Republican obstruction taking a toll on public sector jobs at local level

[ProSense]

Here are a series of posts by Steve Benen and a NYT article by David Leonhardt.

PRIVATE-SECTOR JOB GROWTH CAN'T OFFSET PUBLIC-SECTOR LOSSES....

The monthly employment picture from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is starting to look repetitious. September's totals were published this morning, and the new report looks a lot like the last few reports -- the private sector is slowly adding jobs, but we can't get our head above water because of the loss in the public sector.

The economy shed 95,000 nonfarm jobs in September, the Labor Department reported Friday, with most of the decline the result of the layoffs by local governments and of temporary decennial Census workers.

The steep drop was far worse than economists had been predicting.

While total government jobs fell by 159,000, private sector companies added 64,000 jobs last month. The unemployment rate, which measures the percentage of workers who are actively looking for but unable to find jobs, stayed flat at 9.6 percent.

The difference between the public and private sectors continues to be significant. Like the last several months, it's the loss of public-sector jobs, mostly from the wind-down of the Census, that brings the overall total into the negative. The addition of 64,000 private-sector jobs obviously needs to get much stronger, but at least the sector isn't losing jobs. What's more, it's the ninth consecutive months of job growth in the private sector, a streak we haven't seen in a long while.

As a political matter, this is the last monthly jobs report before the midterm elections, and it's very likely Republicans will characterize it as evidence that they're right. They're not. Had it not been for the Recovery Act, the job numbers would be dramatically worse, and the loss of many public-sector jobs is preventable, except Republicans have fought and blocked any efforts to prevent these losses.

Once again, here's the homemade chart I run on the first Friday of every month (or in this case, the second, since last Friday was the 1st), showing monthly job losses since the start of the Great Recession. The image makes a distinction -- red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns point to job totals under the Obama administration.

PRIVATE-SECTOR JOB GROWTH....

<...>

To be clear, public-sector jobs count, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. When workers lose their jobs, it's devastating for them, and it undermines economic growth for everyone -- whether the job was paid for by taxpayers or not. The problem is, the rise and fall of Census Bureau jobs can offer a skewed picture -- some months, such as May 2010, look better than they should, because the monthly total is exaggerated by hundreds of thousands of Census jobs. Other months, such as June 2010, are distorted in the other direction, looking worse than they should.

Of course, those who work for the Census Bureau count, too, and those who've lost these temp jobs will obviously want to find new employment. The point is, the gain and loss of these Census jobs were predictable and set out in advance, and don't really tell us much about the larger employment landscape.

In September, the economy lost 159,000 jobs from the public sector -- about half of which came from the loss of temporary Census workers. At the same time, the private sector added 64,000 jobs, which is down from the previous month, and not even close to what we'd like to see from the economy, but the total was largely in line with expectations.

It was the ninth consecutive month of private-sector growth, tepid and underwhelming though it may be. All told, the economy has added 863,000 private-sector jobs in 2010*. For comparison purposes, note that the economy lost nearly 4.7 million private-sector jobs in 2009, and lost 3.8 million in 2008.

With that in mind, here is a different homemade chart, showing monthly job losses/gains in the private sector since the start of the Great Recession. The image makes a distinction -- red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns point to job totals under the Obama administration.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY....

In September, the economy added 64,000 private-sector jobs, while losing 159,000 public-sector jobs. The former number can best be described as "meh"; the latter as "awful."

But the public-sector losses, unlike most of the summer, weren't driven entirely by the Census Bureau. Indeed, David Leonhardt explained that local governments cut 76,000 jobs last month -- and cut 143,000 jobs over the last three months -- many of them from public schools. All told, local governments are now "cutting jobs at the fastest rate in almost 30 years."

This is an important detail to keep in mind. Republicans are likely to say today's jobs report is disappointing because private employers are worried about Bush-era tax rates, or health care reform, or whatever the new talking points say. But that's foolish -- the new jobs report would have looked a whole lot better if Congress had saved those local government jobs. It had the ability to do so, but chose not to.

