Unemployment rate rises again

[BJJ-Blue]

"The jobs recovery picked up speed in April, as business payrolls swelled and the unemployment rate rose as more people returned to the workforce.

The economy added 244,000 jobs in the month, the Labor Department reported Friday. That's up from the 221,000 jobs gained in March. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney were expecting a slight slowdown to a gain of just 185,000 jobs.

Job growth has been strong since the beginning of the year, with 768,000 jobs added since January. And Friday's report also showed that 46,000 more jobs were added in February and March than previously thought.

The unemployment rate edged up to 9.0%, ending a streak of four straight months of declines. Economists had forecast it would remain unchanged at 8.8%."

Source: (complete article)
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/06/news/economy/april_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=T2


And remember 50,000 of those jobs were jobs at McDonalds. If economic recovery means 20% of created jobs are at McDonalds, we are in big trouble.

[MasterKiller]

Unemployment went up because people who had previously not been looking for work began looking again....you know, because the economy is recovering.

[BJJ-Blue]

Unemployment went up because people who had previously not been looking for work began looking again....you know, because the economy is recovering.

I'm not arguing with you, I've heard that too. I honestly do not understand how that works though. I thought they are only counted if they are on/receiving unemployment. So do they get back on unemplyment when they start looking for work? I'm honestly confused.

[MasterKiller]

I'm not arguing with you, I've heard that too. I honestly do not understand how that works though. I thought they are only counted if they are on/receiving unemployment. So do they get back on unemplyment when they start looking for work? I'm honestly confused.

Unemployment is calculated based on responses from a sample survery. If the person answers that they have no job but are not actively seeking a job, then they are not considered "unemployed."

If you answer that you are seeking a job but have not found one, you are considered "unemployed."

So, when people who gave up looking decided to go look again, the numbers shifted.

[mooyingmantis]

What about when someone's unemployment benefits run out? Are they still counted among the "unemployed", or are they just no longer factored in? I always wondered about this.:confused:

[BJJ-Blue]

What about when someone's unemployment benefits run out? Are they still counted among the "unemployed", or are they just no longer factored in? I always wondered about this.:confused:

That's how I though it worked. And that's why I'm confused. I too have read that when people 'fall off', ie their benefits end, they are no longer counted. That's why you see two unemployment rates; the one claculated with the above formula, and one that calculates the 'real' unemployment, ie the the people who are looking for work both on and not on unemployment. The Government, press, etc always use the first formula. I assume because it's concrete, we know the exact number of people receiving unemployment.

And my other point is true, of the jobs created this last month, 50,000 were jobs at McDonalds. This reminds me of Carter's ecomony. He actually had a net LOSS of upper tax bracket jobs, and a large net GAIN of lowest tax bracket jobs.

https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

[David Jamieson]

What about when someone's unemployment benefits run out? Are they still counted among the "unemployed", or are they just no longer factored in? I always wondered about this.:confused:

They aren't factored into the number itself, but they are used to quantify the amount of employed people.

the formulas are crazy actually, but they are accurate.

[Reality_Check]

And my other point is true, of the jobs created this last month, 50,000 were jobs at McDonalds.

Um...no.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/05/06/big-april-jobs-report-it-wasnt-the-mcdonalds-hiring-binge/


That McDonald’s effect on the big April jobs report? Not so much, it turns out.

Dow Jones Newswires’ Michael Derby weighs in:

“Several economists are noting that the much reported hiring binge by hamburger vendor McDonald’s did not drive up hiring last month, which suggest the gain seen last month was indeed a real advancement.

“Says Eric Green of TD Securities: ‘There is no McDonald effect in the report today…The publicized job hiring day was April 19th, one week after the April survey period. We don’t know how many of these hires have begun or will begin work or when’

Green adds “the jobs number was not juiced by food, but it is making me hungry just talking about it.”

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...no.

Yeah, those 50k jobs dont really matter. :rolleyes:

Face it, the unemployment rate went up. Only a Democrat can have the unemployment rate go up, brag about the jobs gained, and have the press trumped that 'fact'.

[Reality_Check]

Yeah, those 50k jobs dont really matter. :rolleyes:

Face it, the unemployment rate went up. Only a Democrat can have the unemployment rate go up, brag about the jobs gained, and have the press trumped that 'fact'.

Um...no.

You said of the jobs created in April (i.e. the 244,000 referenced in the article at CNN to which you linked), 50,000 were McDonalds. That was objectively not the case. And that was the only thing to which I was responding.

[BJJ-Blue]

Um...no.

You said of the jobs created in April (i.e. the 244,000 referenced in the article at CNN to which you linked), 50,000 were McDonalds. That was objectively not the case. And that was the only thing to which I was responding.

