Good April Jobs Number: +290K, But Unemployment Rate At 9.9%


The American economy added an unexpectedly strong 290,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate rose to 9.9 percent, the government said Friday.

U6 is 17.1%. Hopefully, job growth will accelerate.

< Stock Market: Biggest Intra-Day Drop Ever | Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Statement On Citizenship Stripping >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank the feds for (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    the census jobs.

    Even w/o the census temps (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:58:09 PM EST
    the increase in jobs by the private sector is listed @230,000 new jobs. (And, the previous two months additions were also revised upwards in terms of job creation.) I understand that the number per month needed to chip away at the unemployment levels is about 150,000 plus per month. The news today, then, is quite encouraging.

    Thank me (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Emma on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    I didn't fill out my form and had to be interviewed by a census worker last night.  ;)

    hehe me too (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    intentionally, although no interview yet.  And my dad just got a job as a census worker since his work kind of died.  It would be pretty funny if he interviewed my sister and I.

    The economy ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    moves slowly.

    It will take a while but I believe it is turning around. Remember that the economy has started growing again couple of months ago?

    Now the jobs are starting to catch up. There is ALWAYS a time lag.

    Pay is NOT going to increase for while. I would say it will catch up hopefully by the end of the year if the job growth continues.

    Pay ain't ever catching up.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    till pay-earners plant some seeds in their drawers and grow some balls...pay hasn't been right since the late 70's...when ceo's made 35 times what workers made...now its 260 something times.

    Ah... what we need are (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    fewer people pursuing jobs. That would put pressure on the employer to pay more....

    Want to rethink your immigration position?


    Nah... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:42:10 AM EST
    I try not to play kick the dog.

    What we need are workers with the stones to negotiate a bigger piece o' the pie for themselves...workers need to stand with the immigrants, not against....ceo's love it when we stand against the immigrant, as he laughs his way to the bank to laugh more with the banker.


    hmm .. i hate to break it to you ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    but "stones" does not directly translate into negotiation power.

    It is really about market power.

    As long as there are others willing to do the same amount of work for less, you can't really get a lot more.


    Does that mean... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:31:35 AM EST
    there are no qualified ceo-applicants willing to work for 100 times the workers pay, or even 200 times, as opposed to 260 times?  Seems to me top executives have gotten the brotherhood thing down pat...workers should follow suit, though it is easier said than done when the baby needs diapers and your arse is flat-broke.

    The middle class did best (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    when the unions were the strongest....

    Interesting data on that...Looking at the increase in median wages in the 1950s and 1960s.


    well ... if you think running a 300k people ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    company is easy, you can certainly apply. In fact, count how many people who have successfully run a fortune 50 company without breaking something .. that gives you a sense of the applicant pool. And many of these people already have JOBS which already paid a lot.

    I don't think the search committee really want to offer 260 times .. if 200 times will do it.

    You just don't hire those who asked for 500 times and only take those at 260 times.


    Sounds gtood on TV (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    and the movies...

    But the facts are that the "immigrants" are happy to work for whatever... They will undercut the trades every time. Look what they did in New Orleans and all up and down the Gulf Coast.

    And if you want to jail those who hired them I'll cheer as they do the perp walk.

    If you want wages to go up then you must have less workers.

    And yes, "executive" pay is way way out of line. We need less worry over the environment and more on how to get the board of directors to cut the pay of a bunch of these folks.


    Less worry about the environment? (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    Fewer workers?

    Oh my.    

    I don't think even most conservatives really believe that today.


    Some how I get the feeling that (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:56:29 PM EST
    you have never been directly involved in a business.

    Am I wrong?


    We have already had this discussion (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    This is what you say at the end....

    And, my answer, again:  I have always been employed in the private sector and have been an owner in a small business for years, as have a number of my relatives....

    But less environmental regulation??  Really?  In light of current evidence of what less regulation leads to?


    We did? Forgive my senior moment.. (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:05:56 PM EST
    Seeing as how it has been the environmental freaks that have driven us away from nukes... and away from oil shale...and away from coal.. and away from drilling in ANWR.... straight to drilling in the Gulf and other dicey places..

