162K Jobs Added In March

Good news:

The nation's economy posted its largest job gain in three years in March, while the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent for the third straight month. [. . .] The Labor Department said employers added 162,000 jobs in March, the most since the recession began but below analysts' expectations of 190,000. The total includes 48,000 temporary workers hired for the U.S. Census, also fewer than many economists forecast. Private employers added 123,000 jobs, the most since May 2007.

Sustainability is a question, but this is a good report.

< Never Met A Primary Challenge He Liked | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Census (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    A part of me feels like I shouldn't mail it in just so they will need to hire someone.

    A jobs a job.

    For some unknown reason, the census (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    form mailed to my address has vanished.  My thought is the visiting census enumerator may have disappeared it.

    mine is filled out (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    sitting on the coffee table.  Maybe I'll just hand it to them if they show up.  But I am serious, it does seem like a way for the public to influence government spending on jobs.

    I know a lot of people may consider it a waste of tax payer money, and I'd rather have it going toward a job that does something more productive than just deliver the mail I didn't bother to send, but at the same time, whatever puts money in an umemployed person's pocket is a good thing to me.


    Definitely. Formerly unemployed (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    offspring begins working for census very soon.

    not to mention it is required (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    by the constitution.  even Michelle Bachman is on board now that she has learned if her constituents dont mail back their forms her seat may disappear.

    It takes 125K jobs each month (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Makarov on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    125K jobs are needed each month just to meet the average number of new entries to the job market. Subtract 48K census jobs, many of which will be done by the end of the 3rd quarter, and you can understand why Obama's Economic Brain Trust said last month that unemployment could see an up tick later in the year.

    Until you see employment growing in the neighborhood of 150K jobs / month, we still won't be on our way out of the woods.

    Not only that (none / 0) (#64)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:59:35 PM EST

    but many of those new jobs were either temps or government jobs.  Still, a positive number is better than a decline.

    And, the person who CBS Nightly News (none / 0) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:07:00 PM EST
    interviewed tonight was probably not unique. She's holding down several temp jobs and just got hired to join the Census takers group. So how many of those jobs are taken up by each person.

    There are questions that need to be answered: Were those 165K jobs spred across the states evenly, and how many of those newly employed are actually newly employed at more than one of those openings?

    I wonder if whoever created that marvelous map by county that Cream City shared with us a few weeks ago shows any changes :)


    Numbers like this are ALWAYS overblown (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    They will be revised downward as they always are.  It is almost delusional to think the government will tell the truth right now about the economic situation.  We can't even have a real conversation about it, we are so cowardly as a nation when it comes to robust and rational self-criticism.

    There is no recovery in this nation, NONE, not a whit, until, for one, we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Look at the American economy during and for years after Vietnam.  When you engage in mass murder and destruction that your populace finally realizes is neither justified nor serving a purpose, the value of your currency will plummet as the confidence of your people does.  There is NO future in this nation until we decide to have a future, and right now, every day, the powers that be in this country make the decision to sink us further into idiocy and irrationality and childishness.  

    Hell, we can't even find the nad to punish the corporate armed robbers who gambled this nation into the toilet.  They are still running the economy and Obama LOVES them.  

    Truth is, too many people don't believe in government anymore, the right wing won that battle.  So where do you go from there, when the biggest resource the American people have is essentially dead to them on a large scale?


    "There is no recovery..." (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    Here in my area, I'm personally now looking at a pay cut, plus the elimination of currently vacant positions, plus an indeterminate delay in the hiring of other vacant positions, plus an increase in the cost of health insurance.

    Good news my butt.


    Same here. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    No pay cut, but zero hiring and health insurance premium major increase.

    And, here's a nice one:  my kid is a freshman in college and has been having his classes cancelled due to faculty furloughs.


    not unique (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    I live in a college town.  lots of angst to go around.
    I have no idea where you are but here it is because the state of Illinois has no money and is behind on its payments to the college.
    and every school in the area.

    thats why they call it a recession.


    Oh, thanks so much, I wasn't aware of that. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    thats why they call it a recession.


