88,000 of the 162,000 jobs "gained" were actually just temp positions

[brentspeak]

48,000 census workers (whose jobs expire in June) + 40,000 temp workers in the private sector. And the remaining 74,000? Nobody knows how many of those hires are McJobs, part-time work, or even just numbers statistically padded through the birth/death model. However, we do know that http://www.favstocks.com/jobs-increase-by-136000-unemployment-rate-holds-at-9-7-bls-refused-to-address-my-question-on-seasonality-part-time-work-up-by-738000-in-2-months/026924/">involuntary part-time work has increased by 738,000 in just the past two months.

In other words: Summers and Geithner still need to be fired yesterday.

[monmouth]

1. Ah, thank gawd, I thought the negativity train had left the house.....n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[monmouth]

7. Please, please share in my glee. I am a cheerleader and that is what I do!..n/t

[DevonRex]

8. Stop it with the fucking "cheerleader" bullshit. It's inflammatory and you know it. nt

[depakid]

44. Well, the poster stated a FACT- and got pounced on

He also stated an opinion that's held by a LOT of informed people, that Gaithner and Summers ought to have been gone yesterday.

Whether "cheerleading" is an appropriate word or not is an artifact of board rules- but the sentiment (and the phenomena) is a very real one, on display here every day- sometimes to the point of absurdity.

[JTFrog]

61. Cheerleading is not an appropriate word. The contempt that goes with it is inappropriate as well.

The absurdity is that Skinner had to make this post at all:

I think the one notable difference now is that we seem to spend more time and effort enforcing this rule:

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

I believe this rule is pretty self-explanatory. The vast majority of DU members seem to understand it implicitly, and naturally participate in a manner that complies with this rule without needing to be told to do so. But a few people have expressed confusion about what is permitted and what is not, in part because some of our members have been peddling the ridiculous and false assertion that criticism of Barack Obama is not permitted on Democratic Underground.

Nonetheless, if anyone is confused about what is permitted here, I'll spell it out as clearly as I can. It's pretty simple:

* Any and all substantive criticism of Barack Obama and his policies is permitted. And by "any and all substantive criticism" we mean all of it -- no issue is off limits.

* Expressions of dismay, disappointment or disagreement with Barack Obama or his policies are permitted.

* But insults, name-calling, or other expressions of contempt toward Barack Obama or his supporters are not welcome.

There is a part of me that is a little disappointed (but not surprised) that this even needs to be said. Even if you don't agree with President Obama on a number of issues, I guess I kinda thought that everyone here would consider themselves -- on some level -- to be among his supporters. Or, at very least, I didn't think that any DUer would want to deliberately use the same type of language one would expect to hear from tea-baggers and Freepers.

[depakid]

70. Contempt cuts both ways

Some who want to break out in choruses of Kumbaya frequently express theirs (as above) for folks who bring up uncomfortable facts or dare to express an alternative opinion about policy or ideology that's contrary to the party line of the day.

It's a politcial message board- that's how it works (and that's how they've worked for 20 years). Get over it.

[JTFrog]

75. I don't have anything to get over.

Quite the contrary it would seem.

[DefenseLawyer]

2. In this day and age lots of companies do all their new hires through temp agencies

The idea that hiring through a temp agency is only for temporary positions just isn't the case any more. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's reality. A gain is still better than a loss no matter how you try to spin it.

[pundaint]

9. Not exactly. Temp jobs are temp jobs. No benefits, subject to instant termination, and

at a rate allowing the agency to take 30-40% of the top of the labor rate. If they use a temp provider to fill a permanent position, that position isn't in the temp statistics.

[DefenseLawyer]

14. In most states all these kinds of jobs are no benefits and subject to instant termination.

The fact remains that lots of companies hire though a temp agency, particularly where there is a lot of turnover. Until the company actually hires the worker, the worker will show up in the temp statistics, regardless of what the employers ultimate intentions are.

[backscatter712]

31. Yes, a lot of companies abuse temps, but there are some that do genuine temp-to-permanent hires.

It's a way to test-drive workers before committing to a permanent hire.

