Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
2 things here Mookie.
First - your right - demand does create jobs - however - there isn't a question of demand - we are a consumer nation. The problem is people don't have jobs to be able to create demand - so when jobs are created (by investors) - demand also rises.
|
Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) is very old and isn't particularly accurate.
Quote:
CNN quoted David Gewirtz as saying the US needed 2 million jobs created a year. That means just to keep up with population growth, we need 166.7K jobs a month minimum. Using the Bureau of Labor and statistics, 243k jobs were created in January 2012. This brings the unemployment rate down a full .2% according to their numbers. Sounds good - but when you read the full report - the actual decrease is not due to the ~78k job surplus (which 78k jobs is not anywhere NEAR enough to drop the unemployment rate .2%), but its because over 2 MILLION more people dropped out of the "labor pool"!
Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.
|
Ok, you're COMPLETELY and TOTALLY off base here, and the reason why is elementary statistics. You cannot compare January 2012 and December 2011 figures. 2 million people did not drop out of the labor force. The difference in the figures here is due to the census adjustment.
Look at this chart and notice what happens every December:
See those dips? They're yearly population adjustments. You simply cannot compare January to December, since you're counting a YEAR's worth of population adjustment in those numbers.
This is even stated clearly in the actual BLS release of the data:
Quote:
|
Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2012 scheduled for February 3, 2012, population controls that reflect the results of Census 2010 will be used in the monthly household survey estimation process. Historical data will not be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods. A table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor force series will be included in the January 2012 release.
|
This isn't smoke and mirrors. You can't go on indefinitely without adjusting for population changes in your data.
As your central premise is based on faulty analysis, I didn't bother to read on.
This is why you and the people you're quoting are wrong.