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 Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :


Joined
Jul '10
Palaeologus

BTW, it's good to see you posting here again, Tristan.

Tristan Abbey
Joined
Jan '11
Tristan Abbey
Palaeologus: BTW, it's good to see you posting here again, Tristan. · 6 minutes ago

Glad to be back! ;-)


Joined
Apr '11
NormD

ZeroHedge says

ZeroHedge

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/implied-unemployment-rate-rises-115-spread-propaganda-number-surges-30-year-high


Joined
Dec '11
Ralph Baskett

 Thanks, Tristan Abbey for spelling it out for me.

Muleskinner
Joined
Dec '11
Muleskinner

 

Before we get too happy, or depressed, about the employment numbers, consider this. The US economy is still down 5.6 million jobs from the December 2007 peak. At January's 243,000-job increase, it will still take 27 months to get employment back to the pre-recession level.

 

One thing that I've not seen commented on is the demographic intersection of boomers and extended unemployment benefits. It seems possible that some of the seemingly odd drops in the unemployment rate due to drops in the worker participation rate, might be due to boomers who stayed in the workforce an extra year or two to collect extended unemployment. I have no idea how prevalent this is, but it is possible to receive both social security and extended unemployment. Now that the extensions have been running out, those affected boomers are leaving the workforce, and reducing the participation rate.


Joined
Dec '11
Ralph Baskett

 So, Tristan Abbey, the other part of of my question was about the "real unadjusted, unmassaged, unmanipulated numbers."   This link asserts they were down but does not supply the source.  

 http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/deconstructing-massive-beat-employment-data

Quote from above link:

"I like to look behind the headlines at the real unadjusted, unmassaged, unmanipulated numbers to get some idea of what's really going on. Here's where things get strange. Total reported employment and full time employment plunged in January, as is normal for that month."

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

So the Bureau of Labor Statistics looks at the loss of 2.5 million jobs, and they say, “Well, we think 1.2 million have just decided to give up looking for work so we won’t count half of them, just to make things more accurate.” And even with that major cheat, that still leaves more than a million-and-a-half lost jobs unaccounted for. Fewer people looking for jobs brings down the jobless rate. In this case, not more people finding jobs brings down the jobless rate. Fewer people looking for jobs is what’s bringing the unemployment rate down. There isn’t job creation going on. Not to the tune the regime wants you to believe it. It just isn’t happening.

Source: Explaining Obama's Fake Job Numbers


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In