1 President all of it and a lot more was private sector, while under the other all of it and a lot more was public sector.

Which did you support?

md, you have apples and oranges going on here. The cuts that took place where by states and local government which has nothing to do with the president. The payroll for the federal government has grown under Obama. You are in merky waters.

[gatordowneast]

Obama wants to condition us to think that 11% unemployment (the real #) is the new normal. Adding in part timers who want full time and those who have essentially given up, you are in the 14-15% range.

And we still have 4 M + less people working in this country than we did in 2007. And the population has expanded by 15 M since then.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

md, you have apples and oranges going on here. The cuts that took place where by states and local government which has nothing to do with the president. The payroll for the federal government has grown under Obama. You are in merky waters.

Federal government employment is up 2,000 from January 2009 and down 5,000 from his first full month on the job in February 2009. So it is basically flat, despite population growth.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...9091000001.txt

But you said we should focus on private sector rather than public sector job growth. That appears to be exactly what we are doing.