Bush recession officially over. Obama recovery underway. GDP rises 3.5%. Jobless claims fall.

[jefferson_dem]

GDP Rises 3.5%, Topping Expectations; Jobless Claims Fall by 1,000 to 530,000

http://www.cnbc.com/

[jefferson_dem]

1. To the "unrec-er"...

:spray: :hi:

[AndyA]

2. Gee, just a little over a half million people lost their jobs!

WOO-HOO! Things are just great, aren't they?

Our elected representatives are more interested in protecting private corporate profits than they are in preserving our lives.

We've lost millions of jobs overseas, with apparently no plan whatsoever to bring them back to this country. (How can we have a recovery without JOBS???????)

The U.S. banking industry is corrupt and despite almost causing a global financial collapse, is still getting away with fiscal murder.

Discrimination based on sexual preference is still alive, well, and thriving in America, despite having a black man in the White House.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Yessiree, things are great in America! :eyes:

[dmallind]

3. Why do people think a recession ending must mean everything should be perfect?

What's wrong with just accepting GDP growth is better than GDP shrinking?

[jefferson_dem]

4. Nobody said everything's great. Some people are perpetual whiners.

n/t

[AndyA]

7. Tell that to the millions who have lost their jobs and homes and see how far you get.

These are real issues and concerns. Sympathy, much? :eyes:

[dmallind]

26. I'm referring to the reverse

The economically illiterate who believe that the end of a recession only happens when everything is great.

[AndyA]

34. I guess it depends on which side of the fence you're on.

The Wall Street folks have thought the recession is over for quite some time.

The will not be a sustained recovery until jobs return.

[dmallind]

39. No it doesn't

The end of a recession is not, and is not supposed to be, the same as a sustained economic recovery. When talking about the former, only GDP matters. Neither Wall Street nor jobs matter in the least. The end of a recession is when the recovery STARTS being possible, not when it becomes certain and sustained.

[AndyA]

40. I guess time will tell if this is really a recovery or not.

A lot of experts think it isn't. And they have good, sound reasons for thinking so.

We'll see once the final figures are in, they always seem to adjust them later.

[girl gone mad]

42. While others are perpetual assholes. n/t

[AndyA]

5. Why do people think GDP growth is enough?

If it's not sustainable, it doesn't matter.

We still lost over 500,000 jobs.

GDP growth is not enough. And it's dangerous for people to think everything is going to be OK because we get a little good news here and there. There are many, many, dark clouds on the horizon that can undo all the improvements, and that's because basics necessary for a permanent recovery aren't being addressed.

[Dawgs]

9. Who said it's enough? Are you fucking serious?

The ONLY WAY TO JOB GROWTH is a stronger GDP. This is good news.

[jefferson_dem]

15. Boehner hearts you.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=151930

[dmallind]

25. Because it is

It is the ONLY measure of when a recession begins or ends. Words MEAN things. GDP growth means no recession. It isn't supposed or intended to mean everything is fine for ever,

[mkultra]

27. im guessing that you dont know how recovery works

GDP first, then jobs. Thus, a reversal in GDP contraction is a good sign. We can be happy about it and we will despite your cynicism. The basics necessary for permanent recovery are simply regulations that will prevent the Fed and Fannie to not tank us again.

[Kitsune]

41. Because the GDP is a lousy indicator of how well a country is actually doing?

[Dawgs]

8. Thing are getting better; they aren't great. And, nobody has said otherwise.

I guess you're against things getting better.

New jobs will ONLY come with a stronger GDP. This should give you hope.

This is just the beginning, and fixing this shit takes time. The Democrats are trying hard to fix the things that concern you; although you probably haven't noticed since all you do is complain.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. There's a difference between "recovery" and "recovered."

Perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

[jefferson_dem]

13. And "underway"... does not equal "finis"

n/t

[Zynx]

20. That's not what jobless claim numbers mean.

Jobless claim numbers are always at least above 300,000. When they are above 400,000, you have a problem still and you are probably losing jobs on a monthly basis. What jobless claims reflect is essentially a gross level of churn, but they do not reflect net job creation or destruction.

[onenote]

32. thank you

I was about to post something similar.

I don't think some people here understand what the "first time jobless" claim numbers reflect. There always are some people losing jobs even when unemployment is falling. Now, I'm not in any way suggesting unemployment has turned around and is declining or that the unemployment situation is not a cause for serious concern.

