PDA

View Full Version : Job growth stumbles, raising pressure on Fed



Sev
06-01-2012, 09:28 AM
The Hope and Change is steamrolling the masses.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/job-growth-falters-may-123604088.html

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Job growth stumbles, raising pressure on Fed</span>

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Job growth braked sharply in May and the unemployment rate rose for the first time in 11 months, putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy further to shore up the sputtering recovery.

Employers added a paltry 69,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, the least since May of last year, the Labor Department said on Friday. In addition, 49,000 fewer jobs were created in the prior two months than had been thought and the jobless rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent in April.

The report is troubling news for President Barack Obama, whose prospects of winning re-election in November could hinge largely on the health of the economy.

Republican challenger Mitt Romney wasted no time in jumping on the data to criticize Obama's economic policies.

"Today's weak jobs report is devastating news for American workers and American families," he said in a statement, calling the report "a harsh indictment of the president's handling of the economy."

Stocks, already on the ropes due to a steady diet of troubling news out of Europe, slid sharply at the open with the Standard & Poor's 500 index down 1.6 percent in the first half hour of trade.

Investors rushed into the safety of government bonds pushing the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note to a record low below 1.5 percent. The dollar fell against the euro.

The White House expressed disappointment in the data.

"We'd like to see faster job growth," Alan Krueger, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, told Reuters Insider. "We have a large hole in jobs right now because of job losses than happened during the recession."

There were a couple spots of relative brightness in the report. An influx of workers into the labor market largely explained the rise in the jobless rate, and the department's survey of households - a more volatile measure - showed robust jobs growth.

A separate report on factory activity in May showed some slowing but suggested the economy was not falling off a cliff.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to increase 150,000 and the jobless rate to hold steady at 8.1 percent.

Unseasonably warm weather had brought forward hiring into the winter months, and was widely blamed for the step back in March and April.

OVERSEAS WOES

However, the report hinted at fundamental weakness.

"Some had believed that we had decoupled from China slowing and all the problems in Europe, but that seems to be short-sighted," said Malcolm Polley, president and chief investment officer of Stewart Capital Advisors in Indiana, Pennsylvania. "We're slowing alongside the rest of the world."

Data from overseas on Friday was similarly troubling. Chinese factory output barely rose in May and manufacturing activity in Britain shrank at its fastest pace in three years. Earlier data had shown manufacturing activity also declined in Germany and France.

Unlike Europe, where many economies are falling into recession, manufacturing activity is still growing.

The Institute for Supply Management said its factory gauge slipped to 53.5 last month from 54.9 in April, staying comfortably above the 50 line that separates expansion from contraction. New orders hit their highest point in more than a year.

EYES ON THE FED

The weak payrolls report could cause the Fed to move closer to launching a third round of bond purchases. The central bank, which holds a policy meeting on June 19-20, already was nervous over the course of the euro zone debt crisis.

"This puts the Fed firmly in play and they will likely feel compelled to respond. The missing ingredient preventing the Fed from action had been the equity market, but now we are seeing it softening," said Tom Porcelli, chief economist at RBC Capital Markets in New York.

The Fed cut overnight interest rates to near zero in late 2008 and bought $2.3 trillion in bonds to try to spur a stronger recovery. It also has said it expect to keep rates "exceptionally low" through at least late 2014.

Until recently, financial markets had thought officials would likely push up borrowing costs sooner. However, interest rate futures on Friday showed traders now see no chance that rates will rise before the second quarter of 2015.

The level of employment is about 5 million jobs below where it was in December 2007, when the economy fell into recession.

Analysts say the economy needs to create roughly 125,000 jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate steady.

The labor force participation rate - the share of working-age Americans who either have a job or are looking for one - rose to 63.8 percent after dropping to a 30-year low in April.

Job gains were weak across the board last month, with the private sector adding only 82,000 positions. Government payrolls dropped by 13,000, dragged down by ongoing belt-tightening by local governments.

Construction employment fell 28,000 in May, the fourth straight decline. Manufacturing, the recovery's star performer, added 12,000 jobs.

Given the high unemployment rate, average hourly earnings rose only two cents and the average workweek fell to 34.4 hours.

Slower income growth is holding back consumer spending. A report from the Commerce Department showed consumer spending rose 0.3 percent in April after gaining 0.2 percent in March.

Gayle in MD
06-01-2012, 10:51 AM
LOL, now you know you could well have written..."Job Growth Stumbles .01%".... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 02:19 PM
We had been making headway on increasing our exports substantially, and now these developments hurt that driver of economic growth here.

