Meanwhile, the Liar-in-Chief continues to spike the football. The empty suit has nothing to hang his hat on. Factory Orders Post Biggest Decline in Three Years
Obama's failure is complete. His own polices have hampered the recovery, and now America must recover from Obama. _
I am sick to death of all this gloating over the pathetic economy. You have heard that Bin Laden is dead haven't you? You have heard that union members are still employed at GM haven't you?
Yes and Der Black Furher and Michelle Antoinette are planning a new series of vacations in exotic parts of the world this summer as usual. They'll send us a postcard from the Monaco or darkest Africa to let us know how much fun they are having.
He can't run on his record, the economy is stalled and still in recession. So, he's reduced to bragging like a mouthy teenager. LOL, what a freakin' fool. I'm laffin' my ass off at him.
If you actually read the story linked in the OP, the picture is far more nuanced. The drop was less than economists expected, and almost entirely due to a big drop in orders for aircraft. Excluding aircraft, orders were generally flat or up slightly. And then there's the ISM report on manufacturing activity, which is more forward-looking: The Institute for Supply Management's index of national manufacturing activity climbed to a 10-month high in April, with a measure of new orders received by factories the highest in a year, data showed on Tuesday. I think it's hard to make any definitive claim about where the economy is going at this point, with the signals being so mixed. The Friday jobs report will be interesting to see.
The Jobs report is pretty much meaningless as so many people have and continue to leave the work force and are taking off the UE rolls.
Um.... that has nothing to do with the net job-creation number the BLS reports. What you're talking about is people leaving the labor force. That affects the unemployment rate. And that doesn't even make the unemployment rate meaningless. You just have to understand what the number measures. That's why the BLS publishes several different measures of employment -- to give the full picture. They're not hiding anything. And also note that people leaving/entering the workforce works both ways. When unemployment is rising, more people get discouraged and quit looking. That makes the benchmark U3 unemployment rate look lower than it really is. But when unemployment is falling, many previously discouraged workers start looking again. That makes the U3 rate look *worse* than it really is. So saying the U3 is "meaningless" merely points out your limited understanding of how the unemployment report works.
Raytri,,,, consmike is just preparing his lines no matter what the report says. If employment growth is low, it is Obama's fault. If the economy added 500,000 jobs, I am certain he would complain that they were low paying or that the reason was because Romney told Obama to pack his bags or something.
You're right he has no record to run on. His campaign is flopping around looking for a cause. For instance, the war on women? didn't really work for them. So now he's trying to take the foreign policy route and do the end zone dance over HIS killing of Osama - it's all "I me mine" all the time. The military just loves that.
Any metric in which the count of unemployed could be zero, and then to tout a 0.0% unemployment as a good thing....is junk.
On what do you base this assessment? Measures measure what they measure -- it's only junk if it fails to measure what it intends to measure.
Because theoritically everyone in the US could choose not to work or collect unemployment, and by the U3, this would be wonderful. Only things that should matter (in relation to employment), are productivity per worker, employed rates, and sustainability.
If everybody who wants a job has one, unemployment *should* be zero. Otherwise your definition of "unemployed" is meaningless. It makes no sense to count retirees and stay-at-home parents as "unemployed." Just like it makes no sense to count people who live on their investments as "unemployed." Yes, they're not working. But they're not looking for work, they don't want to to work, even if there millions of jobs available they wouldn't work. Unemployment assesses the imbalance between jobs available and jobs wanted. People who don't want jobs are irrelevant. Your proposed metrics have their own flaws. We already measure productivity. Measuring an "employed" rate runs into the same issue as measuring unemployment: How do you define "employed"? How do you define the population you're measuring that "employed" rate against? And I have no idea what you mean by "sustainability" in regards to employment.
