Unemploment drops to 9.7%

• believer

  

  The national average rates are the ones to which we refer above. Many Ohio counties also suffered through higher than 11% unemployment during the late 70's/early 80's double-dip recession.
  
  I do not down play that this recession is brutal but it annoys me when BHO and his media lap dogs keep calling this the "worst recession since the Great Depression." At best it's equal to the previous bad recession which also happened to be the "worst recession since the Great Depression."
  
  However, Manhattan Buckeye does have good points that at least in the previous "worst recession since the Great Depression" most factory laborers could count on being called back. That's not the case anymore.
• fish82

  

  Some quick thoughts......
  
  1. Whether the number is accurate or not, it represents some semblance of good news for people to latch on to. Who knows, maybe some folks will go out and spend some money? That is, after all, the catalyst to getting this thing turned around.
  
  2. I certainly expect to hear from the BamClub "Unemployment is dropping!!! The stimulus is working!!!" Which of course, is complete bullshit.
• believer

  

  fish82 wrote: Some quick thoughts......
  
  1. Whether the number is accurate or not, it represents some semblance of good news for people to latch on to. Who knows, maybe some folks will go out and spend some money? That is, after all, the catalyst to getting this thing turned around.

  Well the Catch-22 is if you don't have a job you can't spend. And if you can't spend you can't create any jobs.
  

  fish82 wrote:2. I certainly expect to hear from the BamClub "Unemployment is dropping!!! The stimulus is working!!!" Which of course, is complete bullshit.

  True and then they'll tell us that it's working so well we need to spend another $200 Billion. No wait....they're already saying it. My bad.
• general94

  And there are still some people out there that try to defend spending (borrowing) another 200 billion. Just the other day some Dem. Congressman was on TV and said "you have to spend your way out of recessions." Uhh, call me a dumbass, but isn't that what we have been trying for the last year and a half. News flash. IT DOES NOT WORK. Don't get me wrong, I am not going to jump on the tax cut bandwagon just yet either. I'm not sure that will help. How about doing all possible to get a balanced budget and paying down the national debt. That would equal more PRIVATE SECTOR money in the economy instead of it going to buy government debt. That to me is the only way out of this mess.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Just another "drive by" point with respect to the late 70's-early 80's economy and now, back then inflation was rampant and the fed had room to move rates down. That isn't happening today. We can't move the overnight funding rate like we could in the past. Not to sound too much like Dr. Doom but we could be looking at a Japanese-esque decade of stagflation.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Just another "drive by" point with respect to the late 70's-early 80's economy and now, back then inflation was rampant and the fed had room to move rates down. That isn't happening today. We can't move the overnight funding rate like we could in the past. Not to sound too much like Dr. Doom but we could be looking at a Japanese-esque decade of stagflation.

  Also a very valid point. In the previous "worst economy since the Great Depression" we had a little more wiggle room for doing things like lowering interest rates and cutting taxes. Now we basically have no tools at our disposal other than CUTTING government spending.
  
  Unfortunately we are currently being governed by the "we must spend our way to prosperity" types.
  
  Insane.
• dwccrew

  

  I was born in 1982, so I can't comment on which recession was worse (the present one or the late 70's early 80s) but from many people I have known that did live through it and worked through both, they have said this one is worse. Many are independent business owners, which I believe are hurting much worse now than they were then, as far as I have been informed.
• Footwedge

  ross ford81 wrote: Can anyone site one month in the entire decade of the 1970's when the U.S. unemployment rate was over 10%?

  The highest unemployment rate for a year in the 70's was 8.5%.
• Footwedge

  believer wrote:
  However, Manhattan Buckeye does have good points that at least in the previous "worst recession since the Great Depression" most factory laborers could count on being called back. That's not the case anymore.

  Exactly. He also made the point that lowering interest rates are not an option either.
  
  You may think that Obama is overstating the severity of the situation, well I think they are understating it.
  
  And to think that 2 trillion was spent to kick start the economy...and fizzle...dud...fart...burp.
  
  If one is a member of the 83% that are still working, this is "not an issue". For those that have been permanently booted from the workforce, not so much.
• gibby08

  

  Economy Adds Jobs
  The American economy added 162,000 jobs last month, the New York Times reports, while the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7%. While the numbers got a lift from the government's hiring of 48,000 census workers, private employers added 123,000 jobs in the month.
  