    Anyhoo, he's at U Illinois coincidentally.


    well there you go (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    it has next to nothing to do with anything federal.
    its a state problem.

    Alrighty then. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    We're in good shape.

    many companies (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    are lifting those austerity measures.  my company did a couple of weeks ago.  restored 401k matching and bonuses.  it is pretty much the standard for my industry.  and it is not the only one.  FedEx and other large companies have made the same announcement.

    according to our HR department companies across the board are lifting hiring bans and pay freezes.


    Progressive Auto (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    is hiring again.

    thats nice, good for them! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    Economists and politicians may still be at loggerheads about whether we have reached the bottom and are now on the way or up or whether there is still a way to fall, but business leaders, it appears, are becoming increasingly confident that we may finally be over the worst of the recession.

    As Congress puts the finishing touches on the jobs bill, BusinessWeek reports that data from payroll companies suggests that turnover may be stabilizing in the small business sector with some businesses beginning to hire once again:

    Raleigh, N.C. -- The number of people looking for work doubled in recent months, but there may be hope. Job recruiters say some companies are starting to hire again.

    those stories are from march.  I just grabbed the top three


    Oh, Bullshot (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:40:50 AM EST
    They will be revised downward as they always are.

    The department also revised January's job total to show a gain of 14,000, up from a previously reported loss of 26,000. February's job numbers were also revised higher by 22,000 to show a loss of 14,000.

    Try using facts instead of making things up.


    This is so wrong (none / 0) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:38:49 PM EST
    my problems with this argument begin with the grouping of Iraq and Afghanistan a linkage that people rightly abhorred for years as it connects a stupid, possibly criminal war of choice, with a war that has a much, much stronger causus belli- really Afghanistan is the most justifiable American intervention since the Declaration of War on Japan.

    This is the one area where my patience (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Kimberley on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    for reigns supreme. Treading water is better than drowning. So, phew!

    Job creation seems like probably the most complicated tactical challenge facing the country today and I envy no one responsible for marshalling it into a big picture of recovery.

    It's too early, I think, to tout this as trend. But that's okay. The first hints of stabilization are a morale boost.

    The usual way of figuring out how to (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    get something you want is to look and see how it was done in the past.

    Tax cuts anyone?


    new deal? (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    world war 2?

    I think I'd rather skip that last one personally.

    Although I'd take a serious revamping of our infrastructure.  If I was president I think I would have designed the Stimulus package to not only invest in transportation and alternative energy, but also the one thing that gets routinely ignored - which is the state of our sewage/pipe system.  Jobs + social benefit = best possible use of tax dollars.


    So you'd like a job (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    working construction?

    Of course the question is.... what happens when those jobs are complete?


    well then (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:43:04 PM EST
    I guess you build something else?
    make sense?

    Where is the money coming from? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:48:00 PM EST
    Even construction loans must be repaid.

    But I am not sure you grasp that concept.


    heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    actually I work in engineering.  Transportation to be specific.  So I already made out in the last Stimulus package.  But updating sewers is a specific policy goal I would like to see accomplished.  And it would create a number of jobs in both the skilled and unskilled sectors.

    And honestly, they are such a mess currently that it would take so many jobs and so many years to complete it's unreal.

    I could see it as kind of a national-scale "big dig".  In that it provides life long careers for a significant chunk of the population, not just short term jobs.  And when it's over, the workers have been employed long enough to send their kids to college to learn something different, and then retire.


    Sounds like (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:50:25 PM EST
    Unicorn stuff to me....

    The government is, was, and will be, broke. Sooner or later private industry must do its thing..


    The 1937 recession (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:02:46 PM EST
    comes to mind.

    Solved by govt contracts to the manufacturing sector to make supplies for the Allies, and then by going to war ourselves.

    How else to solve this mess, I don't know.  But what worries me is that, clearly, Obama and Geithner and the rest of them don't know, either.

    I never will forget the sinking feeling in the campaign and even after he was in office at the ignorance of what really had been going on with the economy for some time.  This "uptick" in new jobs is being billed as the best in three years, nationally.

