Hiring slows as ADP reports 119,000 new April jobs

Only because the economy was tanking when the last Republican president left office.

Since Jan 2010 4.2 million private sector jobs have been created.

 

Wrong. Job rotation (fired here, hired here) is not growth.

 

Wrong. I didn't say it was. 4.2 million is the net increase in jobs since Jan 2010.

 

Obama tool office Jan 2009 and the stimulus was passed in March 2009, we'll start there. April 2012 there are 132,967,000 people working. in January 2009 when Obama tool office there were 131,555,000 people working that's a net gain of 1,412,000, less if you don't count government jobs.

Source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

It's still tanking now, less than 2% GDP growth for all of 2011.

 

That is an unfair place to start. No one (who is reasonable) expected the Stimulus to immediately stop the bleeding.

Bush apologists frequently argued that the first year in office should not be counted because it was "tainted" by the policies of the former administration.

Why treat Obama any differently?

Considering there were ~3 million jobs loss in the first few months he was in office, and the economy was headed straight for the dumpster, that's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good.

2% growth is "tanking"?

So what adjective would you use to describe this:


January 2009

Job loss: Worst in 34 years
Employers slashed 598,000 more jobs in January [2009] as unemployment rate climbed to 7.6%.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Market players were also disappointed by reports that U.S. home prices fell 8.7% year-over-year in November, U.S. housing starts fell 15.5% in December, and weekly initial jobless claims rose 62,000 to 589,000.[/B]
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090122_192905.htm

On Wednesday, the 30-stock Dow Jones industrial average finished with a loss of 248.42 points, or 2.94%, to 8,200[/B].

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090114_103250.htm

598,000 Jobs Shed In Brutal January
Unemployment Hits 7.6% as Downturn Picks Up Steam

The need for progress on those fronts seemed more important than ever yesterday, as the Labor Department announced that conditions worsened more than expected last month. The nation's employers shed 598,000 jobs, the most since 1974, driving the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent from 7.2 percent. If the jobless rate keeps rising at the pace it has for the past two months, it will hit double digits in summer and reach its highest rate since the Great Depression by the fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601156.html

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2008 (PRELIMINARY)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 [later revised to 9.2] percent in the fourth quarter of 2008[/B], (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408p.pdf[/QUOTE]

Continued Unemployment Claims at Record High
In the week ending Jan. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 588,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 585,000.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/continued-unemployment-claims-at-record.html

 

Absolutely. A normal recession ends with 6+% and our normal growth is around 3.5% or so.

 

So would you agree that since 9/11 took place 8 months after Bush taking office, it was Clinton's fault and Bush inherited the attack? You can't have it both ways?

 

If 2% growth is "tanking" the economy was on average "tanking" during the whole term of the last Republican president.

If 2% growth is "tanking" to you, what adjective would you use to describe this:


January 2009

Job loss: Worst in 34 years
Employers slashed 598,000 more jobs in January [2009] as unemployment rate climbed to 7.6%.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Market players were also disappointed by reports that U.S. home prices fell 8.7% year-over-year in November, U.S. housing starts fell 15.5% in December, and weekly initial jobless claims rose 62,000 to 589,000.[/B]
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090122_192905.htm

On Wednesday, the 30-stock Dow Jones industrial average finished with a loss of 248.42 points, or 2.94%, to 8,200[/B].

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2009/pi20090114_103250.htm

598,000 Jobs Shed In Brutal January
Unemployment Hits 7.6% as Downturn Picks Up Steam

The need for progress on those fronts seemed more important than ever yesterday, as the Labor Department announced that conditions worsened more than expected last month. The nation's employers shed 598,000 jobs, the most since 1974, driving the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent from 7.2 percent. If the jobless rate keeps rising at the pace it has for the past two months, it will hit double digits in summer and reach its highest rate since the Great Depression by the fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020601156.html

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2008 (PRELIMINARY)
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 6.2 [later revised to 9.2] percent in the fourth quarter of 2008[/B], (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408p.pdf[/QUOTE]

Continued Unemployment Claims at Record High
In the week ending Jan. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 588,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 585,000.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/continued-unemployment-claims-at-record.html[/QUOTE]

 

Well, we were losing jobs under a Republican administration so many would consider it a good thing that we are gaining private sector jobs again.

 

There it is! Gotta be worse than it seems. The participation rate drops steadily and the unemployment rate stays the same or goes up!

 

How many were fired?

Show these stats. Hired/Fired.

 

Continued Unemployment Claims at Record High
In the week ending Jan. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 588,000, an increase of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 585,000.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/continued-unemployment-claims-at-record.html[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

GDP growth over the long-run has been decreasing in recent decades. This is partially due to the fact that we are a developed nation that has yet to see another massive increase in potential output. The lack of legitimate efforts to improve physical capital, human capital, and technology are three clear cut components of such. However, there are likely more minute reasons for this decline in economic supremacy.

