Obama Heralds 1.1M Private Sector Jobs Created Since Jan.

[j-mac]

Ah, the hailing of job growth....To be sure we hear this from any administration that enters office and is asked about it, but the numbers don't lie, do they?

Hailing the "encouraging news" from Labor Department announcement, that October saw the addition of 151,000 new jobs, President Barack Obama said the private sector has created 1.1 million jobs over the last ten months.
The Labor Department said that the private sector added 159,000 new jobs last month, with an overall net increase in employment of 151,000.

Obama Heralds 1.1M Private Sector Jobs Created Since Jan. - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

That works out to an average of just over 3,000 jobs per state last month. But, what kind of jobs were they? An example:

My wife who is a 20 year graphic designer for print news papers lost her job due to down sizing two years ago, and in hopes of lowering our cost of living, as well as get better opportunity to find work, we moved from the North East to SC. Guess what? No jobs for her. She worked a warehouse type job for a year, and now works for a check cashing place temporarily until she can complete training to change careers. This has resulted in her making less than half of what she used to make. So, is she employed? yes. Is it an acceptable job, rate of pay, etc.? hell no!

3,000 jobs is NOTHING per state that has hundreds of thousands out of work! Plus, it is NOTHING compared to new unemployment claims that come in every month either. In net, I'd be willing to bet it is a net loss still.

News busters has this:

According to the BLS's Establishment Survey, there were 132.4 million nonfarm workers in America in January 2001. When Bush left office in January 2009, this number was 133.5 million - a 1.3 million increase.

As just released last Friday, this number is now 130.5 million - a 3 million decrease since Obama was inaugurated.

According to the BLS's Household Survey, there were 137.8 million total workers in January 2001. This number was 142.2 million in January 2009, a 4.4 million increase.

As just released last Friday, this number is now 139.1 million - a 3.1 million decrease since Obama was inaugurated.

As such, depending on which survey you look at, Bush's job creation in his eight years was either 1.3 million or 4.4 million. Both surveys show job losses under Obama at basically 3 million.

Bill Press Falsely Claims Obama Created More Jobs in 20 Months Than Bush Did in Eight Years | NewsBusters.org

So according to Government surveys Obama has lost some 3 Million jobs since taking office, so how is he able to say that he has created 3 Million jobs? At best it would be a wash. I think it is far greater loss than gain.

Thoughts?


j-mac

 

[MKULTRABOY]

The job market is in the pooper. Job creation in the US during the bush years was mostly minimum wage BS. Now this. /meh

 

[Kushinator]

Ah, the hailing of job growth....To be sure we hear this from any administration that enters office and is asked about it, but the numbers don't lie, do they?

That works out to an average of just over 3,000 jobs per state last month. But, what kind of jobs were they? An example:

My wife who is a 20 year graphic designer for print news papers lost her job due to down sizing two years ago, and in hopes of lowering our cost of living, as well as get better opportunity to find work, we moved from the North East to SC. Guess what? No jobs for her. She worked a warehouse type job for a year, and now works for a check cashing place temporarily until she can complete training to change careers. This has resulted in her making less than half of what she used to make. So, is she employed? yes. Is it an acceptable job, rate of pay, etc.? hell no!

3,000 jobs is NOTHING per state that has hundreds of thousands out of work! Plus, it is NOTHING compared to new unemployment claims that come in every month either. In net, I'd be willing to bet it is a net loss still.

News busters has this:



So according to Government surveys Obama has lost some 3 Million jobs since taking office, so how is he able to say that he has created 3 Million jobs? At best it would be a wash. I think it is far greater loss than gain.

Thoughts?


j-mac

3,000/month is roughly what is required for the aggregate labor market to keep up with population growth. At this pace, we will be a 2007 levels by around 2020.

However, if you consider that private sector job growth was -600,000 in early 2009, this shows that a significant trend is building.

Can you say 400,000/month job growth (or 8,000 per month per state) by the second quarter 2011?

 

[j-mac]

3,000/month is roughly what is required for the aggregate labor market to keep up with population growth. At this pace, we will be a 2007 levels by around 2020.

However, if you consider that private sector job growth was -600,000 in early 2009, this shows that a significant trend is building.

Can you say 400,000/month job growth (or 8,000 per month per state) by the second quarter 2011?

