Skip to main content

Before or after you read today's jobs report, you might want to read this from Monday: Focus on monthly jobs report distracts from underlying economic problems. An excerpt:  "Even though the BLS report is filled with other numbers, the two that will stick in people's minds, as always, are the ones the headline writers focus on—the amount of new jobs created and the official unemployment rate. The truth is those two numbers aren't quite real. They are a concocted brew of raw data and formulas of seasonal adjustments, estimated business creation and business collapse, as well as standardized measurements that don't provide the whole picture. Indeed, although no conspiracy is involved, taken in isolation those numbers deeply distort our true situation."
•••

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning that, seasonally adjusted, the economy created 103,000 new private jobs in August, and shed 7,000 government jobs for a net gain of 96,000. The consensus of experts surveyed ahead of time by Bloomberg was that there would be a net gain of 125,000. The official unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent, mostly because of a shrinking work force.

Revisions changed previously reported growth in payroll employment from 64,000 in June to 45,000 and from 163,000 in July to 141,000. With the Great Recession now officially over for 39 months, the government counts 12.5 million Americans as unemployed.

However, an alternative measure of unemployment labeled U6—which counts part-time workers who want full-time jobs and some but not all Americans who want jobs but have stopping looking for one—fell from 15.0 percent to 14.7 percent. When unemployed workers, underemployed ones and Americans who are not included in the work force but say they want a job are added together, the total unemployed and underemployed population is now 27.3 million Americans.

The number of Americans unemployed for six months or more fell slightly to 5.0 million, 40 percent of the total officially counted as out of work.  

For the eight months just ended, the average monthly job growth has been 139,000.
The civilian labor force participation fell to 63.5 percent, the lowest level in 30 years; the employment-population ratio fell to 58.3 percent.

The BLS jobs report is the product of a pair of surveys, one of business establishments and one called the Current Population Survey, which questions 60,000 householders. The establishment survey determines how many new jobs were added, calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis. The CPS provides data that determine the official "headline" unemployment rate, also known as "U3." That's the number which is now 8.1 percent.

According to the more volatile CPS, 368,000 Americans left the civilian work force in August and 119,000 fewer were working than had been working in July. The business survey and the CPS often clash in this manner. Some analysts say that the CPS offers better hints as to the way the job situation will go in the near future, but not all agree.

•••

Here's what the job growth numbers have looked like for August in the most recent 10 years:

August 2003:  -  45,000
August 2004: +122,000  
August 2005: +193,000
August 2006: +183,000
August 2007:  -  18,000
August 2008: - 274,000
August 2009: - 231,000  
August 2010: -  51,000 (worsened by Census layoffs)  
August 2011: + 85,000
August 2012: + 96,000

Among other changes detailed in today's job report:

Health care: +17,000
Manufacturing: -12,000
Professional and business services: +27,000
Food services: +28,000

• The average workweek (for production and non-supervisory workers) remained at 34.4 hours.
• Average manufacturing hours fell to 40.5
• The average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls fell one cent to $23.52.  Over the past year such earnings have risen 1.7 percent, compared with an inflation rate now also running at 1.7 percent.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Wtf ADP (4+ / 0-)

    thats the last time I ever get my hopes up from their number.

    Jeebus, only off by 105k. Smh

    "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

    by xsonogall on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:06:15 AM PDT

  •  Expect R's to make big play for this report (9+ / 0-)

    Which they tried to do last month and the month before that too.

  •  MSNBC leads with this sour note: (7+ / 0-)
    JOBS GROWTH SLOWS TO A SNAIL'S PACE
    Bit of truth is still a real downer
  •  Bad report but most people will see upemployment (18+ / 0-)

    rate drop a bit, say "whatever" to themselves and go back to making their way through the day best they can. It is really hard to increase jobs when you lay off so many teachers, government workers and kill any jobs creating bill that gets voted on in Congress. I think the Democrats need to bang the Social Security and Medicare drums and by the way what ever did happen to Mitts taxes?

  •  More significant stat (11+ / 0-)

    is the labor force participation rate, now at 63.5%, its lowest level in 3 decades.

  •  Thanks for a fair and even-handed (8+ / 0-)

    take on the jobs situation.
       

    ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

    by gjohnsit on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:12:47 AM PDT

  •  Well, this ought to blunt any of the... (7+ / 0-)

    ... "Obama-is-coooking-the-books!" cries from the conspiracy theorists on the right.

    •  yeah, right. ;) nt (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, jfromga, Anima, Larsstephens

      For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

      by mdmslle on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:15:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, he's cooking them, but the situation is so (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Obama Amabo, Lawrence, Bob Johnson

      dire that this is the best he could do!

      C'mon, if you live in a land where benevolent billionaires create jobs out of kindness, cooked books are nothing.

      Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

      by blue aardvark on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:18:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Death by Statistical Abrogation..... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark, Bob Johnson

        Amazing......this is a nightmare unfolding.  I am watching my first world nation go 3rd World.

        Sucks to look into the eyes of the young, and realize they will never have the opportunities that I had back in the late 80s early 90s.  A whole generation of human capital and potential wasted due to, in my opinion, the long term effects of the incredibly poor performance of the worst central banker to walk the earth: Alan Greenspan.

           Economies MUST maximize the participation of their respective citizenry.  Not going around saying "Well, that person doesn't count anymore".  Kind of coldhearted when you think about it.

        But they and we know the truth.  And we react accordingly.  Corporation might be profitable, but their declining revenues is hard not to notice.  Only increases in revenue for the lucky few is through price increases, NOT unit sales.

        And don't think for one moment that the increses in GDP resulted from actual growth; it resulted in aplified commodity prices (especially oil and food).   And of course, there's no inflation.....LOL!

  •  This is the number Republicans will latch on to, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, nextstep, VClib

    I think:

    When unemployed workers, underemployed ones and Americans who are not included in the work force but say they want a job are added together, the total unemployed and underemployed population is now 27.3 million Americans.
    Their convention talked over and over about "23 million Americans."  They will now up that number to 27 million.
  •  A solid "meh" to the jobs report (13+ / 0-)

    This changes nothing. Too good to help Romney, too bad to help Obama.

    Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

    by blue aardvark on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:16:55 AM PDT

  •  Bloomberg Radio is saying that the 8.1% number (10+ / 0-)

    is the result of more people giving up the search for a job.   I had hoped for better news.  It's not worse, but it ain't better.  A wash.  

    My wife saw this coming when the President started talking about needing more time, and more innovation in programs, a la FDR.   I wish he had proposed a modern version of the CCC and a WPA or something else along those lines.  Simply calling for more spending is not as enticing.  

    He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason. - Cicero

    by SpamNunn on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:17:03 AM PDT

    •  promising anything (4+ / 0-)

      that has to get through congress would be another empty promise.

      He and the other Dems running are going to have to make a spectacular case for needing Dems to be able to produce the jobs.

      The plans are out there in a number of bills already introduced, tax restructurings already introduced.  I understand the average American doesn't pay attention, but they say they want plans, then tune out details, numbers, etc.  and say they don't know what the plan is.

      Much better to give emotional speeches with broad ideas on a big audience night.  The day in and out stump speaches and television interviews can be more 'wonkish' with specific plans.

  •  hench the comments yesterday (6+ / 0-)

    to show restraint in trumpeting the ADP numbers, since they are usually way, way off (an average of almost 60,000 difference this year, with some months ADP being twice as many as the official numbers.)

  •  Hopefully, the bang up job we did at the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, Phil S 33, lonespark

    convention will not let this dismal report hurt the Presidents chances, but after we win WTF do we do to fix this? Will there be enough of a mandate to do another stimulus?

    Manufacturing numbers declining looks scary.

    •  Let's hope we hold the Seante; and put a dent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence

      in the House GOP majority.....

    •  We need to nominate a Dem congress (5+ / 0-)

      And Reid needs to do filibuster reform so we're not at GOTP mercy. That's how we fix this.
      After Obama is re-elected GOTP won't have much reaon to obstruct him, but if they do he needs to bring it to the people this time, so we can pressure congress to do the right thing.
      Like Obama said it wil take time, but we have to continue with the recovery & move forward, we can't go backward, Myth is a job destroyer nit a job creator.

      •  What Prez could do WITHOUT Congress. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        surfbird007, lonespark

        The gist:

        The economy needs more stimulus, pronto. There's no way in hell Congress will approve it. But the President doesn’t need Congress to use the EPA to clamp down on greenhouse emissions. That would get private utility companies and banks, both of which have a lot of cash on hand, to invest heavily in green energy jobs.
        Yes, this is a diary-pimp, and the diary is a year old: http://www.dailykos.com/...

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:39:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auapplemac, lonespark

      we do fix this after we win.

      we would need a big majority, and of lefty Dems rather than blue dogs, and that's just not going to happen. the other possibility would be for the republicans to stop blocking everything and work with the president, and that's even less likely.

      So we probably don't fix this (although at least we won't make it much worse like romney would).

    •  Not that many people followed it and it's (0+ / 0-)

      now been wiped of the news shows and replaced by the jobs numbers.

      If we get a bounce, I will pleasantly surprised.

      Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive. And... It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by auapplemac on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:58:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i find it interesting (12+ / 0-)

    that no one asks the question, how good might the economy be if the gop house wasn't blocking all attempts to improve it, with obama fighting a head wind by the gop he still has been able to reverse the downward trend in job creation, which to me seems pretty impressive, but why expect the msm to include the facts in their reporting.

  •  uuhhhgg (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kristina40, HeyMikey, auapplemac, soros

    they also revised the last few months down as well.

    not good jobs numbers considering the giant hole we are in.

    •  At this rate, jobs recovery in 2030s. (5+ / 0-)

      Not a typo.

      From the US Dept of Labor:

      Average jobs growth for last 12 months: 149,000.

      Average jobs growth for last 6 months: 97,000.

      We need 90,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Digest that: 90,000 new jobs = zero reduction in unemployed people.

      What this means is, at 149,000 jobs a month, we'll recover to 2007 levels of unemployment around 2027. At 96,000 jobs a month, we'll recover to 2007 levels of unemployment essentially never.

      Compare our 6-month and 12-month averages to the fine print in this graph--it's frightening:

      The graph above assumes population growth increasing the labor force only 88,000 a month, so it's a tiny smidgen optimistic. Plug in your own number and generate your own graph here: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/...

      This is a disaster. Neither party is leveling with us. That's not false equivalence--the Dems are clearly the Lesser Evil--but both parties are failing woefully to address the true scope of our jobs problem.

      Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead."

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:58:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Link to graph above. (0+ / 0-)

        Should've included this originally, sorry: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/...

        It uses figures through July 2012. I assume it will be updated sometime today, but the new one should show things only a tiny bit worse.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:04:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree that both parties are not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        leveling with us.

        Our system of government allows one party to easily obstruct, leading voters to have a blurred view of who's to blame.  

        The Democats have told us what their plan is, they have done part of it (with the stimulus), but they were blocked from implementing any further part of their plan, like a second stimulus or jobs bill.  You can't indict a party that hasn't had the chance to fully implement their policies.  

        •  Why I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros, lonespark

          Obama's pitch has been "re-elect me and things will get better"--implicitly, of course, that things will get better in some kind of reasonable time frame; that our current course is more or less OK and we just need to keep on our current course.

          He has not said, "What we've done so far is not even close to enough. We have to take much more radical measures because our current course will take about two decades to get us to some kind of reasonably recovered level."

          He has not done what he could do without Congress.

