the sparkling husband primitive wants us to keep in mind

[franksolich]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8688153

Oh my.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 10:56 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Original message

100,000+ per month

That's the number of new jobs needed to keep pace with new workforce entrants. Some economists say it is more; some claim it is closer to 200,000. But for my purposes, I'll stay with the more conservative 100,000 figure. That many new jobs are needed to keep the unemployment numbers where they are (if the numbers were actually calculated honestly).

We're now about eleven years into a stretch of essentially zero net job growth. It goes back to the late Clinton years, accelerated the slide during the MORON years, and continues today, even if the size of the job losses are lessened and the trend, to be fair, is in the right direction.

But keep it in mind when you read job numbers.

100,000 per month (or more) = ZERO.

Phoebe Loosinhouse  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. I read years ago that the figure was 250,000 from economists who were skewering the Bush labor statistics.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:08 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #1

5. I can't find any one, reliable number, so I went with the smallest one.

The biggest I found was actually 230,000, but with no basis cited.

100,000 is awful. 230,000 . . . . 250,000 makes it catastrophic.

area51  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
 
16. 250,000 jobs needed per month is what I heard also.

LawnKorn (195 posts)      Sun Jul-04-10 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
 
2. That moron Bush kept his buddies in the defense industry employed

Two wars, two trillion dollars of funding resolutions, the blood of thousands of American troops have kept the defense industry riding the gravy train for a decade.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:07 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #2

3. Sorta maybe kinda true

The biggest criticism he got *from the right* was doing war on the cheap.

He didn't even create many jobs in the war industries. He mostly just maintained what they had.

LawnKorn (195 posts)      Sun Jul-04-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
 
12. Yep, what they had (and still have). What they have is one continuous revenue stream

United Technologies - Sikorsky is selling every helicopter they can manufacture.

ATK Alliant Armament Systems is selling every bullet they can make.

For the people in the business of war; business is good.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:50 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #12

14. Sikorsky . . . . .

For what its worth, I have a soft spot for that company. My Dad worked there ( a proud Teamster ) and his wage alone paid from my brother and me to live a very decent life. Not rich, but far from wanting. I worked there, too, in the 1960s. Back then, Igor Sikorsky still had an office there, even after having sold to United Aircraft (now United Technologies). He was quite the old gent, walking the shop floor, talking to workers, and knowing many of their names.

Uh, the sparkling husband primitive employs a maid in his home.

If that's not "rich," I dunno what "rich" is.

jp11  (586 posts)      Sun Jul-04-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
 
4. I don't get how the decade plus of pathetic job growth isn't mentioned more by MSM.

When they talk about jobs, when they talk about our 'recovery' or the current jobs numbers they don't bring it up, of the issue of people entering the workforce, only saw/heard it mentioned one or two times recently.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:16 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #4

8. Because it doesn't support who ever is in power.

Let's assume the stay even number is as I suggest, 100,000.

Let's assume that 25,000 jobs get created. Which headline would you expect to see from the Bread and Circuses media?

This one: "A net 75,000 more jobs were lost this month."

Or this one: "The economy, showing continuing signs of recovery, added another 25,000 jobs last month."

The media report only what their owners tell them to report. Witness: Faux Nooz.

The Three Monkey Media. Serving their masters and not the people.

mmonk  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
 
6. Does that figure factor in the amount of those leaving the workforce for retirement? I asked just so as to separate jobs needed figure from rehiring for existing positions which would be available jobs in flux.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:20 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #6

9. In think all those sorts of issues are factored in

That accounts for a lot of the wide range of numbers used to describe the net job growth needed to simply sustain us where we are.

The situation looks far more bleak when even higher numbers are used.

mmonk  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
 
10. OK. I agree it looks bleak.

Selatius (1000+ posts)      Sun Jul-04-10 11:16 AM
franksolich's FAVORITE PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

7. The quality of the jobs is also a major issue. The new jobs often don't pay as well as the old.

You're going to take a union manufacturing job and send it to China. The job paid 45,000/year after collective bargaining agreements were in place with pensions and a health insurance package with an affordable premium/deductible. What are you going to replace that with once the job and the manufacturing equipment is disassembled and sent out of the country? A non-union service sector job paying a fraction of that with less benefits because there are no labor unions to negotiate a better deal?

And how exactly can an economy continue functioning when people have less or even no income? It can't. It will fall into a protracted depression that will take tremendous money and resources to reverse. We need a new FDR. We need a ****ing jobs program; we need a program to rebuild our rotting infrastructure; and we need to become self-sufficient as a country once again, or it's game over for the US as a world player.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:28 AM
#05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009; THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #7

11. I would bet ANYTHING that such a number exists

I can't imagine that sophisticated economists don't have some way to weight job quality.