    I would say the regulations have served us poorly indeed.


    That's the reasonable voice (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    of "the middle" for you. Get used to it.

    Might help if our government quite (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    issuing H1B visas. Both Democrats and Republicans love to supply corporations with lower paid skilled workers at the expense of our citizens.

    "Legalize" those who are (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    here, so employers cannot take advantage of them.

    This "fewer workers" thing will sound like population control to most conservatives.....don't think they will go for that....


    Two points ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    are there statistics showing that pay-earners are getting less buying-power since the late 70s?

    Sure you can complain about CEO pay. But they get such a SMALL slice of the total revenue that even if they are not paid, workers are not getting much more.

    Take the largest IT company in the work, HP. It has like 300k people. Let's say the CEO is making 260 times an average worker make. Even if he gives up everything, each work can only get 260/300k more. That is less than 0.1%.

    You may want to object to CEO pay based on grounds in FAIRNESS. But economically speaking, it matters NOT that much for large companies.


    It goes to appearances (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    When I was running a sales group and we were on hard times in the early 80's I ruled that no one visiting headquarters would rent a Lincoln or Caddy from National for $35.00/day even though a mid size, in many cases, cost more.

    I pointed out that the service guy they were driving by in the company parking lot was probably walking to a 5 year old Ford with wore out tires... and we were depending on him to keep a customer happy when they called in....

    Everybody on the team has to feel they are being treated fairly or the team won't function as well.


    Not less, the same, for the most part (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    Median wages adjusted for inflation have remained flat since about 1980.  All the increase in the economy (GDP) has gone to the top earners with everyone else just treading water.

    Real median wages, however, did go down--under Bush II....

    Krugman has talked about these number quite a lot.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    The co's now are MUCH bigger and have MUCH more revenues now than they did in the 'golden years' of the '70's...

    kdog, I totally agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    Krugman convinced me of this by publicizing the fact that real (adjusted for inflation) median wages have remained flat since about 1980, with the exception of a couple of years in the late 1990s.

    THIS ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by nyrias on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    is a more important point than the differences between CEO pay & common worker pay.

    Feeling guilty. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:12:52 PM EST
    After annual performance review, received large raise and cash award today. Very nice, and we need it, but I do feel very strange and quite guilty since almost everyone I know is going in the opposite direction....

    Of course - that IS why I left academia I guess.

    Still, strange feelings.

    Congratulations! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    It is always nice to hear when someone is rewarded for a job well done.



    Thank you, very nice. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:08:09 PM EST
    Congratulations! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    Think about it: You did good. And, think about it further: You have enough essential humility and perspective to realize that others are hurting. You're ok! (And, one more thing to think on...wouldn't it be great in fantasy land that some of those high-kazillion-$ bonus types did part of the work that most others do and felt even a scintilla of guilt at all!?!)

    Thank you, christine (none / 0) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    Ah, if I were younger (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:03:36 PM EST
    I might well leave academe and go back to other work.  I entered academe at just the wrong time, as the anti-intellectualism of the conservative revolution of the '80s was starting to do its damage (and with the help of a lot of pseudoliberals with anti-intellectual resentments, too).  That was 20 years ago, and the damage done is so deep now that the job is just not what it was, with the impact of the MBA mindset on boards of regents or trustees moving us to the "entrepreneurial university" administrations we deal with today.

    That really came home to me in hours of meetings today.  You remember those marathon meetings days, I bet -- meeting after meeting of committees, department, executive committee, etc., and especially at the end of the semester now, as we have to deal with the trickle-down @@#$$!!@ from underling deans getting around to work they were supposed to do months ago, so they just send it on down to departments.

    I really need to remember to do what the most senior members must do to just sit through these meetings so silently.  It's got to be either alcohol or drugs, or maybe both to have such lasting effects through so many hours. . . .

    Oh, take me back to the land of efficient meetings!  I actually did work in such a place once.  But that was decades ago.  They probably don't exist anymore, anywhere.