          As I said above, I'm not a false-equivalencer. But facts are facts.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:05:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You have a good idea and worth a try (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lonespark

            One thing is that when it's private sector money at stake, it's like pulling teeth.  I can see the utility companies hiring more people due to your plan.  But  companies that can manufacture anywhere the world might choose to take their business elsewhere.  CEOs and managers are in charge of profits and share prices.  Their jobs depend on it.  It's hard to imagine they will accept a permanent decrease in profits.  If they can move their CO2 emitting plants overseas, they might do that instead of ponying up for the licenses or hiring new people to install solar panels.  New investment in CO2 emitting plants from foreign companies might be reduced in the US as well if they don't face such strict pollution requirements in other countries.

            •  Not much difference. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lonespark

              Krugman says serious action on CO2 would only take about  0.03 to 0.09 percentage points off annual GDP growth. http://www.nytimes.com/... And GDP growth is not our problem; GDP is growing at its pre-recession historic rate.

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:51:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  that's actually (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeyMikey, soros, lonespark

        one of the lower estimates of monthly labor force growth I've seen.

        around 120k/month is the more common estimate, with some being north of 150k/month.

  •  This is NOT a bad report (7+ / 0-)

    Looking at the trend, it appears that job growth always slows down in August of a given year, for reasons not clear. But for the last five years, this August has had the strongest growth which is a good indication that things are on the mend.

    Contrary to what the media or Republicans claim, this is not a bad report. And whatever is "negative" about it exposes the REPUBLICANS as the obstructionists mostly responsible. The President's jobs bill is still sitting in congress, being obstructed by Republicans. And the local/state Republican controlled governments are slashing public-sector jobs, stagnating job growth.

    So let's not allow the Republicans and their allies/friends in the media to bully us with "unemployment doomsday" propaganda. We have the facts at our disposal and we need to use it:

    1. 30 straight months of private-sector job growth.

    2. Highest job growth in August for last five years (in August 2008, we LOST 84K jobs).

    3. Over 4.5M jobs created since Obama took office - more than Bush created in 8 years!

    •  this IS a bad report (11+ / 0-)

      the August numbers are normalized for August already.

      and they revised the last two months down as well by more than 40,000 jobs.

      And this probably doesn't keep up with population growth (depending on the estimates). We should be gaining jobs at a big pace to get out of this hole we are in (like usually happens after recessions) but we are not, and in fact, we may have even taken a very small step back considering population growth.

      •  No--this is a TERRIBLE report. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, nextstep, soros, George Hier

        See my other comment with the embedded graph.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:00:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I reject that soundly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        EcosseNJ

        If you believe that 96000 people who were unemployed but now have jobs to be a bad thing..then that's your issue.

        Keep up the doomsday hand-wringing if you want..I don't subscribe to that. Sorry.

      •  That is not exactly true about recessions (0+ / 0-)

        When FDR was recovering during the great depression, there were points when the UE was going down fast but then went up again at different times. The great depression is the only comparable situation because of the type of crash that caused it.

        •  not really (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BradyB, lonespark

          GDP grew at a blistering pace (and UI went down by a ton) from 1933-1937. We are talking 10%+ GDP growth (compared to teh 1.5-2% we have been getting this time.)

          In 1937, FDR listened to people saying he had to balance the budget, so he slashed spending, causing another recession, GDP growth went down and UI went back up some.  

          He then went back to new deal-type policies the following year and the economy grew through the rest of the depression at a fast pace again.

          So growth during the Great Depression was far, far better than this during the entire time after 1933 except for that short time when FDR tried to balance the budget.

          •  I'm not saying this recovery (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lonespark

            was as good, I know it was way better back then but the UE was also astromonically higher, and it took a very long time before it went into single digits. But what I wanted to point out is that their recovery had its ups and downs, just like this one. I would also point out, our recovery has been halted because of the tea party take over who wanted to slash spending and did. Although, Obama did buy into this briefly.

            •  the UI was way higher (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lonespark

              in large part because it's calculated differently.

              Calculated the same way, UI still didn't get quite as bad as the very worst of the Great Depression, but we got close (something like 21% or 22% to the GD's 25%.

              This has been the worst recovery on record, actually in terms of the %of made-up ground after the recession ended.

      •  nah, it's slow growth (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lonespark

        Not what you really want but growth nevertheless.

        Two problems:

        1) Public sector workers are desperately needed.  We can all see what has happened to our public infrastructure.  It's abysmal.

        2) Another large stimulus is needed.  It should be mainly on infrastructure side and very light on the tax cut side.

        "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

        by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:51:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hopefruit 2 - the 4.5 million jobs created (0+ / 0-)

      is from the bottom of the cycle to present. It's a very generous way to look at the data. We were not so generous in viewing data for GWB. The real fact is that there are fewer people employed today than when President Obama took office. That's the statistic the Republicans are going to focus on.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:09:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  U6 and Labor Participation Rate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, lonespark

    I'd go about shouting U6! U6! if I wouldn't look like a crazy lady doing it.

    The U6 and the geographic and minority rates are the real numbers.

    I see the U3 as way overcooked, not on purpose but just because that's the stats.

    Off to study the meaning of the labor force participation rate, which at 63% shocks me even though I'm fuzzy on it.

    I suddenly started a blog. http://jglookups.blogspot.com/.

    by JG in MD on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:21:04 AM PDT

  •  This should ensure Bernanke/QE3 action (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Jabarten, Supavash

    in September

  •   (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey

    they also revised the last few months down as well.

    not good jobs numbers considering the giant hole we are in.

  •  Not the end of the world (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ekgrulez1, bwintx, auapplemac, doroma

    But this will blunt any sort of traction Obama was gaining coming out of the convention.  

    Obama's speech makes makes more sense to me now.

    If Romney were not an awful candidate I would say that this election could very well slip away.  Obama will have to work harder now.  

    Is there any room for Obama moderates around here?

    by Bagger on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:22:11 AM PDT

    •  I wonder if Obama's speech should have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auapplemac, VClib

      said something more specific about what he will do about jobs?

      As many pointed out, he had this number yesterday afternoon.  