I am neither a statistician or an economist, but I can imagine a McDonald's clean-up person as a job with a weight of 1 and a brain surgeon having a weight of 15. If one of each job were created or lost, the "job creation index" would be 16. If we created one McD job and lost one brain surgeon, the "job creation index" would be -14.

Coyote_Bandit  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jul-04-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
 
13. The job market has been declining for decades.

So has the willingness of the government and the banksters to help finance skiled workers who want to start their own businesses.

Folks who can't find a job also can't find the capital to create their own. And if they could they couldn't insure against the catastrophic clusterfuc we call a healthcare system.

Clearly those who captain and pilot the ship could care less about those who power it.

After which a statistical primitive provides some statistics, and the campfire abruptly dies.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Stinky surprised me there with a rare bit of intellectual honestly, tracking back farther than just the Bush administration to explain background on that stat.  Naturally he couldn't maintain that thought, both due to the nature of DU and his own fogged brain, but it was an unexpected shred of reality in one of his usually-bombastic missives.

[delilahmused]

How is it possible to have lost jobs during the Bush admin (well except at the end after the dems took congress) when it was always betwee 4 & 5%?

Cindie

[formerlurker]

That's the number of new jobs needed to keep pace with new workforce entrants. Some economists say it is more; some claim it is closer to 200,000. But for my purposes, I'll stay with the more conservative 100,000 figure. That many new jobs are needed to keep the unemployment numbers where they are (if the numbers were actually calculated honestly).

The more conservative number would be 200,000.   

[DumbAss Tanker]

How is it possible to have lost jobs during the Bush admin (well except at the end after the dems took congress) when it was always betwee 4 & 5%?

Cindie

It's impossible to say what he really meant there, since he starts out by clearly distancing whatever statistical basis he is using to generate hi big picture from the official Labor Dept. method of calculating unemployment (To include when those out of work drop out of it), but doesn't really specify what he's doing instead.  Don't get caught in the trap of thinking his stupid ravings actually make some sort of sense.

[USA4ME]

Stinky The Clown

Because it doesn't support who ever is in power.

Let's assume the stay even number is as I suggest, 100,000.

Let's assume that 25,000 jobs get created. Which headline would you expect to see from the Bread and Circuses media?

This one: "A net 75,000 more jobs were lost this month."

Or this one: "The economy, showing continuing signs of recovery, added another 25,000 jobs last month."

I dunno.  You tell me.

From the AP:  Layoffs of census workers will distort jobs data

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZcaad4vI6rCjl8VYLYw6aC4W7MQD9GLQOAG0

So under Dear Leader, the MSM have a "always look on the bright side of life" attitude.  Stinks will be glad to know that Dear Leader is a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, too.  As he said recently, "Unemployment is still at 9.6. Yes, but it's not 12 or 13--or 15."  

Or, I might add, 25 or 50 or 80--or 100. And if that doesn't cheer you up, this surely will: It is logically impossible for unemployment to rise above 100%.

Wait, it gets even better. At this time in 1930, a lot of people were unemployed too, including laid-off temporary census workers. Almost none of those people remain unemployed today. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, in the long run we are all off the unemployment rolls.

.

[miskie]

This is the only U6 chart I could find on the internet that doesn't end on January 1st 2009.. Remember the U6 primitives ? You referred to it daily during the Bush presidency - Now it seems to no longer exist in your vocabulary.





edit -- found a better chart

[thundley4]

This is the only U6 chart I could find on the internet that doesn't end on January 1st 2009.. Remember the U6 primitives ? You referred to it daily during the Bush presidency - Now it seems to no longer exist in your vocabulary.





edit -- found a better chart

Unemployment went down under Clinton, took a jump under President Bush following 9/11, but was on a downward trend from 2004 until 2008. Wasn't 2007 when the Dems took control of congress, and their policies started taking effect in 2008?

[miskie]

Unemployment went down under Clinton, took a jump under President Bush following 9/11, but was on a downward trend from 2004 until 2008. Wasn't 2007 when the Dems took control of congress, and their policies started taking effect in 2008?

Why yes indeed - How come the 'troof 2 powah' speaking primitives never mention that little factoid.. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Why yes indeed - How come the 'troof 2 powah' speaking primitives never mention that little factoid.. 

It's "An Inconvenient Truth."