But the fact is that during the period from JUne 92 to December 2000 when unemployment declined from 7.8 percent to 3.9 percent, the number of new jobless claims fluctuated quite a bit, typically over 300,000.

Same thing for the decline in unemployment from 6.0 to 4.4 between Oct 03 and Dec. 06 -- there consistently were new jobless claims in the neighborhood of 300,00 per month.

[uponit7771]

36. ****GOOD EXPLANATION OF JOBLESS CLAIMS***

[phleshdef]

22. No shit sherlock, what the hell do you think happens during a bad recession?

[Teaser]

30. please don't smoke.

[jeanmarc]

6. jobless claims falling is not always a good thing

Reduction in jobless claims, doesn't always mean people are hiring. It could mean that people's unemployment is starting to run out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. *New* jobless claims fell.

Quote: The Commerce Department said the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate, while the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits dipped by 1,000 last week.

[jefferson_dem]

14. True. But an increase in jobless claims is always a bad thing.

That did not happen.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Right - I think we're in agreement.

The post I was responding to confused jobless claims with the unemployment rate, which could theoretically be lowered simply by having people run out of unemployment benefits. This is a different case altogether, as we're just talking about new claims, irrespective of existing ones.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Sorry about that. I responded to the wrong post.

Need. More. Coffee. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. I so hear ya.

Been traveling a lot lately and I'm really starting to lag. Red Bull is my friend.

[onenote]

33. yes and no

anytime more people are losing jobs than the week before its a bad thing.

But overall unemployment can (and frequently has) declined in a month where the number of new jobless claims rose. How? Because more people who were unemployed found work than the number of people losing their jobs that month.

We aren't at that point by a longshot -- unemployment is still rising. But an increase in new jobless claims does not inevitably signal an increase in unemployment.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Either way, it certainly is better than an increase in jobless claims

[uponit7771]

37. *****NOT TRUE**** The BLS does NOT count state UE claims in UE rate

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Celebrating a loss of well over half a million jobs

is just naff.

[Zynx]

21. You can have weekly jobless claims at 350,000 and be adding jobs overall.

People have a very poor understanding of that data series.

[phleshdef]

24. A lot of people are new to this whole "economy" thing and simply don't understand it.

Some of these people actually think that people don't lose jobs during a good economy.

[uponit7771]

38. The M$M spins the numbers the BLS gives to the Nth degree, patience...

[phleshdef]

23. People can celebrate the end of a war while still remembering the casualties.

You people are so desperate to stamp out any and all good news, its getting to the point of being disgusting.

[girl gone mad]

43. It was actually a pretty lousy report...

which essentially said our economy is on government life support.

Personal income decreased $15.5 billion (0.5 percent), while real disposable personal income decreased 3.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 3.8 percent last quarter. What's to celebrate there?

The savings rate is down, which is only going to cause more trouble over the long term.

Exports were up, but imports were up more. The inventory restocking going on will wane soon enough.

You have to keep in mind that the government spent tens of trillions and all we got was a minor, temporary increase in GDP. No long term job creation, no major improvements to infrastructure, no reforms to reign in the financial predators, little chance of an improved health care system and a net DECREASE in wages. Kind of fucked up when you think about it.

[AllentownJake]

45. I actually read the report

Did you, or did you just see a number and start celebrating.

[undeterred]

18. Still no job. Unemployment compensation running out next week.

Nobody's listening.

[Peacetrain]

28. This is good good news

[Jennicut]

29. Step in the right direction, but still a very small step.

Some economists are giving the government spending on things like Cash for Clunkers some credit.
Job always lag behind a recovery or we may see some jobs in certain fields (like financial) never coming back.
By the way, How many minutes until Faux news declare this the Bush recovery?

[tranche]

35. Bulk of Stimulus being spent now. Housing starts aren't leading.

This is all very good news and I hope it points to continued growth (and more jobs with better salaries for everyone), but I'm pretty we're seeing the supercharge of the stimulus now and from what I've read housing hasn't officially rebounded. I believe the real estate market needs to lead the recovering. That being said, contraction has technically stopped so yes the recession is over (for now?). I hope things fall into place and we don't look back.

[AllentownJake]

44. If you back out government stimulus spending and tax breaks GDP fell

That was financed by debt.

I know I'm one of the doom and gloomers but there will be no way to tell if there is a recovery until the private sector recovers.