    Argh... I am on a committee that is (none / 0) (#111)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 08, 2010 at 08:09:09 AM EST
    a 'pet project' of the administration. They don't really want us to either think or propose anything, just do what they want. The committee chair doesn't even give us an agenda.

    If they are going to act top down, why even form committees?

    Ironically, I chaired a committee earlier this term that was able to reach a decision with one meeting and emails, within a week. The administrative hierarchy was amazed that we decided so quickly. I think that efficiency will lead to more appointments. Sigh, hoist on my own petard.


    Oh, that's easy work at my campus (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    as administrative "pet projects" have foreordained outcomes, so the committees are stacked with those who already agree.

    I do not tend to get appointed to such committees.:-)


    Before someone steps in with, always revised (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:17:40 AM EST

    Also encouraging: The employment picture in both February and March turned out to be stronger than previously thought. Payrolls grew by 230,000 in March, better than the 162,000 first reported. And, 39,000 jobs were actually added in February, an improvement from the previous estimate of 14,000 losses.

    that is good news. nt (none / 0) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:43:32 AM EST
    I can't figure out how a (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    increase in unemployment from 9.7% to 9.9% is "good news."

    a net increase in jobs (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    is the good news.  

    An increase in unemployment like that probably means that more people are counted as unemployed because more people are "actively looking for work" - which could be a result of the perception of the economy changing.


    I don't want to be ugly (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    so let me just say that I may not be able to spell and my English may hang up from time to time but my math and logic is still at 99.99%.

    And an increase is an increase and the .2% that had jobs now don't have have jobs.

    Go tell them that is "good news."


    I'm with ya on this one Jimbo... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    just reading the headline on yahoo news this morning made my head hurt..."jobs created, unemployment up"...something doesn't seem to add-up there.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics maybe?

    And I can't wrap my head around what kinda person looks for a job in stops and starts...wtf?The way I've always done it is you keep looking till you find one...ya don't give up unless you decide to give living off the land or living on shoplifting a shot.


    If, for example, (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    5000,000 new people enter the workforce but only 250,000 new jobs were available, then "jobs were created, and unemployment went up."

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    are that many retirees going back to work?  Are that many kids dropping outta school...it would be easier to understand if the kids graduated last month, then I could see a buncha new job hunters hitting the labor market, but that ain't till next month.

    It's population growth (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    at the working age and up.  So estimates are that at least 100,000 new jobs have to be created to meet the need.  So, subtract at least that number from the growth numbers -- and you will see that the corrections for previous months still don't get the new-jobs number up to where it was needed.  And that's just one reason why more people can gain employment, more jobs can be created, but still not enough to employ all those seeking employment -- as there also has to be subtraction for all the jobs still dying by the day, for example.  In my state, plants still are closing daily, job cuts still are occurring daily even at plants and employers still struggling to stay open, etc.

    Basically, the economy still sucks, and the White House and Congress still are not doing enough -- creating census jobs is not enough (that's a lot of the new jobs here and elsewhere, and a lot of them are temp jobs for only a few months, others for only a year, etc.).


    yes census helps (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CST on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    but it's not the whole story.  from the ny times article:

    "Private employers added 231,000 jobs in April. Employment in the professional and business services sectors, leisure and hospitality, and the manufacturing industry continued to add jobs. The federal government added 66,000 temporary positions for the 2010 Census."

    It's not great news, it's not "the economy is recovered", but I don't see how it's not "good news".  It certainly isn't bad news.  

    And census jobs are still jobs.  They still help pay the bills for the time being and help people get over the hump while the private sector continues to expand.


    Thanks for that stat (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    and I agree, absolutely, that even temp work helps -- it's how one of my children at least got his permanent job . . . if still underemployed.  So we hope it is not permanent for long, and the economy starts to improve here for college graduates to get jobs that only require high school-level skills, and only give high-school level pay.

    The estimates that these young people who came on the job market in the last year or so, and more coming on the market this month, will take a hit of at least a decade at this crucial point in their lives is just so sad.

    And, of course, it means that those with only high school-level skills are likely the unemployed, and that will cost them and all of us for decades ahead as well.


