Strongest jobs recovery in decades. Seriously

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A jobless recovery? Hardly.

By historical standards, the labor market is recovering nicely -- job growth has started earlier than in past recessions.

But the unemployment problem isn't going away. An especially tough recession has raised the bar on the amount of job growth needed to recover, magnifying the pain of the struggling labor market.

"If you had a severe recession, you tend to have a strong recovery," said Robert Brusca of FAO Economics. "So far that hasn't happened."

The unemployment rate hit a high-water mark of 10.1% in October 2009 and has since fallen to 9.5%. Payrolls began growing in November and, excluding the impact of temporary census jobs, the economy has added jobs every month since January.

That's a much quicker peak than previous job market recoveries.

More at CNN-Money with chart

{bolding-mine}

quote:

Strongest jobs recovery in decades. Seriously

Are you on drugs? From the BLS Employment-Population Ratio

2009
Jan 60.6 - yeah Porkulus is going to save us!
Feb 60.3 Nope. down 3
March 59.9 down 4
April 59.9 even - yeah Floor - Porkulus Saved Us!
May 59.6 Nope - down 3
June 59.4 down 2
July 59.3 down 1
Aug 59.1 down 2
Sept 58.7 down 4
Oct 58.4 down 3
Nov 58.5 Wohoo! +1
Dec 58.2 False Hope -3
2010
Jan 58.4 Wohoo! +2!
Feb 58.5 +1 Back to back !
March 58.6 +1 3peat! Signed Health Care!
April 58.8 +2 "4peat" speed picks up smidge!
May 58.7 Oh No... down -1 - Bad weather or something, don't worry about it.
June 58.5 down -2
July 58.4 Fug it all -1

22 months of job loss to get what looked like a floor in Oct of 09 with employment down to 58.4% of the population with jobs. At the start of the recession, 62.9% of the country had jobs. But oh we are having "The Strongest Job Recovery in Decades!" and yet 9 months later we are still in the same place, only 58.4% of Civilians have jobs? 9 months we have laid on the floor going nowhere?!? We lost 45 10ths in 22 months and in the last nine months have chased our tails around and not budged off the floor even a 10th of the civilian population.

Actually in the last 9 months, we gained a 1/10th, but then the next month we lost 3/10.

Then in four months we gained 6/10ths!
But then in the last 3 months we lost 4/10ths.

Nine months of nothing and the most current 3 months, 3 straight losses. "The New Normal".... it needs a more inspiring name.... Let's name it: :"The Strongest Jobs Recovery In Decades!"

Yeah! Great Idea!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

Steady as she goes....

Under Obama we had sustained job growth six months after the recession ended. Strongest recovery in decades.

Under Bush it was twenty two months.

True this second Bush recession was the worst since the great depression which leaves a lot of room between recovery and recovered.

Thx for the charting, even the crud ought to be able to understand that.

whoa ..the righties aren't going to like that at all ... they're all into celebrating gloom and doom and "woe is us" ..and laughing down their sleeves because they WANT the nation to fall flat .. they're praying for it .. or at least the perception of it ..

quote:

Originally posted by Koka:
... even the crud ought to be able to understand that.

I wouldn't bet on that

Big deal.

Bush created a bubble that trashed the economy by doubling the national debt with spending and tax cutting us in to the poorhouse. Do you really want to be pointing that out?

46 months of sustained job growth under Bush, second longest in history.
"Big Deal"?
Big enough your topic title is grossly inaccurate.

Looks more like to me B'Rak is finally showing the first stirrings of a chub, and thinks he's ready to hammer nails with that thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tenderfootsquest:
---
"Big Deal"?
Big enough your topic title is grossly inaccurate.

Are all Republicans this dense? Don't understand the word "recovery"? That is referring to return to job creation after the end of a recession.

Maybe Republicans are too slow to be able to read charts? You can't see the 22 months of job declines after the end of the 2001 recession?

You see we returned to job creation 6 months after the end of this, the longest recession since the Great Depression.

It took 22 months to stop losing jobs under Bush after the internet bubble.

"Grossly inaccurate"? You think 22 is less than 6? Really? REALLY???

Your chart fails to mark the recessions' ending which is what the statement is about.

Is it really that easy to con Republicans and make them look stupid? Can't they think at ALL?

quote:

Under Obama we had sustained job growth six months after the recession ended. Strongest recovery in decades.

The recession hasn't been declared over, and currently we are bleeding jobs, not enjoying job "growth".

Last 3 months are down, last nine months are flat

Oct 58.4 down 3
Nov 58.5 Wohoo! +1
Dec 58.2 False Hope -3
2010
Jan 58.4 Wohoo! +2!
Feb 58.5 +1 Back to back !
March 58.6 +1 3peat! Signed Health Care!
April 58.8 +2 "4peat" speed picks up smidge!
May 58.7 Oh No... down -1 - Bad weather or something, don't worry about it.
June 58.5 down -2
July 58.4 Fug it all -1

At worst we entering a fresh period of decline, at best we have been flopping around on the floor for the last nine months.

