Good news on the economy

[St. Louis Hawk]

223k new jobs last month
Unemployment down to 5.4%
Labor participation rate up 0.1% last month

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/index.html?iid=Lead

 

[Huey Grey]

Republicans really need the economy to tank to have a chance in 2016.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Republicans really need the economy to tank to have a chance in 2016.

Voters didn't care in 2000.

 

[bagdropper]

The economy "fixed" itself like it almost always does. Businesses and consumers adapt over time. Dare I say this is more of an "honest" uptick than any quick fix government goosing would fix long term.

I just heard a 30 second radio blurb on 1600 AM where they mentioned the numbers. An economist on the story stated the economy is still full of potholes and is not truly cured.

 

[naturalmwa]

Voters didn't care in 2000.

explain please.

 

[MuscoHawk]

The economy "fixed" itself like it almost always does. Businesses and consumers adapt over time. Dare I say this is more of an "honest" uptick than any quick fix government goosing would fix long term.

I just heard a 30 second radio blurb on 1600 AM where they mentioned the numbers. An economist on the story stated the economy is still full of potholes and is not truly cured.

Odd that it typically "fixes" itself with a Democrat in office and "breaks" itself with the republicans...

Probably just a coincidence.

 

[mattymoknows]

I just heard a 30 second radio blurb on 1600 AM where they mentioned the numbers. An economist on the story stated the economy is still full of potholes and is not truly cured.

Believe it or not that the nature of capitalism always will allow for potholes in our economy. Nothing earth shattering with that theory.

 

[Huey Grey]

explain please.

I think he's referring to the Democrats losing in 2000 despite having a good economy to start with. It's an argument that does have merit. Afterall, the unemployment rate was around 4% at this time and GDP growth was around 5.5%, both of which will be better than what we'll see in 2016.

However, one has to keep in mind that Bush just barely beat Gore. In fact, he lost the popular vote to Gore. So the election was as tight as it could get. And Bush had a much more favorable landscape to work with. The electoral college was much more in favor of the Republicans in 2000, as well as the demographics with an emphasis on Hispanics.

If you take away the economic narrative, how does the GOP get there? They aren't running super strong candidates. They haven't offered much in the way of ideas. They've done next to nothing to court the Hispanic voters. And elections are rarely centered around foreign policy. All they would be left with are attacks on Hillary. I don't know. Maybe all these attacks will work. But that's a big If.

 

[86Hawkeye]

223k new jobs last month
Unemployment down to 5.4%
Labor participation rate up 0.1% last month

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/index.html?iid=Lead

Good news. Keep it going.

 

[22*43*51]

Odd that it typically "fixes" itself with a Democrat in office and "breaks" itself with the republicans...

Probably just a coincidence.

Likely.

Otherwise, Chicago, Detroit, California, Illinois, France, Greece, Spain etc. wouldn't be prime examples of applied Liberal economic policy.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

explain please.

The economy was going great in 2000. Voters decided they wanted change. Looks like something similar will happen next year.

 

[naturalmwa]

I think he's referring to the Democrats losing in 2000 despite having a good economy to start with. It's an argument that does have merit. Afterall, the unemployment rate was around 4% at this time and GDP growth was around 5.5%, both of which will be better than what we'll see in 2016.

However, one has to keep in mind that Bush just barely beat Gore. In fact, he lost the popular vote to Gore. So the election was as tight as it could get. And Bush had a much more favorable landscape to work with. The electoral college was much more in favor of the Republicans in 2000, as well as the demographics with an emphasis on Hispanics.

If you take away the economic narrative, how does the GOP get there? They aren't running super strong candidates. They haven't offered much in the way of ideas. They've done next to nothing to court the Hispanic voters. And elections are rarely centered around foreign policy. All they would be left with are attacks on Hillary. I don't know. Maybe all these attacks will work. But that's a big If.

OK, thanks. I can see most of this, but I do think they have stronger candidates on the field than W.

 

[Huey Grey]

OK, thanks. I can see most of this, but I do think they have stronger candidates on the field than W.

I personally don't. Bush was very decisive and came across as a leader. Gore came across as wishy-washy. That's a large reason why Gore lost. Voters don't like wishy-washy

And that's exactly what we see in the current crop. Wishy-washy. Jeb is trying to dance around the issues. Same with Rubio. The only decisive thing either of them are willing to admit right now is how much they hate Hillary.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone in the GOP field having that ability to inspire the masses. Seems like all they're doing is playing not to lose.

