Job Report: Thanks Obama!

Hmm, last two month’s #s revised upward over 100k, this month steady at 80k added. Unemployment will be below 9% by EOY. Re-election, here he comes. Even conservatives at The National Review are conceding the obvious:

“A year ago the unemployment rate was 9.7 percent. During this time, nonfarm jobs have grown at an average monthly rate of 152,000 while civilian employment has grown at a rate of 140,000 per month. In other words, we don’t need 150,000 jobs per month just to keep the unemployment rate steady. Because of the aging of the labor force, 150,000 jobs per month is more than enough to push down the jobless rate.
Very quietly, without fanfare, private-sector payrolls have grown by 1.8 million in the past year, while the work week has lengthened and hourly cash wages are up 1.8 percent.
Total hours worked are up 1.7 percent in the past year. A 9 percent unemployment rate means the labor market is still far from operating at its full potential, but it is moving in the right direction as are other data. October chain store sales were up 3.7 percent versus a year ago, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers. This includes luxury department store sales (up 4.5 percent) and wholesale clubs, excluding fuel (up 7 percent). Meanwhile, compared to a year ago, core railcar loadings are up 5.8 percent, steel production is up 10.3 percent, and hotel occupancy rates are up 6.8 percent.
Again, there are no signs of recession. Instead, plenty of signs of continued growth,” - Bob Stein, National Review.

3…2…1 get popcorn, strap in and wait for chainpin to rip it apart

**Upward revisions the story for the job count **Payrolls rose 80K in Oct, slightly below the consensus 95K, and close to the 85K forecasts. Private jobs were up 104K. The real news was the 102K upward revisions to the prior two months, making the total jobs reading more like 182K. August is now 104K (from 57K) and Sept is now 158K (from 103K).

It would be nice to see dems run on a positive message like this, along with Obama’s other accomplishments; Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, strong EPA out protecting folks, stimulus (pointing to the jobless rates). Does not look like that is the path they will choose.

Yes okay. Thanks. But for what? His contribution to a 9% unemployment number will look a whole lot better once it gets under 8% which was his promise in the $800 billion stimulus bill.

Hmm, last two month’s #s revised upward over 100k, this month steady at 80k added. Unemployment will be below 9% by EOY. Re-election, here he comes. Even conservatives at The National Review are conceding the obvious:

I’m sorry but according to Klehner unemployment has nothing to do with Obama getting re-elected. I brought this up in another thread and was told it was irrelevant.

I of course agree. If UE drops down to 6-7% Obama’s a shoe in.

~Matt

It would be nice to see dems run on a positive message like this, along with Obama’s other accomplishments; Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, strong EPA out protecting folks, stimulus (pointing to the jobless rates). Does not look like that is the path they will choose.

The dems are comically (or tragically, depending on your POV) bad at messaging and standing their ground in defense of demonized initiatives.

Should be interesting to see how their strategy against Romney unfolds. I suspect we’ll see a strong populist-themed, Mitt = Wall Street (“corporations are people, too”) theme emerge early.

This is some of the worst news the GOP could receive. Any GOP candidate with the sense of a billy goat should see that unless things change dramatically Obama is going to win a second term. But of course egos will prevail.

It would be nice to see dems run on a positive message like this, along with Obama’s other accomplishments; Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, strong EPA out protecting folks, stimulus (pointing to the jobless rates). Does not look like that is the path they will choose.

That’d be nice. My impression (and I’m sure some here would disagree…shocking I know:) is that Obama tried going positive for about 9-12 months, then got completely derailed doing so and decided it wasn’t worth it. I think once the economy turns around a bit more, he has plenty positive to point to. Until then, anything he says is just countered by “JOB KILLER”. JOB KILLING Obamacare, JOB KILLING Dodd-Frank, JOB KILLING Stimulus, JOB KILLING EPA regulation.

I wish he would do as you said and be the adult in the room, but at some point his team decided it wasn’t working out to do that. And frankly, who can blame them? We as citizens get what we deserve in terms of the tone of the debate. We (population as a whole, not necessarily people on this board) reward this sort of dumbass political talk.

You seen any charts or anything that list what the original and then revisions for the job reports are? I always have a hard time figuring out if the upward revisions get the #s back to the original estimates, to the original downward revision etc.

Didn’t klehner say that Nate Silver is saying unemployment doesn’t matter?

Dems don’t need to be particularly good about messaging. The Repubs have already nicely framed the coming election as about Williard’s flip-flops and ties to Wall Street.

April-May '12 are going to be interesting months. With the coming holiday employment bump, we’ll likely see unemployment under 9% in January and/or February. Will that news be enough to spark confidence, and continue the (slow) recovery? If job growth lags, as I expect it to (and as it traditionally has) in March/April, it may give Willard a temporary spark/hope. However, if <9% spurs growth, as it might (and especially if Europe is able to put its mess in the rear view mirror), and we are looking at 8.7% or so in April/May, with a trend towards 8.3-8.5% by October/November, its going to be a cake-walk for Obama.

Above 9% and its 50-50 for Obama against Willard. Below 8.5% & he is a shoo-in.

Of course if the Repubs lose their minds & put up Cain, Perry (please, please), or Gingrich (PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE), then it really won’t matter what the unemployment #s are.