    But where I live, it has been mapped as having deteriorated for more than four years now.  It would have been a different 2008 campaign, I guess, if the rest of the country had been down as long.


    Seasonally adjusted, unemployment rises ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BruceMcF on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:28:15 AM EST
    a tenth of a percent, from 16.8% to 16.9%, but that increase is mostly involuntary part-time employment, so the headline rate is steady at 9.7%.

    IOW, the new employment is exactly the normal quantity in moving from February to March ... except an unusually large amount of the normal seasonal increase is part-time temporary work.

    So the recovery is still in the "jobless" phase, though the focus will be on the normal seasonal increase in employment actually showing up.

    I'm (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    glad to hear this but just yesterday I was told I would ahve to take a pay cut to keep working. Of course, I took it and there's no guarantee that I won't lose my job today or later on next week.

    Our pay cuts came over a year ago (none / 0) (#76)
    by Rojas on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 08:13:39 AM EST
    10% across the board for salaried employees. The next month we went to a four day week. That was an additional 20% cut for salaried and a 20% for hourly.
    Our sales last month were the best in 14 months. Sales equals manufactured and out the door so our production people have been back to full wages for a little over a month. A little bit of overtime for them in the last thirty days as well.
    I just brought two engineers back to full time. 10% cut still in effect, but they were damn glad to get that other 20% back.
    We are a small design and manufacturing company with a diverse, world wide customer base. I'd like to think it's a sign that the economy is recovering and maybe it is. I think it has more to do with an aggressive campaign to win market share that started long before the bottom fell out.

    "More Americans filed for bankruptcy (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by rennies on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:59:33 PM EST
    in March than during any other month since 2005." So saith the NY Times today.

    The bankruptcies rose 35 percent from February!

    Very depressing article (Business Section, p.3)

    5.5 Years (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    at 120k new jobs per month (if that was sustainable) it would take 5.5 years to get back the 8 million jobs lost (or was it 11 million jobs lost?) in the great republican/plutocratic greed orgy that is the reagan legacy and which culminated in the economic apocalypse of 2008. That is, 5.5 years just to get back to where we were in 2008, except that isn't the case at all because the population continues to grow. So its more like 7/8 years of sustained continuous improvement to get back to zero. That's quite a legacy and a heckova job.

    It's always good news when people (4.66 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:45:19 AM EST
    get jobs, but...here is more info from the BLS report:
    In March, the number of unemployed persons was little changed at 15.0 million, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent.

    Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.0 percent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (26.1 percent), whites (8.8 percent), blacks (16.5 percent), and Hispanics (12.6 percent) showed little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

    The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) increased by 414,000 over the month to 6.5 million. In March, 44.1 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more.

    Water is trickling into the bucket, but the hole in the bottom is keeping the bucket from filling up; what is the administration doing to fix the hole?

    Obama proposes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    $210 billion for new jobs
    Ten year plan focuses on construction, environmental employment

    WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters.

    Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

    Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

    Uh, you do know that was (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    Wednesday, February 13, 2008, right?

    When he was running for president, almost a full year before he took the oath of office.

    So, how's that 10-year plan coming along, Captain?  Got anything a little more current for us?


    how about april 1, 2010 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    President Barack Obama signed a jobs bill into law this week. The law will help funnel cash toward infrastructure and transportation projects, which might be enough to juice up several exchange traded funds (ETFs).

    The measure is intended to put people back to work and shed some light on the employment situation. Michael D. Shear for The Washington Post reports that the timing of the bill is strategic in that the bill should have created more jobs before mid-term elections in the fall. [Health Care ETFs for an Uncertain Outcome.]

    The reform is aimed at bringing in a $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next two decades. The jobs bill will also encourage businesses to hire and help put Americans back to work by giving tax breaks to those who hire unemployed workers.

    That was the bill the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    steadily weakened before finally getting it passed with the help of tax cuts:

    President Obama signed an $18 billion jobs bill into law in a Rose Garden ceremony this morning, providing tax breaks for businesses that hire previously unemployed workers and extending funding for infrastructure and transportation projects.

