WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan Abbey ·
February 3, 2012 at 7:48pm
The Wall Street Journal's panel of economists is universally cheering today's jobs report. A few samplings:
- "Our quick read through of today’s report shows that this is unquestionably a positive report in nearly every way...."
- "This is a game-changer. Right on cue..."
- "It’s hard to find much not to like in today’s jobs report. Strength is everywhere..."
- "The January employment report is a blow-out number. It is strong in virtually every way that it could be...."
Some right-wing skeptics -- Human Events, Washington Times -- are pointing to the drop in the labor participation rate, but another story from the WSJ suggests that this is due to retiring baby boomers.
What is the conservative response? That things would simply be even better under Republican rule?
- Comment (67)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Oh, there's a trend alright, but why do you think it starts in 2009 when the data clearly show it actually peaked at 67.3 million in April 2000? Economists at the Chicago Federal Reserve argue in a new study:
Works for me. Maybe the BLS site only works for people who trust it and they've figured out a way to close it to you? ;-)
Edited on February 3, 2012 at 9:23pmJul '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan Abbey
raycon
Tristan Abbey
I see no reason to distrust the Bureau of Labor Statistics... · 1 minute ago
You actually mean that? · 2 minutes ago
I'm afraid so, Ray. The acting commissioner of the BLS has been there since 1988. · 45 minutes ago
So he's averse to personal job risk. Doesn't mean that Boomers aren't retiring early en mass because the job market is a great steaming pile of CoC violation. Maybe like J. Edgar Hoover, the guy just knows where the bodies are buried.
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Well, be that as it may, Sisyphus...I've seen zero evidence that BLS has skewed its data in any way, just a lot of conspiratorial hand-waving.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Chris Hurtubise
Stuart Creque: Err, umm...
5 minutes ago
That's a sorely disappointing response from Mitt! Obama's policies didn't only slow the recession -- his policies have ensured that the recession will impact us in frightful ways for generations to come! Ugh. · 41 minutes ago
Perhaps Lemony Snicket is the real brains behind Mitt's "A Series of Unfortunately Disappointing Responses" campaign.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan Abbey
Oh, there's a trend alright, but why do you think it starts in 2009 when the data clearly show it actually peaked at 67.3 million in April 2000? Economists at the Chicago Federal Reserve argue in a new study:
Right. The trend started earlier, but look at the slope of that curve starting in 2009! It went from a downtrend to near vertical. And what an interesting way to word their argument. How about,
Oct '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
I still think one of the arguments is that the Republican Congress was able to stop the harm. It's also probably true. The economy sometimes likes gridlock.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan Abbey
Oh, there's a trend alright, but why do you think it starts in 2009 when the data clearly show it actually peaked at 67.3 million in April 2000? Economists at the Chicago Federal Reserve argue in a new study:
You seem to have answered your own question. The study says a bit under half of the 3.3% decline from the 2000 peak of 67.3% is due to demographics. That means that 1.7% of the decline is due to Obama's mishandling of the recession. Without doing the higher mathematics, we can approximate that the real unemployment rate should be 10,0%, adding those 1.7% discouraged workers back to the 8.3% U-3 unemployed.
Jun '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan, both your quote from the Chicago Federal Reserve in comment #41 above, and the CBO report quoted here, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released, affirm that a substantial part of the decrease in labor participatrion is NOT due to baby boomer aging.
And if I understand correctly, the 200K plus new jobs do not actually exist; the statistic is adjusted so that it really means we lost 200K fewer jobs than expected. But in fact we lost jobs. Eventually the adjustments should even out, but they can be quite misleading in a month. And when we have a real recovery, when interest rates can be raised above the rate of inflation and stop the sucking of value from savings, when the real unemployment rate drops from 17% to single digits, it will most assuredly be in spite of President Obama and his party not because of them. President Obama (and to a lesser degree Bush) should be "credited" with crushing damage to our economy, not praised because it's not quite dead yet.
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Jojo, I think you've been misled. The 240k+ net new jobs are real. From Fox News:
Nobody here, including me, is "praising" President Obama's performance as president or even giving him credit for the job numbers.
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Not exactly. We start with 67.3% in April 2000 and end with 64.0% in December 2011. The rate falls 3.3%. [Earlier I made the mistake the using "millions" instead of "%" as the unit. Sorry!]
