Home › Forums › Open Discussion › 115,000 hired in April.
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm #603132
SmittyParticipant342,000 simply gave up looking for work (so the rate actually dropped!).
Fewest people in the labor force in over 30 years.
225,000 needed per month to make any dent at all.
Do we have a trend yet?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2018137196_apuseconomy.html
May 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm #757401
TanDLParticipantWe DO have a trend! The 1% still have their beneficial tax breaks and still they aren’t hiring. Would you rather the government increase its hiring instead?
May 4, 2012 at 5:15 pm #757402
jamminjMember“225,000 needed per month to make any dent at all.”
That is what, 2,700,000 per year. So lets give Obama a pass the first year, you know the whole recession and everything. So in 3 years his goal, according to 225,000 a month, is 8,100,000 jobs by end of 2012.
Now compare that to what past presidents have accomplished, in their FULL 4 year terms.
Millions of Jobs Added
Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 – 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 – 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 – 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 – 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 – 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 – 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 – 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 – 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 – 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 – 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 – 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 – 2000 11.5
Bush Jr 2001 – 2004 (0.1)
Bush Jr 2005 – 2008 5.1
Now asking, no, demanding 225,000 a month – is that realistic?, or just a number to throw out to make sure he is deemed a failure. I guess if Romney wins, then he needs to at least double that number to even meet the min then.
May 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm #757403
jamminjMemberwhat loss of public sector jobs mean to the private sector.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/usa-states-employees-idUSL2E8F39HE20120408
“The last three years of job losses at the state and local government level has been the most dramatic since Labor Department records began in 1955, “
May 4, 2012 at 6:10 pm #757404
SmittyParticipantNot my number jamminj. Heard it on MSNBC no less from an economist (assuming he was left leaning, but maybe not).
Also, most post recession job numbers are around 400,000+ when you start to dig out. Reagan and Bush2 both had such numbers after the recessions they “inherited”.
May 4, 2012 at 8:10 pm #757405
jamminjMember“Also, most post recession job numbers are around 400,000+ when you start to dig out. Reagan and Bush2 both had such numbers after the recessions they “inherited”.”
and they did that with govt hiring and no govt layoffs. Both of which Obama is dealing with.
It’s all about ‘small’ govt – unless the right is in power.
May 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm #757406
BostonmanMemberPart of it is we just have so much supply that demand can’t catch up fast enough. The other part is he just shouldn’t have promised something that is next to impossible. Bush Sr promised no new taxes and it sunk him too. Stop making promises that can’t be kept. I understand it makes for good talking points but smart people can smell the BS.
May 5, 2012 at 12:26 am #757407
kootchmanMemberTo keep pace with just population growth… we need an annual growth in GDP of a tad more than 3.4 … we are nowhere near close. France and most of Europe have lived with 7-9 per cent unemployment for decades. It’s the new normal…. for democratic socialists. Cut state and local jobs even more…. it took us 60 years to get this far… the overgrown forest in big indeed and the trimming job is large.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.