 

[Pepperman]

223k new jobs last month
Unemployment down to 5.4%
Labor participation rate up 0.1% last month

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/index.html?iid=Lead

I don't care about the political stuff, but I'll point out a few things that you may, or may not, be aware of:

1) April added 223k new jobs, but the consensus expectations were 228k (so it missed)
2) The prior month's originally reported 126k addition was revised down to 85k
3) Average hourly earnings grew 2.2% year over year, but were expected to grow 2.3%

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't care about the political stuff, but I'll point out a few things that you may, or may not, be aware of:

1) April added 223k new jobs, but the consensus expectations were 228k (so it missed)
2) The prior month's originally reported 126k addition was revised down to 85k
3) Average hourly earnings grew 2.2% year over year, but were expected to grow 2.3%

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I think he's referring to the Democrats losing in 2000 despite having a good economy to start with. It's an argument that does have merit. Afterall, the unemployment rate was around 4% at this time and GDP growth was around 5.5%, both of which will be better than what we'll see in 2016.

However, one has to keep in mind that Bush just barely beat Gore. In fact, he lost the popular vote to Gore. So the election was as tight as it could get. And Bush had a much more favorable landscape to work with. The electoral college was much more in favor of the Republicans in 2000, as well as the demographics with an emphasis on Hispanics.

Bush had Nader...that's the only reason he "won".

 

[Bobcat07]

I personally don't. Bush was very decisive and came across as a leader. Gore came across as wishy-washy. That's a large reason why Gore lost. Voters don't like wishy-washy

And that's exactly what we see in the current crop. Wishy-washy. Jeb is trying to dance around the issues. Same with Rubio. The only decisive thing either of them are willing to admit right now is how much they hate Hillary.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone in the GOP field having that ability to inspire the masses. Seems like all they're doing is playing not to lose.

And that was Kerry's problem in 2004. If he hadn't flip-flopped so much, he probably beats Bush. I think the undecided voters saw that and figured they at least knew what they were getting with Bush and voted for him because of that.

Also agree with you on the current prospects for the GOP in 2016. Lots of inconsistencies on issues and flaws that will be torn apart, but they'll do their fair share of attacks (warranted and unwarranted) on Hillary. I think it might be closer than Obama/Romney was, but unless some things change and there's plenty of time between now and next November for that; I just can't see the GOP winning the election. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Bobcat07]

Also, its good to see the economy had a good month again. Even if I don't agree with all of the policies, I don't want things to be bad either so those numbers are a good thing. Obviously Q1 GDP had people worried, but it looks like it was more cyclical in nature with bad weather hurting businesses.

 

[TexMichFan]

Bush had Nader...that's the only reason he "won".

Clinton had Perot... that's the only reason he "won"

 

[BlazinHawk]

In other news... Over 93 million out of work. Most since the Carter disaster.

 

[hooper56]

Most folks in business feel like the economy sucks right now and I agree. I think we are getting a little bump because of lower gasoline prices but that won't last too long. Oil is already moving higher. Also we have wages moving up which will kick inflation into gear. I do not like the outlook for the next 3 years.

 

[TexMichFan]

I think the best chance the Republicans have is Clinton. She is very capable of stinking as a candidate when having to deal with unscripted events or questions.

Plus some Americans have moved pass the Bush / Clinton family dynasties and are looking for any other option.

 

[anon_snp6dc585nnj4]

Also, its good to see the economy had a good month again. Even if I don't agree with all of the policies, I don't want things to be bad either so those numbers are a good thing. Obviously Q1 GDP had people worried, but it looks like it was more cyclical in nature with bad weather hurting businesses.

That's good to someone say this because everyone I work with openly talks about wanting the country to fail just to stick to Obama. Very patriotic...

 

[SWIowahawks]

Let me be the first to say good job on this thread fellas. This is a very readable thread with good discussion. Carry on.

 

[hawkssox1]

223k new jobs last month
Unemployment down to 5.4%
Labor participation rate up 0.1% last month

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/index.html?iid=Lead

Does anyone really believe 5.4% unemployment.The # is actually closer to 11%.

 

[Funky Bunch]

Does anyone really believe 5.4% unemployment.The # is actually closer to 11%.

Can you give us the historical real rates also?

 

[hawkssox1]

Can you give us the historical real rates also?

They have this thing called the internet!!

 

[sijoint]

Does anyone really believe 5.4% unemployment.The # is actually closer to 11%.