    The measure, which Obama signed in front of an audience of business executives and lawmakers, is the first of what Democrats hope will be a series of election-year bills that will help put people back to work before the midterm elections in the fall.

    It actually was a $38 billion bill: $20 billion for infrastructure and $18 billion in tax breaks.

    There is also debate about how much the jobs package, which includes $18 billion in tax breaks and $20 billion for highway and transit programs, will actually encourage hiring. Optimistic estimates are that the tax breaks could generate 250,000 jobs by year's end, a tiny portion of the 8.4 million jobs the economy has shed since the recession began in December 2007.

    My bold.

    I seem to remember some conversation here about how tax breaks aren't going to encourage hiring if no one's buying the goods and services that are being sold.


    the rest (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    The jobs measure is the first of several that Democrats have promised in an election year to show they are addressing voters' biggest worry. Republicans are united in opposition to Obama's health care overhaul, but 11 Republicans were among the 68 senators who voted Wednesday to send the bill to the president, a show of bipartisanship as lawmakers from both parties cast an eye toward re-election in November.

    Under the package, businesses that hire anyone who has been out of work for at least 60 days would be exempt from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on that employee through December. The government would reimburse the Social Security trust fund for the lost revenue.

    Employers would get an additional $1,000 credit for each new worker remaining on the job for a full year.

    Promises, promises... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    and isn't it just too bad that it takes an impending election to get them to promise to do something about the situation?

    And too bad they couldn't twist Tom Coburn's  arms to get unemployment and COBRA subsidies extended again before the Easter recess; Harry Reid is promising to "try" to (1) get the extension done when they return and (2) retroactively get the unemployed the money for the gap weeks.

    Again with the promises; damn, that majority is just so useless!  Wonder who will be next up on the mound for the GOP pitching obstructionist strikes at a Harry Reid, who keeps forgetting to bring the bat to the plate with him.

    Yes, it's all the GOP's fault, but at some point the Dems have to do something other than whine, don't they?

    What a distinguished group.


    you aske what they were doing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    I told you.
    sorry if you dont like or believe it.

    It was rhetorical, as I was (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    fully aware that all that's happened on the jobs front is that puny bill just signed.

    Care to weigh in on that bill?  You've taken it upon yourself to apologize to me in case I didn't like it, but do you - like it, that is?  How much help do you think the jobs bill will be?  What do you think of estimates that it might add only 250,000 jobs over the next 9 months?

    How do you think it compares to the promises made in his 2008 campaign speech?  What has he done to get that promise carried out by the Congress?

    You were pretty quick with the google, but the fact that it was a campaign speech form 2008, pre-presidency, tells me that all you saw was the headline, and that you probably had no idea there even was a current bill until I had to point you away from the triumph of your February, 2008 find.

    So, now that you know there's a bill, why don't you tell us what you think about it?


    I think that if you provided (4.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    full employment this year you would find a reason to complain about it.

    Non-responsive. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    I have a pretty personal interest in an improving job market; my husband is currently unemployed, so I can assure you I would not be complaining if he - and millions like him - had a job.

    If you don't know enough about the bill to offer an opinion, just say so, instead of once again taking a kindergarten-level swipe based on an assumption you aren't qualified to make.


    do you honestly (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    think anyone who reads these threads would waste one minute of their life getting you to admit anything good has or ever will come out of this white house or this congress?

    Guess you missed the (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    Donald Berwick discussion.

    But, hey - thanks for all your trenchant insight on Obama's jobs bill.

    I'm just sorry I've wasted as many minutes as I have on responding to you, although it has boosted your comment count today, so you might be toddling off a little earlier than usual; every cloud has a silver lining!


    250,000 jobs created (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    by the bill would be a good thing.....

    The idea, as it appears, is to give a shot in the arm to the economy--not take on the role of providing permanent jobs to fill the vacuum.

    That employment numbers are going up is unmitigated good news.  Many thought that as many as 150,00 of the jobs created in March would be Census jobs, but only 40,000 were....the rest were private sector jobs....

