You do wonder why they cry so when they get what they want

The GOP screams for fewer government jobs and more private sector. That is precisely what happens under Obama, and so they say he has failed miserably.

Not sure I understand it either, but that is what the latest job figures seem to say — 120,000 or so new private sector jobs, 20,000 fewer government jobs, and all the GOP presidential candidates take a break from calling for slashing government jobs to say “There! I told you so!” Good analysis of the situation can be found here (click).

The GOP can also take solace, I suppose, that several hundred thousand have quit looking for work. Of course, the current meme is that anyone who hasn’t got a job is just lazy, so we can ignore them,  or find another way to count them so Obama’s jobless numbers look worse. That really is the critical goal.

 

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to You do wonder why they cry so when they get what they want

  1. efialtis says:

    “The GOP screams for fewer government jobs and more private sector. That is precisely what happens under Obama, and so they say he has failed miserably.”

    Charles… what reality is this from? The federal government has grown more under Obama than under any previous president in history…
    http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=7719
    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/federal-workforce-continues-to-grow-under-obama-budget/
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-pro-growth-government

    “Not sure I understand it either, but that is what the latest job figures seem to say — 120,000 or so new private sector jobs, 20,000 fewer government jobs”

    I am not sure where you get these numbers… but we haven’t even seen the rest of what the hiring the IRS is doing, and all the new regulation and all the new people that will have to be hired due to Obamacare…

    Also, you fail to take into account all the issues regarding the unemployment numbers…
    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284722/how-unemployment-rate-drops-when-folks-stop-looking-work
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/02/carney-satisfactorily-low-unemployment-rate-proves-elusive/

    “the current meme is that anyone who hasn’t got a job is just lazy, so we can ignore them,”

    Which is what the Obama administration is doing… see the above… It isn’t that we want to make Obama look “worse”, we simply want the truth to be told. If people are unemployed, i.e. they are not employed, then they should be counted in the unemployment numbers. Right? Or should we pick and choose what numbers we show to people to make Obama look “good”?

    THe difference?
    “Unemployment numbers dropped in November!”
    WOW, you mean, more people are working now? (um, no…)
    The Truth?
    More people became “discouraged” from looking for work, so they are no longer counted in the official numbers…

    Charles, I though you were better than this… but it seems you are drinking the Kool-Aid…

  2. Owain says:

    Charles, if you wonder why conservatives cry over reports like this, perhaps it is because, unlike you, conservatives know how to do math.

    I know math is hard, and I suspect that it was your understanding that there would BE no math during this discussion, bear with me.

    First, do not rely on the LA Times for your information. I suspect they are not any better when it comes to math than you are. Instead, go the actual report itself.

    Look at Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted. If you were curious as to where the number of 120,000 in new jobs came from, this is it. Looking at line 1, the number of non-farm jobs reported for Nov 2011 is 120,000. However, from the report, the average increase per month over the last year was 131,000, so the number for November represents a DECREASE in the rate at which jobs have been added, which is not encouraging.

    There are 2.6 Million people out of work who are not listed among the unemployed because they has not searched for works in the 4 weeks preceeding the survey. That number hasn’t changed since last year, which also is not encouraging.

    The long term unemployed (jobless for 27 weeks or longer), 5.7 million, was little changed according to the report. That is also not encouraging.

    If you look at Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted:

    Total increase in number of people employed (not just non-farm jobs):
    140,580,000 – 140,302,000 = 278,000

    Increase in number of people not in work force:
    86,558,000 – 86,071,000 = 487,000

    What does this tell me? First almost twice as many people left the workforce than found jobs in the last month. If I were overly generous and assumed that half left the workforce due to retirement, that still means that for every person that found a job in November, one person has abandoned hope of finding a job at all. From the table, that pattern appears to be replicated back to November 2010. Yes, the unemployment rate decreased from 9.0 in Oct to 8.6, but the actual unemployment rate (counting those who have stopped looking for a job) is much higher. This recent article suggests it may be as high as 20% (click).

    There are some areas of improvement listed in the report, so it isn’t entirely a disaster. However, if the prospect of real unemployment as high as 20% isn’t enough to make you want to cry, you must be one cold son-of-a-gun.

    There. No more math for a while.

  3. Charles Trentelman says:

    u r talking the total picture, which is correct, but the report cited is looking at the directions that things are going this month — and that direction is more private sector jobs and fewer public sector jobs…the very things the GOP demands and now decries.

    I said, and the story also said, that many many have left the workforce. Not sure why you are saying I am not aware of that. But that is a separate story. Does not negate this one.

    • Owain says:

      OK, Charles. For the sake of argument, exactly which members of the GOP do you have in mind who are faulting this report because it is giving them what they want? From the title of your blog post, that does seem to be your argument, is it not?

      The LA Times report mentions Romney, but since they say he ignores the increase in private over public jobs, it can’t be Romney.

      Perhaps like me, conservatives in general and the GOP in particular are taking the wide view, which as you point out, is the correct way to consider the issue! So if this is not yet another in a long line of straw man arguments you’ve advanced, if I understand you correctly, you are condemning the GOP for being correct.

      Man, there is just NO pleasing you, is there?

    • Owain says:

      “…but the report cited is looking at the directions that things are going this month — and that direction is more private sector jobs and fewer public sector jobs…”

      While I’m thinking of it, I’d also like to take issue with this statement. While this may be the ‘spin du jour’ on the part of the LA Times, by no means is that even a minor point of emphasis in this report. A total of two sentences in the entire report is devoted to the subject.

      “Government employment continued to trend down in November, with a decline in the U.S. Postal Service (-5,000). Employment in both state government and local government has been trending down since the second half of 2008.”

      Other than that, you have to dig WAY down into the weeds among the tables to ferret out any further information regarding public employment.

      Given that, I think it’s hardly surprising that the GOP as a whole is more concerned with the wide view than with minutia like that.

      Cancel the wide spread hysteria.

    • efialtis says:

      “and that direction is more private sector jobs and fewer public sector jobs…”

      Complete SPIN, Charles…

      Like raising the prices in a store by 20%, then decreasing them by 5% and calling it a “SALE”…

  4. Roping Down says:

    The biggest single reason to not find anything cheerful in the employment numbers is that the jobs have arisen almost totally in health care, defense, education, and related suppliers. In other words, only in tax-payer funded (loan-funded) sectors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>