May jobs report out: Lots of Census jobs, few others

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 09:31


Unemployment data for May is out.  On the surface, it looks like real improvement:

The U.S. Labor Department said nonfarm payrolls rose by 431,000 last month, the largest gain since March 2000. That followed an unrevised 290,000 increase in April.(...)

Taking into account revisions to prior months, the U.S. economy added an average of nearly 200,000 jobs a month in the January-May period, a positive sign for the job market as it recover from the worst recession since the 1930s.

Also, U6 really fell fast:

An alternative measure of unemployment, which includes discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time because of the weak economy, fell to 16.6% from 17.1%.

Not  bad! Unfortunately, its all pretty much due to the census:

However, the May figure was boosted by the hiring of 411,000 temporary workers for the decennial count of the U.S. population. Only 41,000 private-sector jobs were added.

And, in terms of the percentages, to people dropping out of the labor force:

The unemployment rate fell to a seasonally adjusted 9.7% in May from 9.9% in April, according to a separate survey of 60,000 households. Economists were expecting the jobless rate to sink to 9.8%.

The decline wasn't particularly good news, however, because the drop was due to 322,000 people dropping out of the labor force. While unemployment dropped by 287,000 to 15 million, employment also fell, dipping 35,000 to 139.4 million.

Not great.  What's worse, long-term unemployment is  at an all-time high:

Long-term U.S. unemployment, which measures the proportion of unemployed workers who have been jobless for over six months, is at the highest rate since economists began measuring it in 1948. Of America's jobless , 45.9 percent are considered long-term unemployed, for a total of about 7 million workers.

Given both these numbers and the approaching 2010 elections, it is worth remembering why Democrats did so well in the 1934 and 1936 elections, after sweeping into power in 1932 in worse economic conditions than our own:

Avoiding labels will not help Democrats at the ballot box one iota.  Only stimulating our economy and creating jobs will do that.  FDR and Democrats did not win landslide victories in 1934 and 1936 by engaging in a Hoover-like attempt to freeze spending and pay down the debt during a time of crisis.  They spent, and spent big--resulting in Asian Tiger-like a GDP growth of 10.9% in 1934, 8.9% in 1935, and 13.0% in 1936.

If you want to know why Democrats and FDR did so well in 1934 and 1936, it is because they delivered results.  Huge, huge GDP growth.  The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are not delivering anything close to that.

Unemployment and GDP growth are very different measures of the state economy. Still, the point here should be clear.  The path to electoral victory for a governing party is to deliver big-time, positive results. Right now, Democrats are not delivering those results with nearly the speed nor breadth which the population demands.  As such, right now electoral forecasts show Republicans ready to make big gains.

Chris Bowers :: May jobs report out: Lots of Census jobs, few others

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is something .. (4.00 / 4)
The path to electoral victory for a governing party is to deliver big-time, positive results. Right now, Democrats are not delivering those results with nearly the speed nor breadth which the population demands.

Which can be pinned squarely on Obama .. especially his love affair with Pete Peterson ... the Deficit Commission is a slap in the face to those that voted for him .. if he really wants to do something about it .. it can wait till his 2nd term .. his first priority should be putting people back to work .. and he needs to make it clear to the Blue Dogs(if they didn't learn anything from Artur Davis getting his ass kicked) that voting against any jobs measure at this point is a recipe for certain electoral defeat .. because the Blue Dogs will be the first ones on the chopping block


Honestly (0.00 / 0)
if he doesn't do something about the deficit, there won't be a second term.

And yes, I know, if he doesn't do something about jobs, there won't be a second term either

So either way he's screwed. The best thing he can do is try to find a way to both create jobs and deal with the deficit. There may not be such a way and as such, it could really be a lose-lose scenario.


[ Parent ]
The deficit issue is back-assward. (4.00 / 5)
The only reason the economy isn't tanking outright is because it's on life-support, albeit weak tea life-support, thanks to government spending. That this economy only created 41K full time jobs is beyond pathetic. And how many of those jobs are government jobs, as opposed to the private sector?

So cutting the deficit will mean higher unemployment.

Thus, you can't "fix the deficit" and grow jobs. It's one or the other. If you really want to see a lose-lose scenario, just wait until the Deficit Terrorists get their way and start slashing spending and privatizing Social Security. All this talk about the deficit is rubbish, since it will only send us into a genuine depression.

The only way to reduce the deficit is to create jobs. Lots of good paying jobs. Without that, there won't be the requisite increase in tax revenues that go along with a healthy economy. Non-defense spending cuts will only make this situation vastly worse.

So don't worry about deficits. Worry about unemployment and deflation. Because if you think things are bad now, just wait until Obama's econ team delivers us a real blow to the groin in the name of "deficit reduction."

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Oh I know (0.00 / 0)
The only reason the economy isn't tanking outright is because it's on life-support, albeit weak tea life-support, thanks to government spending.

