Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 12:24 PM Oct 2015

U.S. job growth stumbles, raising doubts on economy

Source: Reuters

U.S. employers slammed the brakes on hiring over the last two months and wages fell in September, raising new doubts the economy is strong enough for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates by the end of this year.

Payrolls outside of farming rose by 142,000 last month and August figures were revised sharply lower to show only 136,000 jobs added that month, the Labor Department said on Friday.

That marked the smallest two-month gain in employment in over a year and could fuel fears that the China-led global economic slowdown is sapping America's strength.

(snip)

The weak job growth took Wall Street by surprise and U.S. stocks sold off sharply. The dollar also weakened and yields for government bonds fell.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/02/us-usa-economy-idUSKCN0RW08V20151002



Wait -- so bailing out Wall Street with our hard-earned tax dollars, making criminal financial fraudsters even wealthier and more powerful than ever before, and the continued implementation of job-offshoring -- oh, I'm sorry: "economy stimulating" -- free trade deals hasn't prevented the nation from sliding towards recession?

I am shocked.
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. job growth stumbles, raising doubts on economy (Original Post) brentspeak Oct 2015 OP
What nation are you so concerned about that is "sliding into recession"? Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #1
Forget it, he's rolling. JoePhilly Oct 2015 #2
Fred Sanders on India-replaced US tech workers: "not very skilled workers who should have got some" brentspeak Oct 2015 #6
You didn't answer his question. Which country is sliding into recession? AllTooEasy Oct 2015 #8
We have never really recovered from the recession. former9thward Oct 2015 #13
True, but you didn't answer the question either AllTooEasy Oct 2015 #14
+142,000 new jobs is bad? bluestateguy Oct 2015 #3
honestly, after this amount of time Skittles Oct 2015 #11
This is a strange definition of recession.... whatthehey Oct 2015 #4
I wrote "sliding towards recession" brentspeak Oct 2015 #7
Horrible PSPS Oct 2015 #5
Be careful with that "94 million not in the workforce" meme AllTooEasy Oct 2015 #9
LOL. Yes, it's "false propaganda." PSPS Oct 2015 #10
Exactly. n/t Psephos Oct 2015 #12
Not exactly AllTooEasy Oct 2015 #16
You are FACTUALLY incorrect AllTooEasy Oct 2015 #15
No scare quotes needed. It's plain bullshit whatthehey Oct 2015 #17
There has also been an uptick in the number of college students. Ace Rothstein Oct 2015 #18

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
6. Fred Sanders on India-replaced US tech workers: "not very skilled workers who should have got some"
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:31 PM
Oct 2015

This is a good opportunity to remind the DU community concerning the individual who posts here under the alias of "Fred Sanders".

When replying to a thread on the topic of imported cheap-wage Indian H1B visa holders replacing American Disneyland tech employees, "Fred Sanders" had this to say:

Fred Sanders (17,521 posts)
22. Highly skilled technical workers were replacing not very skilled workers who should have got some.

There is more to every tale than the speculative/outrage bait headlines.


Ok, carry on...


AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
8. You didn't answer his question. Which country is sliding into recession?
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 06:08 PM
Oct 2015

And why is this slide taking nearly SEVEN YEARS to happen?

Nice attempt to use character assassination and an old post to divert attention away from a tough, challenging question from a fellow DUer. That took courage!

former9thward

(31,798 posts)
13. We have never really recovered from the recession.
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 08:18 PM
Oct 2015

Wages are flat and the jobs being "created" are low pay service jobs.

AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
14. True, but you didn't answer the question either
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 12:13 AM
Oct 2015

Sliding into recession, and recovering from a recession are two different trajectories.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
3. +142,000 new jobs is bad?
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 01:12 PM
Oct 2015

Ok, nothing to celebrate over, but not every jobs report is going to be good. And we have had quite a few good ones recently.

6 years ago this would have been a jobs report everybody would have been celebrating over.

Wall Street needs to chill out.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
7. I wrote "sliding towards recession"
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 02:34 PM
Oct 2015

But if you think measurable wage stagnation and the creation of benefit-less McJobs isn't a sign this nation is on the path to real (as opposed to official) recession, you're free to think as such.