So it was in March that the job creation was ~20% burger flipper jobs. The month is moot, the point is he is not creating enough living wage jobs.

He has also only had ONE month where the unemployment rate is below 8%. It NEVER was over 8% under the 8 years of Bush. And the Misery Index in March was 11.48. That's higher than it ever got under Bush.

Source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/

[Syn7]

why dont you ever factor in the fact that one of the largest collapses in financial history happened over a longer period than just bush or obama... one could argue, and quite easilly, that it all started with reagan and his bandaid solutions... which in turn led to bush senior failing miserably as far as economy is concerned... which left a huge mess for clinton whos dumb ass decided deregulation was the cure which in turn set bush junior up for a huge fall... and now we have obama... we cant expect obama to fix thix anytime soon... its a fukcing miracle that he has kept unemployement as low as it is... but just like with reagan and clinton, his solutions are bandaids and they will fall off eventually leaving a ghiant infected wound exposed to the world again... if yall gonna pull outta this, its gonna take a very long time... if the US was to have another middle class golden age, realistically we couldnt expect to see that for a few more generations... at the very least...

so this pointing fingers at a man who has only served half of his first term is just laughable...

[Reality_Check]

So it was in March that the job creation was ~20% burger flipper jobs. The month is moot, the point is he is not creating enough living wage jobs.

He has also only had ONE month where the unemployment rate is below 8%. It NEVER was over 8% under the 8 years of Bush. And the Misery Index in March was 11.48. That's higher than it ever got under Bush.

Source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/

I was not discussing that. I was only addressing your factual error. You stated that 50,000 of the 244,000 jobs in April were McDonalds jobs. They were not. Admit you made a mistake and move on.

[BJJ-Blue]

The current financial mess was stared by the real estate market imploding. And that was caused by the millions of ARMs that were given to people who had no business buying houses. If anyone is to blame it's Carter who signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which imo was when the fuse was lit. Clinton did not help matters by signing in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Bush and Reagan had zero to do with those, and Bush actually tried to head off the disaster in 2002 before it imploded.

FYI, Reagan had things going well within his first 2 years, and he was left a worse mess than Obama. Double-digit inflation, record interest rates (which still have not been topped), and years of top tax-bracket job losses. And Obama had a rubber stamp Congress for 2 years, with a filibuster-proof Senate for one of those years.

If you disagree, please show what caused the mess and how Bush/Reagan/etc policies relate to that. FYI, I've been asking this question for some time, and not one of you has even taken a stab at it.

[BJJ-Blue]

I was not discussing that. I was only addressing your factual error. You stated that 50,000 of the 244,000 jobs in April were McDonalds jobs. They were not. Admit you made a mistake and move on.

I already admitted I was wrong about the MONTH, but the fact remains Obama is creating tens of thousands of burger flipper jobs while the unemployment rate goes up.

Again, I was wrong about the month. But correct about everything else. ;)

[Reality_Check]

The current financial mess was stared by the real estate market imploding. And that was caused by the millions of ARMs that were given to people who had no business buying houses. If anyone is to blame it's Carter who signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which imo was when the fuse was lit. Clinton did not help matters by signing in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Bush and Reagan had zero to do with those, and Bush actually tried to head off the disaster in 2002 before it imploded.

FYI, Reagan had things going well within his first 2 years, and he was left a worse mess than Obama. Double-digit inflation, record interest rates (which still have not been topped), and years of top tax-bracket job losses. And Obama had a rubber stamp Congress for 2 years, with a filibuster-proof Senate for one of those years.

If you disagree, please show what caused the mess and how Bush/Reagan/etc policies relate to that. FYI, I've been asking this question for some time, and not one of you has even taken a stab at it.

Sigh...and I quote:


And as I've clearly and repeatedly demonstrated in the past, the CRA had nothing to do with the subprime mess.


http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=884981&postcount=1154


That has been addressed.



Here is some interesting information: http://www.traigerlaw.com/publicatio...udy_1-7-08.pdf

"Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.

Specifically, our analysis shows that:

(1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;

(2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;

(3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio; and

(4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches."



"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts."

I.e., the majority of the subprime loans were made by companies not subject to CRA.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...barr021308.pdf

Janet Yellin, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Board:

"There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term."

"According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies. Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner, “The 2006 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Volume 94 (2007), p. A89."

http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html

As I noted above, independent mortgage companies are not subject to the CRA.


From a speech by Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall S. Kroszner:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm#f6

Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices...