Doug,

46 months job growth under Bush in a row.

46 > 22 ...and the 22 is questionable.

quote:

Are all Republicans this dense? Don't understand the word "recovery"? That is referring to return to job creation after the end of a recession.

Maybe Republicans are too slow to be able to read charts? You can't see the 22 months of job declines after the end of the 2001 recession?

I hope you're feeling better soon...

quote:

Originally posted by tenderfootsquest:
Doug,

46 months job growth under Bush in a row.

46 > 22 ...and the 22 is questionable.

Still can't comprehend the meaning of "recovery" even after I explained it to you? Wow. I gotta say that is being very Republican stupid. Sorro seems to have had the same problem like your blogger liars. Somehow the point about job RECOVERY becomes total job growth.

Since Recovery is such a foreign concept for Beckerheads Dittoheads and other duped righties we will be up **** creek if Republicans gain any control of congress.

You keep making the case for voting for the Democrats.

Doug, the thing is, it doesn't seem like a recovery for a lot of people. Nearly 10% unemployment? Good news is a reduction in the number of new claims for unemployment? C'mon. Spin it all you can, it still doesn't feel like a recovery for lots of people.

quote:

Originally posted by tenderfootsquest:
Doug, the thing is, it doesn't seem like a recovery for a lot of people. Nearly 10% unemployment? Good news is a reduction in the number of new claims for unemployment? C'mon. Spin it all you can, it still doesn't feel like a recovery for lots of people.

Of course not. This was one of the worst recessions EVER.

It would feel a lot worse if we kept losing jobs for another 22 months after the recession ended like under Bush. Unemployment would have been MUCH higher.

Keystone Research Center: Unemployment would be 16% without stimulus

quote:

we kept losing jobs for another 22 months after the recession ended like under Bush. Unemployment would have been MUCH higher.

No we didn't. The recession ended in Nov 2001. In Nov 2001 136,238,000 Americans had jobs.

22 months later, would bring us to Sept 2003. According to you we lost jobs during that whole period, but according to BLS, at that time, 137,609,000 now held jobs. That only isn't a loss, it's a gain of ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND additional employed!



http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

quote:

Originally posted by Zorro:

quote:

we kept losing jobs for another 22 months after the recession ended like under Bush. Unemployment would have been MUCH higher.

No we didn't. The recession ended in Nov 2001. In Nov 2001 136,238,000 Americans had jobs.

22 months later, would bring us to Sept 2003. According to you we lost jobs during that whole period, but according to BLS, at that time, 137,609,000 now held jobs. That only isn't a loss, it's a gain of ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND additional employed!



http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

YOur BLS link is a crap link to "government".

You are way too stupid to read Tender's chart?

Why should anybody listen to somebody that puts up bogus links and can't read a chart but wants to spread manure?

Total Non Farm Payroll

Year --Jan ----Feb ----Mar ---Apr ---May ---Jun ---Jul ---Aug ---Sep ---Oct ---Nov ---Dec

2001 132469 132530 132500 132219 132175 132047 131922 131762 131518 131193 130901 130723
2002 130591 130444 130420 130335 130328 130373 130276 130260 130205 130331 130339 130183
2003 130266 130108 129896 129847 129841 129839 129864 129822 129925 130128

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servle...aph_name=CE_cesbref1

What kind of stupid idiots are the Republicans?

I suppose you think that 129,925,000 is more than 131,193,000 like TFQ thinks 6 months is longer than 22 months.

If your people are SOOOO stupid they can't count, subtract, or add you don't deserve to be anywhere near our government.

Do people actually buy your crap? How many of the stupids can you fool? Do you have places you go where they say RIGHT ON! as you feed them the lies and manure?

Are they really so mentally or morally deficient they don't get embarrassed about living in a world deluded and believing lies?

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data in thousands

You are only counting a subset of US jobs. Now try counting all American's with jobs. So see it was a mere six months, not twenty two as you claim. In fact over the twenty two months you claim, an additional ONE POINT FOUR MILLION americans went from unemployed to employed.

Unemployed to employed, clearly a metric that kinda freaks you out. Wonder why that is? Could this be it?

April 2010 139,455,000 Americans Employed
August 2010 139,250,000 Americans Employed

So in your "Strongest Jobs Recovery In Decades. Seriously" in four months an additional 205,000,000 are now UNemployed.

That's "Recovery Summer"? more like "Recovery Bummer".

You are full of crap with STILL no link. Link to it fool. But I tend to think there is something that is a lie you don't want revealed eh?

Non farm payrolls are the standard measure. Who knows what kind of crap you are trying to sell.

Wars tend to be a great employer as well. I suspect you are counting military.

quote:

STILL no link

Link is right with the post. I'm surprised you were unable to locate it. It's that blue thing that is underlined. It's only been that standard convention to denote a link for a couple of decades now, I'm amazed that this is news to you.

then go to
"Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate"

Click Top picks,

Check "Employment Level" a rather intuitive choice given the discussion, don't you think?

Then check retrieve data.

quote:

I suspect you are counting military.

By measuring "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force -"? Now why would you think that?