Unfortunately, the media will NEVER say this, because their livelihoods depend on the private sector.

Thus, you can't "fix the deficit" and grow jobs. It's one or the other.

Then we lose either way.


[ Parent ]
It kind of looks that way, doesn't it? (0.00 / 0)
Still, I don't see how the private sector benefits when the bulk of the real economy is being forced into poverty. It's not rational self-interest at work here.

How are media outlets going to increase their ad revenues when millions of people stop buying stuff? They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces here.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
Because that's not how it works (0.00 / 0)
Media companies charge for commercial based on how many people watch at a certain time, not how much money the company buying the commercials make.

Desperate companies want to run ads when most people are watching, so the media company with the most viewers get the best deals on ads.

Right now, that's Fox.

You see where I'm going here?  


[ Parent ]
Yes, but ad buys are based on sales expectations. (0.00 / 0)
As sales expectations decline, so will the cost of advert rates. Advertisers don't want to waste their money on overpriced ad buys. They still have to advertise, but they'll spend less money doing it in a deflationary recession.

Deflation hits everything. Including ad revenue. Look at the millions NBC lost on the Olympics. One, they overpaid for the rights, and Two, they had to lower rates due to the recession when they realized their ad space wasn't selling out.

So when media outlets push economic policies that will ultimately prove destructive to their profit margins, one might think they'd get that. Indeed, with so many outlets already on the brink of bankruptcy, one might think they'd be pushing policies that might benefit their bottom line. But perhaps they're just expecting a taxpayer bailout.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
We haven't had deflation yet though (0.00 / 0)
I work in the media, companies are still desperate, very desperate, to place ads.


[ Parent ]
Well, that would explain some of the disconnect. (0.00 / 0)
It will happen though, perhaps by the end of this year. For some reason, I thought ad revenues were down. But perhaps I was simply extrapolating out network revenues for ad revenues in general. Dunno.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
What makes you say this? (4.00 / 1)
Why do you think that Obama will be punished for failing to address deficits? Who will do the punishing?  Why does it matter to the same degree as jobs, which is priority number one for voters?  And if this is true, then why can't you cut the military or raise taxes to do it?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
It ain't that difficult (4.00 / 2)
Short term debt is needed now; more than we currently have.  Long term deficits are a problem.  These two issues are neither opposites nor complicated.  One could easily handle both in the same bill, actually.

For example, the initial stimulus bill could have been deficit neutral over 10 years.  Done correctly, it could have included $2 trillion in spending that tapered off over time, while slowing raising taxes on the rich.

It is political will that is the problem, not math.


[ Parent ]
Idiot deficit spending rules in the Senate (4.00 / 1)
required 60 votes to pass any bill that spent on the deficit, another relic of the post 1960s conservative majority that should be changed.  

[ Parent ]
Not exactly (4.00 / 1)
1) We currently require 60 votes for most everything anyway, due to the filibuster.  But more importantly...

2) You'll note I just suggested a deficit neutral stimulus, meaning it doesn't require 60 votes for the reason you suggest.


[ Parent ]
You'd need to raise taxes a hell of a lot (0.00 / 0)
to make a $2 trillion bill deficit neutral.  

[ Parent ]
So Raise em! (0.00 / 0)
on the rich

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 3)
The US government brings in roughly $2 trillion a year from taxes.  To get another $2 trillion over 10 years would only be a 10% increase.  If the average tax rate is 30%, you'd need to raise it to 33%.  If you limit the increase to the rich and make the increase gradual the number goes up, of course, but well within reason.

Heck, the Bush tax cuts expiring is probably enough to cover this on it's own.  Admittedly, that might be an actual problem from the CBO perspective, since you can't get credit for that.


[ Parent ]
Unemployment, too (4.00 / 4)
FDR's huge growth rates benefited everybody.  The stock market rebounded beautifully.  Most important, growth created jobs or more likely jobs created growth.  Unemployment (closer to the U6 than the U3 since Reagan changed the definition to artificially lower unemployment in 1986) went from 24.9% in 1933 to 21.7% in 1934, 20.1% in 1935, 16.9% in 1936 and 14.1% in 1937.  When FDR followed the hard-line balanced budget dixie Democrats, unemployment immediately soared to 19.0% in 1938 and Republicans went from nearly dead to back to life.

Three years of real stimulus would have likely gotten us over the hump.  Four years would have done it.

And if Artur (30% on Progressive Punch) Davis didn't deliver the message that this is political death, than Blanche Lincoln and Ed Case should complete the 1-2-3 package.  Mess with Social Security and impose austerity on the middle and working class at your peril.  Pete Peterson and the Blue Dogs should be hanged in effigy.  The Dogs, anyway, will get their execution at the ballot box and they really deserve political death.  


