Things are going to improve very fast...the checks in the mail...

[jtuck004]

The FOMC projections for this year and next: http://imarketnews.com/?q=node/13699

<snip>

They now expect GDP to grow by a real 3.2% to 3.7% this year -- up from 2.8% to 3.5% in the January forecast. They expect real GDP growth of 3.4% to 4.5% next year and 3.5% to 4.5% in 2012. The "longer run" growth projection was unchanged at 2.5% to 2.8%.

They expect the unemployment rate to end the year between 9.1% and 9.5 percent -- down from January's 9.5% to 9.7% forecast and down from the current 9.9%. The project unemployment between 8.1% and 8.5% next year; 6.6% to 7.5% in 2012

<snip>

For someone (Bernanke) who wants to cut the deficit (by ending stimulus and perhaps cutting social security?) this outlook would support just that course.

But how do we get there from here?

For unemployment to be at 8.5% next year by this time we need to create 180,500 full-time permanent jobs every month until then, over and above the 100,000 we need to stay even (actually it's probably closer to 125,000 just to stay even, but this is an easier number to remember). So we need about 280,000 new full-time permanent jobs per month until then.

Between 1980 and 2009 jobs created in the U.S. averaged 110 K a month. Looking only at Clinton's tenure it averaged 197K a month. (You don't want to know what it was under W, but consider how that lowers the average).

Someone needs to get busy hiring...

(If someone sees a flaw in my math or the numbers I got from the BLS, please say so, 'cause I would hate to be wrong on the Interthingy. ;) )

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I always trust "They."

:patriot:

[Lerkfish]

2. why do you hate Obama?

:sarcasm:

of course, your math is right. But hold on, someone will be along real soon to derail your thread.

[ixion]

3. I've bookmarked this thread

so I can see how your math works out. My guess is that it's not going to be that rosy, but hey, we'll see.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Can we tighten up some sources?

There are some people I need to beat about the head and neck with this sort of info.

[jtuck004]

5. Absolutely . And please let me know if you see something

different than I think I am seeing.

The 100,000 to 125,000 is bandied about on sites all over the place, such as this one: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124003086.

I have read those figures in so many places, and looked it up once to prove it to myself, don't remember where. So I just use 100,000 as the most conservative figure I have found. It is probably higher, just based on how many people are aging upwards, but 100K is good enough for this.

To get the employment data start at: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

For Total Nonfarm - Select box for Seasonally Adjusted
at bottom of table select "Retrieve"
on next page select More Formatting Options

Deselect Original Data Value

Select 1 month net change

On right side change From year to 1980 (or whatever)

Select "Retrieve Data" at bottom.

That's total nonfarm employment as it goes up and
down each month.

Select the .xls printed next to Download, save it,
and pull it up in Excel. Average each of the lines.
Clintion was '93 through 2000, W was 2001 through 2008.


What got me really looking at all this was a post at: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/mish-unemployment-projections-through.html

I really don't like most of his politics. I think he doesn't think through his anti-union views and conservative nonsense, but separating the economics from the politics I think his data is useful.

Does that help?