Why is pay never mentioned when job recovery is discussed?

I used to think that it was the right wing who saw everything as bad at all times.

I mean, its like being angry that the firemen got stuff in your house wet while they were putting out the raging inferno.

The fire is now under control, but its still smoldering. And the house is not just going to pop back up good as new in a couple years.

The damage from the Bush years will take more than a decade to repair.

with no benefits. Look on the bright side.

And I also don't think that the water that comes out of the fire hose also rebuilds the house.

the rude emoticons.

My close friend is losing her job. She and about 45 other workers will be replaced with contracted workers working for lower pay and no benefits. It will have zero effect on the above graph because the graph doesnt tell the whole story. But you arent interested in the whole story are you?

But I am also smart enough to separate individual data points, and trends.

Let me explain it this way.

When I was laid off a few years back. That hurt me and my family. And, it contributed a data point to a larger graph of employment trends. When I got a new job, that helped my family, and also contributed a new data point to the trend analysis.

And so ... each data point is its own story. The people you mention are their own story. And a trend line which pulls in many data points is an aggregate, and as such it can never "tell the whole story".

If one can not comprehend the difference between a data point, versus the aggregate of data points that a trend represents, then the country is screwed because in that situation, the only data point that matters is mine.

And I know you are thinking "YES" ... if I am out of work, my data point is the only data point that matters. But what if the people with jobs also take that position ... "only my data point matters". Then we are all screwed long term. Those who have jobs don't worry about those without.

The trends matter regardless of whether your personal data point is currently in the plus or the minus column. And if we forget that, those who happen to be in the "minus" column at a given moment will tend to stay there. Because those in the plus column will only worry about their own data point.

I'd love to see the economy move forward faster. To see it do so, you have to look at trends.

Also ... for the group of people you mention who are about to lose their jobs ... will Obama or Romney be more likely to help get them jobs in the future? Which policies might help them or hurt them?

facts that are positive. I agree that Obama is much better than Rmoney but that doesnt mean I have to like where we are. The graph looks great but is misleading. I am sure my friend can avoid being unemployed if she agrees to give up her benefits and takes a huge pay cut. A more honest graph would show wage growth as well as employment numbers.

repaired.

The graph is honest. It shows EMPLOYMENT.

We can create other graphs that show INCOME.

We could even overlay them. If we did that, we'd see that income is coming back up, because when people lose their job, their income drops to zero. And so every new job takes a "zero income" and makes it a "positive income".

I'm not sure how Obama was supposed to make all the jobs come back, AND also make them all pay as much as the jobs that Bush killed all at the same time.

I do know that Romney has no idea how to do that. But if we on the left join the GOP in complaining that Obama is not cleaning up the GOP's mess fast enough ... well ... maybe we'll get to find out how Romney plans to get all those good paying jobs back ... after all, he seems to care a great deal about that.

choice. But let's not fool ourselves. Let's show the truth. If an autoworker is earning $50 per hour and he loses his job. The employment graph would show that as a negative. When he gets hired back at the same job for $14 per hour the employment graph would look good. No net job loss. Of course it's better than no job, but it's still shit. He will have to get another job to pay his mortgage. Just showing the employment graph is misrepresentation.
I will vote for Pres Obama but I still want to know the truth.

When was the last time you heard anything about Living Wage Jobs coming back? Nope, me neither, it's just jobs, as if that were all that is needed for a recovery.
Just jobs is not going to do it. We need Living Wage Jobs for a true recovery. How are part time and low wage jobs a recovery, when you need 2 or 3 of them just to survive?

a replacement second story is not yet being constructed on the burned out home at the same time that the firemen are still hosing down the first floor.

I mean, on the day Obama walks in, the jobs are ALL GOING AWAY. All of them.

Now they are starting to come back. Yes, its slow. Yes, many of the jobs are lower paying. But they are returning.

My sister in-law who had lost her crappy job a couple years back just got a better job, better pay, better benefits.

Obama put out the fire ... complaining that he did not also rebuild the house simultaneously seems somewhat unreasonable.

yup

The unemployment rate would be much lower if there has not been the loss of so many jobs in public schools, public universities and state and local governments. Those cuts are continuing and were particularly bad this month.

Meanwhile the data was adjusted by the federal government to show that more total jobs were created in the previous 2 months than had been reported.

At a break-even rate of 125,000 per month we would need to have 5 million more jobs during the life of that chart.

The public sector shortfall is 600,000.

So to even things up the private sector side needs 4.4 million jobs.

I honestly don't know why the author of this chart would seek to propagandize economic and/or mathematical illiterates.

If I am recalling the Bush presidency correctly, simply claiming that all sorts of jobs are being created when everyone knows that to not be the case tends to alienate voters, not endear them.

check your numbers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002644562

The data comes directly from BLS.

The only debatable number in my post is a monthly replacement level of 125,000 jobs. Do you care to contradict it?

Everything else is in the post is basic arithmetic using the data in the chart you posted.

"Oh, FFS"

...so you're upset about being wrong after posting this:

Thank you for the real information. That really helped the mood around here today. If you have kids who are ready to graduate from college or law school or med school this May, that is fantastic news and greatly appreciated. The negativity around here can be overwhelming sometimes, to the point of crippling, when your kids are looking to enter the work force and pay off student loans in the very near future.