PDA

View Full Version : Jobs report ‘pretty disappointing’



Sev
05-04-2012, 03:28 PM
They know it and we know it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Obama bundler: jobs report ‘pretty disappointing’</span>
http://freebeacon.com/roger-altman-j...disappointing/

<span style="color: #660000">See video</span>

Obama bundler Roger Altman said the BLS job report released Friday was “pretty disappointing” and that the health of the labor markets remains “profoundly weak” in a Bloomberg interview. Altman was a deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and a senior economic adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry,
<span style="color: #000066">
ROGER ALTMAN: Betty, I think it’s a pretty disappointing number. If you widen out the lens, we need 200,000 to 250,000 jobs to really make this, or to really illustrate that this is a healthy and strong recovery. We’re nowhere near that. This number, in contrast, confirms the idea of a bit of a pause in the recovery. It’s consistent with the 2.2 percent—the weak 2.2 percent real GDP we saw for the first quarter. I also don’t think that the unemployment rate is a particularly good measure right now of the health of labor markets. I think you have to look, again, more widely at the labor participation rate, and the unemployment to population ratio. Both of those have recovered far less—almost, very little actually—than the unemployment rate, so of course the unemployment rate is going to fall if the work force shrinks, but that’s not a good measure of the health of labor markets, which remain profoundly weak. We lost 8.8 million jobs since the onset of the recession—we’ve only gained back about 3 million of those. So, this isn’t the number that anyone would want to see. Sure, there are a few bright spots, but they’re few and far between.</span>

Soflasnapper
05-04-2012, 06:04 PM
It's true, it's disappointing. But what's the trend? We won't know 'til the next reporting period.

LWW
05-04-2012, 07:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, it's disappointing. But what's the trend? We won't know 'til the next reporting period. </div></div>

Yep, not much you can tell from a 40 month history.

Sev
05-05-2012, 05:58 AM
Its just not a long enough trend apparently.

LWW
05-05-2012, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its just not a long enough trend apparently. </div></div>

I remember a time when the demokrooks ran on a platform claiming that 5.5% UE and a $160B deficit were destroying the nation.

Now .... through the magic of doublethink ... the same people believe that 11.5%* UE and. $1,200B deficit to be progress.

* The true UE rate if the employable universe had not been shrank by the regime in an effort to spoon feed their acolytes with the lie they so desperately wanted to hear.

Soflasnapper
05-07-2012, 12:06 PM
Doublethink?

Sure, on display right there.

Bush had neither 'a real' 5.5% UE (it was likewise based on the decline of the work force which began in his years), nor anything like an actual $160 billion deficit (again, a low-balled technically defined deficit that put war spending into an 'emergency' category).

As your own prior posted research showed, Bush's years saw an average of $500 billion a year put onto the debt, and if he ever had a real deficit as low as you suggest, it would have been in 2001 or 2002 at the latest-- i.e., before the large war spending ramped up fully.

And the $500+ billion a year is how he ended up with $5 trillion more in the national debt than when he started. (Instructions: divide $5 trillion by 8 years.)