ther new job numbers are here

[evince]

they are decent and they have revised the last few months up.

we have 7.5 unemployment

[Cancel 2020.1]

It's a slow road back, but at least we're moving in the right direction.

Businesses are doing better than hiring would suggest. Hiring has taken on a kind of "trickle down" m.o. - the market is doing great, businesses are profiting, but people are still reluctant to hire because the crash instilled such fear.

I hope the country is capable of another boom, like we had in the '90's, but it's also possible that this will just be the new normal.

[Cancel 2016.2]

The workweek shrank to 34.4 hours for all U.S. employees on average from 34.6 hours in March. Part of the reason may be reflected in an increase in part-time employment.
The number of employees not working a full week rose to 27.5 million from 27.4 million. Some 278,000 more employees were working part-time for economic reasons.

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's a slow road back, but at least we're moving in the right direction.

Businesses are doing better than hiring would suggest. Hiring has taken on a kind of "trickle down" m.o. - the market is doing great, businesses are profiting, but people are still reluctant to hire because the crash instilled such fear.

I hope the country is capable of another boom, like we had in the '90's, but it's also possible that this will just be the new normal.

It isn't the crash that causes the lack of hiring. It is the fiscal irresponsibility of the idiots in DC and the fact that they cannot put any long term plan together. Even if they created the most god awful plan for the tax code, at least then the businesses could plan for it. It is the uncertainty coupled with the costs of hiring that are causing the lack of new jobs.

[Damocles]

They are disappointing and almost 50,000 below expectations. Can you tell me how many abandoned the search, or can you be that honest?

[Cancel 2020.1]

They are disappointing and almost 50,000 below expectations. Can you tell me how many abandoned the search, or can you be that honest?

All she said is that they're decent #'s. They're certainly not gangbusters, but they are decent.

I'm not sure why job #'s have to be a partisan thing. Every administration, it seems like half the people are overly rosy on the economy, and half spend the whole time talking it down.

[Bonestorm]

At what point will the "uncertainty" claim die. First, it was the uncertainty of the debt ceiling. That was resolved. Then it was the uncertainty of the tax issues. That was resovled. Then it was the uncertainty of the sequested. Well, that's pretty much been resolved, too. It's here to stay.

So what exactly is the "uncertainty?"

Also, too, there can never be actual "certainty" when it comes to a so-called long term plan. Even if this Congress enacted a eleventy-year plan that resolved any claimed "uncertainty" from now until Doomsday, the next Congress can just change it.

Nothing is ever certain. That's why CEOs get paid the big bucks. Because they're supposed to be able to lead profitable and successful businesses notwithstanidng the many challenges they may face, including the "uncertainty" in the world.

[Bonestorm]

They are disappointing and almost 50,000 below expectations. Can you tell me how many abandoned the search, or can you be that honest?

Yeah, you're going to have to go ahead and link to someone setting the April jobs expectation of +215,000 (50,000 above the 165,000 number). I'm calling bullshit.

[Damocles]

All she said is that they're decent #'s. They're certainly not gangbusters, but they are decent.

I'm not sure why job #'s have to be a partisan thing. Every administration, it seems like half the people are overly rosy on the economy, and half spend the whole time talking it down.

They aren't, I don't understand why simply pointing out the truth of the numbers is "partisan", let's use a Deshism... The truth must have a conservative bias then....

I said they are disappointing because they are, and told you, accurately, with explanation, exactly why they are, then asked a question which nobody bothered to answer.

[Cancel 2020.1]

They aren't, I don't understand why simply pointing out the truth of the numbers is "partisan", let's use a Deshism... The truth must have a conservative bias then....

I said they are disappointing because they are, and told you, accurately, with explanation, exactly why they are, then asked a question which nobody bothered to answer.

Did you know that it's being reported that the jobs report actually beat expectations?

And the question you asked is the same one you criticized liberals for asking during the Bush years, as being partisan.

[Cancel 2016.2]

At what point will the "uncertainty" claim die. First, it was the uncertainty of the debt ceiling. That was resolved. Then it was the uncertainty of the tax issues. That was resovled. Then it was the uncertainty of the sequested. Well, that's pretty much been resolved, too. It's here to stay.

So what exactly is the "uncertainty?"

Taxes and regulation

Also, too, there can never be actual "certainty" when it comes to a so-called long term plan. Even if this Congress enacted a eleventy-year plan that resolved any claimed "uncertainty" from now until Doomsday, the next Congress can just change it.

True. However, when you rack up massive amounts of debt and don't show how you plan to pay for it... that causes uncertainty. Four years without a budget. Four years of trillion plus deficits. Continued talk from warped Keynesians about spending MORE.

Nothing is ever certain. That's why CEOs get paid the big bucks. Because they're supposed to be able to lead profitable and successful businesses notwithstanidng the many challenges they may face, including the "uncertainty" in the world.

Yes, which is precisely what they are doing. The balance sheets look great on the whole, the companies are profitable, the markets are going up. How has that worked for the unemployed?

[Damocles]

Did you know that it's being reported that the jobs report actually beat expectations?

And the question you asked is the same one you criticized liberals for asking during the Bush years, as being partisan.

I think I may have been reading the March report... :sheepish look:

They aren't bad and beat expectations for non-farm jobs this month, almost making up the ground lost in March in expectations. And as a real positive. 210,000 people re-entered the labor force. This is good news.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dung... maybe just this once you will answer...

When the low interest rate debt we are amassing comes due in 5/10/20/30 years... what will happen at those points?

[blackascoal]

Unemployment numbers are too manipulated to be a trustworthy benchmark of the American workforce. Those who have completely dropped out due to severe long-term employment .. and there are many .. aren't even factored into the numbers.

I'm glad the numbers are looking better, hope they get really better. But they don't offer a real sense of what the job picture really looks like.

[Bonestorm]

Dung... maybe just this once you will answer...

When the low interest rate debt we are amassing comes due in 5/10/20/30 years... what will happen at those points?

I've answered this unpteen times. I'm more worried about the very real problems that we have right now than I am about potential problems that may exist in the future if we do the right thing now to deal with those very real problems that we have.

Also, too, would you rather borrow today at a negative real rate or in 5 years at a higher rate?