      And the biggest criticism I've seen of his speech -- which was very very well delivered and very much a pep rally for the Democratic base -- is that there was little substance, little in the way of what specific policies he would pursue over the next four years if elected.  Since he knew about this bad news before the speech, I wonder if he should have said something like, "I know the biggest challenge I face going into my next term is creating more jobs, and here's what I'm going to do about it:"  and followed with 3 specific things -- three specific legislative proposals that he wants to see on his desk as soon as the new Congress comes back in January.  If I were Romney's campaign, I think I'd have him saying right now that in that whole speech, the President didn't tell you what he would do about jobs if you re-elect him.  

      But then again, I'm no political expert, as are the people running the President's campaign.  They may well have had a reason for not including more specifics.

      •  I sure wanted more specifics. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, nextstep

        Americans are dying for a plan.  Neither candidate is giving them one.  I thought Obama missed an opportunity.  

        Is there any room for Obama moderates around here?

        by Bagger on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:42:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That probably means he has no plan. (0+ / 0-)

          Neither party is willing to admit the true extent of the problem. I assume that's because neither party is willing to propose anything remotely resembling a radical enough plan to address it.

          And I say this as someone who will damn sure vote for Obama...or rather, against Romney.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:08:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why Sluggish Job Growth (5+ / 0-)

    China approves $157 billion infrastructure spending

    Keep in mind, we're still paying off the War Costs Loans, rubber stamped and off the books till the present administration, and in this country still No Sacrifice as to the results of these wars of choice, a decade now added to the previous decades and wars and underfunded VA!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:22:46 AM PDT

    •  As analyst and hedge fund manager Jim Chanos... (0+ / 0-)

      Put it vis a vis China, the Chinese are cooking their books.  They have been habitually overstating their growth, and again, if you have a good economic background, and see the imports exports data are not matching, and are way off, they're not growing as fast that they claim.

      China knows, as so do most of us, that they are the proverbial "One Trick Pony".    Their economy grew on the backs of cheap labor.  What happens when your customer base disappears, you lie, and hope that "stimulus" (more like building another empty city) bides you time in the feign hopes tht your bankrupt customer base suddenly is caught in an asset bubble that, in the end, ruins them....again.....

      Works for Mexico, Japan, Korea, India, etc.etc.  the consumer simply just exist in large enough rates to avoid a collapse of exports.....

  •  Bush vs Obama (5+ / 0-)

    August 2004: +122,000
    August 2008: - 274,000
    August 2012: + 96,000

    The disappointting June & July numbers did little if anything to blunt the swing state polling or the National numbers. Hopefully he did enough last night to explain that this is gonna take time...

    "Never trust a man who, when left alone with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on!!"

    by EcosseNJ on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:23:08 AM PDT

  •  This is a depression (6+ / 0-)

    if you work for a living. Period. We have had UE over 8% for MANY years now. This is not getting better, it's getting worse. More and more people are simply giving up, they are not going to stop eating and needing roofs over their heads so something is going to have to give. The jobs that are being created are shit jobs, mostly part time and low wage with no benefit. Check out manufacturing, we lost 15K jobs. The VAST majority of jobs created were in the service sector/food industry. So yeah, McJobs for everyone, that'll save us.

    ~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

    by Kristina40 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:23:45 AM PDT

    •  yes, this is a Depression (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Satya1, lonespark

      but thank god for Obama, the stimulus, and automatic stabalizers that we didn't have at the beginning of the last depression (Social Security, UI, FDIC bank insurance, food stamps, etc).

      Without those, this depression would be an even worse depression.

  •  Here's the thing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    This is still an estimated report. Often times there are revisions. This happened for just about every report for the last two years. Sometimes the rate has been revised down because they have a better grasp of the previous month's numbers.

    Also, another reason people stop looking for work: going back to school. A lot of kids are doing that right now.

    •  the numbers (0+ / 0-)

      are normalized for this time of year, so things like going back to school are largely taken into account already.

    •  That's what they need to do - go back to school (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auapplemac, nextstep, belzaboo, lonespark

      Go back and get a Masters and take on more student loan debt.

      Then go back and try to find a job with even less experience to education ratio.

      I believe in higher education, but it's NOT the cure for everything. Perhaps if people spent a little more effort working on vocational and technical skills (think Information Technology, Medical Assistant, Welding, etc.) then they wouldn't have so much trouble finding a job.

      Too many young people my age, go to college and take on a mountian of student loan debt for liberal arts degrees that are useless without a masters. Then, they go back for the masters while piling on more debt... then they arrive to the workforce with millions of people who are EXACTLY like them. 30 years old and minimal if any work experience and then they expect to make 70-100,000 a year because they've put in all this time for education.

      It's nonsense to think that that is a realistic plan for people in their 20s and 30s. You're setting yourself up for failure!

      Mark Cuban illustrates my point:
      http://blogmaverick.com/...

      •  not really (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Supavash, willynel

        college grads make a lot more money over their lifetimes on average than people without a colelge degree.

        also, there's been a ton of evidence that an educated population is more productive.

        •  There is some evidence to that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac, Supavash, Satya1, belzaboo

          However, in my field of work - Information Technology / Network Security - the average entry level IT support person can make a solid $40,000-$50,000 with a baseline IT certification costing around $2000 total.

          Those who work in network security can make $80,000+ with ease WITHOUT a college degree. You don't need a computer science bachelors to be successful in IT.

          America has no shortage of IT jobs... yet high school seniors are all being urged to go to undergrad and then they wind up with big loans and a degree in psychology, political science or whatever.

          I'm just saying that broader emphasis on training and job skills will do more for this economy that encouraging more people to get advanced degrees (especially when they have no experience in the field).

          •  no offense (0+ / 0-)

            but your personal anecdotes don't trump data and additionally, IT is not necessarily for everybody anyway.

            •  You're entitled to your opinion (0+ / 0-)

              I'm just merely stating that there are a plethora of jobs out there that are good jobs that don't require taking on massive debt for a useless degree.