[Hansel]

72. +1 Test driving it is a very common practice.

The first sign that a company is ready to start hiring permanent employees again is when they increase their temp positions. These positions are the 1st to go in bad times and the 1st to be added in good times. Our company hires probably 90% of its people by test driving temps. It's a good way to get a permanent job and anyone who is unemployed right now should be applying at temp agencies. It's a nearly guaranteed foot in the door for for a permanent if you are a good employee.

I've gotten almost every decent job I've had through being a temp/contractor and usually for only a very short period of time in each case. This is how major companies hire now.

[Fla Dem]

85. Many corps hire ee's as temps first for 6 months or a year. See if they work out.

It's easier to let a temp go than a FT ee.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Ah, so option number 3 then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8069628

[tridim]

4. Good is bad, up is down, Obama is Bush.

Did I get that about right?

[earthside]

6. No.

But 9.7 percent unemployment is still a recession.

[greencharlie]

13. correctamundo... nt

[Dawgs]

20. The recession is over, per the definition of recession.

Your teabagging sign ain't going to fly here.

[brentspeak]

22. Congratulations on Dumb Post of the Day

Merely pointing out that we are in a recession logically warrants a "You teabagger!" response.

[karynnj]

36. But, strictly speaking we aren't - the economy is recovering

Technically even one period of positive growth ends the "recession" - as the economy is no longer receding.

[Dawgs]

76. Yes. Lying to make it appear that Obama is failing is what tea-baggers do.

I don't make up the rules.

[karynnj]

33. No it isn't - recession is a word with a precise economic definition

It is a period when the GDP is going down - it is officially a recession after two negative quarters. The recession ended when GDP started to increase.

Does that mean the economy is not really really bad - no. In fact, unemployment is far worse that during some entire previous recessions.

[paulk]

68. you can be technically correct and still be wrong

unless you can come up with a better word for what's going on with our economy

I mean, "jobless recovery" just doesn't have the impact that "recession" does.

Perhaps it's time to expand the meaning - change the language a little.

Or maybe we should start calling this what it is - a depression.

[karynnj]

71. I agree with you that there should be a word to mean a dysfunctional economy

There are words that it is not - ie a full employment economy, a healthy economy, etc. I guess there is the Jimmy Carter "malaise", but that had more than economic meanings.

Depression actually fits better in terms of the literal meaning of the word. We are still near the bottom of a parabola shaped curve. Although it is better that we are on the side going back up, it does not feel much better than it did when we were at this level on the side going down. Looking to find definitions of economic depression leads to pretty unsatisfactory explanations. (see this one - http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Depression.htm ) It seems like the Great Depression is being used as a measuring stick - and if the situation is less bad, it is not a depression. (This seems counterintuitive if the 1930s was the GREAT depression.)

But, that is all semantics and you are right that the problem is the economy. The real questions of dealing with structural problems really hasn't been addressed. (Back in the late 60s, in economic classes, the point was always made that in some pockets - Appalachia is the one I remember - even as the economy recovered, poverty remained, because nothing in their situation was helped enough as the business cycle moved into better times. The question now is whether that is now the case for huge segments of the economy - not geographically limited. (Remember that even in the Bush years when the economy was deemed "good", it was bad for many not in the top 30 or so percent.) Returning just to where we were in mid 2007, means getting all of those 8 million jobs back - which people are saying will take a long time. But, only from where we are does the economy of mid 2007 look good.

[pundaint]

10. wrong, wrong, and it sure seems like it too much of the time

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

25. You got the last part at least somewhat right.

Does that answer your question?

[paulk]

28. that's kind of an exaggeration, don't you think?

you know, this shit economy is fucking real

there are some of us out here in the real world fighting to hold on to what we've worked our entire lives for


and bullshit snark like yours doesn't help ANYTHING

[theothersnippywshrub]

11. The improvement in the labor market is great news for all Americans.

The trend is excellent and bodes well for the future, especially the growing number of private sector temp workers since that always is a leading indicator of job growth. And the household survey showed very impressive gains. The improvement in the job market since Obama took office is remarkable.