 

[darkstar]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzog...oyment-rate-vs-the-spin-wheres-the-news-here/

Conservatives on talk radio and in the blogs are having a field day. The leader of the “iconic Gallup Poll” is speaking the truth. (It always amazes me how we pollsters are “iconic” and “pioneering” when the numbers are favorable and mere “tools” and “hacks” when folks disagree). But there are too many problems with all of this. First, the inaccuracy charge against the official labor statistics is very old news. The truth is that the same set of accounting has always been used. I recall campaigning for the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Bill in the mid-1970s and citing the examples of part time, poor pay, and under-employment. Obviously, the BLS needs a new system, but for now we are comparing apples and apples and should not suggest that movement from a 10% unemployment rate to a 5.7% rate is not real (in some way). If some sort of chicanery were being used to fudge the rate doesn’t anyone think that a low-level accountant or statistician would step up to be a whistleblower and make one of the great news stories of the decade?

 

[Funky Bunch]

They have this thing called the internet!!

I dialed up the internet and they told me they don't keep track of the real rates.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

In other news... Over 93 million out of work. Most since the Carter disaster.

Link?

 

[Funky Bunch]

In other news... Over 93 million out of work. Most since the Carter disaster.

In related news, there are 94 million more people in the US than in 1980.

 

[TexMichFan]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzog...oyment-rate-vs-the-spin-wheres-the-news-here/

Conservatives on talk radio and in the blogs are having a field day. The leader of the “iconic Gallup Poll” is speaking the truth. (It always amazes me how we pollsters are “iconic” and “pioneering” when the numbers are favorable and mere “tools” and “hacks” when folks disagree). But there are too many problems with all of this. First, the inaccuracy charge against the official labor statistics is very old news. The truth is that the same set of accounting has always been used. I recall campaigning for the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Bill in the mid-1970s and citing the examples of part time, poor pay, and under-employment. Obviously, the BLS needs a new system, but for now we are comparing apples and apples and should not suggest that movement from a 10% unemployment rate to a 5.7% rate is not real (in some way). If some sort of chicanery were being used to fudge the rate doesn’t anyone think that a low-level accountant or statistician would step up to be a whistleblower and make one of the great news stories of the decade?

Well this link offers a different opinion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

 

[aflachawk]

223k new jobs last month
Unemployment down to 5.4%
Labor participation rate up 0.1% last month

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/index.html?iid=Lead

The current recovery is still the slowest in modern history, almost half as robust as Renaldous Magnus and if the unemployment rate was figured the same as the GWB years, it would be above 9%. But give BHO credit, he did achieve a growth rate of 0.2% last quarter

 

[sijoint]

In related news, there are 94 million more people in the US than in 1980.

As soon the Feds/Yellen increase interest rates we'll know the economy has improved. Most likely it won't happen this year. No need to get excited until that happens.

 

[TexMichFan]

In related news, there are 94 million more people in the US than in 1980.

Well I guess only 1 million of them found jobs - 1 out 94 is not good.

 

[jscott78]

I think he's referring to the Democrats losing in 2000 despite having a good economy to start with. It's an argument that does have merit. Afterall, the unemployment rate was around 4% at this time and GDP growth was around 5.5%, both of which will be better than what we'll see in 2016.

However, one has to keep in mind that Bush just barely beat Gore. In fact, he lost the popular vote to Gore. So the election was as tight as it could get. And Bush had a much more favorable landscape to work with. The electoral college was much more in favor of the Republicans in 2000, as well as the demographics with an emphasis on Hispanics.

If you take away the economic narrative, how does the GOP get there? They aren't running super strong candidates. They haven't offered much in the way of ideas. They've done next to nothing to court the Hispanic voters. And elections are rarely centered around foreign policy. All they would be left with are attacks on Hillary. I don't know. Maybe all these attacks will work. But that's a big If.

They have to be careful with the attacks on a woman. Not all women are as self loathing as republican women. But yes, I expect them to be vicious as hell, because conservatism has no ideas to offer the middle and lower classes, and anyone who is not a white male.

 

[sijoint]

223k new jobs last month
Unemployment down to 5.4%
Labor participation rate up 0.1% last month

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/08/news/economy/april-jobs-report-economy-pick-up/index.html?iid=Lead

Tell the black citizens of Baltimore this great news about the economy, where they've have had a Democrat (elected) government for 48 years. Their unemployment rate is 13.7%. It's the police force....
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/29/news/economy/baltimore-economy/ them investigated.

 

[aflachawk]

Odd that it typically "fixes" itself with a Democrat in office and "breaks" itself with the republicans...

Probably just a coincidence.

You are either uninformed or just do not care about the truth. This is so far the truth, it's not even close

 

[dandh]

Can you give us the historical real rates also?

Here's a chart. Sorry, couldn't find one that's completely up-to-date. The current U6 rate is 10.8%, so it's down some, but as you can see it's way higher than it has been in quite some time (since Carter and a few years after him, iirc).