    I don't know what school you went to (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    but in my world if unemployment goes up in spite of all the things you listed...

    that is not good news.


    a school (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:52:44 PM EST
    where they teach math and history.

    I wonder if I am the only one (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    that misses the Bush economy and all those "under employed" jobs... and below 5% unemployment.

    it's always nicer (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CST on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    to live in a world with a ticking time bomb than one where the bomb has gone off.  That doesn't mean you miss the people who planted the bomb.

    Well, if you are going to blame him for (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    the collapse, then you have to give him credit for the expansion.

    When the Democrats took over both Houses of  Congress in 2/2007 unemployment was under 5%, gasoline was around $2.00 and the Dow around 1300.

    By mid summer of 2008 the unemployment rate was going straight up, the market was going straight down and gasoline was holding steady at around $4.00-$4.50. All that in a short 17 months.

    In October the Democrats passed a bank bailout bill with no controls on it so the bankers did what came naturally, they stole their share and called it bonuses.

    Actually Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac had been doing that for years, but since those guys were Demos no one thought anything about it.

    Since Obama's election the trend continued with the market run off of about 20% before climbing back up to around 11,000, about 25% below Bush's high with unemployment and gasoline prices going up. In fact unemployment is at a 26 year high.

    So please, don't tell me it's raining when someone is peeing on my feet.


    The crashed was (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    caused by insufficient regulation of the financial sector....So, you are for greater regulation, right?

    The Bank bailout in 2008 was absolutely necessary and kept the economy from going into a deep Depression....as in 25% unemployment, instead of the 10% we actually did suffer.  

    And the TARP money is being re-paid with interest....So, the bailout will sting less over time.....

    The economic trends are all good and getting better.  


    As a matter of fact.... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 2003 -- The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

    Too bad it didn't get passed.

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    Now there were other problems. But Fannie and Freddie were fanning the flames.


    As for the "Great Depression" shtick, spare me. Paining the worse possible picture is an old trick used by all new managers.

    But you know that.


    If that isnt an example (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    of the "sticking to the script" I was refering to, I dont know what is.

    Or is it only a coincidence that every hard-line conservative outlet and commentator fixates narrowly and solely on Fannie and Freddie as if their evolution and fate were solely responsible for the economic collapse?


    Been down this road before with Jim (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    That is why I lept over the "whose fault it was" argument directly to the policy issue of whether we should have more or less regulation.....

    I know O'Reilly loves this quote--but so what?  The issue is: do you support more regulation?  Republicans generally do not.  And they are holding up financial reform in the Senate according to that belief.  

    As to the Barney Frank quote....Good Gawd...the entire FOX News response to the bad Bush economy is one Barney Frank quote on a very narrow issue when the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House?

    And this justifies the Republican philosophy of less regulation how?


    You are being deliberately obtuse (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    And I think you know better.

    Bush inherited a very good economy and trashed it.....

    Adding jobs is a good thing.  And there were a lot of new jobs created.

    The unemployment rate measures those who seek work.  More people came back into the labor force who had stopped looking previously--that is why the unemloyment rate went up.

    If we continue to add 200,000+ jobs per month, the unemployment rate will come down.  We need about 100,000 new jobs to maintain the status quo.

    This is unmitigated good news......Any reputable Republican economist will tell you that.  Other Republicans will demagogue the issue.  


    Bush did what? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    Are you aware that between 3/2000 and 3/2001 the NASDAQ ran off 50%?

    That was 50% from the area that had been driving the economy.

    Remember 9/11? That kinda screwed things a bit...

    Yes. Adding jobs is a good thing. Losing more jobs than was created is a bad thing.

    And losing more than gained is how the unemployment rate went UP.

    No matter how you go at it, you can't put lipstick on a pig and not still have a pig.


    No, Jim, you are wrong (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    The jobs numbers are NET.  We added 290k NET new jobs.  

    Yes, somewhere people lost jobs, but the number is net increase in jobs....

    When we were losing jobs, hundreds of thousands per month, last year, the monthly figures showed how many jobs were lost.  That was also net.  Even during the bad months, somewhere somone hired someone new.....but the net was down, way down.

