Total jobs hits new record high, erasing Great Recession losses

There has not been an increase in multiple job holders.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab9.htm

Explain.

If we continue to see more and more of the nation's wealth and income going to the hands of people who proportionately don't spend it, that will be true.

Many of our conservative friends were predicting otherwise.

Wages tend to pick up when the labor market gets tighter.

I stated my arguments why it was stronger in the 1980s.

Real median income growth has been pretty weak over the past 30 years.

Isn't that statistically impossible? If the top quintile is the top 20%, how can you have more people moving into it?

 

I don't think you understood what I posted. I Perhaps if you click on a link you are quoting you may understand... or not.

 

I was going to make a remark about you swishing your tail, but I don't think it would pass the censors. ; )

 

LMAO!!! yall are determined to make me choke today!

 

Obama's budget go nowhere because Congress isn't going to agree on one.

 

I'm sure you've noticed how nicely your portfolio has been going up despite many bad reports. That's because it has everything to do with the Feds QE monetary policy and nothing to do with congress and the WH.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean because both the democrats and republicans won't agree on Obama's budget, right? You are aware he did submit one to the Senate?

 

Both the House and Senate have to agree on a budget. Ain't happening, and to blame that on Obama is silly.

 

If they are retiring, then that would be reflected in their labour share, as well as their overall amount of people who are employed at that age. Labor force status flows does not reflect a surge in people moving from employment to retirement.

That is how Labour Force Status Flows are conducted. It works on a 3 x 3 matrix, that determines who moves from what labor force status, depending upon your status. You either move from Employed to Not In The Labour Force (EN), Unemployed to Not In The Labour Force (UN), or Not In The Labour Force to Not In The Labour Force (NN). NN marks people who are not in the labour force, who remained out of the labour force. Increases in this matrix. These are net over-the-month changes, which determines whether or not the changes resulted in people finding jobs (UE, NE), people retiring (EN), or discouraged unemployed people leaving the labor force (UN).

Looking at the example from last month.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_flows_current.htm

There are 92,009 thousand people who are not in the labour force. 4,041 thousand were EN, 2,289 were UN, and 85,366 were NN, meaning, they remained out of the labour force. Net over-the-month, -71,000 were EN, -259,00 went from UN, and +378 NN. The total number of people out of the labour force declined by 9,000, while no one moved from EN or UN. The growth of people who remained out of the labor force is attributed to people moving into that category in previous months.

In order to leave the labor force, you have to first be part of it. Majority of the entering that category were either unemployed or were never part of the labour force to begin with, including people entering the population (313,000 people entering the population last month, who was never part of the labour force).

 

And what happened to it?

 

No, straw king, I didn't say that, but nice try as usual at totally avoiding the very real substantive issues with the stats, their collection and reporting raised in the linked articles. I knew you had nothing, just aping the latest BLS stats.

 

Just the thousands of people who work and all the Govt agencies that prepare stats. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Or stated in another way....
Bush increased the annual Deficit by 1.7 Trillon
Obama reduced the annual deficit by 760 Billion

 

Lol . Obamas best year is 200 billion over bushes average . 200 billion !

 

Bush took office with a surplus, and left what he left. There's no getting around it. It's not opinion. It's fact.

 

What's really funny is that when the left sees a phrase like "official government sources" it thinks "smart, educated people wiser than myself." When the rest of us see it, we think "keystone kops" or "folks that couldn't cut it in any real capacity, compiling stats or otherwise." Or folks who do things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxU6n4pAnrU

Mark my words, we will see "miraculous improvement" in employment every month til the midterms.

As far as the thread, vixen and stjames already ended it with the stats on the craptastic jobs we've been "growing" since 2008. There is -no- answer for that, unless folks like wearing an Olive Garden apron and asking "more soup and breadsticks?" 200 times a day.

 

Since the trough of the recession, there has, as well as last month. Mutliple job holders increased 20,000 last month, 457,000 since their trough in 2010. They account for nearly 1 million of the job growth since 2010. Compared to previous years, there were more job holders in the economy, but the data can be explained as to why there are so large divergences between CES and CPS.

Financialisation is when leverage and information asymmetry replaces innovation and productive investment as the main source of wealth creation. When investment returns exceed economic growth, the rich get richer. The wealthy only need to invest 1/5th of their gains for their wealth to grow at the same rate of the economy.

The wealthy grab a larger share of wealth simply because they use their money better, and are better equipped to do so. It's just that simple.

It is already true. Consumer spending has relatively become weaker as time marched on. U.S. long-term growth prospects may have been harmed by the consumer boom that played out in the decades before the crash.

Well, shame on them.

That won't happen with the amount of jobs that are being created, considering people would rather be unemployed than take them. In fact, most of the job creation isn't the result of job creation at all. It's the result of firms and establishments laying people off less, as hiring is particularly suggish.

So why exactly should it be impressive that annual private payroll growth is higher in this recession than the one in the 1980's?

It has?

Sure it can. The percentage distribution of families between the 25,000 - 75,000 has declined since the 1970's, while the lower income categories have remained flat. Percentage distribution of families $75,000 and up have increased, according to the census.

 

Obamas average is twice as high ( actually over twice ) as bush ! You know , the statistic that looks at an overall not just a blip on radar ...
Obamas average yearly deficit = 973 billion

Bush's average yearly deficit = 443.43 billion

That's a fact , not an opinion !

 

We've already established that. I agree with your fact. Do you agree with mine as well. After all, it is a fact that Bush turned a surplus into a gigantic deficit.

 

But Obama has been going in the right direction, Bush began with a surplus, and ended with a record deficit, that's what Obama started with....

 

Now ya gone and done it. Rightie heads are gonna implode fer shur now.

 

Lol the right direction ... My god .

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely . Then Obama came along and (*)(*)(*)(*) all over everything .

 

In fact, a report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that over 92 million Americans over the age of 16 are not in the workforce.

37% of the population over the age of 16 are...not...working...

Sounds like a win to me. Thats what we get for electing someone who has never created a single job in his life.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/372-percentage-not-labor-force-remains-36-year-high

 

Okay?????

 

Once again.... Less people are employed today than there was in 2008. More people are unemployed today that at any time during the previous president's era. More people have simply given up seeking employment than at any time since the Great Depression.

The news is not good, nor is it encouraging in any way. Obama will get the credit he deserves for the results of his policies.