The CRA does not stipulate minimum targets or goals for lending, investments, or services. Rather, the law provides incentives for financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income people and areas, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and commensurately provides them favorable CRA consideration for those activities. By requiring regulators to make CRA performance ratings and evaluations public and to consider those ratings when reviewing applications for mergers, acquisitions, and branches, the Congress created an unusual set of incentives to promote interaction between lenders and community organizations.

Given the incentives of the CRA, bankers have pursued lines of business that had not been previously tapped by forming partnerships with community organizations and other stakeholders to identify and help meet the credit needs of underserved communities. This experimentation in lending, often combined with financial education and counseling and consideration of nontraditional measures of creditworthiness, expanded the markets for safe lending in underserved communities and demonstrated its viability; as a result, these actions attracted competition from other financial services providers, many of whom were not covered by the CRA. There are many fine examples of community development lending and investment activities designed to address needs in the poorest of areas, including many of those highlighted by the case studies in this report...

Over the years, the Federal Reserve has prepared two reports for the Congress that provide information on the performance of lending to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods--populations that are the focus of the CRA. These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner...

In analyzing the available data, we focused on two distinct metrics: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question concerning loan originations, we wanted to know which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended. This analysis allowed us to determine what fraction of subprime lending could be related to the CRA.

Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.

Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis...

The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.

Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

[BJJ-Blue]

Sigh...and I quote:

Even if I say you're correct about the CRA (and I'm not), I still need to see how Bush and/or Reagan's policies caused the mess. Remember, the community organizer has been blaming Bush for the mess for 3+ years now.

[Reality_Check]

Even if I say you're correct about the CRA (and I'm not), I still need to see how Bush and/or Reagan's policies caused the mess. Remember, the community organizer has been blaming Bush for the mess for 3+ years now.

To my knowledge, I have not made a statement regarding the culpability, or lack thereof, of the policies of the Administrations of Presidents Bush and Reagan in the sub-prime meltdown.

You keep bringing up the CRA as being responsible, and I keep knocking down your assertion. Provide some evidence to counter that with I've provided you, or stop making an evidence-free assertion.

[BJJ-Blue]

To my knowledge, I have not made a statement regarding the culpability, or lack thereof, of the policies of the Administrations of Presidents Bush and Reagan in the sub-prime meltdown.

I did not say you did specifically. But it has been made several times, and to date you have never called upon those making that assertion to back it up as you do to me quite often. Are you perhaps picking and choosing what assertions you are questioning?


You keep bringing up the CRA as being responsible, and I keep knocking down your assertion. Provide some evidence to counter that with I've provided you, or stop making an evidence-free assertion.

I've never said it was the ONLY cause. I actually recently referred to it as the "spark", fyi. But how anyone can say a law that FORCED banks to make loans to unqualified applicants had nothing to do with a collapse caused by too many people who were given loans despite their inability to pay them back is utter foolishness.

And fyi, I can't defend/prove an assertion you claim to have "knocked down" when I never made said assertion in the first place. :rolleyes:

[Reality_Check]

I did not say you did specifically. But it has been made several times, and to date you have never called upon those making that assertion to back it up as you do to me quite often. Are you perhaps picking and choosing what assertions you are questioning?

You're a big boy; handle your own arguments. I don't need to fight them for you.


I've never said it was the ONLY cause. I actually recently referred to it as the "spark", fyi. But how anyone can say a law that FORCED banks to make loans to unqualified applicants had nothing to do with a collapse caused by too many people who were given loans despite their inability to pay them back is utter foolishness.

And fyi, I can't defend/prove an assertion you claim to have "knocked down" when I never made said assertion in the first place. :rolleyes:

And strawman...where did I say you said it was the only cause? Oh wait...I didn't. You incessantly say it was a cause, or a factor, or "got the ball rolling," or "was enough to cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down," etc. Judging by how often you bring it up, you must clearly feel that it was a/the primary cause. "If anyone is to blame it's Carter who signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which imo was when the fuse was lit."

So, put up some evidence backing up your assertion, or stop making it. In a nutshell, put up or shut up.


