243k jobs created in US; unemp at 8.3 - BIG number for Obama

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120203

Nate Silver says that the break even point for Obama's re-election is 150k/month.* I tend to agree with the sentiment, though if anything he may be understating Obama's position (I think that if job growth averages 150k in the months before the election, Obama has about a 60% change to be re-elected; I would but the 50-50 point lower - maybe 100k.)

In either case, if job growth continues to surge at this rate through the election, we could see another 2008 type election.



* http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/obamas-magic-number-150000-jobs-per-month/

Of course, this belies the hysterical claims of Chicken Littles like Paul Krugman.

We are already in new great depression

http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/02/03/we-are-already-in-new-great-depression-p?videoId=229581729

🙄

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120203

Nate Silver says that the break even point for Obama's re-election is 150k/month. I tend to agree with the sentiment, though if anything he may be understating Obama's position (I think that if job growth averages 150k in the months before the election, Obama has about a 60% chang ...[text shortened]... continues to surge at this rate through the election, we could see another 2008 type election.

I'm in full agreement that jobs growth is a very significant factor in the next election, but I'm a bit more optimistic about Obama's chances to beat Romney with slightly lower numbers.

I don't think Romney has spent much time in his life having friends and acquaintances who are regular, everyday Americans. I don't doubt that he can walk into any country club and be the life of the party. But with middle and low income Americans he has the social grace of a venereal disease.

The labor force was reduced by 1.8 million says the talking head on TV. That taints the number a bit eh?

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7BM0AB20120203

Nate Silver says that the break even point for Obama's re-election is 150k/month.* I tend to agree with the sentiment, though if anything he may be understating Obama's position (I think that if job growth averages 150k in the months before the election, Obama has about a 60% chan ...[text shortened]... http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/obamas-magic-number-150000-jobs-per-month/

Don't underestimate this thing with the Catholics. They feel slighted. This very well may come back to bite Obama on the a$$.

edit: and the Jews.

In other news...

The number of Republicans in the country inched up half a percentage point in January, while the number of Democrats dipped to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

During January, 35.9% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.4% in December and the highest number of Republicans measured since December 2010.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

I wonder how many of those new Repubs are part of the 1.8 million people who finally just gave up looking for work.

Edit: And I wonder how many of them are just Dems switching parties to vote for Ron Paul!!11!!

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
In other news...[quote]The number of Republicans in the country inched up half a percentage point in January, while the number of Democrats dipped to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

During January, 35.9% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 35.4% in December and the highest number of Republicans measured si ...[text shortened]...
Edit: And I wonder how many of them are just Dems switching parties to vote for Ron Paul!!11!!

What part of the 1.8 million are people who have given up looking for work?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
The labor force was reduced by 1.8 million says the talking head on TV. That taints the number a bit eh?

"A survey of households showed the unemployment rate declined even as new job seekers flooded into the labor force. Economists had expected the jobless rate, which has now fallen 0.8 percentage point since August, to hold steady."

Sorry to disappoint.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
"A survey of households showed the unemployment rate declined even as new job seekers flooded into the labor force. Economists had expected the jobless rate, which has now fallen 0.8 percentage point since August, to hold steady."

Sorry to disappoint.

Holding steady would not be great news. It wasn't that long ago that unemployment was 4%. Holding steady at 8.3% and thinking that is good news is a terrible lowering of expectations. There's no fundamental reason that unemployment can't go back to 4%.

Originally posted by sh76
Holding steady would not be great news. It wasn't that long ago that unemployment was 4%. Holding steady at 8.3% and thinking that is good news is a terrible lowering of expectations. There's no fundamental reason that unemployment can't go back to 4%.

I don't think he was implying that holding steady would be good, just that economists were expecting it.

Here is a chart to worry Romney.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/heres_what_to_watch.php?ref=fpblg

However, a few days ago the CBO reported that all the deficit-obsessive cuts to government spending over the next few months may slow or even reverse the recovery. All hope is not yet lost for the Republicans!

Originally posted by sh76
Holding steady would not be great news. It wasn't that long ago that unemployment was 4%. Holding steady at 8.3% and thinking that is good news is a terrible lowering of expectations. There's no fundamental reason that unemployment can't go back to 4%.

Well, except that companies don't want to pay traditional American level wages and actually get tax breaks for moving jobs overseas.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
"A survey of households showed the unemployment rate declined even as new job seekers flooded into the labor force. Economists had expected the jobless rate, which has now fallen 0.8 percentage point since August, to hold steady."

Sorry to disappoint.

From Zero Hedge...

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

Be sure not to miss the nice chart with the big spike at the end...

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg

I'm going to expect that if the economy continues to improve that Republicans will continue the desperate spins and whining.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/03/1061394/-Initial-Republican-response-to-jobs-report:-uher?via=blog_1

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
From Zero Hedge...

[quote]A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 milli ...[text shortened]... dge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm#cps_empsit_a01.f.1

Pretty hard to argue with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Doesn't it make you angry that that blog blatantly lied to your face and you fell for it? Doesn't it make you not want to read their BS anymore?

Of course not.