It's hard to gauge how much better our economy would be doing absent the economic difficulties around the world. But it would be better, of course.

Sev
06-01-2012, 02:26 PM
Cant say I disagree with you there.
Right now global economy could turn into a circular firing squad.
Its the danger of being completely immersed in and tethered to a global economy.
Global indicators are not good.

cushioncrawler
06-01-2012, 06:00 PM
Me myself i dont like a global economy or economys. However global economys shoodnt be a big issue.
The problem iz that krappynomix iz global.

Krappynomix rules all over the globe.
Krappynomix iz a mixture of disease and religion -- manmade disease, manmade religion.
The globe haz a manmade sickness.
What will happen.
Who will die.
mac.

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 06:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cant say I disagree with you there.
Right now global economy could turn into a circular firing squad.
Its the danger of being completely immersed in and tethered to a global economy.
Global indicators are not good.
</div></div>

Something like 8 heads of state have been replaced under these trying conditions. It may be somewhat futile, like swapping out baseball managers when the problem is you have no pitching, a front office issue not of the fired manager's making.

But people jerk that knee some, don't they?

Sev
06-01-2012, 07:42 PM
And heads of state will continue to be replaced.

Unfortunately I dont see where all the liquid assets are going to come from in the near future to balance our all these various economies ledgers.

A couple more hiccups could collapse the entire house of cards.

eg8r
06-01-2012, 08:08 PM
LOL, yeah and Obama had the nerve to refer to the Reps opposition to his horrible policy as a "fever". LOL, the only fever has been from the lefties talking about the "recovery".

eg8r

Qtec
06-02-2012, 05:50 AM
What horrible policy?

Its clear to all except you maybe [ and the wingnuts ] that this is what the GOP wants. High UE and slow growth. They reckon that if they can bring the country to its knees- AGAIN- they have a better chance of winning the election.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc)

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU)


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Please tell me what JOB creating legislation the GOP have brought forward from the GOP controlled House?
</span>


Q

Qtec
06-02-2012, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We had been making headway on increasing our exports substantially, and now these developments hurt that driver of economic growth here.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It's hard to gauge how much better our economy would be doing absent the economic difficulties around the world.</span> But it would be better, of course. </div></div>

The USA is doing significantly better than the Euro countries. Things would have been a lot worse in the USA, as demonstrated by the Euro countries in trouble, if there had been no Obama stimulus.

Like Krugman has been saying for years now, austerity is a race to the bottom.
The GOP want austerity on steroids.

Q

Sev
06-02-2012, 06:47 AM
Austerity is a race to the bottom?

The only reason austerity could be problem is if a nations population is supported by government programs, entitlements and subsidies.
The EU is rife with such due to it spends way beyond its means and is dependent on high taxes and continual borrowing to stay afloat.

There is no arguing that a nation with a small central government, low taxes, 0 debt and 0 financial obligations along with a strong manufacturing sector and productive population would have a healthy economy and positive cash flow.

Living within your means works on both the personal and government level.

The base problem lays in the fact that neither individuals or governments live within their means.

Stretch
06-02-2012, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cant say I disagree with you there.
Right now global economy could turn into a circular firing squad.
Its the danger of being completely immersed in and tethered to a global economy.
Global indicators are not good.
</div></div>

Something like 8 heads of state have been replaced under these trying conditions. It may be somewhat futile, like swapping out baseball managers when the problem is you have no pitching, a front office issue not of the fired manager's making.

But people jerk that knee some, don't they? </div></div>

well if it's not the manager, nor the pitching staff, or even the rest of the team, but front office issues. Then fire the owners! How do you fire owners? Start a new league, because this one is fixed. St.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, yeah and Obama had the nerve to refer to the Reps opposition to his horrible policy as a "fever". LOL, the only fever has been from the lefties talking about the "recovery".

eg8r </div></div>

We are recovering. That's what positive gdp growth means, and if you think that isn't so, tell me where you find negative gdp growth-- which month, which quarter?

The 'fever' was that WHATEVER Obama proposed, they were going to oppose it, sight unseen. ANYTHING he proposed. And that strategy was forged on the afternoon of Obama's inauguration.

So we've seen over and over again the GOP opposing their own previous proposals, and in some cases, opposing measures they themselves SPONSORED as legislation. It's appalling, and it hurts the country.

In heavy seas, one must be under power and heading in a direction. Adrift, without power or direction, the chances are that you'll be swamped. The GOP has been content to create this drift, refusing to allow the helmsman to set a course and push up the power, for craven political considerations, not the good of the country.

