Bikini Graph - Private Sector Job Gain/Loss thru to the end of September

[Tx4obama]

Red = Bush Administration
Blue = Obama Administration

Edited to add:

Graph = Private sector job losses and growth, as charted by Steve Benen at Washington Monthly
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/08/5257833-bikini-graph-of-jobs-goes-thoroughbred

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. IT IS loosing steam

isn't it?

[MadHound]

2. Excuse me, but how are you showing a jobs gain for the past few months,

When in reality there has been a jobs loss?

[BzaDem]

3. They mean private sector job gain/loss, not total job gain/loss. n/t

[MadHound]

5. Ah, in other words this is a graph out of la-la land,

Where the reality of tens of thousands of jobs being eliminated never intrudes. My bad, perhaps I shouldn't be harshing anybody's buzz by bringing reality into the discussion.

[iamjoy]

11. It Does Make A Difference

If you are talking about the fact that the unemployment rate in this country sucks, yeah, this graph doesn't tell half the story.

If you are using it to counter those libertarian types who think tax breaks and spending cuts are the way to stimulate the economy, well, I think this graph is an interesting exhibit.

As government cuts spending to balance budgets, it is laying off workers. Those workers join the ranks of the unemployed. Private sector jobs are growing, but not fast enough to make up for the losses in the public sector and bring down the unemployment rate. Worrying about the deficit is hurting our recovery.

[sandnsea]

4. Unless you're a government employee

these are the job numbers that count.

[MadHound]

6. So those tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs the past few months don't county

Because they were for the local, state or federal government. Nice to know how you feel. I would think that anybody who lost their job did matter, but apparently not in this rush to vindicate, spin and protect people from the truth.

Nice to know that I don't count.

[sandnsea]

7. And the ones that didn't because of Obama's money

They don't count to you either so nobody can win with you anyway.

The point is that this is the private sector economy which is the one the Republicans say Obama is ruining. Everything isn't about YOUR HATE.

[MadHound]

9. You keep saying that I hate this administration, I don't

I'm disappointed with many of their policies, and feel that they should have fought instead of wimping out time and again, but hate, no. Hate is something personal, and frankly I'm not terribly emotionally invested in any politician.

Meanwhile, people keep touting the fact that private sector jobs have grown, but the fact of the matter is we have been having net job losses over and over again. What is wrong with simply dealing with facts, rather than trying to spin them into some false positive? After all, it isn't like people don't know that the jobs market sucks and continues to suck:shrug: So why try to disguise it? Haven't we criticized Bush I, Bush II and Reagan for playing games with the unemployment numbers? Then why try to play those same kinds of games when it's a Dem running the show? Hypocrisy?

[sandnsea]

13. Because private sector jobs pay the taxes

so that the public sector can be employed. If you try to solve public sector job loss with private sector economy strategies, you're going to end up with more public sector job loss.

Besides, as has also been stated, most of the government job loss you refer to is due to census workers. It's too bad we don't have a non-census worker figure like we have a non-farm figure.

And whether you're invested in any politician or not, it's clear that you do have a personal animosity against this administration. I know Republicans who don't twist and spin against this administration as much as half of DU does.

[MadHound]

18. Private sector jobs pay the taxes?

Excuse me, but all employees have to pay payroll taxes, SS taxes, etc. How are private sector employees different that public sector employees in this regard?

As far as census workers go, isn't that the excuse they used last month, when we saw and even greater job loss in the public sector.

And again, you are trying to make this somehow personal on my part, it isn't, no matter how much you want to think to the contrariwise. And speaking of twisting and spinning, have you looked in a mirror lately. After all, it's not me who's taking the loss of 95,000 jobs and trying to say it is a positive.

[sandnsea]

27. Not enough to cover govt jobs

How ridiculous to pretend there could be any government jobs without a strong private sector. In fact, your focus on the loss of public sector jobs is exactly because the private sector economy isn't strong enough yet. It's stunning to me that someone even has to explain it to you.

The census workers were let go in waves, not all at once. There have been several operations, some of them started in 2009. You may also see an uptick in weekly unemployment claims because some of us are only able to start claiming in October. Those that were first hired after April 1 may not be able to file until Jan 2011. That's just reality. At the peak, there were nearly 600,000 census workers. There were 75,000 in August, down to 9,000 in September. Kind of like a "jobs program". When those jobs are lost, you can't hardly count them against the economy. They've got nothing to do with the economy, except for the stimulus they provided.