              It's nothing personal to those with a useless degree. I have a $200,000 useless undergraduate degree myself. It's for that reason that I think there is a big myth about everyone going to college will result in them having a high paying job. It sounds nice and fair, but it's just not grounded in reality.

              •  it's not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB

                "my opinion".

                The data is there - people who go to college make around a million more on average during their lifetimes than people who don't.

                yes, there are exceptions. there are homeless college grads and rich people without degrees.  But it's certainly rational for people to go to college according to the numbers.

                •  The question is why those numbers are true. (0+ / 0-)

                  There are some jobs (Civil Engineering, etc) for which several years of serious training are a minimum bar.  College does a good job of preparing people for that.

                  There are other jobs (Accounting, Nursing, Carpentry) where everything you need to know can be learned through directed, vocational, specific certifications and mentoring.  There is no reason whatsoever to require a college degree for these kinds of jobs, there is every reason to develop the proper certification and reputation models that allow teenagers to choose these careers without college.

                  Unncessary prerequisites are wasted effort.  Eliminate wasted effort.

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  There are no Christians in foxholes.

                  by Odysseus on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:36:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Vocations like Accounting, Nursing, IT ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus

                    need to be encouraged in high schools... Where I grew up in TN, vocational track students were pushed to wood shop and cosmetology...

                    Bless a young woman's heart who intends to rise from poverty with a 100 other classmates pursuing a certificate cutting hair. Why not inspire some people into health care, or computers, accounting, etc...

                •  This is a good dialogue (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lonespark

                  I am familiar with that data... here's the thing though, I believe it's based on a past economy.

                  I wouldn't bet on that to remain constant going forward ... especially given the exponential increase in college degrees being awarded.

                  No offense to those people who have worked hard to earn a degree, but with the increasing accesibility of them, the earning potential of having that piece of paper will decrease over time. It's just supply and demand. With the number of for-profit and online degree programs now churning out new bachelors and masters degrees, it has to dilute those previous earning power estimates.

                  I wish it could be true - that higher education will forever equate to higher wages - but it's just not. In my business it is results that pay the bills. No matter how many degrees or how much money a person spent to get them, it doesn't matter. If I need a manager and can afford to pay them $35,000 a year, then I'm going to hire a manager that will work for $35,000 a year.

                  If I have an abundance of applicants (which I currently do because hiring employers are scarce) then some of those applicants may have a Masters and many likely will have a bachelor's degree - the kicker is, I'd rather hire someone who has done the job with demonstrated competency than someone who has a degree.

                  As a businessman, my peers have the same feelings. I just think this economy is different (regardless of whose fault it is) and to base an entire economic policy strategy on higher education is extremely risky long term.

                  •  it's not (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BradyB, lonespark

                    "the earning potential of a peice of paper".

                    It's earning potential of 4 years of education and an indication to potential employers who don't personally know the person that the person is smart enough to get there and get through it.

                    and maybe you are correct that things have changed or will change, but it's not irrational for people to make choices based on past data instead of your gut feeling, that's all I'm saying. If there is a big change in the future, then probably fewer people will go to college.

              •  Really good points (0+ / 0-)

                In IT hiring is about "know how", the hands on experience with the technology.

                The degree doesn't hurt one bit because a bachelors in IT lays down sounder knowledge in fundamentals of IT.  But #1 on the hiring criteria IMHO is being up to date on the latest release of whatever branch of IT one is hiring for.

                I've found that while most companies will require a bachelors in IT, they won't turn away someone who is up on their stuff and say that in parallel to whatever they're doing they're at least working on their bachelors.

                And I know guys in major banks pulling down over 100k that never finished their bachelors.

                One thing doesn't get mentioned enough is that sometimes the best programmers and systems analysts are people who already have some solid experience in an industry (like a loan agent at GMAC or a nurse at a hospital) and get some training as programmers.  They already know the business logic - which is the building block of the whole development process.

                I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

                by Satya1 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:31:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Not just oftentimes, the reports are ALWAYS... (0+ / 0-)

      ...revised as better information becomes available. Indeed, as noted in the diary, the numbers for June and July were revised in this report.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:33:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gov't Jobs /Min Wage (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, Jabarten, lonespark

    I still contend that we will not be on the road to recovery till we start putting the gov't workers back on the job.

    In SO many areas especially poor and rural areas these people are the drivers of the economy. They keep the home improvement, mechanics and other service personnel working.

    In all other economic downturns the feds have kept those people working and we bounced back faster.

    I understand that the reason that we aren't is that Obama is sort of cowtowing to the anti gov't crowd, but by now it should be clear from the stats that gov't workers are a boost to the economy not a drain.

    The other thing that should have been part of the stimulus was to raise the min wage to 10 bucks. Right now we do not have a strong union movement in the country and I think it's up to the gov't to make sure that the low wage workers have enough money to spend to boost the economy also. I think this would have been way better than cutting the payroll tax.

  •  Dems shouldn't hide from these numbers (14+ / 0-)

    ...They should hang them around the neck of the GOP congress and Senate.

    Turn it around, talk about how long the President's jobs bill has been languishing in congress with no action and remind people what Mitch McConnell said was their #1 priority (hint: not job creation).  Do it with every single weak economic report.

    Ask people to imagine where we could be today if congress cared more about American prosperity than they do about partisan politics.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by Triscula on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:28:22 AM PDT

  •  We could be doing better (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks to the Republicans who consistently opposed everything the President has tried to do to boost the economy, placing politics before country.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:28:28 AM PDT

  •  This report is bleaker than it looks: (0+ / 0-)

    Per the CPS, 119,000 fewer people are working. And the CES shows job losses in durable goods, manufaturing, motor vehicle parts, mining and logging, and leisure services. Plus the  infamous CES birth-death model has adjusted in 87,000 jobs, so it is entirely possibe...in fact, based on the household survey results, probable...that 87,000 of the 96,000 new jobs don't really exist.

  •   (0+ / 0-)

    I still contend that we will not be on the road to recovery till we start putting the gov't workers back on the job.