It's as if a new football coach brought in had to fight rearguard dead-enders from the prior coach's staff, who literally refused to let him even put his own subordinates in place to implement the new required strategic direction. The new coach wants to go to a 3-4 defensive line configuration, and the old failed regime holdovers who cannot be replaced backtalk, and instructs them to stick to the old and failed 4-3. Then they leak to the press how much the 3-4 is failing, and the press fails to equally report that the 3-4 is not being implemented so how could it be said be failing?

If you don't know, the GOP has refused to let Obama staff up the Treasury deputies all during these most trying of economic times, and he's had to make do with temporary placeholders all throughout the deputy ranks.

It is a disgrace that the GOP even to this day, 3-1/2 years into the administration, has not allowed anyone, including entirely qualified and normally very acceptable nominees, to be appointed. And this is across the board, even in judicial nominations. Average presidencies see the reduction of judicial vacancies in the first term, at rates of 50% or 60% reduction of the vacancies. The vacancies have GONE UP FORTY PERCENT in Obama's first term because of nothing more than sheer obstructionism, creating such a crisis on the bench that even Chief Justice Roberts has called out for cutting the crap and getting this problem addressed. Not explicitly calling out the GOP, which would be somewhat a political point unsuited to the CJCOTUS position, although it WOULD be most helpful to concentrate everyone on who is doing it.

Sev
06-02-2012, 04:46 PM
Both parties engage in the same practices across the board when the shoe is on the other foot.

I would like to point that there are some 33 bills sitting in the senate from the republican side designed to promote growth. Reid will not bring any of them to the floor for debate or discussion.

So the democrats are part and parcel part of the problem as well. They are all putting party and politics ahead of the needs of the American people at some level.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 06:10 PM
Geeze, Sev, that isn't true at all. Read Ornstein and Mann's book or op/ed column for the details on how this is completely different than ever before, and that they put the onus entirely on the GOP.

The president is always allowed SOMEBODY to fill a position in the executive branch, even if this or that one person is blocked.

If another president had to go without any appointments being allowed for all the Treasury deputy positions FOR THREE AND HALF YEARS, for chrissake, tell me who you think it was.

He only just now got enough nominees in place to fill the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and to provide the NLRB with the required number to have votes. JUST NOW.

These are not lifetime appointments to the federal bench, and even those, as I said, saw for example, W getting enough of his nominees through to confirmation that his first term cut the vacancies by 60%. Obama has gotten so few of his judicial nominees passed through that the vacancies have gone up by 40%. I repeat myself only because you don't appear to have read this number.

That's bad enough, but to not be allowed to fully staff the executive branch at deputy cabinet secretary levels? Unheard of.

As for the 33 bills, you want obstruction, how about 250 bills passed in the House and never gotten to a vote in the Senate, when both houses of Congress were in Democratic control, because of demands for 60 votes to proceed?

First question: is 250 a lot larger than 33?

Second question: you know none of the 33 bills are job bills, don't you? CALLING an anti-abortion bill a jobs bill does not make it one.

Sev
06-02-2012, 06:33 PM
What I am saying is both parties engage in obstruction in allowing appointments. I am not saying they obstruct the same positions.
There was a lot of obstruction during Bush's time.

As far as the judicial nominees go. Its probably a good thing.
We dont want people in there that base their decisions based on law outside the US.

Ah the 60 vote demand. What a travesty that is. Again both parties at work.

Were those 250 bills focused on 1 subject or was it a multiplicity of subjects be covered. And were shot down like 100's of bill always are in the due course of legislation?

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 06:56 PM
There was a lot of obstruction during Bush's time.

VERY little, actually.

Seven judges. John Bolton for UN Ambassador (he got an interim appointment eventually). I can't think of any other high profile nominee blocked at all. Maybe an ambassadorship or two. The Dems even allowed someone hated on partisan grounds, Ted Olson, to be confirmed as Bush's solicitor general. Back in the day, then-Chairman of the Judiciary Committe, Sen. Joe Biden, allowed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to go to the floor for consideration, even though he did not gain a majority of the committee and therefore could have been quashed from final consideration, as he wasn't owed such a vote if he didn't get a majority vote in that committee.

Just the seven judges alone caused the GOP to threaten the so-called nuclear option, to change the rules midstream that requires 2/3rds Senate vote by a simple majority vote on an instructed parliamentarian ruling. Big furor, and perhaps you remember it?

And were shot down like 100's of bill always are in the due course of legislation?

It might be normal for hundreds of bills to lay untouched by the Senate if the House is of a different party. It is probably an all-time record when the House and Senate are controlled by the same party, with the calendar under one party control in each body.