But that is hard to believe, it sounds like more spin....You know, the whole "saved or created" thingy?

Where's the truth?


j-mac

 

[Kushinator]

But that is hard to believe, it sounds like more spin....You know, the whole "saved or created" thingy?

Where's the truth?
j-mac

Just a quick question: If government spending is cut in half by next year, what does that do to the unemployment rate?

 

[Grim17]

First off, Obama is playing a word game. When the private sector gains, and the public sector loses, he quotes the private sector gains because it's a higher number than overall net jobs created. When it's the other way around, or the public sector is responsible for the majority of the created jobs, he ignores the private sector and only quotes the net gains like he did back in May when the those census jobs were responsible for the numbers.

With that said, Obama is again quoting the private sector job creation for the year, to make it appear that the country has created more jobs than it actually has. The reality is, that the public sector so far this year (federal, state, county and city workers) has lost well over 200,000 jobs nationwide, meaning that over all there's been 874,000 jobs created. Using that larger 1.1 million private sector figure has a greater significance than just being larger number... It gives the illusion that the employment situation has moved in a positive direction this year, when in reality it hasn't.

The American workforce increases over all by 100,000 people per month, so the country needs to create 100,000 jobs per month just to break even. The 1.1 million private sector jobs created, breaks down to an average of 110,000 jobs created per month, which gives the impression we are not only keeping up with population growth, but we are putting a dent in the unemployment situation... The reality is, we have only created an average 87,000 jobs per month so far this year, which means the number of unemployed has actually been increasing by 13,000 people a month.

Math is fun... Don't you think?

 

[Kushinator]

First off, Obama is playing a word game. When the private sector gains, and the public sector loses, he quotes the private sector gains because it's a higher number than overall net jobs created. When it's the other way around, or the public sector is responsible for the majority of the created jobs, he ignores the private sector and only quotes the net gains like he did back in May when the those census jobs were responsible for the numbers.

With that said, Obama is again quoting the private sector job creation for the year, to make it appear that the country has created more jobs than it actually has. The reality is, that the public sector so far this year (federal, state, county and city workers) has lost well over 200,000 jobs nationwide, meaning that over all there's been 874,000 jobs created. Using that larger 1.1 million private sector figure has a greater significance than just being larger number... It gives the illusion that the employment situation has moved in a positive direction this year, when in reality it hasn't.

The American workforce increases over all by 100,000 people per month, so the country needs to create 100,000 jobs per month just to break even. The 1.1 million private sector jobs created, breaks down to an average of 110,000 jobs created per month, which gives the impression we are not only keeping up with population growth, but we are putting a dent in the unemployment situation... The reality is, we have only created an average 87,000 jobs per month so far this year, which means the number of unemployed has actually been increasing by 13,000 people a month.

Math is fun... Don't you think?

So cutting government jobs has a negative effect on aggregate job growth. Say it ain't so!

 

[Grim17]

So cutting government jobs has a negative effect on aggregate job growth. Say it ain't so!

I'll address your off-topic post, if you'll address the on-topic one I made.

 

[j-mac]

Just a quick question: If government spending is cut in half by next year, what does that do to the unemployment rate?

So you are in favor of bailouts?


j-mac

 

[Kushinator]

I'll address your off-topic post, if you'll address the on-topic one I made.

Your desire to reference aggregate job growth (private sector growth + public sector growth) failed to accout for public sector growth being negative. Negative + Positive = subtraction!

 

[Kushinator]

So you are in favor of bailouts?


j-mac

This is not about me, i simply asked you a question. Would you rather have double the unemployment and half the government spending during this recession, or this level of unemployment and current levels of government spending?

 

[Grim17]

Your desire to reference aggregate job growth (private sector growth + public sector growth) failed to accout for public sector growth being negative. Negative + Positive = subtraction!

Huh? You lost me here.

If Obama said that 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created this year.
The BLS website says that over all (private + public) 874,000 jobs have been created this year
I said that the public sector has lost over 200,000 jobs this year.

So, I don't follow you.

 

[Kushinator]

My apologies, i misread the last paragraph.

None the less, why do you view Obama touting private sector job growth as something negative?