 

It's very pathetic considering we have hundreds of thousands of college graduates
hitting the labor market in the next few months. They will end up living with mom and dad
because they will not find jobs until Obama is long gone. It's mathematically impossible to employ these
unlucky graduates at this rate.

If we were at full employment (~ 4% unemployment rate as under George Bush) then 119K would be
better than nothing. But we are a long ways off from there and it's getting worse under Obama.

 

Sammy, can I ask a personal question. Are you a college graduate or the parent of a college graduate? Your focus on these fora seems to be fixated on this one subject matter.

 

College graduate, but it doesn't take a math major to understand that 119K jobs per month
isn't enough. Unfortunately colleges are not informing their students that this is an economic disaster
that they are graduating into, created by Obama policies.

I will inform them!

 

Most educated students should understand the job climate they are entering into. Universities should not be obligated to inform the student of such a basic reality. As a soon-to-be college freshmen, I have been scanning through news articles to see the unemployment rates for my respective majors. According to the Wall Street Journal, both are 6 percent or lower, a good prospect considering the job market will likely be much better four to five years from now regardless of the President. I could improve my job prospects by deciding to compliment my primary major in international relations with a major in public policy rather than political science. Public policy has an unemployment rate of 2.2 percent in comparison to the 6 percent unemployment rate for political science.

 

There is no reason for you to believe that the job market will be better four years from now, regardless.
Why do you believe that?

We could be in a permanent decline based on the number of people dropping out of the US workforce
US companies going overseas, etc.

I'm saying could

 

Basic economics, my friend. No President is so irrational that we would end up in another recession within the next 4 to 5 years. The path we are on is for an anemic recovery. Even if one takes into account those underemployed, those that can rationally speaking be included in the labor force but are not, and discounts seasonal adjustment, the unemployment rate would still be trending towards recovery. Any policies enacted by the government will likely plunge this economy into a bubble. The business cycle over the past few decades has worked this way.

 

True, but college professors are usually very liberal and never point out the faults of a
liberal president that is damaging an economy. They will only criticize replublican politicians. You will see!

 

Obama isn't irrational in one way. At this point he hopes that more people drop out of the workforce as
that will lower the unemployment rate, which he thinks will help him get reelected. He can't get
it lower by a measly 119K jobs/month because the working population is still growing faster than that.

 

There is no recovery except for artificial spending. An anemic recovery is not good enough to provide jobs for the unemployed and the debt is still growing far faster than the economy which is a disaster.
But this is not a recovery!

A recovery would be going back to 4% unemployment, much higher home prices, higher stock prices
and less debt. But the real unemployment rate is far higher than 10% right now, home prices are falling and stocks are lower overall. Debt is just out of control!

 

There is a liberal bias in any educational institution. Most teachers acknowledge this. Trust me, political bias is the least of my worries in regards to my education. As one that will be majoring in politically-charge fields, I understand the rules of hardball, especially spin. It is easy to recognize. Every forum member does it, including me.

 

People, such as myself, are interested in why the GOP is only pushing spending cuts and tax breaks as an economic recovery plan? We've been in similar situations before and trying to balance the budget when the economy is weak and job growth is slow has not resulted in turning the economy around. Do I have to convince anyone that the great depression ended when America increased government spending and put people back to work by building a new infrastructure? Money presently is not concentrated in the middle and lower class. Both are struggling. How will cutting funding for programs aimed at the middle and lower classes strengthen our economy or create jobs? The last few reports I've read on fortune 500 companies stated they are making record profits.... but they still are not hiring. How would a corporate tax break to a company already making great profits create more jobs?
I get tired of hearing friends, co-workers and the like comparing the U.S. economy/spending to their own household budget. Stating we need to treat the U.S. economy as such and only spend what we make. Do they actually believe the U.S. economy is no more complex than a household budget? I suppose they probably do... and is why they would vote for Palin or Joe the plumber. I always point out that by that analogy everyone's kids would be dead. No one would feed them. That would be considered a handout or socialism.

 

The Great Depression ended when WWII started. Our Government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year. We could put our budget back on track by simply eliminating the waste, fraud and abuse.

 

Home prices appear to have bottomed out already. That said, I don't think the housing crisis is any fault of this presidency. You also said the stock market is lower overall. ???? Don't just state something because you think it's true. You really have to cherry pick to have that be true. It's down a bit in the last month but 3month, 6month, YTD, 1yr it's up. It's down by 1.93% for 5yr but up over the past 10yr. My point is... for all purposes, the stock market has recovered... but it hasn't had a direct impact on job growth.