Private sector jobs outlook continues to improve:

[Chizzang]

Look at the bright side... It appears cars will be running on water here in a few weeks

[CitadelGrad]

Look at the bright side... It appears cars will be running on water here in a few weeks

There's already a shortage of fresh water in the world. It will run out before the oil does.

[Baldy]

In a sign of continued improvement in the job market, private sector employers added over 200,000 positions in March and the number of planned job cuts fell, according to two reports released Wednesday.

Payroll processing company ADP said private sector payrolls grew by 201,000 in March, after a revised 208,000 increase in February. Economists were expecting a gain of 210,000 private sector jobs, according to consensus estimates from Briefing.com.

ADP said the average monthly increase in employment over the last four months has been 211,000, which is "consistent with a gradual if uneven decline in the unemployment rate."

Joel Prakken, an ADP spokesman who is also chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, said he expects private sector payrolls to grow by about 200,000 jobs a month for the rest of 2011, with some months coming in even higher. He sees the unemployment rate to falling to near 8.25% by the end of the year.

"This month's ADP National Employment Report removes any remaining doubt that nonfarm private employment accelerated heading into 2011," he said.

Prakken noted that the ADP report showed "broad gains" across all sectors of the economy, including strong growth in manufacturing and improvement in the services sector. In addition, companies of all sizes added jobs in the March, he said.

The ADP report adds "to the evidence that conditions in the labor markets are finally beginning to show some meaningful signs of improvement," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

While the improvement in private sector hiring is encouraging, Ashworth points out that it will take a long time for the job market to fully recover from the declines seen during the recession.

Even with job growth in the range of 200,000 a month, it will take four years for the unemployment rate to return to pre-recession levels, according to Ashworth.

Meanwhile, the number of jobs cut fell 18% to 41,528 from February's 50,702, according to outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Year over year, job cuts dropped 39% from 67,611 in March 2010.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobs-Priv ... l?x=0&.v=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TREASURIES-Bond prices up after jobless claims top forecast



(Reuters) - U.S. Treasuries prices rose on Thursday after the government reported a higher level of new jobless claims than economists had forecast.

Benchmark 10-year Treasury notes, up 1/32 before the report, were up 5/32 afterwards, their yields easing to 3.42 percent from 3.44 percent on Wednesday.

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, from an upwardly revised 394,000 the previous week.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected claims to slip to 380,000 from the 382,000 new claims reported the previous week, but revised up to 394,000 this week. ( Editing by W Simon )

[89Hen]

Obama's going to be re-elected - the combination of no real quality GOP candidates along with an extremely strong position that being the incumbent gives you means that it takes a real drastic downturn or other unpopular thing to happen to not get a second term. But let's not break out the champagne because the private sector is adding 200k jobs every month. That's not even treading water - we need to do a lot better than that.

This

[Baldy]

Obama's going to be re-elected - the combination of no real quality GOP candidates along with an extremely strong position that being the incumbent gives you means that it takes a real drastic downturn or other unpopular thing to happen to not get a second term. But let's not break out the champagne because the private sector is adding 200k jobs every month. That's not even treading water - we need to do a lot better than that.

The problem is that we aren't adding 200K jobs every month. I believe we have only done that twice in the last 12 months. In order to just tread water, we need to add between 300,000 and 350,000 jobs per month, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Appaholic]

Obama's going to be re-elected - the combination of no real quality GOP candidates along with an extremely strong position that being the incumbent gives you means that it takes a real drastic downturn or other unpopular thing to happen to not get a second term. But let's not break out the champagne because the private sector is adding 200k jobs every month. That's not even treading water - we need to do a lot better than that.

The problem is that we aren't adding 200K jobs every month. I believe we have only done that twice in the last 12 months. In order to just tread water, we need to add between 300,000 and 350,000 jobs per month, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Agree....unless, of course, we jumpstart the military industrial suppliers by starting an unnecessary war...wait, no..I mean....nevermind - different topic...

[kalm]

Still waiting for those tax cuts and extra cash in the pockets of millionaires and billionaires to start creating jobs.

[AZGrizFan]

While things are certainly better than they were this time last year, let's be honest, at the current pace of recovery we should be fully recovered sometime around 2017 or later, give or take. Things have stabilized at bit, at least in the private sector, but housing isn't going to get better for at least another few years, public (i.e. government) spending is going to be under a microscope and we're only just now starting to see the reprecussions and fights surrounding that, and the whole health care thing has basically been punted to 2014, so we'll have to revisit all of that again in a couple of years.

Obama's going to be re-elected - the combination of no real quality GOP candidates along with an extremely strong position that being the incumbent gives you means that it takes a real drastic downturn or other unpopular thing to happen to not get a second term. But let's not break out the champagne because the private sector is adding 200k jobs every month. That's not even treading water - we need to do a lot better than that.

