244,000 jobs added in April, unemployment rises to 9%

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?_r=1

Wow, considering that 221,000 jobs were added in March I'm fairly surprised to see unemployment go from 8.8% to 9.0% this month. Pretty depressing stuff honestly, though perhaps expecting unemployment to fall five months in a row is unrealistic of me.

Thoughts on this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?_r=1

Wow, considering that 221,000 jobs were added in March I'm fairly surprised to see unemployment go from 8.8% to 9.0% this month. Pretty depressing stuff honestly, though perhaps expecting unemployment to fall five months in a row is unrealistic of me.

Thoughts on this?

but this thread was created to talk about the jobs report not to make some half assed attempt at a political statement. i want to talk about the jobs report.....surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]but this thread was created to talk about the jobs report not to make some half assed attempt at a political statement. i want to talk about the jobs report.....Serraph105

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

Unemployment didn't FALL to 9%. It ROSE to 9%. C'mon people, can we at least have SOME honesty here?

Unemployment didn't FALL to 9%. It ROSE to 9%. C'mon people, can we at least have SOME honesty here?

YellowOneKinobi

Unemployment didn't FALL to 9%. It ROSE to 9%. C'mon people, can we at least have SOME honesty here?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Unemployment didn't FALL to 9%. It ROSE to 9%. C'mon people, can we at least have SOME honesty here?

Serraph105

I honestly think we will see unemployment go down past 8.8% soon in a month or two since that has been then trend if you look at charts , but still like most people I think, I wish we didn't have all the set backs.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13307

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]but this thread was created to talk about the jobs report not to make some half assed attempt at a political statement. i want to talk about the jobs report.....surrealnumber5

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] fair enough it's back onsurrealnumber5

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

we need a

we need a

Serraph105

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

Serraph105

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] YellowOneKinobi

we do have technology though that does work. Part of it can be implementing that technology while another part can be the people improving the technology and once done doing awaw with the old and implementing the new. Not unlike computers and operating systems when I think about it.

I don't have much of a response to your idea of plants being opened in other countries to produce that technology though. You could be right.

There are simply no new ventures to explore anymore.

The internet has been saturated. Stuff like construction is only temporary. Politicians want to cut spending anyway.

Lowering taxes won't add new jobs either.

Technology is so good, a single machine or computer can replace a whole room of workers.

Small busniess owners now are just staying in business long enough to build a retirement account and take care of their kids' educations. After that, the shops close and everyone is out looking for work again.

Inflation is insane. Oil prices are out of control and Big Oil companies are not even following supply and demand anymore. They're refining oil for cheaper now and beyond the demand by customers and the pump prices are still going up.

It's really a bad socio-economic situation right now because everything that can be exploited for business has been used up and worn out and the entities like Big Oil are gouging people because they know they have political clout protecting them.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] honestly we could really use a new bubble. I'm looking at you green jobs. I really see green energy creating jobs while simultaneously making it so we send less money out of the country. We could use another bubble though to go along with that one.Serraph105

we do have technology though that does work. Part of it can be implementing that technology while another part can be the people improving the technology and once done doing awaw with the old and implementing the new. Not unlike computers and operating systems when I think about it.

I don't have much of a response to your idea of plants being opened in other countries to produce that technology though. You could be right.

PS - Why solar panels aren't EVERYWHERE is beyond me. Once again I'll say that as soon as wifey and I buy our first house I'm going to look into that.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]but this thread was created to talk about the jobs report not to make some half assed attempt at a political statement. i want to talk about the jobs report.....surrealnumber5

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] fair enough it's back on-Sun_Tzu-

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]I think that the problem with the 'green jobs' is that we just don't have the technology yet to make new 'green' products/gadgets that work as well as conventional ones and that are as affordable conventional ones. Also, because of wage rates, etc, once production finally gets up and running, I see no reason that plants will be opened in other countries rather than here.

YellowOneKinobi

we do have technology though that does work. Part of it can be implementing that technology while another part can be the people improving the technology and once done doing awaw with the old and implementing the new. Not unlike computers and operating systems when I think about it.

I don't have much of a response to your idea of plants being opened in other countries to produce that technology though. You could be right.

PS - Why solar panels aren't EVERYWHERE is beyond me. Once again I'll say that as soon as wifey and I buy our first house I'm going to look into that.

Same reason hybrids aren't everywhere - the intial "jump in" costs are beyond most people's budgets. You have to wait a few years before you make back your initial costs and see a savings. Most people can't wait that long.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] YAY :oops:

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Where'd you get the number 300 million from?-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] fair enough it's back on-Sun_Tzu-

"In April, about 64.2 percent of adults were either in the work force or looking for a job, the fourth consecutive month it has been at that level, which is the lowest labor participation rate in a quarter-century."

this may be the most important sentence in that article.

edit: and here is why *warning evil math ahead*

population * (1-participation rate) + (poulation *participation rate) *unemployment rate = actual unemployment

300m * (1-.642) + (300m * .642) * .09 = 124680000 unemployed if i entered it correctly and using 300m as pop

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] Population?

YellowOneKinobi

In that case Surreal's math is probably off because there would be a lot of people who shouldn't be included in the first place. Although I don't know the number that you should start with.

