Jobs Number for August
The economy added 96,000 jobs in August. The number is OK, but certainly not great. From a political standpoint, it doesn't really help either presidential campaign. The number is lower than expectations, but it was not a disaster by any means.
With the end of summer, there tends to be a rise in jobs figures. Holiday hiring starts to pick up in October as folks get trained, so we should see rising jobs numbers for the rest of the year. If the September jobs figures (October report) shows 200,000 jobs - which would not surprise me - that will give a boost to President Obama. If it shows job losses (which would surprise me) to perhaps only 40,000 jobs it would boost Romney.
posted by Rob @ 9/07/2012 10:26:00 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
The jobs numbers for August are a complete disaster. There's no other way to look at it. We need about 150k jobs created per month just to keep up with population growth. To put a significant dent in the real unemployment rate (U6 is currently at 14.7%)we need far more than that. The labor force participation rate is the lowest since 1981!
Watching the jobs numbers each month is like watching a slow motion train wreck. If Obama is reelected, this situation will become the new normal.
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." -Barack Obama, Oct. 2008
No, it wasn't a "complete disaster". When we were losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month like we were under Bush - that was a "complete disaster."
We have slow growth - but that is normal during summer months and with the global economy struggling, the numbers are not terribly alarming. If they were a "complete disaster" we would have seen Wall Street collapse and the bond rates change. The debt and equity markets were very tame on Friday and they continue to be today.
The political fallout would have also been significant if it was a "complete disaster" but the poll numbers seem to shift toward Obama.
The jobs numbers have been a disaster for practically every month this year, and last year, and the year before that, and the year before that. The reason the markets are tame, I'm afraid, is because this is the new normal. The markets are used to it. We have NO real growth. It's true that we had a severe recession in 2008 (which incidentally was caused by Modern American Liberal economic policies). Since the recession was severe, the recovery would have been robust and rapid IF there had been no "stimulus". As I've said, a severe but short recession is preferable to a years long period with grinding, spirit busting 15% unemployment. There were several financial panics prior to the Great Depression, and those were generally short lived because the government did not actively try to remedy the situation. The Great Depression lingered as long as it did because of FDR's policies.
If Obama is reelected, why do you think the next 4 years will be any different economically than they are now?
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." --Joe Biden
during the 2008 campaign
We have to disagree on the Stimulus and the role of liberal policies.
The "new normal"? That is not how the equity or bond markets work. The fact is that the U.S. economy, U.S. treasurys and the dollar are about as safe an investment as you can have in the world. Had there been a disaster number the markets would have been spooked.
There is a nice base that is building and nothing appears to be looming that will send the economy into a tailspin. Given that, as the deficit starts to improve through the elimination of tax loopholes, the expiration of Obama's payroll tax cut, and the 3 percent tax increase on those making more than $250,000 (finally allowing the expiration of the Bush tax cut on the wealthy), the markets will be encouraged and more investment capital will become available.
All we need is time and a continued commitment to what we are doing.
The Ryan plan itself increases the deficit substantially in the short run with no guarantee that it will improve in the future. It would just be a return to Bush economic policies that created the structural $1 trillion budget deficits.
You say that there is a nice base building. What is this base and where is it?
Professor, with all due respect, you and the Democrats have been saying we need more time for the past 3 1/2 years. How much more time do we need? 5 years 10, 15 ,20? Ending the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" will be a complete disaster.
The $ 1 Trill deficits weren't created by Bush. They're a unique feature of the Obama Administration.
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
“What I was suggesting-you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,”-Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign
Sorry, but the Bush tax cuts, the $800 billon bank bailout, the unpaid wars during the Bush admin (at least now they are on-budget rather than supplementals), and Medicare Part D are the four biggest drivers of the explosion in the deficit over the last 10 years. All of these things were during the Bush administration.
It is not a debatable point - the annual fiscal budget deficit was already over $1 trillion when Obama took office. The first budget Obama proposed and worked with was for the year starting in October 2009.
The annual budget deficit has not shrunk, but it has also not increased during the Obama presidency. It has been flat. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is a simple fact.
Post a Comment
<< Home