After the way he's handled Libya and the trail of broken promises he's left in his wake over the past 18 months,coupled with his current approval rating, he may get challenged WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY. That's some kind of "strong position".

[TwinTownBisonFan]

While things are certainly better than they were this time last year, let's be honest, at the current pace of recovery we should be fully recovered sometime around 2017 or later, give or take. Things have stabilized at bit, at least in the private sector, but housing isn't going to get better for at least another few years, public (i.e. government) spending is going to be under a microscope and we're only just now starting to see the reprecussions and fights surrounding that, and the whole health care thing has basically been punted to 2014, so we'll have to revisit all of that again in a couple of years.

Obama's going to be re-elected - the combination of no real quality GOP candidates along with an extremely strong position that being the incumbent gives you means that it takes a real drastic downturn or other unpopular thing to happen to not get a second term. But let's not break out the champagne because the private sector is adding 200k jobs every month. That's not even treading water - we need to do a lot better than that.

After the way he's handled Libya and the trail of broken promises he's left in his wake over the past 18 months,coupled with his current approval rating, he may get challenged WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY. That's some kind of "strong position".

you may not like it - but the reality of the situation is that his re-elect numbers are pretty good (not great, but pretty good) the GOP has a Mudville 9 of candidates, none of which has emerged as legitimate threat - the GOP primary seems destined to weed out any moderate...

on top of all of that - the power of incumbency is still significant. the opposition to obama is louder than its numbers, not surprising - that's often the case...

[Skjellyfetti]

coupled with his current approval rating,

His approval numbers still look very similar to this:




As I've said many times... Republicans better hope the economy and the jobs numbers don't improve... or they're fucked.

John Bolton is certainly smart enough to realize this.

He will bring a striking message: Republicans can't count on a poor economy or soaring national debt to thwart President Barack Obama's re-election. They have to focus on foreign policy.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bolton said that by next year, the economy will have turned around enough to make Americans optimistic about the future. A year-long budget debate in Congress will have eased voter concerns about the federal deficit—especially if a budget deal is struck to dent the projected U.S. debt, as Mr. Bolton thinks is likely.

The result, he argued, is that Republican Party standard-bearers are taking the party down a dead end by keeping a relentless focus on deficits and jobs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Y'all better get on your knees and pray the economy double dips.

[Baldy]

coupled with his current approval rating,

His approval numbers still look very similar to this:




As I've said many times... Republicans better hope the economy and the jobs numbers don't improve... or they're fucked.

John Bolton is certainly smart enough to realize this.

He will bring a striking message: Republicans can't count on a poor economy or soaring national debt to thwart President Barack Obama's re-election. They have to focus on foreign policy.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bolton said that by next year, the economy will have turned around enough to make Americans optimistic about the future. A year-long budget debate in Congress will have eased voter concerns about the federal deficit—especially if a budget deal is struck to dent the projected U.S. debt, as Mr. Bolton thinks is likely.

The result, he argued, is that Republican Party standard-bearers are taking the party down a dead end by keeping a relentless focus on deficits and jobs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Y'all better get on your knees and pray the economy double dips.

Nice try, but you're focusing on the wrong numbers:
1. The unemployment rate. It went down drastically under Reagan. It isn't and won't under Obama.
2. I'll see if you can figure that one out on your own...good luck.

[Skjellyfetti]

Nice try, but you're focusing on the wrong numbers:
1. The unemployment rate. It went down drastically under Reagan. It isn't and won't under Obama.
2. I'll see if you can figure that one out on your own...good luck.

Unemployment peaked under Reagan in November/December of 1982 at 10.8%.
Unemployment peaked under Obama in January 2010 at 10.6%.

Unemployment is 9.5% as of Feb. 2011 (numbers for March are released tomorrow, so I'll update this).
Unemployment in Febuary of 1983 (the equivalent in Reagan's term) was 10.3%.

So, from the unemployment's peak during Obama's term until Febuary of the 3rd year of his first term... unemployment DECREASED 1.1%.
From unemployment's peak during Reagan's term until February of the 3rd year of his term... unemployment DECREASED .5%.

So far unemployment is dropping at a faster rate under Obama than it did under Reagan.

The article in my original post... that says that the private sector should continue to add 200,000 jobs a month... if not more... would put unemployment at 8.25% by the end of the year. Unemployment in December of 1983 was 8.3%.... pretty damn close to what is expected under Obama. But, we will wait and see.

Still believe unemployment isn't falling under Obama like it did under Reagan?

[Baldy]

Nice try, but you're focusing on the wrong numbers:
1. The unemployment rate. It went down drastically under Reagan. It isn't and won't under Obama.
2. I'll see if you can figure that one out on your own...good luck.

Unemployment peaked under Reagan in November/December of 1982 at 10.8%.
Unemployment peaked under Obama in January 2010 at 10.6%. It peaked a month or two later under Obama than Reagan.