  Steve Benen: "The jobs report is easily the best we've seen since the start of the Great Recession late 2007, and the strongest overall in three years. With revised numbers for recent months, March is now the third month to show positive job growth since the start of the economic downturn, but last month's totals far exceeded the modest totals from November 2009 and January 2010."
  
  Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/04/02/economy_adds_jobs.html#ixzz0k6sTp2GT
• Swamp Fox

  I think that for some of us, if the entire problem is not solved, nothing else matters. Low unemployment figures or high unemployment figures don't matter. Nothing is ever good to the Conservatives(ultra), and nothing is ever bad to the Liberals(ultra). I'm just wondering why we can't all work together for a solution that will best address all of our citizens concerns with health care costs, the accessibility of decent and affordable health care, a job for every American that wants to work, and the best economic situation we can develop over the next few years. We won't though, and it's purely political. The ultra Conservatives are afraid that if this recovery program of Obama's actually works, their political star will fall from the sky, and if the Obama program doesn't seem to be solving the problem, the ultra Liberals will be afraid that their man will be out soon and their political clout will disappear. Here's a suggestion. Let's throw the politics under the bus and work for all Americans and see if we get more by cooperating than listening to the radicals of both parties. By the way, I do not consider Mr. Obama, nor do I consider Mr. McCain radical. Tea Party folks may not be able to even get that far.
• I Wear Pants

  This
  
  +1
• Cleveland Buck

  

  It is pretty foolish to think Obama's recovery plan has anything to do with the economy finally adding jobs over a year after a "stimulus" spending bill was passed. Most economists would tell you that the economy would be adding jobs by now without the trillion dollars of waste that was forced through.
• believer

  

  This
  
  +1
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Cleveland Buck wrote: It is pretty foolish to think Obama's recovery plan has anything to do with the economy finally adding jobs over a year after a "stimulus" spending bill was passed. Most economists would tell you that the economy would be adding jobs by now without the trillion dollars of waste that was forced through.

  This.
  
  All we've done is pushed ourselves closer to the precipice with a lot of political paybacks disguised as a stimulus effort.
• Big Red Monster

  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/04/economists-all-signs-good-for-continued-u-s-economic-growth/?fbid=vElSrCBhAtA
  
  Economists: All signs good for continued U.S. economic growth
  Posted: April 4th, 2010 12:28 PM ET
  Washington (CNN) - The slow but steady U.S. economic recovery appears set to continue, with underlying indicators signaling a growing strength, some of the nation's senior economists said Sunday.
  
  "The trend has turned," said Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, on CNN's "State of the Union" program. "But to get back to the surface, we've got a long way to go."
  
  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told ABC's "This Week" that the recovery so far has led to conditions for compounding growth. In particular, Greenspan cited an increasing demand for inventory that spurs production as a signal of a possible significant build-up in growth.
  
  "I suspect it's month by month," Greenspan said of continued economic growth, adding that "a statistical aberration is possible."
  
  He said he doubted another drop in growth to create what economists call "double-dip recession" after the downturn of 2008-2009, saying the odds were "very much against that now."
  
  On NBC's "Meet the Press," the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Cristina Romer, said the recovery would have to be systemic rather than consumer-driven because, in the wake of the recession, "we're not going to be see people maxing out their credit cards again."
  
  Romer predicted economic growth for the year of 3 percent, which she said would be enough to keep creating jobs but not enough to significantly reduce the unemployment rate.
  
  All three spoke two days after the government announced 162,000 news jobs created in March but the unemployment rate remaining at 9.7 percent.
  
  Summers refused to be pinned down on when the unemployment rate might decline, noting that the increase in jobs does not automatically reduce overall unemployment.
  
  As jobs are created, Summers told the ABC program, more people re-enter the labor force to look for work, so unemployment figures stay stagnant or can even go up.
  
  On "State of the Union," Summers cited steps the Obama administration is taking to reduce the unemployment rate, including continued implementation of the $800 billion economic stimulus package from February 2009, new tax credits intended to encourage businesses to increase hiring, incentives for small
  businesses to expand and initiatives to create a "new energy economy" that focuses on energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.
  
  Republicans complain that the administration's policies were creating government jobs for political expediency, rather than stimulating private sector economic growth.
  