    Reporting new jobs but not lost jobs would be a foolish way to measure the economy.....And the numbers are not actual data but survey data....That is why they are revised...


    The unemployment rate went up (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    That means .2% more people don't have jobs now than they did then.

    Quit making excuses for a Demo administration, be factual and quit snarking me with Jondee and we can coexist.


    The survey measures those (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    who are actively looking for work--not all people.  

    The labor force shrank last year.  People just stopped looking for work and thus were not counted in the survey of those working or looking for work.  That is why the unemployment rate actually went down a couple of months last year when we were still losing jobs.

    Your statement that .2% fewer people have jobs this month than last is wrong.....

    More people had jobs, but the labor pool increase offset the absolute gain in jobs.  That is why, as a percentage, the unemployment rate went up....

    With job gains like we had this month, the rate will come down--and more quickly than many think.


    Here is an explanation (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    According to the Wikipedia article on Unemployment, this is how the unemployment rate is measured:


    Though many people care about the number of unemployed, economists typically focus on the unemployment rate. This corrects for the normal increase in the number of people employed due to increases in population and increases in the labor force relative to the population. The unemployment rate is expressed as a percentage, and is calculated as follows:

    Unemployment Rate= Unemployed Workers
                           Total Labour Force

    As defined by the International Labour Organization, "unemployed workers" are those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work.[44] Individuals who are actively seeking job placement must make the effort to: be in contact with an employer, have job interviews, contact job placement agencies, send out resumes, submit applications, respond to advertisements, or some other means of active job searching within the prior four weeks. Simply looking at advertisements and not responding will not count as actively seeking job placement. Since not all unemployment may be "open" and counted by government agencies, official statistics on unemployment may not be accurate.[45]

    And, this is why the unemployment rate can go up as the economy is growing and adding jobs:

    In the early stages of an economic boom, unemployment often rises. This is because people join the labor market (give up studying, start a job hunt, etc.) because of the improving job market, but until they have actually found a position they are counted as unemployed. Similarly, during a recession, the increase in the unemployment rate is moderated by people leaving the labor force or being otherwise discounted from the labor force, such as with the self-employed.

    Did it ever occur (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    to you that it might not be deliberate?

    Yes, I think, you are right. (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    He always follows (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    the Fox News - talk radio script to the letter, and this is exactly how they've been spinning the economy.

    Of course, in a minute Jim will come back and say he never listens to either..


    And undigested too (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    And that is how one can become bollixed up on how we can have an increase in jobs but still have an increase in the unemployment rate...

    I don't have to (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    Jondee always tells me what was said.

    I think I have discovered the Jondee Law of the Internet..

    In all Internet discussions on Talk Left Jondee will enter to snarl, lie about and try an annoy Jim.


    You poor man (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    I always forget that you're only here to do your part to check the slow drift toward European socialism, as you state at your site.

    ya know, jondee (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    I think that the misguided interloper (aka jimakaPPJ) should almost be a special guest here in that the occasional sparring keeps everyone on their toes. Also: I'm guessing that he spends so much time here because the usual conservative sites are so boringly lockstep and dully drudge-oriented.

    Interloper might be a poor choice of words (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    If I'm not mistaken, jimakaPPJ frequented this site long before you made your first comment. While I disagree with most of his positions, he has been a commenter on this blog for a long time and to date, Jeralyn has never to my knowledge told him that his presence was unwanted.

    The News from Lake Leftbegone (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:48:05 PM EST

    I would hazard a guess that I am (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:58:55 PM EST
    at least as far to the left on most issues as you are.

    Whether you like jim's comments or not, he has been a participating member of this blog for a long time.


    He Has Been Grandtrolled In (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    As jondee succinctly puts it. There is no doubt about that. As far as christinep misguided interloper characterization goes, PPJ's testimonial response suggests that he certainly is not offended by her comment.

    I thought the word "interloper" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:47:02 PM EST
    was inaccurate.

    interloper - a person who becomes involved in a place or a situation where they are not wanted or are considered not to belong.