Unemployment is 9.5% as of Feb. 2011 (numbers for March are released tomorrow, so I'll update this).
Unemployment in Febuary of 1983 (the equivalent in Reagan's term) was 10.3%.

So, from the unemployment's peak during Obama's term until Febuary of the 3rd year of his first term... unemployment DECREASED 1.1%.
From unemployment's peak during Reagan's term until February of the 3rd year of his term... unemployment DECREASED .5%.

So far unemployment is dropping at a faster rate under Obama than it did under Reagan.

The article in my original post... that says that the private sector should continue to add 200,000 jobs a month... if not more... would put unemployment at 8.25% by the end of the year. Unemployment in December of 1983 was 8.3%.... pretty damn close to what is expected under Obama. But, we will wait and see.

Still believe unemployment isn't falling under Obama like it did under Reagan?

Do you actually believe the stupid shit you say? There is a big difference. People were actually going back to work under Reagan instead of just dropping out of the workforce or giving up looking for a job all together like they are with Obama.

To make this even more embarrassing for you, I'll refute your idiotic claim with nice "progressive" sources you should know very well...the New York Times, Salon.com, HuffPoo, and Campaign for America's Future.

Jobs Report Offers a Mixed Bag, but Little Comfort

"The United States labor market slowed to a crawl in January, adding just 36,000 jobs last month, far below consensus market forecasts. With 13.9 million people still out of work, the unemployment rate actually fell to 9 percent in part because of a readjustment of population figures and also because fewer people looked for jobs during the month."

The great jobless recovery continues

"But the real surprise was a stunning drop in the unemployment rate of four tenths of a percentage point, from 9.4 to 9.0. Economists had predicted the opposite -- a bump up to 9.5 percent.

To put that last number in perspective, prior to December's drop in unemployment from 9.8 to 9.4 percent, the unemployment rate in the U.S. had not dropped by as much as .4 percentage points in eleven years. But now it's happened in two consecutive months.

Normally, that would be considered great news, a sign of a surging economy. But when the unemployment rate falls while job growth is anemic, the usual explanation for the drop is that workers have simply given up looking for jobs. If, for example, your 99 weeks of unemployment benefits have finally run out, you are no longer counted as unemployed in the topline BLS number. According to the BLS, "the number of unemployed persons decreased by about 600,000 in January to 13.9 million, while the labor force was unchanged." That's not good."

Jobs Are Trickling In, But Millions Have Given Up Looking For Work

"U.S. private employers have recorded 11 consecutive months of job gains, yet the number of people who are so discouraged that they have given up searching for work stands at an all-time high.

However, that may not make job hunting much easier, said John Challenger, chief executive of job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas in Chicago.

"The job market could be even more competitive as improving job prospects entice people who abandoned their job searches out of frustration to re-enter the labor pool," he said.

The labor pool looks like it has sprung a leak. In a civilian labor force 154-million strong, only 64.5 percent were either working or looking for a job in November, a rate that matched October as the lowest since the early 1980s."

Record Numbers Of Unemployed Just Giving Up

"Wednesday’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report on the labor market in every U.S. metro area in June again highlights the effects of long-standing, terrible labor market conditions and the unprecedented numbers of people who are giving up active job search.

Those who stop actively seeking employment are not counted in the official “unemployment” rate. The labor force includes all those who say they are working or actively looking for work. Reflecting the record decline of 1,018,000 people that left the total U.S. labor force over the past year (June/June) and the record net two-year decline of 586,000 people, 40 of the 50 states and 216 of 373 metropolitan areas experienced labor force declines year over year to June.

These increasingly uncounted unemployed are the arithmetic reason that the official BLS national “unemployment” rate, currently 9.5%, is unchanged year over year despite the fact that BLS also reports 919,000 FEWER people employed in June 2010 than in June 2009. (All these data come from the BLS survey of households that provide the unemployment data.)"

It's obvious that you're as ignorant about economics as you are about many other subjects, so I will break it down into a single simple formula that even you should understand: Feeble job growth + a decreasing unemployment rate = people have given up looking for work.

Congratulations, you're the first to receive three dunce caps.

[Skjellyfetti]

People ARE going back to work, Baldy. And the private sector is adding more jobs than it has since 2006.

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a two-year low of 8.8 percent in March and companies added workers at the fastest two-month pace since before the recession began.
The Labor Department says the economy added 216,000 new jobs last month, offsetting layoffs at local governments. Factories, retailers, education, health care and an array of professional and financial services expanded payrolls.

Private employers, the backbone of the economy, drove nearly all of the gains. They added 230,000 jobs last month, on top of 240,000 in February. It was the first time private hiring topped 200,000 in back-to-back months since 2006 more than a year before the recession started.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/ ... 9594.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There were people giving up on work under Reagan too... you don't post anything to compare the two... you just assume Reagan's numbers reflect the true rate... while Obama's is fudged because everyone that is unemployed has simply stopped working.

