Jobs Report Questions

[SoutherDem]

80,000 Jobs added, Unemployment 8.2
I get it, that is not good. This may not be enough to keep up with people joining the job market.

But, isn't this exactly what the Republicans not only want but have been working very hard for? I don't just mean the "#1 goal of making Obama a one term president", but isn't this exactly what happens when you cut from the government?

Yesterday there was a good private sector jobs report adding over 170,000 jobs but this is diluted to only 80,000 over all. Does that mean we lost 90,000 public sector jobs? If so, this means the "job creators" are not doing their job? Was yesterdays report bogus? Is todays bogus? How do they actually count jobs?

I know things need to be better but it seems congress is getting exactly what they want and I haven't heard anything from a Republican which makes me feel things will be better if they do get the WH.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. My question as well. How did ADP report 176,000 jobs created?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-private-sector-adds-176-122339520.html

The ADP National Employment Report said on Thursday private employers added 176,000 jobs last month, more than the 105,000 economists had forecast.

May's figures were revised up slightly to an increase of 136,000 jobs from the previously reported 133,000.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. IMO the ADP numbers get much higher survey response for ADP's

big corporate customers in service industries and other sectors where jobs have been growing. Both ADP and the Bureau of Labor Statistics mount monthly surveys of business establishments. But ADP already HAS the survey responses for the customers who use ADP to calculate wages and print paychecks. The BLS survey has no such bias. See today's BLS survey table at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm . Notice that there are many pluses and many minuses. If sectors with pluses are more likely to be ADP customers than sectors with minuses, the ADP job growth number will be higher than the BLS nunber.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Something does seem fishy to me too. Gallup tracks unemployment too..based on

polls, and they aren't usually too far off. They were showing 7.9% in mid-June.

Do you know Mark Zandi? Chief Economist at Moody's? I didn't hear it, but
my sister just wrote me and said she heard him say he thought something was
fishy - and wondered if someone was tampering with the numbers? I have no
link to this and can't find any quotes online either.

[former9thward]

9. So the career professionals at the Dept of Labor are tampering with the numbers?

Why would they do this since the DOL works directly for Obama?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. hey...I lived in Nola

for three years in 2008, 2009, and 2010 so don't be dissing on me. :&gt

well, they could be "saving" up some jobs, to make a big splash when people
are back from vacation and paying attention

I don't know...don't get the difference between today and ADP numbers
or why Gallup has 7.9 mid June.

[former9thward]

15. The 9th ward refers to a minor elected position I had in Chicago.

Not N.O. All of these are surveys. It is an inexact science at best. I think all of them underestimate the extent of the problem.

[plcdude]

3. I think

the private sector's job growth is not being reported in order to keep the election seemingly close and the ratings up.

[former9thward]

10. So the Dept Of Labor is not reporting the numbers properly?

The DOL works for Obama but they want to keep the election close? Is there any aluminum foil left at the stores around you?

[Cosmocat]

4. PUBLIC EDUCATION!

PA public schools alone probably can account for a BIG chunk of the public sector job loss.

The fiscal calender year starts in July, so school districts had to set their budgets in June.

Corbett and the republican house/senate cracked down on state funding of public education last year, and there was a law implemented in the mid 2000s limiting the amount a school district can raise local taxes.

There is a school district in Central Pennsylvania that had to lay off 70 employees in June. That is a big district, but there are 500 districts in the state, some are doing OK and did not lay off anyone, some are worse.

This is all a part of the a VERY organized effort by all governors/state legislatures to pair down public sector employees - the bottom line is killing them to privitize them (unlock the tax payer piggy bank to their contributors), the added on benefit of surpressing employment numbers under BO.

Mort Zuckerman was on MSNBC with his hair on fire just lambasting the president and the AHCA, blaming it all on him and HCR.

He knows full frucking well that the private sector has shown the gains you note, and the total numbers are brought down by public sector job losses - the kid doing the interview is trying to fight back, but just is not informed enough, sadly, to hit back on the REAL reason the jobs numbers are down.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. According to the jobs report

the private sector is doing much better than increasingly maligned public sector (which seems to be where we are mostly LOSING jobs- gee, wonder why?)

[Igel]

7. No need to wonder.

First, property taxes fund a lot of local government. (Federal government's up, not down.) Reduced house values --> lower taxes.

Second, reduced incomes. Income taxes fund a lot of local government. A lot of states have progressive income tax rates and the upper middle class took more of a beating than the lower classes did. That means that income from smaller amounts at 0 or low tax rates is the same or slightly up while the higher tax revenue derived from higher incomes at higher tax rates is way down. California and NY face this every recession and never learn. (A lot of states also peg their taxable income to the IRS Form 1040 and its permutations, and with that income reduced because of various temporary tax code changes, state revenues are cut.)

Third, and less obvious: States budget one or two years in advance, and historically recoveries have been relatively fast. If you have a recession that lasts all of a year, you don't really get it worked well into the budget cycle. The first year your budget's barely affected, and the second year you assume that the recession will end. A 6 month recession is barely noticed as far as setting budgets goes. Then if the recession continues its effect on public employment makes itself known--and the recovery takes a while to make itself felt. This recession lasted around 18 months--and was worked deeply into state budgets. The recovery's been abysmally slow: The liquidity crisis that happened in 10/08 was well in hand by 1/09 and pretty much over by 3/09. The recession itself has dragged on and on and on. Even Federal revenues are only almost what they were in 2008.

[elleng]

8. Yes, they're getting what they want,

especially w cutting local and state government jobs.

THEY have no plan to make things better. Closest we might get is to see jobs as result of Transportation Bill.

[ailsagirl]

11. Please read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125152565

[SoutherDem]

12. Thanks for the link

[ailsagirl]

14. You betcha!!

[mikekohr]

16. The Public Sector Has Lost Nearly 700,000 jobs

Go to this link and view the 5th graph down to see how public sector jobs have shrunk during President Obama's term but private sector employment has soared since his economic polies ended the George W. Bush Great Recession in June of 2009.

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html