Now, that's a fall of 3.3% since April 2000 during the last days of the Clinton administration. The trend has been downward since then, so if half of that fall is demographics, then you can't attribute the other half entirely to Barack Obama -- since 8 of those years were under George W. Bush. The math works out to a 2% drop under Obama. You can add half of that to get your own version of "real unemployment" at 9.3% but then you'd have to do that all through the time series as well, and you still haven't shown why things would've been different without Obama...
Jul '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Roberto
wmartin
How much of that is simply due to retiring baby boomers? · 7 minutes ago
Over a million baby boomers all decided to retire simultaneously last month?! I guess it's not impossible... · 30 minutes ago
Naw. They died of ObamaCare!
Dec '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
question for Tristan Abbey
If you go to the following link and recalculate the graph for just 2011 and 2012, it will show that the total number employed declined from 64.0 million in Dec to 63.7 million in Jan. Do I have the wrong graph or am I misreading it?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
That should be 64.0 percent in December to 63.7 percent in January. (I made the initial mistake of reading/typing this as millions.) So you have the right graph: the labor force participation rate dropped 0.3%.
Dec '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Thanks for the response. So a smaller percentage of the labor force is employed yet the number of people employed has increased? If so, then the size of the labor force must have increased even more? But then, would it not follow that the percent unemployed would increase? Or do they only count as unemployed those who file unemployment claims? But where are the raw unadjusted numbers? Are published somewhere?
Mar '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan Abbey
raycon
Tristan Abbey
I see no reason to distrust the Bureau of Labor Statistics... · 1 minute ago
You actually mean that? · 2 minutes ago
I'm afraid so, Ray. The acting commissioner of the BLS has been there since 1988. · 3 hours ago
I assume the BLS answers the questions they are asked. I wish it was possible to ask them for the number of jobs prevented or destroyed.
Nov '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
wmartin
How much of that is simply due to retiring baby boomers? · 3 hours ago
It was mostly due to Census Bureau adjustments, but Sun Devil is right, this is the lowest participation rate since June, 1981.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Tristan Abbey
Now, that's a fall of 3.3% since April 2000 during the last days of the Clinton administration. The trend has been downward since then, so if half of that fall is demographics, then you can't attribute the other half entirely to Barack Obama -- since 8 of those years were under George W. Bush. The math works out to a 2% drop under Obama. You can add half of that to get your own version of "real unemployment" at 9.3% but then you'd have to do that all through the time series as well, and you still haven't shown why things would've been different without Obama...
Here is one site comparing the length and depth of recessions and length of recoveries.
Here's another nifty graph:
Jul '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
You obviously follow this stuff closer than the average bear. Why, then, do these initial monthly pronouncements seem to be followed almost always by sharp corrections for the worse under this regime? Kind of the reverse of the GDP numbers sharply corrected upward for the preceding quarter right after HW failed reelection.
If there's one thing I've seen in my time in Washington, there is no cynicism deep enough to predict the reality. And, yes, the federal work force is highly partisan in general, and are as thoroughly rationalized in the application of their petty biases as the worst hack at MSNBC.
Jan '11
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Let's suppose the population ("P") is 1,000 working-age people. 800 are working or trying, comprising the labor force ("L"). People who aren't trying aren't counted as unemployed. The labor force participation rate (L/P) is 80%.
Let's also suppose that of those 800 ("L"), 200 are unemployed ("U") but trying. The unemployment rate (U/L) is 25%.
Tomorrow, three things happen:
Labor force participation (L/P) is now 75%. The unemployment rate (U/L) is now 14.7%.
The combination of retirements and discouraged workers reduces the labor participation rate by 5%, while the smaller labor force and the new jobs reduce the unemployment rate by over 10% -- all at the same time.
Edited on February 4, 2012 at 2:20amJul '10
Re: WSJ: Jobs Report is All Positive
Yes.
I'd couch the messaging in terms like this: That's encouraging, but... followed by a laundry list of problems, preferably seasoned by a swing-state specific issue and finish with a succinct proposal.
As WC notes, many people aren't "feeling" this recovery. I have a hard time seeing it in the upper Midwest.
I think it's a mistake to concede a great economy for four reasons:
1. Not so horrid isn't great.
2. It is a pointless gift to a relatively unpopular administration.
3. It begs for a third party populist demagogue to gain more traction than otherwise (unlikely, I know, but both parties telling everyone how wonderful the economy is seems like a recipe for it) and we can't be sure from whom the votes will be siphoned.
4. There are several industrial (and tourist driven as well) swing states that are generally hurting worse than the nation. Put Obama on defense in MI, WI, PA, NV and he'll have an awfully hard time winning OH, FL, VA, let alone IN and NC.