Population of what?-Sun_Tzu-

I honestly think we will see unemployment go down past 8.8% soon in a month or two since that has been then trend if you look at charts , but still like most people I think, I wish we didn't have all the set backs.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13307

Serraph105

So When Obama took office, unemployment was already at 7.6% and has rose up 1.4% since then?

Hopefully those jobs will spawn more jobs. Onwards!

Hopefully those jobs will spawn more jobs. Onwards!

sonicare

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

I honestly think we will see unemployment go down past 8.8% soon in a month or two since that has been then trend if you look at charts , but still like most people I think, I wish we didn't have all the set backs.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13307

Blue-Sky

So When Obama took office, unemployment was already at 7.6% and has rose up 1.4% since then?

Pretty clear that there was a massive loss of jobs at the beggining and hit a high in October 2009 and has been up and down since then, but down as a whole ever since. Heck even at 9% now it's still lower than it was all last year.

It's gotta get into 7 something percent if Obama wants to stand a chance chance of getting re-elected though. Although that's just my opinion. He'll probably get my vote pretty much based on how much he is trying to meld his enviromentaly friendly stance with how many jobs he can create by being so. If someone else wants to take that stance and do it better than him Obama will be down a vote.

Looks like giving money to the already ridiculously wealthy isn't working.

Who woulda guessa that right wing policies would fail...

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

I honestly think we will see unemployment go down past 8.8% soon in a month or two since that has been then trend if you look at charts , but still like most people I think, I wish we didn't have all the set backs.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13307

So When Obama took office, unemployment was already at 7.6% and has rose up 1.4% since then?

Pretty clear that there was a massive loss of jobs at the beggining and hit a high in October 2009 and has been up and down since then, but down as a whole ever since. Heck even at 9% now it's still lower than it was all last year.

It's gotta get into 7 something percent if Obama wants to stand a chance chance of getting re-elected though. Although that's just my opinion. He'll probably get my vote pretty much based on how much he is trying to meld his enviromentaly friendly stance with how many jobs he can create by being so. If someone else wants to take that stance and do it better than him Obama will be down a vote.

Hopefully those jobs will spawn more jobs. Onwards!

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

Hopefully those jobs will spawn more jobs. Onwards!

sonicare

hayek described doing such things as net destructive and argued it would actually impede the markets recovery as an economy takes time to reallocate. much like a plant would heal.

... And I'm proud to be in America, where at least I know I'm free...

... And I'm proud to be in America, where at least I know I'm free...

no_more_fayth

[QUOTE="no_more_fayth"]

... And I'm proud to be in America, where at least I know I'm free...

Serraph105

But you lol'ed.

Haha.

Looks like giving money to the already ridiculously wealthy isn't working.

Who woulda guessa that right wing policies would fail...

htekemerald

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Looks like giving money to the already ridiculously wealthy isn't working.

Who woulda guessa that right wing policies would fail...

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Looks like giving money to the already ridiculously wealthy isn't working.

Who woulda guessa that right wing policies would fail...

surrealnumber5

Here you go then

On this topic, I live in new england, and it gets worse every month. All the jobs in demand are moving deeper south. My dad's employer, Alstom Power, laid off 500 people, including him, most got work in north carolina, alabama, and tennessee. Industry is moving around big time. Its all relocating to the south, growing the economy of southern states, but kills the northern ones.

Here you go then

On this topic, I live in new england, and it gets worse every month. All the jobs in demand are moving deeper south. My dad's employer, Alstom Power, laid off 500 people, including him, most got work in north carolina, alabama, and tennessee. Industry is moving around big time. Its all relocating to the south, growing the economy of southern states, but kills the northern ones.

wis3boi

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but there are actually two ways in which that measurement of unemployment can increase. That unemployment rate is taken as the ratio of people who don't have a job but are looking for one divided by that number plus the number of people who do have a job. In other words, the numerator can get larger in two ways: either people can lose their job, or people who were not looking for a job can start looking for one again. If this increase in unemployment was due to the latter cause as opposed to the former, then this is actually a good thing.

(I don't know whether it was or not, just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility.)

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but there are actually two ways in which that measurement of unemployment can increase. That unemployment rate is taken as the ratio of people who don't have a job but are looking for one divided by that number plus the number of people who do have a job. In other words, the numerator can get larger in two ways: either people can lose their job, or people who were not looking for a job can start looking for one again. If this increase in unemployment was due to the latter cause as opposed to the former, then this is actually a good thing.

(I don't know whether it was or not, just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility.)

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but there are actually two ways in which that measurement of unemployment can increase. That unemployment rate is taken as the ratio of people who don't have a job but are looking for one divided by that number plus the number of people who do have a job. In other words, the numerator can get larger in two ways: either people can lose their job, or people who were not looking for a job can start looking for one again. If this increase in unemployment was due to the latter cause as opposed to the former, then this is actually a good thing.

(I don't know whether it was or not, just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility.)

GabuEx

I just saw this which lends some credit to what you suggested.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/06/136045346/fingers-crossed-that-the-jobless-rate-doesnt-go-up