[brentspeak]

23. "the growing number of private sector temp workers is always a leading indicator of job growth"

Source?

[theothersnippywshrub]

40. Economic Cycle Research Institute. n/t

[brentspeak]

46. Doing a search for that organization

I find nothing about temp jobs predicting job growth. If they actually made that claim, it's not easily found. In any case, I saw this on their site:

When Moore passed away in 2000, his former student, Alan Greenspan, called him "a major force in economic statistics and business cycle research for more than a half-century."

Alan Greenspan. That is all one needs to know about the credibility of the ECRI.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

50. Still waiting for an actual link to from you

Got one?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

54. I am familiar with the theory that temp workers = future job growth

Though that theory may soon be proven to be obsolete in today's deindustrialized and outsourced United States. I wanted to read what ECRI says about it.

However, on the topic of the ECRI: For your sake, I hope you're not actually paying any portion of $55,000 for a ECRI subscription:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/look-at-ecris-recession-predicting.html

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

78. Why not be happy?

Someone gives you a reason to feel better about your concerns.

You are determined to think negatively, which is weird, since it can do no one any good. Why should we sit around moaning that things will never get better? Do you want people to get depressed? What is your goal here?

There is no way to prove the future, what will happen with the economy. But it is cyclical and always improves just like it always goes into recession again and then always improves again.

So we may as well be hopeful, which itself is good for the economy.

I don't get the agenda of insisting we are headed for a depression. If you are right, you won't get to gloat, since you'll be miserably poor yourself and none of us will have computer access.

[Peacetrain]

12. We are in positive job growth.. that is good news anyway you look at it

We have to keep the unemployment benefits up and going till everyone who wants a job can get one.. but trying to deny that we are headed in the right direction is just ludicrous

We could still be losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.. we are not.. we are in positive job growth..

and it is private sector growth also.

Private companies now hire from their temp staff..and if you do not know that, then you have not been in the private work sector for a while.

[Hosnon]

21. No no no no no no no no!

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

There's no such thing as "getting better" ... only "better" counts.

:crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :silly:

[Ikonoklast]

15. Funny thing about recessions. They end.

And so will this one, slowly but surely.

Which will torque the OP no little bit.

[brentspeak]

24. We are not in a normal recession; we are in a decline

There are no major productive industries left in the United States to serve as economic engines for good-paying, permanent jobs. Any "recovery" will be statistics on paper only, a jobless recovery.

[Ikonoklast]

59. The actual numbers belie what you just posted.

And the manufacturing base in this country is still the largest ON THE PLANET EARTH.

[harkadog]

73. Keep on saying that while you whistle past the graveyard.

USA #1! USA#1! Last month GM sold more cars in China than they did in the U.S. And no those cars weren't made in the U.S.

[ChicagoSuz219]

17. ALL politicians' jobs are temporary, as well. n/t

[madmom]

18. Any more most jobs are temporary, because most places are hiring through temp agencies.

[amborin]

19. Robert Reich: no jobs recovery:

The US economy added 162,000 jobs in March. Great news until you look more closely. In March, the federal government began hiring census takers big time. These are six-month temp jobs, and they tell us nothing about underlying trends in the labor market. It’s hard to gauge precisely how many were hired — probably between 100,000 and 140,000. A million will need to be hired over the next few months. Subtract these, and today’s job numbers are nothing to write home about.

There are some positive signs. Manufacturing payrolls expanded a bit, heath care employers added 27,000 jobs, and about 40,000 private-sector temp jobs were added. But payrolls continue to be slashed in financial services and the information industry.

Bottom line: This is no jobs recovery.

Since the Great Recession began, the economy has lost 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million needed just to keep up with population growth. That means we’re more than 11 million in the hole right now. And that hole keeps deepening every month we fail to add at least 150,000 new jobs, again reflecting population growth.

A census-taking job is better than no job, but it’s no substitute for the real thing.

robertreich.org

[onenote]

26. We know a lot more than what you've indicated in the OP.

Not suggesting you don't know this, but others might find this information helpful.

