Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Continued success for Obama's policy of permanently high DISemployment

Reuters:

The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits remained stuck near a three-month high last week, a sign that hiring has likely slowed since winter.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications dipped 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 388,000. It was little changed from the previous week's figure, the highest since Jan. 7.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose to 381,750, also the highest in three months.

Applications jumped sharply three weeks ago, a sign that employers had stepped up layoffs and added fewer jobs. Economists said the increase might have been inflated by temporary layoffs during the spring holidays, when many school employees are laid off.

It's not "stuck," you dipsticks! It's deliberate! It's policy! It's successfully achieved policy!

It's not that Robama "doesn't have the stomach" to help you; it's that he's actively seeking to harm you.

You know this because the policies that would help you are not on the table: One is (obviously) a debt jubilee. Another is (obviously) a Jobs Guarantee. A third is (obviously) JUST GIVE US THE MONEY.

Look! Over there! Obomney just went on the teebee and did something cool!

0
No votes yet

Comments

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

In fact, I think this Jim Quinn is this Jim Quinn, though, then, I don't get his association with the Occupy banner. That said, he does present his numbers in an interesting fashion. I haven't verified their accuracy but they seem like they might be right except in a place or two. (Maybe Hugh could have a quick look see -- for instance, is that working age population increase since 2000 correct?). Here are a couple of passages:

...Now for the really eye opening facts. While the labor participation rate has been plunging, the Boomer participation rate has been skyrocketing. The participation rate for the over 65 age group is now at an all-time high. Do you think this has anything to do with home values dropping 36% since 2005, gasoline prices doubling since early 2009, food prices surging by 25%, the 1.4% annual return of stocks since 1999, or the .15% senior citizens can earn on their money today versus the 5% they could earn in 2007?

...Over the next six months we will hear unceasing rhetoric from Obama and Romney about how they are going to create jobs. Neither of these government apparatchiks have a clue about jobs or desire to change the course that was set one hundred years ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Obama never worked at a real job in his entire life, while Romney has spent his life firing people and spinning off heavily indebted companies to unsuspecting investors. The current deteriorating jobs picture has been decades in the making and a truly bipartisan effort. The rhetoric about America being an engine of growth and the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship is laughable when examined with a critical eye. We are an aging empire living in the past as the facts portray an entirely different reality. Our fastest growing industries include:

Solar panel manufacturing (subsidized by your tax dollars)
For-profit universities (diploma mills subsidized by your tax dollars)
Pilates and yoga studios
Self-tanning product manufacturing
Social network game development
Hot sauce production

The “surge” in jobs in the last three months is being driven by these industries:

Food services and drinking places
Administrative and support services
Ambulatory health care services
Credit intermediation
Hospitals

Is this the picture of a world leading jobs machine or a delusional, paper pushing, self-involved, obese, sickly, overly indebted crumbling empire? The job openings in industries that actually produce something are barely identifiable on the chart below. Maybe the University of Phoenix can successfully retrain construction and manufacturing workers to be waiters, waitresses, and Wal-Mart greeters if the Federal government can funnel more of our tax dollars into student loans....

Submitted by lambert on

Yes, it would be great if Hugh took a look at it.

Not sure whether he's a gold bug or not; I'm not getting the Full Monty lunacy I generally get from gold bugs, but maybe I'm missing it.

It's interesting he's worried about food too; that seems to be the one place that "left" and "right" truly meet.

Submitted by lambert on

Especially the way the scale (hah) keeps adjusting.

And since obesity takes place in the flesh, it seems to me to be a very good way to look for a grand unification theory of financial capitalism with all else.

One of the first thing one notices on coming into the United States from abroad is the sheer scale of obesity. Of course, as other countries adopt our diet, it happens to them too, but it's not simply a matter of diet.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Jim Quinn would not be recommending any Letsgetitdone diaries as Priceman did in his post at Kos nor any MMT solutions. Looking back at the header in my original comment, I see now that I did leave the impression that I was suggesting they were the same person. What I actually was going for is that the Quinn post adds to the statistical discussion in the Reuters article and looks to be headed off in Part 2 toward a historically sweeping alternative version of your, "It's not 'stuck,' you dipsticks! It's deliberate!," thesis.

As to my header, I guess I became too focused on the character count restriction to keep track of what I ended up saying.

Submitted by Hugh on

Article non-institutional population: 243 million; BLS 242.604 million
Article 142 million employed; BLS 142.065 million
Article 101 million employed 35 or more hours; BLS 115.290 million
Article % of all working age Americans working full time 41.6%; BLS 47.5%
Article peak workforce participation rate 67.1% in 2000; BLS 67.3% January-April 2000
Current participation rate: article 63.8%; BLS 63.8%
Difference between participation of 67.1% and 63.8%: article 8 million. This is correct. This corresponds to my measure of the BLS undercount only I use 67% so my March number for this was 7.838 million.
Article 12.7 million unemployed now, 15.3 million in 2009; BLS 12.673 million unemployed in March 2012, 15.421 million in October 2009
Article unemployment rate dropped from 10% in 2009 to 8.3% now; BLS 10% unemployment in October 2009, 8.2% in March 2012

It's late and I'm tired so I'll just say that the article's numbers except for the number of full time employed are more or less accurate. Article rounds numbers but still not sure why some are even a little off because I'm just reading off the BLS tables the same as I would expect the article's author was doing. It's a mistake to compare fulltime workers to the working age population because many of those in the working age population would not accept part or full time employment if it were offered to them. There are 88 million in this group and the BLS undercount, those who would likely work if jobs were available, accounts for only about 8 million of these. A better measure would be to compare fulltimers to the overall number of those employed, 78.3%. But here it's important to realize that of the remaining 21.7%, about 2/3 of these are working part time for non-economic reasons. They want to or to stay under Social Security income caps, etc.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

I wasn't expecting you to be so thorough, I just thought you might take a look and see if anything jumped out at you as being off. I know you've covered most of this but I did think items like the employment numbers for those over 65; the rise in the ratio of Social Security Disability beneficiaries to those employed; and the American economy as such the clear leader in low-wage employment as a percentage of total employment among the wealthier developed nations were interesting (though in that last case a lot of the OECD comparative data predates the '08 crash and that's been a long term trend).