The economy is adding jobs again. It will continue through the year and through the 2012 election. Keep your head buried in the sand, though. Will make Obama's reelection all the more enjoyable.

[native]

Of course we are recovering - slowly and with structural impediments. Any recovery is despite and not because of Obama and the Dems, who have not yet completely succeeded in dismantling free enterprise.

[Ivytalk]

The really good news in the latest stats is the net LOSS of 14,000 bloodsucking public sector jobs!

[D1B]

People ARE going back to work, Baldy. And the private sector is adding more jobs than it has since 2006.

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a two-year low of 8.8 percent in March and companies added workers at the fastest two-month pace since before the recession began.
The Labor Department says the economy added 216,000 new jobs last month, offsetting layoffs at local governments. Factories, retailers, education, health care and an array of professional and financial services expanded payrolls.

Private employers, the backbone of the economy, drove nearly all of the gains. They added 230,000 jobs last month, on top of 240,000 in February. It was the first time private hiring topped 200,000 in back-to-back months since 2006 more than a year before the recession started.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/ ... 9594.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There were people giving up on work under Reagan too... you don't post anything to compare the two... you just assume Reagan's numbers reflect the true rate... while Obama's is fudged because everyone that is unemployed has simply stopped working.

The economy is adding jobs again. It will continue through the year and through the 2012 election. Keep your head buried in the sand, though. Will make Obama's reelection all the more enjoyable.

Yeah, no shit. Baldy, you gotta drop the racist shit. Obama could produce 100% employment and you'd still find something to bitch about.

Few communities have been hit as hard as mine (GM' s Largest Plant closed here in 2008). We had 18% unemployment and it's now below 10%. People are hiring.

[D1B]

Of course we are recovering - slowly and with structural impediments. Any recovery is despite and not because of Obama and the Dems, who have not yet completely succeeded in dismantling free enterprise.

You're fucking retarded, plain and simple.

[Baldy]

There were people giving up on work under Reagan too... you don't post anything to compare the two.

Really? Be my guest. Do the research like I did (believe me it didn't take very long), I'll be waiting with pregnant anticipation for your response.

...you just assume Reagan's numbers reflect the true rate... while Obama's is fudged because everyone that is unemployed has simply stopped working.

What?

The economy is adding jobs again. It will continue through the year and through the 2012 election. Keep your head buried in the sand, though. Will make Obama's reelection all the more enjoyable.

Ummm...the problem isn't that the economy wasn't adding jobs, it always does. The problem is that it isn't adding nearly enough to grow the economy. You and Obama can hang your hat on this anemic 200,000 jobs created in March statistic, but in order to just tread water, there needs to be 300,000 to 350,000 jobs added every month. It's just too sad that more people are giving up and abandoning their job search than there are finding jobs.

Earlier, I told you there was another important number besides employment (or the lack thereof), and it's just as if not more important than the employment numbers. You're 0 for 1 now so have you figured that one out yet?

[Baldy]

The really good news in the latest stats is the net LOSS of 14,000 bloodsucking public sector jobs!

True, but there are still more people working for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining, construction, and utilities combined.

We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

"If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?"

[Baldy]

People ARE going back to work, Baldy. And the private sector is adding more jobs than it has since 2006.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/ ... 9594.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There were people giving up on work under Reagan too... you don't post anything to compare the two... you just assume Reagan's numbers reflect the true rate... while Obama's is fudged because everyone that is unemployed has simply stopped working.

The economy is adding jobs again. It will continue through the year and through the 2012 election. Keep your head buried in the sand, though. Will make Obama's reelection all the more enjoyable.

Yeah, no shit. Baldy, you gotta drop the racist shit. Obama could produce 100% employment and you'd still find something to bitch about.

Few communities have been hit as hard as mine (GM' s Largest Plant closed here in 2008). We had 18% unemployment and it's now below 10%. People are hiring.

[Skjellyfetti]

The problem is that it isn't adding nearly enough to grow the economy.

GDP has been growing for almost a year and a half now, baldy.

[native]

The really good news in the latest stats is the net LOSS of 14,000 bloodsucking public sector jobs!

True, but there are still more people working for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining, construction, and utilities combined.

We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

"If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?"

[Baldy]

The problem is that it isn't adding nearly enough to grow the economy.

GDP has been growing for almost a year and a half now, baldy.

Really? Actually, according to the facts, over the last 6 quarters (year and a half), we've had 3 quarters of negative growth and 3 quarters of real growth.

Try again.

[Skjellyfetti]

Really? Actually, according to the facts, over the last 6 quarters (year and a half), we've had 6 quarters of growth.



Try again.