I think Mike Huckabee is kicking himself right now. The nomination would have been his for the taking.

The Senate is doing a great job of playing right into Obama’s '12 messaging campaign by not only defeating his most recent plan en Toto, but actually voting against individual pieces that team Obama will be able to effectively message as the real reason recovery isn’t forthcoming quicker.

3 dimensional chess against a bunch of checker players. Thanks Cantor!

**“JOB KILLER”. JOB KILLING Obamacare, JOB KILLING Dodd-Frank, JOB KILLING Stimulus, JOB KILLING EPA regulation. **

I wish he would do as you said and be the adult in the room, but at some point his team decided it wasn’t working out to do that. And frankly, who can blame them? We as citizens get what we deserve in terms of the tone of the debate. We (population as a whole, not necessarily people on this board) reward this sort of dumbass political talk.

Yeah, I’m one of those that has been, and would be screaming those things. :wink: Though I do think that from the beginning, and still, Obama’s plan was to implement his agenda of massive regulation in healthcare, financial, and energy sectors, (regulation not being the goal, rather remaking those industries) while masking the negative effects for a time with massive spending. If UE continues to decline, I’d say the strategy could be considered a winner, and changes he implements are unlikely to be rolled back.

3…2…1 get popcorn, strap in and wait for chainpin to rip it apart

**Upward revisions the story for the job count **Payrolls rose 80K in Oct, slightly below the consensus 95K, and close to the 85K forecasts. Private jobs were up 104K. The real news was the 102K upward revisions to the prior two months, making the total jobs reading more like 182K. August is now 104K (from 57K) and Sept is now 158K (from 103K).

Sigh…

These numbers are a fucking joke.

We have created 1.4M jobs on paper, according to this series, YTD.

What if I told you that almost have those jobs were from an “adjustment”, a statistical plug number?

Indeed, the brith death ratio has added close to 40% of the jobs created this year.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm

Oh, and for this month this statistical estimate of the number of workers added from netting the number of companies estimated to have closed vs newly formed businesses (birth death ratio), was 102K.

So you do the math, headline is that we added 80k to the payrolls, except 102k of that is based on some regression equation that suffers from extreme misspecification error.

Why?

Well, because the season and historical tenor of new businesses coming online that hire people vs companies that go out of business and lay people off, bears absolutely no relation to the current macro economic environment, yet, in order to use the birth death adjustments, you HAVE to use this historical data, otherwise you have no regression–its a failed model.

And none of this addresses the real issue which is that we are not even keeping up with population growth with these numbers, even the newly reivsed highers ones.

But other than that the numbers are great.

So

Hmm, last two month’s #s revised upward over 100k, this month steady at 80k added. Unemployment will be below 9% by EOY. Re-election, here he comes. Even conservatives at The National Review are conceding the obvious:

I’m sorry but according to Klehner unemployment has nothing to do with Obama getting re-elected. I brought this up in another thread and was told it was irrelevant.

Matt, kiss my ass.

“Silver points out, in the lengthy article, that unemployment has not been a good predictor”

Learn to read, or stop being a jerk.

Nice word salad you just tossed together there. About as nonsensical as ever.

Don’t let facts get in the way of your kindergarten dissertation though:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015436a15cb0970c-800wi

Matt, kiss my ass.

No thank you.

“Silver points out, in the lengthy article, that unemployment has not been a good predictor”

Yes you pointed that out and said UE was irrelevant. I’m just relaying that message to mopdahl.

Learn to read, or stop being a jerk.** **

It would appear that I can read and typically I’m only a jerk to people who regularly act like ass holes.

~Matt

Didn’t klehner say that Nate Silver is saying unemployment doesn’t matter?

Yes in fact klehner did say that Nate Silver said unemployment doesn’t matter and apparently me pointing that out the first time was irrelevant and pointing it out a second time makes me a jerk :slight_smile:

~Matt

Christmas hiring?

Nice word salad you just tossed together there. About as nonsensical as ever.

Don’t let facts get in the way of your kindergarten dissertation though:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015436a15cb0970c-800wi

Wait, are you denying the existence of the birth death model and its 40% contribution to the number of jobs supposedly created this year?

Do you even know what it is?

Did you think throwing up a colorful chart–surprised you didn’t make it even bigger for effect–was somehow going to invalidate what I wrote above?

Are you disputing what I wrote, and if so please back it up with some modicum of analytical rigor–I’m all ears.

People are reading and watching you know.

Matt, kiss my ass.

No thank you.

“Silver points out, in the lengthy article, that unemployment has not been a good predictor”

Yes you pointed that out and said UE was irrelevant. I’m just relaying that message to mopdahl.

Learn to read, or stop being a jerk.** **

It would appear that I can read and typically I’m only a jerk to people who regularly act like ass holes.

~Matt

It appears you can’t read or you are a jerk, or both, as I didn’t say that unemployment is irrelevant. I said that NS says it is not predictive, and the fact that it is not means that there is no “new normal” effect as you described (if there was such an effect, then the unemployment rate would be predictive. Do you understand that?).

You didn’ just relay some message to Mike: you got all snarky, which, to me, means you are a jerk.