First, while it is true that the 'temporary help services' category rose 40K, this same category shrunk by 61K a year ago. More importantly, this category is very specific and does not include fast food or other food service type jobs, which are categorized under the Leisure and Hospitality category (which grew by 22000 jobs after shrinking by 46000 a year ago).

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs039.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cg1009.htm


Second, as the BLS reports indicate, the total number of unemployed grew from 14.87 million to 15 million, but the number of employed persons also grew, from 138.64 million to 138.9 million

see: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Moreover, the number of full time employees grew from 110.84 million to 111.256 million while the number of part time employees fell from 27.596 millon to 27.55 million

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

[rocktivity]

27. "Temp" doesn't mean "temporary" anymore

To get out of paying benefits, profit sharing and pensions, a lot of large companies hire contractors and long-term "indefinite" temps, with the better temp agencies providing some benefits such as health insurance, holiday pay and even 401Ks.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Skittles]

29. well, no shit

but heck, ANY gain is good news

[november3rd]

30. K & R

Does Obama really crave acceptance by the establishment so much that he is willing to pretend he doesn't know what dogshit the economy smells like?

What government can do is create the conditions for companies to succeed. It can create the incentives for companies to hire again.''

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/04/obama_worst_of_the_storm_is_ov.html

Who says? Why should the people have to be held hostage to a bunch of private corporations? The government is us. Let's roll.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. He'd rather have people starve so he can prove a point.

[depakid]

45. Want doesn't have anything to do with the fact that one in eight Americans are on food stamps

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/one-in-eight-americans-on_n_373027.html

[ClarkUSA]

35. Republicans are disparaging the new jobs numbers in a similar way.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x258275

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

37. Which still means that ~70k jobs were created by the private sector using your math.

This is not enough, but it is certainly movement in the right direction. It's also the best we've seen in a while. You can poopoo this if you want, but you can't change these facts.

[brentspeak]

48. The link I provided casts doubt even on the 70K new jobs

I guess you didn't read the link.

I care about the accuracy and precision of data, not puffed-up or puffed-down statistics, not whether they are good or bad, not who likes those statistics or who doesn't like them -- just how accurate and precise they are.

[namahage]

82. I'm sure you do.

From your link:

http://www.favstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/30bb6_table+a8++2010-03.png

Funny how the biggest disparity is the one highlighted--rather than showing the numbers over a one-year span, for instance.

But what might we expect from a source who concludes by saying:

Also bear in mind that huge cuts in public sector jobs and benefits at the city, county, and state level are on the way. These are badly needed adjustments. However, the union parasites will not see it that way, nor will the politicians. (emphasis added)

[RBInMaine]

64. GOD DAMN RIGHT ! For Christ sake this is GOOD DAMN NEWS !

[vaberella]

38. Temp jobs do turn full-time, sometimes.

This is exhausting...In a climate of economic distress this is something and you denigrate to prove show Obama is in some way ineffective. I hope it back fires on you.

[Jennicut]

42. I worked at a temp agency and that happens more often then people think.

In fact, the more temps that are hired the better the economy usually is getting. When the economy was slow, we hired a lot less temps. The companies just had their regular workers doing more work.
I worked at Manpower in 2001 and really saw all of this up close.

[vaberella]

65. I agree. I knew many people who were temps who became full time.

I'm pretty upset the OP tried to black mark something good with such a poor view of temp work.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aramchek]

41. face it brentspite, you would prefer that we keep losing jobs just to make Obama look bad

[Patsy Stone]

43. Oh, boo hoo.

[quaker bill]

47. This is great news

as generally an increase in temp hiring leads the way out of a recession. It is usually the first sector of employment to improve.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yavin4]

52. Don't Knock Temp Jobs

First, I have worked a ton of temp jobs throughout my career, and often they lead directly to full time permanent positions. In 2003, I was making $28/hr on a contract position, which later turned into a $65K permanent position, and that position lead to another $98K full time position. All of which were possible because of my $28/hr temp position.

Second, businesses hire temps first because they're unsure about the economy. As things get better, those temp positions become full time position as the rest of the economy heats up. Temp hiring lowers the availablity of labor, which switches the mindset from "there are plenty of people available" to "hey, I better hire these folks full time because there aren't that many people available".