The one thing liberals should be doing today (4.00 / 3)
rather than call this a horrendous, horrible jobs report that is a failure and let the GOP set the narrative is point out "Biggest job gain since 2000, most with government jobs. Private sector isn't delivering for people, government needs to right now."

but I don't see that ANYWHERE.  


[ Parent ]
But even that gain ... (4.00 / 2)
is temporary .. because starting next month .. those numbers will decline .. what's really need are FDR type job creation measures ... like Atrios has been saying all along

[ Parent ]
And even those jobs were temporary (0.00 / 0)
the only real permanent measures are in the private sector. FDR's job creation measures didn't create permanent jobs, just created temporary ones while the private sector got its act together. That's pretty much what the Census is doing.

The WPA folded when it wasn't need anymore.  


[ Parent ]
Yes, but the WPA wasn't needed because aggregate demand was way up. (4.00 / 3)
That's the whole point. It was things like WPA that improved demand to the point where those programs weren't needed anymore. Once that point is reached and taxes are made progressive, the deficit will largely take care of itself. I say all this excluding military expenditures, which are the worst possible way to spend money, aside from issuing Free Money to the CEO-Class.

Instead, our vaunted leadership is offering us the worst of both worlds. Deflation AND Unemployment.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
They're hiring census workers (4.00 / 1)
because a census needs to happen and the private sector won't conduct one.

Similarly, there are millions of hours of very important work out there -- in transportation infrastructure, in energy infrastructure, in communications infrastructure, in environmental cleanup, in housing and public building rehab -- that needs to be done, but isn't being done by the private sector.

Even if the work is technically temporary, it could go on for a long time.  The jobs would help people and communities enormously; and the work they do would pay dividends for generations.


[ Parent ]
I love that Wall Street Journal ... (4.00 / 1)
...BS.

Taking into account revisions to prior months, the U.S. economy added an average of nearly 200,000 jobs a month in the January-May period, a positive sign for the job market as it recover from the worst recession since the 1930s.

Nonsense. For February, March, and April, in private sector there was an average of 155,600 jobs created each month. Today's 41,000 cut the three-month average to 117,000. The Census hires are going away - we'll lose about 225,000 of them this month. So, the reality is that this "positive sign" is anything but positive.


Wait a second (0.00 / 0)
Are you implying the Wall St. journal is spinning on behalf of the Obama administration?? Or did I misread that

[ Parent ]
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait... (4.00 / 5)
Are you telling me that a Federal jobs program, involving the Federal government directly hiring hundreds of thousands of Americans to do important work, could actually reduce unemployment and help the economy?  And do things that our society needs to get done?

Holy shit!  Just wait 'til you tell Congress and the White House about this!  Our problems are solved!!!


Direct government hiring (4.00 / 2)
Amazing what happens to the job numbers when the government just directly hires people to do needed stuff. If only the $800+ billion stimulus bill had been so designed....

...Adding, as Atrios keeps repeating, it's not like we don't have a surplus of sewers, roads, bridges, other infrastructure etc. that need fixing/replacing.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
Tons of public projects (4.00 / 1)
but also a lot of worthwhile private projects we could subsidize or pay for outright:  weatherization; rehabilitation of urban housing; installing solar panels or heat exchange systems.  I just met someone at a party who found out after they bought their house that the water pipes leading from the street were made of lead.  Had to replace them at huge expense.  Why shouldn't the government hire people to replace old, lead piping in people's homes with safer, modern plumbing?

Why not have a CCC detoxify brownfields and set up community gardens?  Why not rehab old schools, or build new ones?  The list could go on practically forever...


[ Parent ]
Because everyone is screaming "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT" (4.00 / 1)
This is what the public is hearing;

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINIO...


[ Parent ]
If we raised taxes on the rich (4.00 / 1)
just the money we get from the Boardmembers running the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget could probably fund a few hundred public works jobs.

The most recent 990 I found was from FY2002, and back then their director made $125,000.  The Board members weren't paid by the organization.


[ Parent ]
And punish success??? (0.00 / 0)
tragic!

Yeah, see our problem?

Although I'll admit taxing the rich, something we've been doing gradually, would be popular, but even the most liberal Democrats seemed to be dead set against it.


[ Parent ]
Then enjoy losing the election (4.00 / 1)

  If "either way we're screwed", then we might as well do what's right, no?

  If Obama hadn't stocked his advisory corps with right wingers, then maybe there might be a way out of this. We might have had a real stimulus, the states would have been solvent, and demand might have picked up enough to help employment.

 But no, Obama had to bring on Summers and Geithner and Rahm. He didn't have to. But he did. And now he gets to enjoy the results of his decisions.

 Who knows, we might get a real Democratic Party out of the trainwreck that is to follow.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Census is stimulus (4.00 / 1)
The bad news is the census jobs are temporary, but that is true for all stimulus jobs.  Directly, at least.  The simulation helps create permanent jobs by getting the economy back on track.  It is actually pretty fortunate that the census just happens to be going on right now.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox