Aug ADP Jobs Report: +201K vs. +149K consensus, 163K prior.


Aug ADP Jobs Report: +201K vs. +149K consensus, 163K prior.
Comments (27)
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16267) | Send Message
     
    CNN headline: "Outlook Gloomy for August Jobs Report"

     

    And, the pessimists go down in flames, yet again.

     

    P.S. For those waiting with bated breath, you can kiss any "imminent" QE3 goodbye.
    6 Sep 2012, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3498) | Send Message
     
    The lack of need for QE is infinitely better than its necessity.
    6 Sep 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • Pwdrskir
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    President Obama got it exactly right when he gave himself “an incomplete”. HIS grade for failing to complete the required work in the required time, per college standards.
    6 Sep 2012, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3498) | Send Message
     
    Ha, you think college is the real world!
    6 Sep 2012, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    Tack....but Hussman, Roubini and the apocalyptic group in SA were telling me the US was collapsing!!!!

     

    I bought gold, arms and strapped myself with ammo and went into a cave!! That's what the doomers told me was the correct way!!!

     

    That equities would collapse!!!!

     

    That Gold was going to $100,000 an ounce!!!!
    6 Sep 2012, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (8058) | Send Message
     
    We were also told U3 wouldn't go above 8%. The last time it was under 8% was in Jan of 2009.
    6 Sep 2012, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    We'll talk about a jobs recovery when the % of the population employed actually moves up:

     

    http://bit.ly/uosUSn
    6 Sep 2012, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • mickmars
    , contributor
    Comments (1312) | Send Message
     
    Roubini always underestimates the power of central banks.... especially the Fed.
    6 Sep 2012, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • jpiretti
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    What is the standard "required time" it should take to re-fill 8.5M jobs lost plus the 3.6M new entries over an 18 month period of time.
    http://bit.ly/OpwOLS
    7 Sep 2012, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (8058) | Send Message
     
    Not sure what a standard time would be, but between 1983 and 1986 about 9.8 million jobs were created. Between 83 and 84 it was 7.3 million jobs. In Sept of 83 1.1 million jobs were created in one month.
    7 Sep 2012, 09:13 AM Reply Like
  • jpiretti
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    I ses a lot of comparisons to 2009-today and 1/81' - 8/84' as far as U3 unemployment. Reagan started at 7.6%..topped out at 10.8% in 12/82' and we stood at 7.6% at 8/84'...Obama started at 8.3%...topped at 10% and now we are at 8.1%...similar trajectory. The slight difference is Reagan added 200k state/federal/local jobs during this time and Obama has seen a drop of 800K public sector jobs. I think there is an argument to be made that Reagan was the ultimate Kensyian in the respect that our national debt increased 2.89X during his tenure(his 8 fiscal years/budgets). After fiscal year 2009 (Bush's last budget) our gross debt stood at 12.2T....we are now at 16T. Obama would have to push that debt to 35T+ at the end of 8 years to match Reagan's record. With that much deficit spending, should we not have seen much better results on GDP/job growth than Clinton?
    http://nyti.ms/QrBCmv
    I happen to believe that Reagan was correct to cut marginal rates to offset the loss in agregate demand caused by Volkers' agressive rate increases. I also believe it was correct to push for the 83' Tefra act and the 86' tax inceases after the economy had healed to claw back about 50% of the lost revenue( still not enough to halt huge deficits). I don't understand those who claim to praise Reagan in this modern Rep. party. If you have any respect for Reagan's legacy, I suggest you read the latest op-eds by David Stockman (OMB dir.) and Bruce Bartlett (chief eco advisor) to understand how the modern party is not respecting the legacy of Reagan.
    http://nyti.ms/P88xws
    http://nyti.ms/UxWsBi
    7 Sep 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (8058) | Send Message
     
    Keynes doesn't really apply. What Keynes would advocate (though he wouldn't realize it) is to have gov waste labor by wasteful spending. Thus the deficits are incurred to make the populace less productive. What Reagan did was to incur deficits to let the economy become more productive.

     

    Deficits are only a problem when they are incurred because gov policy is causing the populace to be less productive.

     

    You have to understand how the system in the US works. We have a monopolized money medium. This makes the Fed Res note more like a stock cert, thus a national debt is more akin to equity. However, stock must be issued for the creation of greater levels of productivity. If stock is issued for people not to work, the stock will lose its value.
    7 Sep 2012, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • jpiretti
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    Keynes would advocate using gov. deficit spending to fill the gap caused by a decrease in aggregate demand in the public sector...which is what exactly Reagan did with his tax cuts with borrowed money....also...labor is at it most productive today(because of US R&D spending i.e. internet) than any time in the country's existence...so your comment is quite confusing to me. In fact, labor force participation and productivity are inversely related...thus the structural problems we have in this country. We can only hope to see our productivity exceed cheaper labor costs in a global economy to compete.
    7 Sep 2012, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (8058) | Send Message
     
    The reason my comment is confusing to you is because you don't understand the monetary system we currently have, and you are also assuming Keynes' rhetoric is a suitable replacement for reality. You have to understand the system we have. Under the current system (the one with Reagan and now) Keynes is irrelevant. In fact, he is irrelevant under any system.

     

    Keynes was John Law reincarnated. Keynes would be a bubble creator. He basically was advocating for subsidies of old technologies, and you need incentives for new technologies for the economy to grow.

     

    On net, this was what Reagan did, though I'm not sure to what extent he understood he was doing this. In many respects we didn't need to "defeat" the Soviet Union. They would have eventually done it to themselves, much the way Europe is doing it to themselves now, though at a much slower pace. Without he additional spending on the military, he could have cut taxes even more, thus allowing the economy to be even more productive, and instead of 18 million jobs during his 2 terms, it may have been 25 million jobs. This is the exact opposite of Keynes.

     

    Keynes was basically recycling the old Absolutist theories that were part of his education and culture. He didn't invent anything new. It is these roots, the roots that created the BOE in 1694 in an attempt to mimic the low interest rates the Dutch enjoyed (a misinterpretation of what was driving the Dutch interest rates at the time on the part of the British), that Keynes was schooled in.

     

    These roots are based on the foundation of gov coercion. Coercion is a price blind mechanism, and only price sensitive mechanisms can create capital (assets). Thus if you want to create capital, and grow an economy, you need to maximize the best capital creation tools. Reagan may not fully realized he was doing this, but on net this is what he did. He allowed people to keep more of their earnings (a price sensitive mechanism), but muted the real power of this by overspending on the military (a price blind mechanism).

     

    In other words, he had just focused on tax cuts, and foze gov spending where it was, the recovery that occured would have been even more acute.
    7 Sep 2012, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • jpiretti
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    Very interesting...but your comment on Keynes being a bubble creator is incorrect. Keynes only advocated filling gaps in the private sector with public money within the confines of a single business cycle, not as a structural remedy. This is why the modern Republican party's remedy for low/high aggregate demand or low/high interest rates is exactly the same solution...nominal tax cuts in which 60% of the benefit goes to 1% of the population (Romney/Ryan) or nominal tax cuts in which 70% go to 5% of the population (Bush 43)...I find it very humorous...also, my confusion is a product of your comments about labor productivity and deficits, which are illogical, not your recitation on the life and influences of Keynes. Deficit spending when aggregate demand is relatively high is counter productive because it crowds out private sector credit...when demand is low, it is productive...that is Keynes distilled...that is why he only advocated deficit spending within the recessionary part of the business cycle...and also why those who think deficit spending now is crowding out the private sector are dead wrong. marginal tax rates are the lowest in a generation...why is it not creating aggregate demand? Could it possibly be that the distribution of tax cuts (70% to 5%) are inherently inefficient?
    http://bit.ly/Uy9SNI
    7 Sep 2012, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (8058) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, I know why he said. What I am saying is that it was crazy talk, because what he intended to happen does not replace the reality of what happen. This is especially true under a monopolized money medium. In other words there is no need for savings in the good times. The savings is always in the wealth of the economy. As long as that wealth dwarfs the outstanding notes, there is no problem.

     

    Ad is a function of supply. As long as productivity is going up, demand will go up as well, in a macro sense. Thus, how you cancel the notes is irrelevant, rich vs poor. What matters, if you want the notes in the hands of the populace, is to stop canceling them. The rise in productivity will give value to the notes as they remain outstanding, like valuable stock. Keynes had no clue about this paradigm. His understanding was better suited to Colbert.
    7 Sep 2012, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5123) | Send Message
     
    201,000 is still not enough for growth...period...its the new normal...but to compare it to Clinton or Bush..oh my I said Bush...it falls way short...
    6 Sep 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • jpiretti
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    That is incorrect. During the "Bush miracle" of 1/04 to 12/07 (48 mos) we produced 7 million private sector jobs...mostly construction...that's roughly 145K/month. Of course that was completely lost in 08'...plus what we lost in the first 3 years puts Bush 43's private sector growth for 8 years at a negative number.
    http://bit.ly/OpwOLS
    PS...you will have to adjust the dates on the chart. ADP charts do not cut/paste after alteration.
    6 Sep 2012, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11216) | Send Message
     
    Year over year number is +2144...best year over year number since March 2006....
    6 Sep 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2426) | Send Message
     
    Jeez all the cool kids on SA know that anything positive is a government conspiracy lie, and anything negative is true.
    6 Sep 2012, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • OptionManiac
    , contributor
    Comments (3498) | Send Message
     
    When facts go agaist your rigid ideology, then they just can't be facts.
    6 Sep 2012, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11216) | Send Message
     
    Never did like the cool kids....
    6 Sep 2012, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • David Urban
    , contributor
    Comments (1031) | Send Message
     
    It is a good number but not a great number. Nothing that will lower the unemployment rate in a meaningful way. 200k barely absorbs the number of new workers entering the economy.

     

    What is says is continued limping along not to hot to lay off QE but not cool enough to start a new program.

     

    Meanwhile, third quarter profit growth is expected to be flat while the S&P sells for 16x earnings.
    6 Sep 2012, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11216) | Send Message
     
    And S&P earnings yield is higher than the Baa corporate yield....
    6 Sep 2012, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • fair and balanced fredrico
    , contributor
    Comments (80) | Send Message
     
    Republican promise for 2012 – THIS time, tax cuts for millionaires, financial deregulation and trickle down economics are gonna work!

     

    Honest!
    6 Sep 2012, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • Econdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (2938) | Send Message
     
    this is a good number. there is no recession in the US.

     

    there is no recession in the US but that is so not the point

     

    the point is that the US should and can grow faster than 2% real with its advantages of cheap energy, good infrastructure and educated productive labor force - we should not settle for 2% when US growth can and should be 3 to 4%

     

    we are being shorted 2% per year - that does not sound like a lot but do that for 10 years and you have Europe. do that for 10 years and your children will be materially poorer tan you are and your social safety net will suffer serious fraying

     

    Obama and his policies are a growth handbrake. Statism does not work - it leads to sub optimal growth. Yes perhaps the safety net is wider and deeper for a little while, and yes you can use tax policy to even up outcome distribution and make everyone feel better - for a little while and yes you can create favored nation status for certain industries or groups of "friends" (cronies) of the administration to "direct" growth and give a little pop to show how well we are doing - when really we are not. Yes. You can do all of this and still the great engine will deliver that solid 2% year after year except in recession years - because you will still get those - but now you have much less cushion. It is not enough. You may feel better today but all you have done is take away from potential.

     

    Gulliver like - the US economy is shackled by Lilliputian thinkers in the Obama administration and Obama himself who lacks the will to manage, to lead. The longer it remains thus the greater the risk of atrophy and long term disability.

     

    For these reasons you must fire Obama.

     

    Obama Must be Defeated.

     

    E
    7 Sep 2012, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • Pwdrskir
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Clearly, 96K in job creation for Aug is “an incomplete”, (failing to complete the required work in the required time) the grade Obama gave himself for the time HE set for himself.
    http://bit.ly/Ngi7h1

     

    President Obama on Feb 2, 2009 - “I will be held accountable, I’ve got four years. A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
    http://bit.ly/NQGKlX
    7 Sep 2012, 12:34 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs