Better than expected labor report: 171,000 jobs added

[BostonPirate]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/02/us-adds-171000-in-october-unemployment-rate-7-9/

The U.S. economy added 171,000 jobs in October, a better than expected number in the last jobs report to be released before the Nov. 6 election, according to Labor Department figures.
Unemployment held steady under 8% at 7.9% but ticked up from last month’s low of 7.8% as more Americans entered the workforce.
The number of jobs created in October is higher than the 125,000 that many analysts expected.
CNBC’s Brian Sullivan said that some of the best numbers from the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report were revisions to previous month’s figures. Employers added 148,000 jobs in September, up from the previously reported 114,000; and 192,000 new jobs in August, up from 142,000.
The Labor force participation rate, a metric that measures those working and looking for jobs, rose to 63.8%,

This is good news today.

two things....

Obama has now created more jobs than he lost during his tenure....

We created more jobs than new entrants into the workforce.

 

[BostonPirate]

Public sector jobs are taking a hit. Teaching, policing and fighting fires are now considered elective in GOP land.

 

[star-warrior]

It'd be interesting to see how red and blue states fared under their respective political regimes.

 

[Jack Springer]

A few important points are missing . . .

The unemployment rate went up.

The unemployment rate is higher than it was when Obama took office.

The unemployment rate for blacks skyrocketed, especially for black women.

 

[BostonPirate]

That's a good point.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-19/ohio-s-strong-er-economy-tilts-toward-obama.html

Ohio at least has a strong economy with a lower unemployment rate then nationally... many swing states actually are in the same condition as Ohio. So this could be a good sign for Obama.

Well Ohio is all Obama needs, and this will cinch it. They have been a couple of points below the national level. The auto industry really saved them. That is an uphill battle, and without it Romney needs to run the board. It's not happening that way either.

But You may consider that NY state is ten percent I believe and they are very pro Obama.

There are many factors, but local unemployment is critical.

 

[Jack Springer]

The unemployment rate went up because more people entered the work force.

One doesn't pay attention to the facts.

The unemployment was shooting up during the Bush administration and the economy was in free fall when Obama came in. Get the facts please.

This was a very good job report... and represents an upswing in the economy. If Mittens is elected, the economy will tank.

The unemployment rate has been going down because more people left the work force.

One doesn't pay attention to the facts.

I am happy for the people who got jobs.

 

[andysayshi]

A few more important points, Jack:

In Obama's first term, coming off the worst recession in almost a century, 759,000 private sector jobs were created.

By comparison, in Bush's first term, coming off a much smaller recession, 1,168,000 private sector jobs were LOST.

Yes, I know Bush is gone, but it's relevant because Romney's plan is very, very similar to Bush's: lower taxes, cut Wall Street regulation etc. Many of Romney's financial advisors were also G.W. Bush advisors.


If Republicans had not blocked the American Jobs Act, it would likely have added more than a million new jobs to the current figures.

Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.

Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.

Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.


So, while you may be unhappy about current job growth, Jack, remember that it would be more than twice as good if Mitt Romney's political colleagues had got out of the way and allowed Obama to do his job.

 

[BostonPirate]

A few more important points, Jack:

In Obama's first term, coming off the worst recession in almost a century, 759,000 private sector jobs were created.

By comparison, in Bush's first term, coming off a much smaller recession, 1,168,000 private sector jobs were LOST.

Yes, I know Bush is gone, but it's relevant because Romney's plan is very, very similar to Bush's: lower taxes, cut Wall Street regulation etc. Many of Romney's financial advisors were also G.W. Bush advisors.


If Republicans had not blocked the American Jobs Act, it would likely have added more than a million new jobs to the current figures.

Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.

Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.

Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.


So, while you may be unhappy about current job growth, Jack, remember that it would be more than twice as good if Mitt Romney's political colleagues had got out of the way and allowed Obama to do his job.

Candy, can you say that a little louder?

 

[T-Rexx]

A few important points are missing . . .

The unemployment rate went up.

The unemployment rate is higher than it was when Obama took office.

The unemployment rate for blacks skyrocketed, especially for black women.

Jack, you complained when the unemployment rate went down because fewer people were looking for jobs. That was terrible, you said.

Now, you're complaining that the unemployment rate is up because more people are looking for jobs in the better business environment.

You think it's bad when the rate goes up and you think it's bad when the rate goes down.

More jobs were lost during the GWB administration than during any administration since the Great Depression. That made you happy. Now, job recovery is underway and that makes you angry.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

I'm not complaining -- I'm stating some facts.

- - - Updated - - -

That's incorrect. More people have actually been entering the work force. Pay fucking attention.

You're wrong.

 

[EastMed]

It is indeed good news. But the quality of jobs and pay rates are just as important.

Overall, the jobs trend is in the right direction. The President and Democrats can take some comfort.

The most disturbing aspect of today’s report is the continuing decline of wages. Average hourly earnings climbed 1.6 percent in October from the same time last year. That’s not enough to match the rate of inflation – meaning that hourly earnings continue to drop in real terms.

It’s also the smallest gain since comparable year-over-year records began in 2007, before the Great Recession. Earnings for production workers – about 80 percent of the workforce — rose only 1.1 percent in the 12 months to October. That’s way behind inflation, and the weakest wage growth since the BLS began keeping records on wages in 1965.

The biggest challenge ahead isn’t just to get jobs back. They’re coming back. It’s to raise the wages of most Americans.

http://robertreich.org/post/34831152302

 

[Jack Springer]

How am I wrong? And the "I say so" response doesn't cut it.

You tend to cherry pick the parts out of a news report that support your personal agenda and ignore the rest. You did this with the jobs report.

 

[BostonPirate]

It is indeed good news. But the quality of jobs and pay rates are just as important.




http://robertreich.org/post/34831152302

Economists have been warning that if a training and education fix didn't happen, and by that I mean increasing spending there, the work force would not be adequately trained for the new jobs generated within the system.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...positions-in-u-dot-s-dot-signal-skills-crisis

Even with almost 13 million Americans looking for work and 8 million more settling for part-time jobs, almost half the 1,361 U.S. employers surveyed in January by ManpowerGroup say they can’t find workers to fill positions. At the same time, American employers are less likely than their counterparts overseas to invest in training, the Milwaukee-based staffing company reported last month.

Companies have reported more than 3 million job openings every month since February 2011, according to the Department of Labor.

One of the economic issues we are facing is that we no longer have a work force educated enough to take the jobs that are there.

This trend we are seeing with the under employed is not an alien to be pointed at without explanation. It's a complex part of an equation that most people are not interested in understanding... another education issue, IMO, but whatever.

There ARE jobs out there for people, to the tune of three million a month. The GOP says they are lazy. The Democratic party says they are undereducated, and that's why Obama doubled down there. This is why all economists keep saying that it would take four to six years to see real change in the employment figures. That's generally the time it takes to get an education.

Sadly what is happening is that people in their forties and fifties are really unwilling to be retrained to start a new career, and their Job sector simply has no room for them anymore. They get part time jobs or lower paying jobs, and wait for positions to open that are better.

These are not lazy people, these are the ones that use the foodstamps now when then didn't before. These are the used to be middle class people that have fallen out of the category.

This is a very complex set of unemployed, and aside from education spending, there is little the government can do to change how the jobs market develops... you know ... them job creators and all handle that stuff.

People need to be educated, and the Government needs to make that a priority, or this really is the new america. Brought to you by years of believing as a nation that war and tax cuts for ourselves were more important than educating our children.

Remember the old saying that the children are our future? Well the people entering the work force unable to do the jobs available are a clear sign that is a true statement.

Because yesterdays future is NOW.

 

[Benvolio]

We already pay more per capita for education than other countries, our unionized teachers just are not doing the job.

 

[BostonPirate]

We already pay more per capita for education than other countries, our unionized teachers just are not doing the job.

we pay teachers piss poor salaries, and our employment issues reflect that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-jennings/teacher-pay-us-ranks-22nd_b_940814.html

A few months ago, the widely respected Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released Building a High Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from Around the World, which analyzes how high-performing countries have created highly professional and effective teaching forces. Included in this report is a telling chart which shows that American teachers are paid less than teachers in many other countries.

For each participating nation, OECD calculated the ratio of the average salaries of teachers with 15 years' experience to the average earnings of full-time workers with a college degree. The U.S. ranked 22nd out of 27 countries on this measure. In the U.S., teachers earned less than 60% of the average pay for full-time college-educated workers. In many other countries, teachers earn between 80% and 100% of the college-educated average.

lets dig deeper....

1. Spain
2. New Zealand
3. Germany
4. Australia
5. Finland
6. Sweden
7. Belgium (Fl.)
8. Scotland
9. Belgium (Fr.)
10. Denmark
11. France
12. England
13. Korea
14. Netherlands
15. Austria
16. Greece
17. Portugal
18. Norway
19. Estonia
20. Poland
21. Norway
22. United States
23. Italy
24. Slovenia
25. Hungary
26. Iceland
27. Czech Republic

looks like a real burden... those teachers.

 

[Jack Springer]

Teachers get paid very well in my school district. Maybe the districts that don't pay well should increase their pay if the teachers performed well.

 

[T-Rexx]

It is indeed good news. But the quality of jobs and pay rates are just as important.

This is very true.

Mitt Romney's preference would be for American workers to be minimally paid, because he believes that maximizes profits for the company and the 1%. That is very much incorrect, however. You need an educated, highly skilled (and that means, unionized) work force to create and produce the products of tomorrow. In order to create and maintain such a work force, you need to pay them what they are worth - to the company and to the nation. There is a reason why Chinese cars, ships, trains, and airplanes are not sold outside of China. China does not have the workforce to produce such high quality, high technology products.

The ironic thing is that China is trying to reshape itself into a USA, while Mitt Romney the Republicans are trying to reshape the USA into China.

 

[Kulindahr]

If Republicans had not blocked the American Jobs Act, it would likely have added more than a million new jobs to the current figures.

Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.

The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.

Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.

Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.


So, while you may be unhappy about current job growth, Jack, remember that it would be more than twice as good if Mitt Romney's political colleagues had got out of the way and allowed Obama to do his job.

Thanks for the summary of what Republicans hate: employment opportunities for Americans.

 

[Kulindahr]

Economists have been warning that if a training and education fix didn't happen, and by that I mean increasing spending there, the work force would not be adequately trained for the new jobs generated within the system.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...positions-in-u-dot-s-dot-signal-skills-crisis



One of the economic issues we are facing is that we no longer have a work force educated enough to take the jobs that are there.

This trend we are seeing with the under employed is not an alien to be pointed at without explanation. It's a complex part of an equation that most people are not interested in understanding... another education issue, IMO, but whatever.

There ARE jobs out there for people, to the tune of three million a month. The GOP says they are lazy. The Democratic party says they are undereducated, and that's why Obama doubled down there. This is why all economists keep saying that it would take four to six years to see real change in the employment figures. That's generally the time it takes to get an education.

Sadly what is happening is that people in their forties and fifties are really unwilling to be retrained to start a new career, and their Job sector simply has no room for them anymore. They get part time jobs or lower paying jobs, and wait for positions to open that are better.

These are not lazy people, these are the ones that use the foodstamps now when then didn't before. These are the used to be middle class people that have fallen out of the category.

This is a very complex set of unemployed, and aside from education spending, there is little the government can do to change how the jobs market develops... you know ... them job creators and all handle that stuff.

People need to be educated, and the Government needs to make that a priority, or this really is the new america. Brought to you by years of believing as a nation that war and tax cuts for ourselves were more important than educating our children.

Remember the old saying that the children are our future? Well the people entering the work force unable to do the jobs available are a clear sign that is a true statement.

Because yesterdays future is NOW.

Most of those three million jobs are unfilled because Bush I and Clinton put so much effort into getting people to go to college. If that sounds counterintuitive, well, here's the deal: what's needed for those jobs isn't education, as in college, but training, as in two-year technical degrees and technical schools.

Both those presidents made a sophomoronic mistake: they assumed that since college graduates earn more, if we sent everyone to college everyone will earn more. That utterly ignorant conclusion could only be reached only by completely ignoring the makeup of the workforce, along with the fact that those who get technical degrees/training also earn at higher than the median or average. So like an engineer shunting more water to the canal because he thought it would make more boats move faster, they succeeded primarily in drying up the reservoir.

We have to get away from the false notion that education = college. If we weren't sitting atop a legacy of irresponsible spending, the appropriate response would be to forgive the college loans of people who retrained in technical fields where are these jobs lie. As it is....

Hard to say, when what the Republican vision is to just make it worse.

 

[BostonPirate]

Most of those three million jobs are unfilled because Bush I and Clinton put so much effort into getting people to go to college. If that sounds counterintuitive, well, here's the deal: what's needed for those jobs isn't education, as in college, but training, as in two-year technical degrees and technical schools.

Both those presidents made a sophomoronic mistake: they assumed that since college graduates earn more, if we sent everyone to college everyone will earn more. That utterly ignorant conclusion could only be reached only by completely ignoring the makeup of the workforce, along with the fact that those who get technical degrees/training also earn at higher than the median or average. So like an engineer shunting more water to the canal because he thought it would make more boats move faster, they succeeded primarily in drying up the reservoir.

We have to get away from the false notion that education = college. If we weren't sitting atop a legacy of irresponsible spending, the appropriate response would be to forgive the college loans of people who retrained in technical fields where are these jobs lie. As it is....

Hard to say, when what the Republican vision is to just make it worse.

I think you're right. Massachusetts is screaming for medical transcriptionists. Our healthcare system is happening faster than we have people who are trained and certified to handle medical records. These are data entry type jobs, and you can get a one year degree from Harvard to earn up to 40 dollars an hour.

The Universities are also taking the lead in a host of other ways, that being only one example, to offer community specific certificate courses based on similar needs. This is happening nationwide.

There are also hosts of online education tools now available from any major university, and if you can video conference, you get the same degree as if you were there in person.

This transition into a smarter education system is slowly priming the pump of the american economic engine. The estimated period of 8.00 or higher unemployment of six years or so, is softening and may end sooner than we had estimated because the universities did this.