Economy Jobs

Thanks Obama

214,000 jobs were added to the economy during the month of October according to the Labor Department. Furthermore, the number of people participating in the labor force has reached its highest point in five years.

Numbers for the month of September were also revised upward to 256,000.

via Bloomberg

The share of the population with jobs rose to 59.2 percent in October, the highest since July 2009, from 59 percent the prior month.

Average hourly earnings for all workers rose 0.1 percent in October from the prior month. They were up 2 percent over the past 12 months, less than the 2.1 percent median forecast. The average work week for all employees increased six minutes to 34.6 hours.

The above numbers are worth highlighting, even if they appear to be small increases, because conservatives often complain about the number of people who aren’t working.

The idea that Obamacare is reducing the amount of hours that employees are scheduled to work is also a central pillar of the Republican platform, and following the election they declared their intention to redefine what it means to be “full-time,” but as you can see the average work week is actually trending upward.

The economy is undoubtedly headed in the right direction but, you know, Americans are unhappy about that. Or something.

  • muselet

    To which the entire Right stands up and whines, “No! Those numbers are wrong! Unpossible! The Department of Labor cooked the books!”

    Accompanied by stamped feet, of course.

    –alopecia

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Someone, somewhere, still doesn’t have a job. Therefore Obama’s economic policy is a failure.

  • trgahan

    “The economy is undoubtedly headed in the right direction but, you know, Americans are unhappy about that. Or something.”

    The average America worker is underemployed, making a stagnant wage, and/or does
    not have enough job security to get it into the numbers and what they means.

    Considering the recent election demographics point to an “Old White People” victory, America’s economic “unhappiness” is more about retirees and/or near- retirees securing their fortunes through starving government to prevent taxation, decrease social mobility, and curtailing non-existent inflation.

    • JMAshby

      Every use of the word “Americans” by me, at least in the context of this post if not most of the time, should be read as: “dumbass white Americans” because they voted solidly GOP. Democrats carried minorities in every race I looked at, but lost white men -and- white women.

      • LTanya Spearman

        No word were truer said, especially in my redneck side of the woods our candidate won Afro-Amer. by +90%, Latinos women by 61%, but lost Latino men by 1%. So much for immigration reform. I’m waiting for one latino scream immigration & see how far they get with the repubs.
        Ain’t that a kick in the head.

  • LTanya Spearman

    Under Bush job market was -700,000 a month; under Obama job market +200,000 a month.

    Under Dem Presidents Obama & Clinton added 30M jobs (so far)
    Under the 3 yrs. Bush Sr. & Bush Jr. added 3M

    • Christopher Foxx

      I saw an analysis once (which I should really track down again so I could point to it and prove it) that looked at a lot of economic indicators and compared how they did under every administration going back about 50 years. GDP, unemployment, inflation, deficit, trade balance, etc etc etc. They looked at how they performed both from inauguration to inauguration. Realizing it would take a bit for a new President to get traction, they also looked at how they did on a a-year-after-inauguration to year-after-inauguration range.

      Bottom line: Fairly thorough and thoughtful analysis and it showed that, on nearly every measure, if Republicans were sincere in what they claim they’re in favor of, they’d vote for a Democratic President every time. The economy did far better under Dem administrations than Repub ones nearly every time.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        The economy has always done better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. GOP fans either (1) are incapable of believing that, or (2) give Republicans credit for it anyway, somehow.

        • trgahan

          Honestly, I think the problem is under Democratic Presidents, economic policy leads to prosperity that tends to, for lack of better term, “fill the bathtub and raise all boats.”

          GOP fans prefer Republican economics because, while much less productive (even destructive) in a consumer based market economy, have the added feature of controlling exactly who prospers and who doesn’t.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Maybe the problem is that economic gains under Democratic presidents are more widespread and thus, ironically, harder to see. Economic gains under Republican presidents go to the biggest companies and richest men, both of which can flaunt it ostentatiously. Gains you can see have a greater effect that gains you can feel.

            Or maybe it’s just because Republicans always claim to be better for the economy, hold up 1979 and 1986 as the only examples, and everyone just accepts it.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Well, looking further into the analysis I did find, they seem to end up saying Democratic Presidents have just been luckier than Republican ones. The increases in energy prices tended to happen to Repubs, and advances in technology to Dems. That it isn’t so much a matter of policy differences as lucky timing.

          But given that “better under Dems than Repubs” has been a pretty consistent fact since WW2, more so than random odds would suggest, I think they’re being somewhat deliberately uncontroversial in their conclusion.

          Because there are distinct, measurable differences in economic policies. The constant “tax cuts for the rich, and also cut spending” drumbeat from the right has been tried for at least several decades now and, whenever it has been, has proven disastrous. The fiscal management of Dems, while not perfect at all, has consistently provided better results. Including,it should be especially noted, in those areas where Republican voters claim they are most interested in: Taxes have been lower under Democrats. The stock market has been higher under Democrats.

          This, more than anything else, says to me that Republican voters are stupid and petty, far more interested in harming someone else than improving things for themselves.

        • Scopedog

          Well, at least it shatters the “both parties are the same” myth….or it should.