PSPS

(13,512 posts)
5. Horrible
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 01:55 PM
Oct 2015

Remember that it takes at least 160,000 per month to keep up with population growth. A number like this means there would ordinarily be an increase in the unemployment rate. The fact that it didn't, at least in this almost-meaningless U-3 figure, indicates that the participation rate is in very bad territory. That figure, 62% (94 million not in labor force,) hasn't been so low in 40 years.

Of course, a large part of blame for this should be placed on the obstructionist GOP who has made it their duty to block any and all job-creating initiatives while Obama is in office to harm him politically. They want to "punish the citizens" for "not voting right."

AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
9. Be careful with that "94 million not in the workforce" meme
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 06:18 PM
Oct 2015

The GOP likes to use that real number for their false propaganda. Remember that baby boomers are in retirement age. I work for a Fortune 500 company, and we are having an unprecedented rate of retirements - 2/week this year. Reagan got a lot of applause for a high participation rate, but that was due to baby boomers fully integrating into the work force. Plus, that 94 million include folks on disability, like returning "War on Terror" vets, and folks who just just chose not to work because they don't have to. The retiring baby boomers is the biggest contributor. Obamacare is also contributing to folks retiring early, from the company retirements I've seen. My companies started a program to consult our oldest workers on how they can retire sooner with Obamacare's benefits, but the GOP won't tell you that.

PSPS

(13,512 posts)
10. LOL. Yes, it's "false propaganda."
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 07:35 PM
Oct 2015

Maybe you just don't realize it but, while the participation rate does not include people not interested in working (as you describe,) those same people ARE included in the unemployment rate. So, in this case, the fact that the unemployment rate remained the same while the participation rate plummeted is a very bad indicator.

AllTooEasy

(1,260 posts)
15. You are FACTUALLY incorrect
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 01:27 AM
Oct 2015

The Unemployment Rate does NOT include "people not interested in working". The unemployment rate is defined as "The percentage of the total labor force that is unemployed but ACTIVELY SEEKING EMPLOYMENT and willing to work". See this link: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unemploymentrate.asp

...and the section "Who is not in the labor force?" in this link: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

Read the entire page if you dare to see how ignorant you truly really are.

Also, the Participation Rate is the proportion of a country's population is that's employed or actively looking for employment, i.e. (labor force[employed+unemployed])/(total population) (http://xplaind.com/927402/labor-force-participation-rate)

Baby Boomers are retiring, and therefore shrinking the Labor Force, which lowers the participation rate.

Lets do some math:
Ex. #1: 100 million total population, 70M employed, 7M unemployed, 23M not interested in working
Results: PR = (70+7)/100 = %77, UR = 7/(70+7) = %9

Ex. #2: 100M total pop, 60M employed, 3M unemployed, 37M not interested.
Results: PR = %63, UR = %4.7

Which is better? GOP Propaganda has somehow convinced you that fewer unemployed folks and a lower unemployment rate is somehow a worse situation if the PR decreases. Get it now?!

I also suggest this article. It's mostly spot on, but I disagree with the suggested fix to allow more young legal immigrants to take our highly skilled jobs. I rather see more Americans get improved skills via Bernie's free education programs. http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/16/unemployment-is-low-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
17. No scare quotes needed. It's plain bullshit
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 09:43 AM
Oct 2015

It includes 90 years olds. kids in high school, the profoundly disabled, homemakers by choice, etc. The massively preeminent reason participation is down while UE is also down is quite simply because the boomers are retiring in huge numbers. Should that 67 year old arthritic pipefitter be whipped back to work so your doomer crap numbers look "better"? Minority reasons include more people staying in school (Shame! Terrible! cry the RWNJ-echoing DU doomers) and more people who can now give up working but retain healthcare thanks to the ACA (Boo! Hiss! go the doom brigade. If people want to see a doctor they must drag themselves to the cube farm 40 hrs a week!)

Ace Rothstein

(3,098 posts)
18. There has also been an uptick in the number of college students.
Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:00 AM
Oct 2015

Something like a 33% increase from 2000 to present. So the LFPR has dropped among the 18 to 24 demo due to this.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. job growth stumbles,...