    Jim is, as a long time commenter, grandfathered in  and a part of this blog community. Jeralyn has never been shy about notifying people that their participation is no longer desired. While not offended, I still think that it was a poor word choice. You will notice that I did not comment on the usage of the word misguided.


    Not Jondee (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    In any case, ppj does not mind the characterization, but I am sure he loves anyone who would come to his defense... lol

    I would have made the same statement (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 08, 2010 at 12:44:14 AM EST
    if someone said you were an interloper. Clearly you are also grandfathered in as a long time member of the blog and Jeralyn has not told you to leave. The word would not apply regardless if you minded the characterization.

    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    But your criticism was aimed at jondee, yet the comment using the word interloper was not written by him.

    Not sure why you would do that, and considering that the object of your defense, namely ppj, loved the comment, and characterization, makes your rescue attempt, even weirder, imo.

    PPJ loves being mentioned, in almost all cases.


    That's for sure (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    I can still remember when he was linking to the Swiftboaters for Truth (or whatever they called themselves) five times a day here. And railing about how Kerry insulted all vets by throwing his medals away and by testifying about war time atrocities.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:15:01 PM EST
    I see that you don't remember where I honored Kerry's service in Vietnam.

    Strange how your memory works.

    And I never became all that enamored of the Swift Boat folks although they were as least as honest as Kerry was when he spoke repeatedly about his service in Cambodia....

    And yes, his actions and comments after he returned were and are unforgivable.


    You want a nice antiseptic (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Sat May 08, 2010 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    noble, Hollywood war that you can watch on dvd, and Kerry and the rest of the veterans against the war let you and your fellow fantasists down. And now you cant forgive the real world for raining on your parade. Basically, that's what it boils down to.

    What I wanted Kerry to do was not attack (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    the troops in Vietnam and not join up with people who were acting against the interests of the troops and the country. Some of these people, btw, were lying when they claimed to have served.

    Since you have never served it is you that has no real knowledge of the military or the people in it. You have displayed that lack of information and anti-military bias for years. We have all seen the show.


    The historical consensus (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jondee on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    even on the Right, is now so resoundingly in favor of the view that Vietnam was, in no way, shape, or form "in the interests of the troops or the country" that all it does is make Kerry & Co look even more like the REAL patriots and you and the rest of the 101st Keyboard Brigade like perpetually deluded fools, who, like so many other good Republicans in so many places, can under no circumstances tolerate a whistle blower.    

    You like to call people fools (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    I don't describe my feelings about you because it would embarrass both of us.

    Whatever is said about the Vietnam war, the issue with Kerry was his association with people who lied and hated the military and what Kerry said about the military.

    For that he has been rightly damned.


    Lied and hated (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    the military: that must be why he joined up and actually served in a war zone, while so many chickenhawks, who "support the troops" ended up with a debilitating case of rectal cysts and TANG-itis..

    lol (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    The hypocrisy and hyperbole are astounding.

    Of course for ppj, anyone who would  criticize the military, hates the military, and all the soldiers... lol

    and they will be eternally damned.. how's that for a social liberal.


    He's been grandtrolled in (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:10:54 PM EST
    But you know someone who says as a tag line at their own web site that "there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat" is dragging around a very big ax in need of grinding.

    Not that there's anything wrong with a little healthy debate..


    "Grandtrolled in"--lol (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:14:00 PM EST
    Actually I have been commenting here (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:51:15 PM EST
    since March of 2003. I consider myself a social liberal because I believe in all of the traditional liberal positions. That includes a strong national defense.

    And I have so commented many times.

    I find that the Democratic party has become the Democratic Left Party in many respects and I differ from them in many positions... hate speech laws, immigration, national defense being an incomplete list.

    I read and comment because I enjoy some exercise of the brain and I learn many things from the various comments. I sometimes change my positions as I did on capital punishment moving from "plug'em in and burn'em" to life without parole.

    Jondee and Squeaky are old adversaries. Squeaky is the quickest witted but Jondee's persistent attacks and belief that I am a racist keeps him at the forefront.