    So, in excess of 100,000 private sector jobs were created last month....That is substantial.  The trend is good.

    True, an increase of 300,000 jobs per month is where we really want to be to get the overall unemployment rate down....but we are getting better....


    The real risk (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    is that the Fed raises interest rates, or inflation takes off, before we add large numbers of new jobs....

    That would be stagflation a la' Jimmy Carter....Inflation is the key to watch....as long as it stays low, Bernanke will not raise rates and jobs will grow.....

    But rising oil prices could be a problem....


    Looking at where those jobs are is (none / 0) (#1)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:29:28 AM EST
    not looking like the highest percentage are permanent. 48,000 census workers, 40,000 temporary workers, even the construction jobs sounded like they were for the repair work needed in the parts of the country hit with bad weather this winter and spring.

    Until they find a way to count those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, the 9.7% number of people without work remains a low estimate.  

    They do count people who (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    have exhausted their unemployment benefits.  I don't know why this myth continues.

    They do not count people who have entirely quit looking for work, but as long as you are looking for work you get counted.


    And they know you are looking for work how? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    If you're off unemployment, they have ZERO way to know how depressed and defeated you are.  

    You mean those people (none / 0) (#10)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    cannot answer questions?

    Do you know how they calculate the Unemployment Rate?


    They essentially (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:12:38 AM EST
    take a poll, which has all of the ramifications of any poll, esp. political bias.

    They can make it say whatever they want it to say.


    but you were quoting (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    polls the other day to prove how unpopular Obama is.
    you think that poll was not influenced by politics?

    Yes I do think polls lie, are biased. (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    You don't?

    And I know that the BLS is governed by politicians.  Politicians lie....got it?  Hasn't Obama proven that to you yet?

    You never once during the Bush administration believed they manipulated numbers?  Really? No manipulations on anything?

    They're manipulating numbers now, clearly.  The hiring of the 48,000 census workers that are a large part of this higher number do not indicate recovery.  It's a one-time blip.  How difficult is that to understand?


    that was not really my point (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    the point was if that is how you feel about polls what was the point of this

    What a load of nonsense ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BruceMcF on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    ... the six unemployment rate series have well known flaws as tools for measuring unemployment, but the idea that the BLS somehow systematically pumps up the rate at some times and systematically pushes down the rate at other times for political reasons is silly ...

    ... because there's never a time when there's a political advantage to pumping up the rate.


    Do you admit that you (none / 0) (#17)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    don't know the difference between a survey and poll?

    I admit (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    I have no idea what the hell you are talking about and neither do you.
    since the comment was about polls and surveys were not mentioned.

    I know what I am talking about (none / 0) (#19)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    Th poster asserted that the unemployment rate is calculated via a poll.  It is not.  The unemployment rate is calculated from a survey.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Apparently neither you or the above poster understand this.

    we are lucky to have you (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    to explain it to us but my comment had nothing to do with the difference between polls and surveys or how unemployment is calculated or the price of tea in georgia or the schedule of the easter bunny.

    But has the commenter explained the (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    big difference yet?  

    Poll v. survey (none / 0) (#30)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    A poll usually refers to a survey of opinion, and a survey is broader than that. Surveys are often factual--asking people whether they worked in the last week; if not, are they actively looking for work, etc.

    Unemployment is estimated based on a household survey done by BLS--they aren't changing the questions every month to massage the answers. And I think they publish estimates of underemployed and discouraged workers based on the same survey, so those data are available.


    The are taking all the fun out of the exchange (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    upthread!  But thanks.

    It is not for me to explain (none / 0) (#35)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    I'll leave that to the people who conduct it.

    Highlights for people who cannot click links:

    There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people.


    Each month, 2,200 highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees interview persons in the 60,000 sample households for information on the labor force activities (jobholding and jobseeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the survey reference week (usually the week that includes the 12th of the month).


    A selected number of households are reinterviewed each month to determine whether the information obtained in the first interview was correct. The information gained from these reinterviews is used to improve the entire training program.

