Will the U.S. job market break its losing streak?

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – For the first time in two years, the U.S. economy may have seen a month in which more jobs were created than destroyed.

If Friday's December employment report shows a positive reading -- a long-shot but not out of the question -- it could provide a powerful jolt to what has been a sluggish recovery.

High unemployment has battered consumer confidence and spending, driven up mortgage delinquencies and defaults and put Washington's politicians on the hot seat with mid-term elections looming in 2010.

Although it will probably take several years to repair the labor market damage done during this recession, even a glimmer of better news would go a long way toward lifting spirits -- if not lawmakers' prospects for November elections.

"December could be the month where we see the first increase in payroll employment since December 2007, and even if it doesn't happen this month, job gains won't be long delayed," IHS Global Insight economist Brian Bethune said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100103/bs_nm/us_economy_weekahead_outlook

[snot]

1. Yeah, GONZO, surprise us on the upside, FOR ONCE!

with something that might happen to help the bottom 90%.
Not holding my breath.

[Craftsman]

2. No it isn't, the fat get fatter and the middle class

waht is left of it is out in the cold

[wuvuj]

3. 2010 GDP expected to be only 3% ??

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_49/b4158020729243.htm?chan=rss_topEmailedStories_ssi_5

Could it take as long as five years for the economy to replace all of the 8 million jobs lost since the Great Recession began? The most bearish economists think so.

...

This time, things could be even worse. U.S. payrolls peaked at 138 million in December 2007; today they stand at roughly 130 million. Stuart G. Hoffman, the chief economist of the PNC Financial Services Group thinks it could easily take another four years to regenerate all those jobs, assuming, as many economists do, that the recession ended in June of this year. David Rosenberg, the former top North American economist for Merrill Lynch, now with the Canadian investment firm Gluskin Sheff + Associates, is even more pessimistic. Convinced that the U.S. has now entered "the mother of all jobless recoveries," he believes it will take at least five years to recover all those jobs. "And that's a conservative estimate," he adds.

What accounts for the growing lag times? The speed and extent to which GDP bounces back after a downturn is one crucial factor. Martin A. Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, points out that as the U.S. recovered from earlier recessions, GDP often grew for several quarters at around 7%—roughly four points above the economy's long-term potential. Such spurts, fueled by strong pent-up demand among consumers and businesses, helped many unemployed Americans find jobs. Not this time: With both households and businesses stepping back from spending levels that were artificially pumped up by debt, demand is weak. Most economists project GDP growth to stay at or below 3% for the next two years. "If you don't have growth well above your long-term potential, you can't reabsorb people, so it takes a lot longer to get back to where you were," says Regalia.

It's not just a matter of regaining lost ground: There are also all those young people just entering the labor force to put to work. Simply to keep the jobless rate from rising, the U.S. needs to add a net 150,000 jobs a month. While the slashing of U.S payrolls appears to be slowing, no one expects the economy to generate anywhere near the growth needed to generate that many new jobs anytime soon.

That's why Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff believes the unemployment rate could peak at over 11%. "The U.S. would need to add a good 11 million jobs to bring the unemployment rate back to where it was at the start of the crisis, and over 9 million jobs just to get unemployment back to 6%," he says. As for the unemployment rates of 5% or lower that the U.S. boasted between 2005 and 2007? "We might not see that for a decade," says Rogoff.

[FBaggins]

5. 3% would be just fine

Much faster and the Fed would stomp on the brakes too quickly.

[FBaggins]

4. Yes

Oh wait! Did you mean THIS year???

Who knows?

[fasttense]

6. I doubt 5 years will do it.

I'm thinking it will take about 10 years or longer to get out of this mess.

No jobs have been created in the last 10 year. Our economy seems to have sputtered to a halt. At the beginning of 2000, there were 140.9 million people in the civilian workforce. As of today there are 153.9 million people. That is a 13 million increase. That is if no one lost or exchanged jobs, there would still be 13 million people out of work because NO NEW JOBS have been created this decade.

That civilian labor force number keeps growing every month. There are no signs that we are in the process of creating 13 million jobs, let alone enough jobs to have full employment.

I wonder how many people have to be unemployed before Americans bother to care.

[AndyA]

7. I wonder how many people have to be unemployed before Americans bother to care.

As long as they can drive their foreign-brand car to shop at Walmart and buy cheap imported crap, or buy things at such discounts that Walmart itself has put people out of jobs because the manufacturer can't make a profit at the prices Walmart demands, they'll be happy.

Only when it impacts them personally will the American people bother to care.

Sheep.

[FBaggins]

8. Just one more of course.

As long as it's them.