    I have made several "Internet friends," I think kdog would agree with that description, over the years. But few comment at this time.

    In the early years the blog was focused almost entirely on the war on terror and societal issues related to crime and law enforcement. In 2007 it started to become more politically orientated and "The War between The Hills and The Bama's" caused me, and others, to fade away. Many may still be lurking but they (almost) never comment. Their absence has been more than made up by others so I think the blog has went from success to success.

    And yes, I do hang out on some forums and blogs, and when I opine that I don't care if John marries Joe or that Jane has the right to choose or that I think we need a single payer health insurance system then I find myself attacked with the same joy as is sometimes exhibited here.

    The middle is always vulnerable from both sides.


    'The middle" (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    So, back when you were going after Michel Schiavo here, that had nothing to do with an expression of solidarity with the Right to Life movement?

    Also, truly coming at issues from "the middle" would imply that you give credence and support to some critiques from the Left of the Right. Where's the evidence for that: at your website, where it says "there are no moderate Democrats, some are just more radical than others"?  


    I am sorry that you are so thin (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:23:48 PM EST
    skinned that you can't take criticism. The comment you refer to is as much a take off on the always present "moderate Republican" description used but never a moderate Democrat.

    And after watching'em fold on health care I think my point is proven. The "moderate Democrats" folded like a cheap suit and let Obama destroy Medicare and elect a Repub majority this fall.

    All while not doing anything to establish a single payer system.

    BTW - What does my belief that Schiavo's actions were suspect and wrong have anything to do with anything else?

    Your problem is that you think any deviation from the party line casts the person into the outer darkness.

    Me, I think for myself.


    ..After checking first with Hannity (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Sat May 08, 2010 at 02:06:41 PM EST
    Google is your friend. "Moderate Democrat": several thousand hits, last time I checked.

    Of course, you'll see it when you believe it.


    Cool (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    But there needs to be some agreement on facts before real discussion begins....

    There is not a lot of that going around....  


    To jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    My apology for using the inaccurate characterization "interloper." I stand corrected as to that word.

    Please call me anything but (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    late for supper.

    It didn't bother me a bit.


    The unemployment percentage (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    If you check, jimakaPPJ, you will find that both parties and economists have long said that the unemployment percentages will rise for awhile as the job creation numbers really start to go up, because people who had not been able to find work since the onset of Bush's economic downturn are expected to return to the job market with new-found optimism. So far, the economists predictions are proving out. Another one that is always interesting: "Productivity" measures per employee have decreased markedly in the past month; and, yep, that is considered good news by economists because it means (together with the demonstrated rising demand in the past quarter) that companies cannot squeeze more from the present downsized employee field and are expected to increase hiring.  Interesting, huh.

    So far the unemployment rate has gone (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:10:44 PM EST

    All of your good news doesn't pay the rent or buy groceries much less a beer and a hot to go for lunch.

    I mean, excuses, excuses, excuses... also... talk, promises and forecasts are cheap.


    Right now, jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    methinks that you only want to see bad news. If that is the case, that is all you will see. There is no magic wand; I suspect you know that.

    When the Doctor tells you your PSA has hit 6.0 (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    The fact that your HDL has improved slightly is of no consequence.

    I have indicated that I see the "good news." But the bad news is that the good news didn't reduce anything because lost more than we gained.

    I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    Lewis Carrol said it better.


    Lewis Carroll also said (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    "A word means exactly what I say it means; nothing more, nothing less." (Via H. Dumpty) You have your way with words. (Me too.)

    Yes, we all have our indivudual (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    biases and viewpoints.

    U3 went up because (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    something like 705,000 people who had given up looking for a job (discouraged workers) started looking for work again.

    How do you explain why (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri May 07, 2010 at 02:57:09 PM EST
    the unemploymnet rate actually went down a couple of months last year as we continued to lose jobs?

    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    English grammer and spelling is really good at 99.99%, but Math has to be 100% otherwise it is always wrong.