    Emphasis mine.  There are more people conducting the survey than participate in most opinion polls.  More importantly, the survey is about facts, not opinions.  Opinions are subject to considerable bias, especially in regards to how the question is asked.


    LOL (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    Huge difference between a survey and a poll.  I'm sure the polling operation SURVEYUSA believes you're right!

    And if that isn't proof enough, here's the thesaurus entry for the word "poll".



    Temporary hires always come (none / 0) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:43:58 AM EST
    first before the permanent hiring increases.  Businesses dip their toes in the water, hedge their bets, cross their fingers and hire some temps they're not stuck with if things go sour again.

    Not good (none / 0) (#2)
    by TJBuff on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:30:15 AM EST
    just not atrocious.  And here in NYS they've stalled on the budget deficit about as long as they can abd layoffs look to be imminent.

    Fools gold n/t (none / 0) (#3)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:34:22 AM EST

    Oil has hit $85.00 (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:51:21 AM EST
    Gasoline is nearing $3.00...That's well over a $1.00 increase since Obama was sworn in.

    The high price of gasoline is killing disposable income of those who have some income. We will soon be where we were in the summer of 2008.

    What then?

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    what would have been ideal before then would have been to actually created viable programs like ones for public transportation with the stimulus money. I hear SOME was used for that but not near enough.

    I know my little town, with budget cuts, actually has cut services to alot of the bus stops. Instead of they have a service where you are supposed to call 24 hours in advance that works like a taxi but costs less.


    Thousands of small towns have NO public (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:20:45 PM EST

    Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative to oil currently available.

    Hybrids will reduce demand.

    Electrics will just move the problem from the pipeline to the grid. And the grid runs off coal.. and will have to be doubled in capacity if we intend to charge electric cars.

    Wind comes and goes and has storage problems..

    Nuclear will help reduce coal but is years and years away.

    In the meantime our stupid failure to drill drill drill is killing the economy.


    All valid till the last (none / 0) (#68)
    by Raskolnikov on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:10:05 PM EST
    The effect of increased drilling isn't going to be immediate either, and the effect to the economy won't be substantial (although I readily admit it would create jobs and help some American businesses, both oil producers and the manufacturers who make the equipment).  That said, personally I'm for a comprehensive approach, so a slow move from gas to electric vehicles, with hybrids as a stop-gap, and investment in our grid infrastructure, along with construction of modern nuclear power plants is a good start for the next decade.  We can't drill our way out, but neither can we sun or blow our way out either.

    Addendum (none / 0) (#69)
    by Raskolnikov on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    Didn't want to make it seem like I don't support wind and solar, but solar panels use valuable and rare minerals in their construction, and the start-up costs for wind are astronomical.  Once in a while you read about cool developments, like printable solar conductive sheets, and Google is investing quite a bit into finding something economically viable, which is certainly needed.  But the idea that we can just all of a sudden start mass producing turbines and solar fields and stop using coal anytime in the next decade or two is delusional.

    In 2008 it was Bush's EO (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:45:15 PM EST
    allowing off shore drilling and the law passed by Congress allowing off shore leases/drilling that burst the speculation bubble. Oil tumbled to a low of around $50 and the economy started to recover.

    Then Obama's admin announced no oil shale, etc., and the trend started again.

    And since his big announcement actually reduces what was already there... it is doubtful it will have an effect on prices.

    Perception is everything and the speculators see no problem from the Left.


    Ya think?? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rojas on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 08:33:55 AM EST
    Perhaps it had a little to do with threatening to take the golden goose away from these guys.
    Since September 2003, traders holding crude-oil futures contracts jumped from 714 contracts traded to more than 3 million contracts traded in May 2008

    You can't drill your way out of a rigged game.


    That was my point but you (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    said it better.

    Wonder if the financial re-regulation will do something like demanding that you demonstrate an ability to take delivery or a max of 3 trades..


    I don't think so Jim (none / 0) (#79)
    by Rojas on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 09:32:44 AM EST
    As long as we have guys like Schumer running the show the men behind the curtain will be free to prey on the rest of us.