What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens

[Syn7]

Even if I say you're correct about the CRA (and I'm not), I still need to see how Bush and/or Reagan's policies caused the mess. Remember, the community organizer has been blaming Bush for the mess for 3+ years now.

yeah, obama blamed bush for what happened under his watch without going back and looking at all the events in the last century that led to this... sort of like how you put everything on obama for whats happening under his watch... i think its wrong for you to blame obama for this mess and i think its wrong to blame bush for the economic collapse that happened under his watch...

now, thats not to say that both dont have alot of accountability in all these issues, but you cant blame one cat for a mess created by a whole nation... the middle class and higher is who killed the american dream... they were given a wonderful inch, when everyone else in the world was getting 1/16 inches, yet the american mentality insisted that they deserved a whole yard... the middle class and higher created a debt based society, between greedy people borrowing beyond their means and taking unreasonable chances and the wealthy backers who were more than happy to facilitate this mess... can we really blame that on bush or obama? clinton? or even reagan? nixon? kennedy? they all played a part in it and they are ALL guilty of alot of things... but they arent by any means solely responsible for the economic collapse...


i like ron paul, he's one of the very few american politicians that i wouldnt spit on, i'd even invite him in my home for a meal... and although i do agree with alot he says, i disagree with alot he says... but i do agree with him on the fact that we need to be using a gold based system, or a resource based model rather than what we have now... this whole thing about banks lending money they dont have at extortionate rates is absolutely ridiculous and i find it almost laughable that we've allowed ourselves to get here... the average consumer is so ignorant of finances that people didnt notice how bad it was untill they saw everyone losing money like crazy... of course anyone who knew anything about this economy had already cashed out by then and had their money safe and sound, tucked away on things that are stable... like, ahhem, gold and other such resources... ;)

[Drake]

I don't blame Bush OR Obama. I blame Americans at all levels. Irresponsibility from the lender to the lendee, from the overcompensated auto factory worker to the CEOs who take more than their share.

All the while the rest of the world is working its ass off to catch up with us.

You want an economic boogeyman? Look in the mirror.

[BJJ-Blue]

yeah, obama blamed bush for what happened under his watch without going back and looking at all the events in the last century that led to this... sort of like how you put everything on obama for whats happening under his watch... i think its wrong for you to blame obama for this mess and i think its wrong to blame bush for the economic collapse that happened under his watch...

I've never blamed the community organizer for the mess, but I do blame him for making it worse. Remember, I correctly predicted the 'stimulus' would not achieve it's goals and stick us with a huge bill. I even posted Morgenthau's quote several times as the basis for my prediction.

I've also blamed him for not doing things to improve the situation. He called in a bunch of CEO types a few months ago to ask what their views were on what was needed to jumpstart the private sector. Their #1 recommendation/request was cutting regulations that are detrimental to American companies. Has he follwed through on that in any way? No. As to the price of gas, he's made that worse, and I've blamed him. When it got bad under Bush, he said we would drill here if it didn't come down. It immediately came down. Fast-forward to the community organizer; gas went up and he went out told OPEC we would not be drilling here! I mean, come on. This moron doesn't even grasp the Law of Supply and Demand for crying out loud!

So while I do not blame him for the mess, I blame him for making it worse. Look at just about every economic indicator on his watch vs when he took office: unemployment is up, debt is up, inflation is up, gas prices are up, food prices are up, the Misery Index is up. So in short, I can't blame him for setting the fire, but when he throws gas on it I can criticize his solutions which have only made things worse.


now, thats not to say that both dont have alot of accountability in all these issues, but you cant blame one cat for a mess created by a whole nation... the middle class and higher is who killed the american dream... they were given a wonderful inch, when everyone else in the world was getting 1/16 inches, yet the american mentality insisted that they deserved a whole yard... the middle class and higher created a debt based society, between greedy people borrowing beyond their means and taking unreasonable chances and the wealthy backers who were more than happy to facilitate this mess... can we really blame that on bush or obama? clinton? or even reagan? nixon? kennedy? they all played a part in it and they are ALL guilty of alot of things... but they arent by any means solely responsible for the economic collapse...

It wasn't the middle or upper class, it was the lower-middle and lower class who started the mess. Notice you don't see numbers of For Sale/Bank Repo signs in affluent neighborhoods as you do in lower-middle areas. The richer people weren't as stupid. It is what it is.

Now it's not ALL his fault, but Clinton did de-regulate things like credit default swaps, which made it easier for banks to sell the Government-backed garbage ARMs. Had they not had a buyer for the garbage, they wouldn't have created it in the first place. And no one would have bought the garbage had it not been Government backed.

As to debt, Americans carry too much of it. You're right there. But it wasn't credit card debt, car loans, 'toy' loans (boats, 3rd cars, etc) that caused the financial implosion. It was mortgages. Look at me, I have 2 very nice cars and live in a nice neighborhood. But you don't see For Sale signs on my cars, nor have they been repo'd. And that's because I bought what I could afford, nothing more. And I have almost zero credit card debt.



i like ron paul,

Ron Paul is a good candidate, actually one of the better ones. I like Herman Cain, but odds are he won't last long. Should Mr Cain drop out before the primaries get to Texas, I'll likely vote for Congressman Paul. Of course it's early yet. But I honestly doubt I'll like a candidate more than Mr Cain.