 

[pbrauer]

The job market is in the pooper. Job creation in the US during the bush years was mostly minimum wage BS. Now this. /meh

Yes the job market is in the pooper as you say, much of it is to the deep recession that happened when Bush was president. And even before the economy tanked, Bush has the worst job creation on record, creating just 375,000 per year while his predecessor Bill Clinton created 2,900,000 per year.

I give you the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a liberal publication:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Wiseone]

My apologies, i misread the last paragraph.

None the less, why do you view Obama touting private sector job growth as something negative?

Because he blames Obama for his wife's employment status. As if the President is directly responsible for the job market in whatever city in South Carolina he's living in. Its not the industry, its not the economy, its not consumer demand, its not Congress, its not the Fed, its not a million other things which have huge effects on the employabilty of a person, its the President himself!

 

[apdst]

My apologies, i misread the last paragraph.

None the less, why do you view Obama touting private sector job growth as something negative?

Because he's ****in' lieing! There hasn't been a 1.1 million positive job growth added to the private sector this year.

 

[Wiseone]

Ah, the hailing of job growth....To be sure we hear this from any administration that enters office and is asked about it, but the numbers don't lie, do they?



That works out to an average of just over 3,000 jobs per state last month. But, what kind of jobs were they? An example:

My wife who is a 20 year graphic designer for print news papers lost her job due to down sizing two years ago, and in hopes of lowering our cost of living, as well as get better opportunity to find work, we moved from the North East to SC. Guess what? No jobs for her. She worked a warehouse type job for a year, and now works for a check cashing place temporarily until she can complete training to change careers. This has resulted in her making less than half of what she used to make. So, is she employed? yes. Is it an acceptable job, rate of pay, etc.? hell no!

3,000 jobs is NOTHING per state that has hundreds of thousands out of work! Plus, it is NOTHING compared to new unemployment claims that come in every month either. In net, I'd be willing to bet it is a net loss still.

News busters has this:



So according to Government surveys Obama has lost some 3 Million jobs since taking office, so how is he able to say that he has created 3 Million jobs? At best it would be a wash. I think it is far greater loss than gain.

Thoughts?

The news story you quote and the article you posted that "busts" it are talking about two different things. Namely the CBS article is talking about the job creation since January of 2010, the other article is talking about job creation since Obama took office.

Also the Newsbusters article is talking about something other guy other than Obama said, namely some guy named "Bill Press."

 

[Grim17]

Because he blames Obama for his wife's employment status. As if the President is directly responsible for the job market in whatever city in South Carolina he's living in. Its not the industry, its not the economy, its not consumer demand, its not Congress, its not the Fed, its not a million other things which have huge effects on the employabilty of a person, its the President himself!

First off, I'm not married... Second, I don't live SC. I could be your neighbor.

 

[Wiseone]

First off, I'm not married... Second, I don't live SC. I could be your neighbor.

O my mistake I thought he was quoting J-Mac. Thats who I meant that towards.

 

[apdst]

Because he blames Obama for his wife's employment status. As if the President is directly responsible for the job market in whatever city in South Carolina he's living in. Its not the industry, its not the economy, its not consumer demand, its not Congress, its not the Fed, its not a million other things which have huge effects on the employabilty of a person, its the President himself!

The next thing you're going to say, is that Obama isn't responsible for all those oilfield hands that have been laid off since the moratorium.

 

[Wiseone]

The next thing you're going to say, is that Obama isn't responsible for all those oilfield hands that have been laid off since the moratorium.

The moratorium is over.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Just a quick question: If government spending is cut in half by next year, what does that do to the unemployment rate?

nothing because the 151,000 figure is PRIVATE job creation growth. Government job growth is largely ignored when talking about the market.

 

[Kushinator]

nothing because the 151,000 figure is PRIVATE job creation growth. Government job growth is largely ignored when talking about the market.

Incorrect; the unemployment rate is a function of the aggregate labor market, this includes public and private job losses.

 

[Kushinator]

Because he's ****in' lieing! There hasn't been a 1.1 million positive job growth added to the private sector this year.

There has been 1.1 million private sector jobs created.

 

[Taylor]

You know things suck when the only thing the President can "herald" is a private sector job growth figure that ranks as the weakest for any recovery on record.

I guess we'll have to wait and see where a second round of "quantitative easing" gets us.