Unemployment Rate Drops! But There's A Catch...

[Conan71]

WASHINGTON – A wave of census layoffs cut the nation's payrolls in June for the first time in six months, while private employers added a modest number of jobs. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.5 percent, its lowest level in almost a year.

Employers cut 125,000 jobs last month, the most since October, the Labor Department said Friday. The loss was driven by the end of 225,000 temporary census jobs. Businesses added a net total of 83,000 workers, an improvement from May. But that's also below March and April totals.

The unemployment rate dropped from 9.7 percent to 9.5 percent, the lowest level since July 2009. But it fell because 652,000 people gave up on their job searches and left the labor force. People who are no longer looking for work aren't counted as unemployed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Okay, so job stats were bolstered by 225,000 temp jobs for the census.  That's an average of 4500 per state.  I suppose that was somewhat better than being paid for un-productivity.

I'm waiting to see if the admin tries to call this .2% drop in employment a turn-around considering it dropped because 652,000 people gave up looking for work.  They should put VP Biden on this one.  He's got a long enough string of BS to make it sound like this is hope & change.

[we vs us]

Christine Romer says:

"The unemployment rate fell two-tenths of a percentage point for the second month in a row.  At 9.5%, the unemployment rate is now six-tenths of a percentage point below its high last year.  However, the drop in the unemployment rate was driven in large part by a substantial decline in the labor force, which we expect to be reversed as employment prospects continue to improve."

Thus,

"While this report suggests a continuation of gradual labor market repair, it is important to emphasize the magnitude of the damage that remains from the recession.  Payroll employment is still down 7.5 million from its pre-recession peak and the unemployment rate is more than 5 percentage points above its pre-recession low.  It is essential that we focus on accelerating job growth.  That is why the President continues to work with the Congress to pass targeted jobs measures such as an extension of emergency unemployment insurance, a program for small business lending that will enable small firms to get the credit they need to expand and create jobs, and more aid for troubled state and local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police.  These are fiscally responsible measures that would have a substantial impact on the rate of job growth."

[Gaspar]

Christine Romer says:

Thus,

But according to Nancy Pelosi, "Unemployment checks are the best way to create jobs," so it would follow that the more people on unemployment, the more jobs we are creating.

You really can't argue with that logic.  These are top notch folks.

[we vs us]

But according to Nancy Pelosi, "Unemployment checks are the best way to create jobs," so it would follow that the more people on unemployment, the more jobs we are creating.

You really can't argue with that logic.  These are top notch folks.

Unemployment check$  >>> unemployed person or family >>>> spends it on rent/utilities/food/clothing/medical >>>> dumping $ directly into the economy. 

It ain't perfect, but it works.

[Conan71]

Unemployment check$  >>> unemployed person or family >>>> spends it on rent/utilities/food/clothing/medical >>>> dumping $ directly into the economy. 

It ain't perfect, but it works.

You have to admit, on the surface, that is an incredibly stupid quote coming from the Speaker Of The House.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I guess I am curious where all these well paying jobs are supposed to come from now that so much manufacturing has been exported to China?

How can there be a "recovery" when there are no jobs to recover?

[Conan71]

I guess I am curious where all these well paying jobs are supposed to come from now that so much manufacturing has been exported to China?

How can there be a "recovery" when there are no jobs to recover?

Or when stimulus money is used to bolster jobs in China, like this bonanza in wind farm work.

[we vs us]

You have to admit, on the surface, that is an incredibly stupid quote coming from the Speaker Of The House.

Meh.  Sure.  It's not the sharpest comment but if you use your noggin' you can understand the point she's making, and the point is (arguably) valid.  I feel the same way about Biden (and about GWB, for the record):  gaffes are the lowest and cheapest form of political criticism.  Ultimately, they give you the least insight into what's truly important: how a person thinks and how a person votes. 

[custosnox]

Meh.  Sure.  It's not the sharpest comment but if you use your noggin' you can understand the point she's making, and the point is (arguably) valid.  I feel the same way about Biden (and about GWB, for the record):  gaffes are the lowest and cheapest form of political criticism.  Ultimately, they give you the least insight into what's truly important: how a person thinks and how a person votes. 

I wouldn't exactly call it creating jobs though, more like maintaining a minimul level of jobs.

[Conan71]

I wouldn't exactly call it creating jobs though, more like maintaining a minimul level of jobs.

Promoting and sustaining mediocrity, which is what most all entitlement and safety net programs do.

[we vs us]

Promoting and sustaining mediocrity, which is what most all entitlement and safety net programs do.

Eaaaasy, Tiger.

[Gaspar]

Meh.  Sure.  It's not the sharpest comment but if you use your noggin' you can understand the point she's making, and the point is (arguably) valid.  I feel the same way about Biden (and about GWB, for the record):  gaffes are the lowest and cheapest form of political criticism.  Ultimately, they give you the least insight into what's truly important: how a person thinks and how a person votes. 

I don't think this was a gaff.  It is exactly the philosophy of congress and the administration.  You are correct, "if you use your noggin" this IS the argument for the trickle-up economic model.  The same old argument.

Provide an influx of cash at the bottom and stimulate the economy.  So I suppose we just sit back now and wait for the prosperity? 

NO

The problem in this model is it leaves out the production component.
 
Subsidization is not stimulation, and it cannot create growth.  These people would purchase far more goods and services if they had jobs that provided more income and actual opportunity.

Even an actual (non Pelosi) trickle up model where we have incentives for lower income people that allow them a larger stake in the market by purchasing more goods and services, produces negative (or neutral) growth, because the incentive comes at a greater price to the producers than it creates in demand, and since companies do not pay taxes, the price of goods and services increases to balance the difference. 

So if you "use your noggin" you actually come to the conclusion that lowering unemployment is DONE by creating jobs (duh), and creating jobs is done by stimulating businesses, and stimulating businesses creates even more jobs that stimulate even more business. . .

The engine fuels itself, all you have to do is prime it, you do that by pouring gas in the carburetor, not the muffler.

[we vs us]

Subsidization is not stimulation, and it cannot create growth.  These people would purchase far more goods and services if they had jobs that provided more income and actual opportunity.

I think the Administration agrees with you, and would love to have the private sector primed and ready to hire again.  But they aren't, as evidenced by the latest job report.

This may or may not leave out the production component, but what she's addressing directly is the demand component.  Adding survival money into people's pocket immediately allows them to buy things they need to live.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

One huge problem is the carburetor is in China.

And we keep pouring - to the tune of trillions per year - up the muffler of the top 1 percenters.

But then, they are the only ones who can afford to own their very own politicians.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And at this point I wouldn't even mind if they got a discount from the standard tax rates down to our rate.  That would take care of any deficit and would likely eliminate the debt in a couple years.

Or, alternately, let us get away with a maximum of 16%.  That would be even better.