[vaberella]

66. +1. Thank You. Ugh..this OP just pissed me off. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Just because some of them are "temp" jobs....

does not make the paycheck less real. This is money that goes back into the economy, and toward paying mortgages/keeping homes, etc...

Besides...this is just another RW talking point hatched before the job numbers even came out. That these talking points keep finding their way onto DU is just bizarre.

[jefferson_dem]

56. Aw...

I feel sorry for you. Really, I do.

Hope you have a nice weekend.

[zulchzulu]

57. So if you fire Summers and Geithner, more non-temp jobs will magically appear?

Wow. I didn't fucking realize it was so fucking easy!

Thanks Einstein!

:crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

58. Number Of Long-Term Unemployed Continues To Rise, Sets Another All-Time High

Here is the harsh reality that no amount of exhuberant press releases by the White House can hide:


Number Of Long-Term Unemployed Continues To Rise, Sets Another All-Time High

First Posted: 04- 2-10 06:00 PM | Updated: 04- 2-10 07:41 PM

While the increase in jobs over the past month provides hope that the economy's nascent recovery will continue to blossom, one troubling trend in Friday's monthly employment report continues to put a damper on the recovery.

As of last month, more than 6.5 million Americans have been without a job for at least six months, an all-time high, according to Labor Department data. That's more than double the amount this time last year.

Of the more than 15 million unemployed Americans, nearly 44 percent have been without a job for at least six months -- another all-time high.

The negative trend among the long-term unemployed belie the view that Friday's figures were overwhelmingly positive.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said "the economy is definitely getting stronger" during a Friday interview with Bloomberg Television. Christina Romer, chair of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, said the employment report is "the most positive jobs report we have had in three years."

But Robert Reich, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley and former Labor Secretary under President Bill Clinton, was much more pessimistic.

Reich wrote on his blog:

"Since the Great Recession began, the economy has lost 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million needed just to keep up with population growth. That means we're more than 11 million in the hole right now. And that hole keeps deepening every month we fail to add at least 150,000 new jobs, again reflecting population growth."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/number-of-long-term-unemp_n_523321.html

April 1, 2010

Underemployment Rises to 20.3% in March

Unemployment saw a slight but insignificant decline

by Jenny Marlar

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Daily tracking finds that 20.3% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed in March -- a slight uptick from the relatively flat January and February numbers.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127091/Underemployment-Rises-March.aspx

[Thothmes]

60. Progess however slight is still progress.

[RBInMaine]

63. Damn right ! And it is expected to CONTINUE. So let's give it some time for Christ sake.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[branders seine]

67. The fundamentals of our economy

are still fucked up.

OP is dead right about Summers and Geithner.

[TankLV]

69. Ahh - thanks for the negativity break - god knows we can't have any good news about obama now can we

After all - it was sooo much better before President Obama got elected!!!

[treestar]

77. Yet we are still hopeful

that is human nature.

[JI7]

79. i know a bunch of people who got temp jobs which turned into regular jobs

[Bleacher Creature]

80. So what. Do they pay with different color money?

Will stores not accept money from people who earned it in a temp position? Should people not accept payment from an employer if they aren't guaranteed work for the indefinite future?

This is just plain crap. I wholeheartedly agree that permanent positions are a better way to grow the economy than temp ones, but this is a start. And, as many posters have pointed out, temp jobs often lead to permanent ones. This is a step.

And by the way, if you want to regurgitate the RNC's talking points, you should really highlight the census part more. Maybe you can bold the word census next time. And also, don't forget to remind everyone that government jobs aren't really jobs, and try and take a few subtle digs at the who fill those positions. Hell, if you want to use their talking points, you might as well go all in!

[Lord Helmet]

81. So? -- You should have led with your "in other words ..." as that appears to be your point.

[DCBob]

83. You might as well just give up dude... If you cant see anything postive in those numbers..

you are hopeless.

[Mass]

84. You' re right and nobody said it was great (at least no responsible people), but it is still a lot

less bad than LOSING as many jobs.