Ezra Klein explained this morning:

The government is now impeding an economic recovery. But it's not for the reasons you often hear. It's not because of debt or because of taxes. Nor has it scared the private sector into timidity. It's because, at the state and local level, it's firing people. There are more than 14 million Americans looking for work right now -- to say nothing of the 9.5 million who have been forced into part-time jobs when they want, and need, full-time work -- and the government just added 195,000 more to the pool. Consider this: If we only counted private-sector jobs, we'd have had positive jobs reports for the last nine months. As it is, public-sector losses have wiped out private-sector gains for the past four months.

It doesn't need to be like this. The government can't make the private sector invest. They can't demand that Wal-Mart stop hiring. They can offer incentives, and tax breaks, and encouragement, but that's it. The same cannot be said when it comes to public sector jobs. The government can, if it's willing to run deficits, keep those workers employed. But Senate Republicans, alongside some conservative Democrats, have decided to make the government pro-cyclical: Rather than fighting the downturn in the business cycle, the government is now accelerating it.

It would have been surprisingly easy for Congress to make the investments in state and local governments necessary to save these jobs. But lawmakers have come to believe (a) Republicans would block any such effort; (b) voters may punish Congress for "spending"; and (c) the electorate will reward GOP candidates for supporting the policies that prevented these jobs from being saved.

We have an obvious economic problem. But the political problem is standing in the way of making things better.

Davit Leonhardt: Biggest Local Cuts in 30 Years

Local governments are cutting jobs at the fastest rate in almost 30 years.

They cut 76,000 jobs last month and over the last three months have cut 143,000 jobs, many in education, according to today’s jobs report. That’s 1 percent of total local-government employment across the country. Since the Labor Department began keeping records in the 1950s, the only other time that the cuts were so steep was in the harsh 1981-2 recession.

The federal government has been cutting jobs, too, in recent months — partly because of the end of Census taking — and state and local governments have made small cuts in employment.

Combined, these government layoffs have more than outweighed a modestly improving situation — or at least a stabilizing one — in the private sector. In the last three months, the private sector has added an average of 91,000 jobs a month. That’s down from of an average of 150,000 early this year, but up from about 75,000 in the middle of this year.

<...>

[Bitwit1234]

1. Instead of trying to help people and create jobs we see

what they are doing. Trying their best to undercut the recovery of this country. THEY want to get back in power to administer their brand of rule WHICH HAPPENS TO BE CORPORATE RULE on the American people. And again and again and again if the MSM were so under the control of the republican publishing companies they would be getting the message out to the people. But we can't reply on the "liberal" media to do their job and tell the country about the ahole republicans ...now can we.

[ProSense]

2. We can't rely on Democrats, even some Democratic voters to expose the GOP. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

3. "Republicans will characterize it as evidence that they're right"

Of course they will. And they're wrong again. :eyes:

[ProSense]

4. Snowe blames Democrats for jobless totals

Snowe blames Democrats for jobless totals

On the heels of the Labor Department showing little employment growth for September, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) on Friday blasted Democratic leaders for pushing legislation that has failed to create jobs.

"Today's unemployment numbers are a disappointing reminder of the anemic, if not stagnant economic growth that has resulted from this majority's continued reluctance to focus like a laser on a pro-jobs, pro-growth agenda to put America's hardworking families and entrepreneurs back to work" she said in prepared remarks. "Instead, their focus on job-killing tax increases and burdensome federal mandates have only perpetuated record unemployment rates, which are hovering at 9.5 percent or higher."

The Labor Department earlier today announced that overall payroll employment fell by 95,000 in September, which included the loss of 77,000 temporary Census workers. Private sector jobs increased by 64,000, but the jobless rate held steady at 9.6 percent.

Snowe suggests today's jobless figures illustrate the divide between Republicans and Democrats on how to inject job growth back into the economy.

<...>

Wonder if Snowe is going to support the President's infrastructure bill and permanent middle-class tax cuts?

[freebrew]

5. How many 'NO' votes from Snowe?

The rich control the job market, if they want to stop hiring, they will.
As evidenced a while back, a local employer had several job openings. When Obama was elected, he 'elected' to put a hold on hiring. There was no economic reason to do so, the company has been doing very well.
The only reason I could find was to stifle local job growth.

I firmly believe that the Rs are not only vfoting 'NO' on everything that would help, but their base is also helping them to stiflew any positive outcome of Dem legislation.

Really starting to look like the days FDR took office.

Damned BFEE!