  "At this time of high unemployment, when we need to focus on jobs, we should not be expanding government spending, government commitments, and government promises that crowd out the small businessman and businesswoman," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California, in the GOP weekly radio address.
• goosebumps

  

  I bet the economy really gets a heft boost in say.... Late October
• jmog

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Swamp fox, congrats on your wife's choice, unfortunately, she is in the minority. There are millions of Americans unemployed not out of choice. I don't know what it will take to beat in some people's heads that we are in the worst labor situation since the '40's. That's not politics, it is reality.

  1982 unemployement peaked at 10.8%, 2009 unemployment peaked at 10.1%. So no, its not the worst labor situation since the '40s.
  
  I hate when the liberal media tries to spin it that way and the sad thing is people actually buy it, as evidence by your post.
• Footwedge

  jmog wrote:

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Swamp fox, congrats on your wife's choice, unfortunately, she is in the minority. There are millions of Americans unemployed not out of choice. I don't know what it will take to beat in some people's heads that we are in the worst labor situation since the '40's. That's not politics, it is reality.

  1982 unemployement peaked at 10.8%, 2009 unemployment peaked at 10.1%. So no, its not the worst labor situation since the '40s.
  
  I hate when the liberal media tries to spin it that way and the sad thing is people actually buy it, as evidence by your post.

  The liberal media is spinning the unemployment as being overly high? When a preceived liberal is running the WH? Doesn't make sense to me.
  
  Also, the numbers cited by the government do not reflect the real unemployment figures.
  
  Most would place it at or around 16% or 17%. And that doesn't even include the underemployed...which continues to rise.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  jmog, you might want to read my follow-up posts, namely this:
  
  "I think there are some differences between now and then, just a couple off of the top of my mind:
  
  1) The "official" UE stats don't take into consideration folks that voluntarily stay at home (as swamp fox mentioned), the percentage of households that rely on a 1 person income has declined considerably in the last few decades, thus the "unofficial" stats are more indicative of the economic situation.
  
  2) I remember kids at school in the late 70's who's Dad was "laid off" from the factory, by being "laid off" that meant they were on hold until orders came back again and they were recalled back to work. Today "laid off" is a nice way of saying "your job is gone forever.""
  
  I stand by both points now, IMO we are in a much WORSE situation than we were in the 80's, particularly if you take into consideration the current incredibly low interest rates (see my second follow up post) that are preventing the fed from doing much stimulous by lowering them further and that we currently have an even higher national deficit that almost certainly will result in higher taxes .
  
  I'm not buying into anything, I'm pointing out that a 10.1% unemployment rate in 2008 or 2009 is potentially (and IMO CERTAINLY) more disconcerting to the future of this country than a 10.8% unemployment rate in 1982, particularly when taking into consideration the numerical increase in the U.S. labor pool over the last few decades especially with two-income households. In fact, I don't how anyone that has lived in both times could see otherwise. In the 80's if a guy lost his job, his wife would go back in the workforce. Now, the guy's wife is just as likely to lose her job as he is.
• gibby08

  

  Some of you guys on here are unreal
  
  Some good news starts coming out about the economy... and you just can't accept it
  
  It`s pretty sad,but not at all suprising
• Gblock

  gibby08 wrote: Some of you guys on here are unreal
  
  Some good news starts coming out about the economy... and you just can't accept it
  
  It`s pretty sad,but not at all suprising

  thats what i was thinking....
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  gibby08 wrote: Some of you guys on here are unreal
  
  Some good news starts coming out about the economy... and you just can't accept it
  
  It`s pretty sad,but not at all suprising

  It is good, but there is still a looooong way to go.
• Gblock

  bush was in office all that time and nobody was even mentioning politics and now its life or death every week every decsion. some people would rather see him do nothing i guess. people act like we were doing so well before obama but we were not...there are some on this site giving obama a d grade after three months in office what a joke...i didnt vote i could care less i think all politions are crooks i just think its funny
• I Wear Pants

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  gibby08 wrote: Some of you guys on here are unreal
  
  Some good news starts coming out about the economy... and you just can't accept it
  
  It`s pretty sad,but not at all suprising

  It is good, but there is still a looooong way to go.

  Well yeah, nobody is claiming everything is all better. But there's nothing wrong with noticing that things seem like they might be getting slightly better or at least not be getting worse. Doesn't help to act like the world is ending every damn day.