    In SO many areas especially poor and rural areas these people are the drivers of the economy. They keep the home improvement, mechanics and other service personnel working.

    In all other economic downturns the feds have kept those people working and we bounced back faster.

    I understand that the reason that we aren't is that Obama is sort of cowtowing to the anti gov't crowd, but by now it should be clear from the stats that gov't workers are a boost to the economy not a drain.

    The other thing that should have been part of the stimulus was to raise the min wage to 10 bucks. Right now we do not have a strong union movement in the country and I think it's up to the gov't to make sure that the low wage workers have enough money to spend to boost the economy also. I think this would have been way better than cutting the payroll tax.

    Gov't jobs went up under Reagan and I do remember Clinton putting 100,000 new police on the street which also boosted the economy.

    I know that it would be a hard sell for Obama but I believe the facts bear it out that when there is growth in gov't jobs it helps the economy.

  •  Not the report I was looking for. I had hoped and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, EcosseNJ, askew

    predicted that it would align with the BLS.  Obviously not the case.  I don't think it's a terrible or dynamic changing report.  I think this report sort of explains some of the caution and 'hard road' but stay hopeful because I draw hope from you themes that were in the convention speech.  Might've been the smartest convention speech ever given even if it was more methodical in structure and tone.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:32:29 AM PDT

  •  Look at the graph (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem, Supavash, Lawrence

    The stark contrast between the first two years and the last 2 is amazing.  I see slow but steady increasing back from a dismal recession...which is pretty amazing given how many public sector jobs have been lost in some states.  Beleive me, I am not what one would call an optimist, but I think this country has a complete delusion about how fast major job growth can occur (minus a major investment on behalf of the government which isn't going to happen).  America has become a society of instant gratification...just look at how people used to invest and grow companies for 50 years after WW2, and by that I mean for the long haul.  In the last 10 or 15 years it's shifted to a culture of investments that are more  short term...almost like gambling in many ways.  It's very difficult to get people excited about a slow steady pace these days....which is unfortunate because we really can't go back to that first part of the chart!

    •  That's what I see when I look at the numbers (0+ / 0-)

      I look at performance numbers all the time in my business.  This isn't all that bad.  It's just slow.  I don't see how you grow faster if there is an unwillingness to invest in employment.  Giving tax breaks to the rich won't do it.  We need to put the public workers back to work and have a second stimulus.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:47:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why do people wait for this report like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JCNYMYAMI

    something is going to change. Nobody changed anything, so why would the report change? Do we all believe in the "magic of the free market" now. I've been in the stores. They're full.

    This is like me looking out the window to see if the grass is any shorter. Guess what; if I don't cut it, it ain't going to get any shorter.

    I'm waiting for Godot to cut it.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:35:17 AM PDT

    •  There is no magic in the free market, and that is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lonespark

      what Obama and his surrogates need to be talking about.  Romney and Ryan tout the CEO meme to grow the economy, but the markets have basically run the economy since 2000, due to deregulation and Congressional obstruction.  We don't have to guess what Wall Street would do to the economy.  They have been showing us for the past 12 years.

  •  The numbers are what they are (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, Bagger, EcosseNJ, auapplemac

    What will decide the election is whose arguments about what to do next the electorate will agree with.

    It's critical that President Obama put forward concrete steps that will lead to more employment, and that a large part of the blame should be rightly place on the do-nothing GOP House.

    Make no mistake: Romney has a shot of winning the whole thing if his campaign can successfully convince people that President Obama hasn't gotten the job done, and that he has a plan. We must do everything to shoot down his ideas as a rehash of trickle-down that got us into this mess, but the only way to deal with the hard numbers is a concrete plan to go forward.

    •  Rmoney has NO shot of winning this whole thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jec

      The polls have not budged in months.  Rmoney's likability ratings are underwater.  He got ZERO convention bounce.  The Republican base does not trust him.  They have no enthusiasm for him.  Ryan did NOT help with that the way Palin did.  TV ratings for the GOP convention were DOWN sharply.  The "Tea Party" has been utterly discredited and is now a joke.

      The Democrats are only slightly less revved up about BHO this time than they were 2008.  Obama won the popular vote by 7 points last time.  That won't happen again, but he will win by 2 or 3 points, AND, he will CRUSH Rmoney in the Electoral College.  Many many many Dems that sat out 2010 WILL be voting this time because Obama is on the ballot.  That simple.

  •  More evidence "austerity" doesn't work. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lonespark

    If it wasn't clear already, getting rid of public sector jobs is not helping.

    DUH!

    Lisa

    All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

    by Boston to Salem on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:44:33 AM PDT

    •  That is the case that Dems need to make (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lonespark

      Unfortunately, I haven't heard it in those terms.  Rather than complaining about lack of GOP cooperation, I would say that GOP governors (and lack of cooperation in Congress) led to public sector austerity.  That has been the main drag on the economy.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:44:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think this means much to voters (5+ / 0-)

    But I think it explains Obama's subdued demeanor during his speech. I felt the whole time he knew the report was at best mediocre. I don't think it affected his words so much (all pre-written) but just his general tone of subdued, non euphoric determination.

    I love this guy, but I don't know why any decent human being would want his job. I can't imagine how he goes on, where he finds the strength.

  •  Well this sucks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, Supavash, auapplemac

    No two ways around it, really. It sucks.  I think this is going to pretty much evaporate any poll bounce President Obama may have gotten from our kick-ass convention in Charlotte.

    The Romney people have ALREADY jumped on this. Punditry is already tweeting about how horrible this number is.

    It isn't good. And yes, its not entirely President Obama's fault. Republicans have stifled any efforts he has made at creating jobs or doing anything to help create jobs.  They will continue to do so.  But like it or not, President Obama is the one who is under the biggest microscope and the one who is likely to get the blame here.

    What a freakin' letdown. :(

  •  Unemployment dropped to 8.1% (0+ / 0-)

    from 8.3% last month. And last month added 150,000 jobs, but ticked up to 8.3%, and people said the report was a wash. Have I got that right?

  •  Ordinary folks will only hear 'Unemployment rate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EcosseNJ, askew

    dropped to 8.1%'

    Luckily for Obama, many ordinary Folks arent economists

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:49:12 AM PDT

  •  Something else that can't get work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lonespark

    Republican lies.

    How many Jobs bills did they vote no on?
    How many budgets?

    Their plan all along was to bet on high unemployment to doom Obama. They bet more on that than on the pocket of Wall Street that is their ticket.

  •  MB, as I posted in another thread: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WineRev, Odysseus, lonespark
    I'm starting to think that way too much emphasis
    is currently being placed on the size of the number of jobs that are being created.  The unemployment rate is probably far more important.

    Demographics just may be the saving grace in the U.S. economy right now, ie. we are getting deeper into the era of retiring baby boomers.

    Germany experienced a similar phenomenon, with unemployment falling due not just to job growth, but also due to an aging population. In Germany, btw, job number growth is really never an issue.... all anyone ever really pays attention to is the unemployment rate.

    It's definitely a stroke of good fortune that baby boomers are retiring during a time when the global economy is very shaky, and it's also good that the economy has been adding jobs for so many months in a row.

    To me the really important long-term question here is whether the demographic shift with baby boomers retiring will be enough to offset the increasing pace of jobs lost due to automation.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:52:16 AM PDT

    •  Saw the stat (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, lonespark

      that Boomers are retiring at a rate of about 3000 per DAY and will do so for about the next 14 years.

      FWIW,

      Shalom.

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:14:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually think the report is good (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence

        A lot of workers feel they can retire now due to financial security. Some of their jobs will never be replace, but the majority will and it takes several weeks for that to happen sometimes.

        •  But, in fact, the statistics in this report... (0+ / 0-)

          ...do not support the idea that it is retirees who are the main cause of the labor force shrinking. Obviously, baby boomers ARE starting to retire and that will increase over time. Many will work to 70, very few to 75. So the long-term demographics favors a decrease in the labor force participation rate. But currently, the Economic Policy Institute and others put the voluntary retirement part of the shrinking labor force at about one-third of the total. There are a lot of people in the post-55 group who are being forced to retire—laid-off or bought out—because they can't find a job at that age or only one that pays poorly. But that isn't good news.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 02:21:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Gov. O'Malley redeemed himself this morning (7+ / 0-)

    on Morning Schmoe when he made the case that you need BOTH public and private sector job growth and that Congress knows this and THAT is why they have refused to vote for any jobs bill.  Of course, Joe countered that you can't fault Congress for everything and that the states were shedding jobs.  O'Malley responded by saying that states with Democratic governors have had double the job growth of states with Republican governors.

    THIS IS THE ARGUMENT THAT NOW NEEDS TO GO FORWARD.  The Congressional obstructionism has to come to the forefront.

  •  Government job loss (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PlinytheWelder, lonespark

    I would like to see much more discussion of the effect of huge cuts in government jobs on the employment picture. I'd like to see a graphic charting the loss of government jobs against the growth in private sector jobs.

    I was just getting out of college during the recession in the 1970s. So many people got jobs through the CETA program, and there were similar, though not nearly as extensive, opportunities through ARRA. Government used to be the stopgap employer---at least you could get a job in a local park, or they'd add extra staff in City Hall. Now we have teachers and recreation specialists competing with manufacturing and service industry workers for scarce jobs at Costco and Walmart.

    "When you give back all your ill-gotten gains, you're a reformed crook. When you keep most of the loot and only give back a small part of it, you're a philanthropist." - Alfred E. Newman

    by Abstract668 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:02:21 AM PDT

    •  About 600,000 in lost public-sector jobs... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lonespark, Larsstephens

      ...since December 2007.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:00:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is mind boggling! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lonespark

        And I think the actual source of the slow economy.  There may be one or two areas where there is a structural lack of skills but I think public sector cuts are the real drag on the economy.  They reflect the bone headed policies of people like Mitt Romney who thinks laying off public workers is a good thing.

        "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

        by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:41:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  DNC beat NFL season-opening ratings (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.npr.org/...

    NEW YORK (AP) — The second night of the Democratic National Convention beat the Republicans in television ratings and, perhaps more impressively, beat pro football.

    An estimated 25.1 million people watched the convention between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday, when former President Bill Clinton delivered an impassioned nomination speech for President Barack Obama, the Nielsen ratings company said.

    During that hour, just over 20 million people were watching the second half of the Dallas Cowboys' season-opening victory over the New York Giants. Faced with competition from Clinton, ratings for football's first game were down from the past two years.

    The second night of the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla., last week, featuring vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, was seen by 21.9 million people, Nielsen said Thursday.

    Democratic convention ratings held up well compared to 2008, when interest was particularly high. The Democrats had a four-day convention then, with 25.9 million viewers on the second day and 24 million on the third. None of those nights faced competition from pro football.

    Hopefully people who tuned in were persuaded by Pres. Clinton. He exlained where the country is at economically, and what the Republicans have been doing to slow growth.
  •  Most of the jobs being created (0+ / 0-)

    are low pay, low benefits. This has been covered extensively. Of course this brings up two questions. What skill shortages specifically are we missing from the labor force? Both parties talk about this and neither party seems to want to be specific. How is increased testing and focusing on STEM education going to prepare our workforce to be waiters and maids? Several people have documented the amount of unemployed engineers currently in the U.S., or let me guess, they have to wrong engineering degree and need to go back and spend $40,000 to get the right one...

    •   (0+ / 0-)

      As I said earlier, a crucial skill missing is Information Technology and Network Security Professionals...

      People who know how to program routers, switches and modems.

      People who understand Microsoft enterprise systems for small and large companies and the government.

      The thing is you don't need to spend $40,000 to gain IT certifications - community colleges offer networking certifications that can nearly guarantee employment of $40-50,000+ (provided you can present yourself professionally in an interview) for $2-3,000 investment in training.

      •  not everybody (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        can be IT professionals. besides the fact taht it's just not for everybody, if a ton more people went into it, wages would go down.

      •  Yes, IT is exploding (0+ / 0-)

        There is basically no recession in IT.  Really never was.

        It's because corporations realize much of their productivity via IT.

        What has changed for American IT is that there aren't many jobs programming.  Concentrate on skills needed to run a data center - network, storage, server operating systems and you'll find work.

        "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

        by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:29:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  From @googlepolitics (5+ / 0-)
    •  No wonder the MSM is in panic mode (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Supavash, lonespark, Larsstephens

      For the next two months we're going to see a lot  of "negative" and doomsday narratives.

      Nate Silver statistical models now give Obama a 77% chance of victory in Nov. That was about 65% last month at this time. People's minds are made up, regardless of this jobs report or next jobs report. The trend is clear, and the media is panicking big time.

      Once Obama gets re-elected (with hopefully a better congress), without GOP obstructionism, he can take bolder and more effective steps towards actually improving the economy.

  •  Very dissappointing result (0+ / 0-)

    Although the unemployment rate dropped slightly, this still is a very dissappointing result which is even worse than the already meagre +125k which was originally predicted. RomneyCo must be full of glee.

    Obama-Biden in 2012!

    by Frederik on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:25:54 AM PDT

  •  Stiglitz and Krugman BOTH saw this coming... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jec, BradyB

    ...at the beginning of the year. Frankly, the reality -- right now -- is at least as bad as they predicted; some would say it's a bit worse.

    But, many--not all, but many--people in this community aren't interested in reality right now. (Only the voters are interested in that.) Meanwhile, the suffering on Main Street trumps anything any mainstream politician may say at this juncture. Trying to survive has that affect upon most.

    (Voting becomes a VERY LOW priority to many that used to be counted as being part of the Democratic Party's "base." Many talk about voter apathy; in fact, for many on Main Street, they've got more immediately critical things to think about; and, focusing upon voting for this or that politician becomes a "non-priority.")  

    When one is wondering where their next meal is coming from, and whether or not they'll have shelter for the night and/or medicine for their kids, it's a very small "comfort" to know that one party's solution is less bad than the other's....especially when it's just all plain bad, or, too much to bear. It is these greater truths that get "lost" in the political dialogue by the supposedly "intelligent" and "knowledgeable" pundits class. (I wrote the MSM off many years ago).

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:56:30 AM PDT

    •  And yet there will be a vote one way or the other (0+ / 0-)

      This sort of logic makes no sense.  Come election day, there will be a vote one way or the other.  If you are talking about people who are genuinely starving (and I don't think you are), it's not an insurmountable effort to get out to vote.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, while I was including the destitute... (0+ / 0-)

        ...in my statement, above, I was referring more directly to the working poor, earning minimum wage, or even less than that...working multiple jobs if they can find them...and, I don't think getting them to the polls will be an easy thing to accomplish...if for no other reason than the reality being that if they take time out to vote, in many instances (while it may be technically illegal to prevent it), they may be threatened with the ax they do.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 04:30:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  For all those of you who are shouting doom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    and gloom about this jobs report and how bad this is for the President, I remind you naysayers to watch Bill Clinton's entire speech from Wednesday night and remind everything he's said in detail.

    We all know this is not a positive report. But we've also had reports of positive numbers for car sales, house prices and even as per Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/...

    Just because this jobs report is disappointing doesn't mean doom for the President. We've had plenty of disappointing numbers this year, yet that hasn't changed the outcome of the race; otherwise Romney would've been surging in the polls back in May and June. So don't take too much into what the media says about this report; they do this all the time. Look at other data besides a monthly jobs report. Besides they are subject to be revised.

  •  Recessions have changed... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if you look at the last chart (Percent Job Losses in post WWII Recessions), you'll see that there are two categories of recessions...

    1981 and before are deep relative to their length and seem to recover more quickly

    1990 to present are long shallow recessions increasing in depth of job loss and duration, with the "rates of recovery" being about the same (if you look at the slope of the upward portions).

    Had the 2007 recession been only as bad as the one of 2001, we would have climbed back up to 0% job loss about a year ago. With the current rate of 0.1% gain per month of this recovery we're looking at 2 years and 10 months to get back to 0%.

    Is there anything anyone can do to significantly change this for the better? I'm not sure anyone can. If one looks at all the recoveries, variations from a best fit line don't look all that permanant and probably represent noise as much as anything else.

    The more I look at this chart, the more I think recessions and rates of recovery are structural problems built into the economic system. This is not to say that things can't be made worse.

    (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

    by Enterik on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:17:49 AM PDT

  •  Second Chart - (0+ / 0-)

    Why can't the recessions/depressions of 1929 and 1937 be overlayed on this chart? (or anything from 1937 to 1948, too).

    I would not know where to get the data, but I could do it IF I had it.

    Not only that, but include recessions/depressions back to 1860.

    Thx.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:24:20 AM PDT

    •  One problem is that data collection in ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      ...the Great Depression, much less earlier periods, was not so great. There have been a couple of attempts by analysts to take data from the Depression and adjust it to match current data, but that's a bit dicey.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 08:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  From what I see, this isn't that bad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    The manufacturing and service sector numbers are positive.

    Once again, there are losses in public sector jobs.  It's hard to control that when states are turning to austerity ala GOP governors.

    With a different set of policies in place (ala Obama's plan), this will turn around instantly.  The problem we face is twofold - 1) getting Obama reelected, 2) getting rid of Republicans so they can't block his policies.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:25:46 AM PDT

  •  Who talks about the Boomers? (0+ / 0-)

    After all, Reagan doubled the SS tax in preparation of the millions who were going to start retiring in this time period. Thousands every month now are leaving the workforce.   I've only heard Hartmann mention this.

    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

    by luvbrothel on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:04:16 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site