Growth in private sector jobs is positive. There has been growth in private sector jobs for months now. It is positive. There is still stimulus money to be spent, new infrastructure money being proposed, and new money going into small businesses. I know it breaks your heart, but the world isn't going to collapse around us. You'll have to suck it up and pay your bills for yet another day.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Not on a graph labelled "private sector job gain/loss" they don't, no.

[MadHound]

19. Ah, but see, it wasn't originally presented as simply "private sector gain/loss."

It was presented as simply job gain:shrug:

[jpak]

25. You forget the GOP filibustered the bill to keep teachers on the job

how convenient

spin on

[Motown_Johnny]

8. @ everyone taking shots at this chart. Most of the recent losses were census workers

and if they were included in the graph then the numbers would have been better earlier on when they were hired.


It clearly says private sector jobs. I don't have a problem with that and neither should you.

[MadHound]

10. But the fact of the matter is that we experienced net job losses, period

There is no way you can disguise that. And the fact of the matter is that job losses go deeper than that, you need approximately 125,000 jobs added each month to fully account for all those who enter the work force each month. Those 64,000 private sector jobs created last month don't even come close to making that mark.

Furthermore, if you look at the U6 number, you'll find that those who are unemployed, underemployed or simply discouraged workers went from 16.7% to 17.1%. We're in a major jobs crisis here, and to try and spin it and sugar coat the truth is simply unconscionable.

[iamjoy]

12. Sugarcoating?

As I mention in an earlier post, the fact that the job losses are in the public sector is VERY IMPORTANT. This is what happens when government cuts spending because of a recession.

And really, if voters feel inclined to blame the Democrats for this crappy job market, the Republicans could well make sweeps not only of Congress and Senate, but of state governments too. That's especially important with redistricting on the horizon.

So, a little positive spin is helpful right now

[MadHound]

14. Yes, but in this post, you are simply putting up numbers about private job creation

As though that somehow this is good news. It isn't.

And yes, voters are going to be inclined to blame the Dems for this crappy job market. After all, they've been in charge for over a year and a half, and their actions have tended towards employing the least stimulating methods of boosting this economy, tax cuts and tax credits. Given the dire straits were in, don't you think that it would behoove them to try the most effective form of stimulus, namely a WPA style job creation program? But the only nod they did in that direction was the stimulus early last year, and that was, sadly made up of forty percent tax cuts.

It is time to stop the spin and face the facts.

[Chan790]

22. Know what?

Nevermind

[TexasObserver]

15. That's 9 straight months of positive jobs gains in the private sector.

That's the good news.

Because the president allowed the GOP driven "attack the deficit" meme to influence his thinking, the deficit instead of a second stim package took center stage. We badly need a second stim package, one that provides for rebuilding infra structure and puts people to work.

WPA 2010 sounds good.

[MadHound]

20. How is that good?

We still lost jobs overall during those months. Our unemployment numbers still continued to rise. And that 64,000 number doesn't come close even to fulfilling the number of jobs needed to simply keep up with the growth of the work force, much less anything else.

There is nothing but spin here, nothing positive.

[TexasObserver]

21. I've explained it many times.

Look it up if you want to read it. I'm not repeating myself every time one of the naysayers cries "but Whhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyy?!"

[jpak]

26. LOL!!!111 Jobs gains are not good - everyone knows that

:rofl:

[eridani]

16. It's really too bad that people pay more attention to their lives than to raw data

What is going on in peoples' lives is that the "recovery" is leading to a "new normal" of permanent economic devastation. No one in DC seems to know or care.

[AnArmyVeteran]

23. Why doesnt every democratic officeholder wear that graph on their clothes?

Every democrat office holder should wear shirts or suits with that graph on it even while in session. Maybe the inept, corporate media would be forced to do a story about it.

[Brickbat]

24. Because it says we've regained about 9 percent of the jobs lost since January of 08.

That's not exactly reassuring. Job creation graphs also don't go into the types of jobs that are being created, and the fact that millions of people are unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking -- and know many others in the same situation -- would just make any politician trumpeting this graph as part of a campaign look woefully out of touch with constituents.