Total jobs hits new record high, erasing Great Recession losses

"Numbers of jobs" =/= NUMBER OF PEOPLE WORKING.

Many are now working MULTIPLE PART TIME JOBS, in the "fundamentally transformed America".

 

I of course never claimed the number of jobs = the number of people working.

There are fewer multiple jobholders today than in Dec 2008, as I've proved above.

 

The fact that it has taken this long and we still have over 9 million fewer than needed and a falling participation rate is not good news except maybe to those invested in Obama for political purposes.

So you admit he has done nothing?

Have we had a full recovery yet? Do tell me what he has done to get us into a full recovery and to expand jobs and get everyone back to work.

Seeing how it came in lower than expectations which factored in the winter and the winter had little effect.

Still left with your excuses I see.

 

A falling participation rate has nothing to do with the number of jobs created.

If you're going to rely on RW propaganda talking points, at least try to find one that is relevant.

I said no such thing and admit no such thing.

Classic hypocrisy from our RW friends. Obama deserves no credit for the record number of jobs but it's all his fault we haven't had a full recover yet.

And that's about the level of "proof" I expected from you.

Prove the winter had little effect.

It's a fact.

 

The vast majority of businesses are small businesses, they are also the companies that lead job growth especially out of recessions. These businesses don't have billions of dollars in the bank such as companies like Apple or have massive profits like those in the fortune 500 that we always here so much about whenever liberals or progressives want to denigrate corporate profits. These small businesses can't justify the cost of a full-time worker if the labor can be filled by a part timer.

I have seen how a small business operates as my dad ran his own Tool & Die shop for years employing 16 people. There were definitely times when cash flow wasn't always there and he had to pay his employees before himself and many times not pay himself at all. He was smart and paid himself little anyways reinvesting and growing his business. He did multiple jobs, met with customers, did designing and even machining because he couldn't afford to hire more people for these positions. He would go to work before I got up for school and many nights not get home till after I was in bed, and he rarely ever had a weekend off. And his story is much more prevalent in America when it comes to what a corporation is then the international conglomerates that operate in multiple countries and make up the S&P 500 with their record profits (that are actually really starting to fall).

If the economy was really picking up smaller businesses could justify hiring...

 

Actually what you say is not what has been happening at all... The vast amount of jobs created since 2009 have gone to those in the 55-69 age group. In the 23-54 age group there are still over 2 million less employed then in 2008.

 

They are all working age, not retirees.

 

Absolutely wrong. The Labor force includes all people over age 16. That 90 million figure you keep barking about includes people who are retired.

 

The number of people not in the labor force is 92 million. There are 38 million retirees and 8 million disabled.

 

38 million people are retired workers receiving SS benefits. That wouldn't include people who are retired and not receiving benefits.

But if we use that number roughly half are retirees/disabled. There are about 41 million seniors. If we take them out, we get a labor force of 114 million, and about 46 million not in the labor force, which would include students, early retirees, housewives, trust fund babies, and the like, as well as people who don't have a have job.

 

Of course, liberal economic policy is never the cause of anything less than spectacular......right?

The partisan hacks of today are embarrassing the partisan hacks of the past.

 

Austerity is hardly a liberal economic policy.

They certainly are.

 

Oh yes it does.

Then why do you refuse to say what he has done.

Classic platitude by our LW friend.

Sure, that go over your head. Had we entered into a full recovery years ago we would have hit that number long ago, it has taken this long BECAUSE we haven't entered into a full recovery yet.

The fact is the 4th 2013 predicated the slowing while the winter MAY have added a couple of tenths it is certainly not responsible for the bulk of the downturn.
"In contrast, I spent the better part of the last five months arguing that the weather was a straw man. I saw a fundamentally weak and contracting economy being artificially propped up by Fed stimulus, illusory accounting, and massive federal deficit spending. However, while it is difficult to precisely measure the effects of bad weather on the economy, a fresh look at the historical data does tell me that a bad winter usually has an economic effect, but not nearly enough to support the oversize excuses being made by our leading pundits.

According to Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab, the winter of 2014 was one of 18 winters in which North America experienced demonstrably “above the trend line” snow accumulation since 1967 (this is as far back as Rutgers data goes). But there were at least eight winters in that time period that had more snow than in 2014. So it would be a stretch to say that this past winter made a greater impact than the average of the 10 snowiest winters since 1967. Cross-checking those winters with corresponding GDP figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reveals some very interesting conclusions.

In general, first quarter (which corresponds to the winter months of January, February, and March) shows annualized GDP growth that is in line with other quarters. For instance, since 1967 average annualized 1st quarter growth came in at 2.7%, slightly above the 2.55% for the average 4th quarter, and below the 2.8% in 3rd quarter and 3.4% in 2nd. But when winter gets nasty, the economy does slow noticeably in the first quarter. So, to that extent my initial analysis likely underestimated its impact. The bad news for the apologists is that the drag is not nearly enough to explain away the current lethargy.

The average annualized GDP growth for the 10 snowiest winters (not counting 2014) was just .5%. This is more than two percentage points below the typical first quarter. It’s also more than two percentage points below the average annualized growth for the 4th quarters that preceded those 10 snowiest winters. This is important, because the economy tends to develop in waves that occur outside of the weather cycle. So based on this, we can conclude that the snow of this year likely shaved two percentage points from 1st quarter GDP growth."
http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2014/06/snow-job-peter-schiff-2630180.html

"Steve Blitz, chief economist at ITG Investment Research, agreed that the rest of the year will likely be stronger than Q1, but questioned how much weather weighed on trade. “Looking through the rest of the report we see the cold hand of winter,” he wrote in an note, “although I am not sure to what extent the cold in the Midwest caused the level of exports to drop by $40.5 billion while imports only dropped $8.8 billion. Surely the supply chains weren’t frozen in only one direction.”"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanth...grew-a-glacial-0-1-in-the-first-quarter-2014/

An excuse

 

And they are PART TIME, LOW PAYING positions.

 

You'll need to explain the relevance of that comment.

 

As I've already proved, the number of workers working part time for economic reasons is lower now than it was in Dec 2008.

But don't let the fact get the in the way of your rant.

- - - Updated - - -

You made the comment that liberal economic policy is the cause of our sluggish recovery.

The austerity we've had is a function of the conservatives, not the liberals.

 

Sweet but that was supposed to happen 5 years ago, during the summer of recovery.

 

Explain how.

I have in numerous posts in the past. I've said nothing about it in this thread.

It's taken this long to enter int a full recovery because we haven't entered into a full recovery. Yep, that explains it.

We're talking about 1stQ2014.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree it should have happened before now.

 

So will you finally agree the "Stimulus" was a great big lie, to hand cash to democrat supporters.

 

Not at all.
....

 

He is saying we are in austerity because government spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 2009 with the one time stimulus and Tarp spending... completely ignoring the fact that as a percentage of GDP spending is still over 20%, and probably lies in the highest 10 to 15 percentages in the existence of our government. His liberal favored philosophy is more spending, ignore that right now governments at all levels local state and federal eat up about 40% of GDP. The 60 year average of revenue is 18% of GDP with all the fluctuating tax rates of those times... so if we ran at this level of GDP we would be in perpetual debt (as we are)... in fact there are probably only 1 or 2 years on record where revenues as a percentage of GDP were higher than our current spending.

Moral of the story austerity by 2009 standards is a joke when spending as a percentage of GDP is at one of the highest points ever, and to assume government spending is the only way to get out of poor economic times has only been proven to create asset bubbles and mal-investment that creates more bubbles down the road.

 

So even though all his promises about the stimulus turned out to be lies, and the recovery was 5 years late, youre still willing to call it a success?

 

They reflect on each other

Another empty claim.

Confusing yourself now?

Which was predicated by 4th Quarter 2013.

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe stimulus spending the the correct and proper reaction to a recession?

 

Here is a fun chart from info from the St Louis Fed. See if you can spot the trends!

 

That's the totality on your "explanation"? About as expected.

Not at all.

Not in the least.

LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the type and severity of the recession.