    That's why God invented computers (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    Waiting for regional and state data (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:33:52 AM EST
    as it's nice to read that life is looking up elsewhere, but my state still is losing lots more jobs than it's gaining, month after month.

    Four of five adult children and stepchildren (ages 25-45) still unemployed or underemployed.  The only one employed fulltime in the job he wants is in Obama's state.  As for the rest, two still unemployed.  One underemployed fulltime, same sort of job he had in college, and it's now a year since he finally overcame years of obstacles to graduate.

    One who finally made it to fulltime, if having to drive 150 miles round-trip daily, just was put back to part-time last week -- and in wind energy, a field that was supposed to be high on the agenda of the Obama administration.  But the funding, the jobs, still just are not out there.

    So what's taking so long, White House?

    And (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    as for us two fully employed parents, now no raises for either of us -- third year in a row for me -- and continued pay cut (aka "furlough") for me.

    And, of course, our health care costs are going up.


    Academics takes the hit again here (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:42:24 AM EST
    too, CC. Insurance cost to rise, as well as copays across the board. no raises, etc.

    however, last year at this time I was a week away from unemployment. My department let five people go.

    So I am relieved and happy to just be working. Especially after my injury in November. I could have been completely out there.


    This is not limited to academics. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    Most state/local government workers are effected in similar ways.  In addition to higher insurance costs, no pay raises and furlough days, we're having to contribute an extra 2% to the retirement system to keep it (somewhat) solvent.  

    No 'extra' contributions for us this year, (none / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    but that's on the table.

    Underemployed (none / 0) (#8)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    means working part time when a worker wants to work full time.  So I am not sure how one can be
    One underemployed fulltime

    It can also mean not making full use of (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    skills, education, or training.

    Lousy terminology (none / 0) (#12)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:10:24 AM EST
    Really, is every Triple A player underemployed, because he thinks he is MLB material?  Just because a person thinks they have the requisite skills to do a job, but doesn't have it, doesn't mean they are underemployed.  How many people with with phd's in the humanities actually get tenure track positions?  Something like half (or maybe less).  

    Taking a lower level position (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nycstray on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    or say a job at Mickey D's when you previously worked for years at a higher level or in another professional position all together . . . . not working to your full potential including wage potential based on previous history . . . imo :)

    At least in this instance (none / 0) (#13)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    none of your suggestions seem to apply.  Individual is working at same type of position not at McDonald's.

    so if you suddenly had to take a job (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    at the level you worked at while in college . . . you wouldn't consider yourself underemployed? Or if you took a job in the same field you currently worked in but at significantly lower pay, you wouldn't consider yourself underemployed?

    Let's turn this around for a second (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    Johnny Damon 2009 salary: 13,000,000
    Johnny Damon 2010 salary: 8,000,000

    Do you consider Johnny Damon underemployed?  Do you think the BLS should term Johnny Damon underemployed?

    My SIL took a 4% pay cut this year.  Does that make her underemployed?

    I understand your sentiment.  If someone has their CPA, worked as a CPA for years and now works at McDonald's as a drive through operator, that person is not optimally employed.  However, there are many people today getting degrees with very little employment opportunities (a degree in philosophy, an undergrad in pyschology, or any degree in the various "studies" departments.)

    Do you know how many people have executive MBA's?  Would you classify anyone with an executive MBA underemployed if they are not an executive?


    No, that does not make her (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:45:55 AM EST
    underemployed.  Really, why do you not look up the several definitions?  Why do you think you get to redefine the term -- and at such great length here?

    The BLS defines it by the way they (none / 0) (#24)
    by me only on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    measure it.

    Ah, the BLS. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    Well, that explains your narrow definition.  The BLS stats lack all nuance, too.

    Why turn it around? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    And then only make one relevant comparison and call it "not optimally employed"?

    That means... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri May 07, 2010 at 11:40:20 AM EST
    Johnny Damon's skills have slipped...he's not as skilled a worker as he once was.

    Not so. I'll save bandwidth here (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    by suggesting that you google "underemployed."  There are several categories, including the one I reference -- not working in a job at the level for which one is qualified, i.e., still working in a student-level job after graduating from college.