Not a hard question, nor one requiring digging up ancient history. For the Republicans had both houses of Congress from '95 until '07, including most of W's first 6 years.

Sev
06-02-2012, 07:16 PM
I seem to remember a lot of court appointments going unfilled for Bush.

If Romney wins and the Dems get swept in the senate races wait and see the tyranny of the minority on steroids.

Soflasnapper
06-03-2012, 01:08 PM
That would be the only way the filibuster would be ended.

Not that the Democrats would do that, mainly. But in as much as they did, the fascist march for the GOP would undoubtedly see the nuclear option, removing such power from the minority.

I'd guess they'd try to reimpose it anyway, once back in the minority, if we'd even have elections after a full consolidation of power to them.

Soflasnapper
06-03-2012, 01:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I seem to remember a lot of court appointments going unfilled for Bush.

If Romney wins and the Dems get swept in the senate races wait and see the tyranny of the minority on steroids. </div></div>

Here's a run down summary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies)

It was more than I remembered, although much of it occurred IN COMMITTEE rather than by the use of the filibuster (as the Senate was Democratic majority by a slight margin for a while).

And the obstruction was among the nominees for the appellate bench, not really at all for the regular federal bench.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On October 7, 2004, just prior to the presidential election, Senate Democrats issued a statement complete with statistics arguing that they were not obstructing Bush nominees in any systemic way.[12] Although the included statistics showed that district court candidates nominated by Bush were being confirmed at a higher rate than those similarly situated candidates nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in their first term, it also showed that Bush's success rate at getting circuit court of appeals nominees confirmed during his first term (67%) was less than those of Reagan (85%) and Clinton (71%).</div></div>

Note also that some of the nominations blocked were eventually filled by other Bush nominees, just different ones from the original nominee.

But as for EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOMINEES (not judiciary branch), the story is quite different.

A lifetime appointment to the bench deserves considerable scrutiny, and far more than the staffing of the executive branch (which is per se temporary). It has been a long held position that the POTUS deserves not only to fill positions in his executive branch, but also, mainly deserves to get the people he wants.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GOP Obstruction of Executive Branch Nominees

From: Marge Baker, Executive Vice President, People For the American Way
To: Interested Parties
Re: GOP Obstruction of Executive Branch Nominees
Date: March 3, 2010

Despite the fact that Democrats hold a substantial majority in the chamber, Republican senators are blocking President Obama's Executive Branch nominees at a rate never before seen, according to a review of records by People For the American Way.

From 1949 (when Senate rules were changed to provide for cloture on nominations) through 2008, cloture votes have been forced on only 24 executive branch nominations. However, in just the first thirteen months of the Obama administration, there have been nine such cloture votes: Cass Sunstein (OMB), Robert Groves (Census), Harold Koh (State Department), Chris Hill (Ambassador to Iraq), David Hayes (Interior), Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve), Patricia Smith (Labor), Martha Johnson (General Services Adminstration), and Craig Becker (National Labor Relations Board)

That's an increase of more than 2000% in the rate of forced cloture votes on nominations-24 nominations on which cloture votes were forced in sixty years compared to 9 in just over 13 months. Republicans are on pace to force 29 cloture votes by the end of Obama's first term.

gop-obstruction

A<span style='font-size: 14pt'>n examination of President George W. Bush's term reveals that the Senate subjected only seven executive nominations to cloture votes for the entire eight years-compared to the nine in just the first thirteen months of the Obama Administration.
</span>
Another measure, cloture petitions filed, reveals an even more dramatic increase in the magnitude of the obstruction. Between 1949 and 2008, there were 36 executive nominations on which cloture was filed, while there have been 15 filed since President Obama took office.

Indeed, during all eight years of George Bush's presidency, there were only 15 nominations on which cloture petitions were filed compared to the same number in just over thirteen months of the Obama Administration. At this rate, President Obama can expect 51 of his first term executive nominees to face cloture petitions.

Moreover, the number of cloture votes/petitions may well go much higher-there are currently 69 nominations on the executive calendar. For more than 89% of these nominations it will be at least three months since each was nominated (Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, is expected to be re-approved by the Judiciary Committee tomorrow. She was first nominated way back on February 11, 2009-well over a year.)

In addition to the OLC and other key positions at the Department of Justice, nominees to a number of other agencies have been blocked, including the Department of Defense, the International Monetary Fund, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security.

This sort of obstruction is literally unprecedented for either party and should be stopped. It prevents executive branch departments from serving critical public needs, and it represents, essentially, an effort to overturn the results of the last election. </div></div>

Sev
06-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Interesting.
However in 5 months it may be a moot point.

More evidence of how dysfunctional the government is.