Psst. Charlie Baker, bad news. More people in Massachusetts are working.
Massachusetts has added an additional 15,800 jobs in May continuing the 2010 job growth trend.
Governor Patrick continues his stewardship of the economy that is recovering faster than the rest of the country. This along with some good long term news that IBM is creating the largest software development lab in North America in Littleton and Westford. Plus, retail companies are targeting (no pun intended) Massachusetts for growth kind of throws water on Charlie Baker’s statements that businesses do not want to come to Massachusetts.
Discuss
44 Comments . Comments are closed.Question
How many temporary census jobs are included in 15,800 total?
A majority are private sector jobs ..
overall, since the beginning of the year 77% of the job growth is private sector. You can read the release as well as I.
Interesting
44k ttl jobs since Dec. 34k in private sector with 8,800 temp census jobs in May alone. That means that only 1500 non private sector jobs were added since December. Interesting.
So will you vote for Patrick?
I'm guessing you like to ratios.
Answer
In May, 15,800 new jobs were created - 7,000 private sector jobs, with the rest federal / census jobs. In April, 18,700 new jobs were created, with 15,800 coming in the private sector.
Math problem?
Your math is not reconciling back to JohnK's. The press release says that 10300 public sector jobs have been added since Dec (paragraph 3). If 8800 non private jobs were added in May and 2900 non private in April alone then how do you get to the 10300 in the press release?
Not really sure where the math problem is
I would think it's pretty obvious how these numbers add up -- public sector jobs decreased in January and February before adding jobs in March through May. You can see the monthly numbers for yourself right here.
Thus, when you take the Jan-Feb decrease and add it to the Mar-May increases, you're left with +10,300 public sector jobs.
The Fine Print Says We're Losing Jobs
From the cited press release:
Not really ...
You are bringing in last year, we were in a downward trend last year during the recession. What we are looking at is the trend of Massachusetts coming out of the recession. Look we can make these Charlie Baker kind of comparisons and completely disregard we were in a historic recession, but that doesn't tell us where we are going.
You're Right; I'm Wrong
Brain fart on my part.
Quality jobs?
Seems to me that lots of retail and temporary government jobs is not good news. You can not support a family on these jobs and these jobs do not significantly address the state's revenue problem. If Manny is correct then we are actually losing jobs.
Let be fact based ...
As noted in the press release, private sector jobs mainly were from the Leisure and Hospitality, Education and Health Services and Construction sectors.
Job Growth
Well, that's the problem right there. Manny is not correct. Since December of 2009, which appears like it will be the bottom of the recession, Massachusetts has seen job growth.
Further, if you actually read the release, you'll note that the job growth has been in seven of the nine private sectors since December, not just "lots of retail and temporary government jobs." If you don't believe the release, then look at the raw numbers.
If you're going to flack for the increasingly desperate Massachusetts GOP, at least put your heart into it.
July #s
Could be interesting once thousands of teachers are laid off in July.
Only to return in September.
Towns tend to go on a pink-slip frenzy in my experience, only to hire most back by the time school opens again.
This will not help (from boston.com)
The Peabody School Department earlier this week handed out 29 pink slips to teachers and other school personnel reflective of proposed budget cuts for the new 2011 fiscal year, said C. Milton Burnett, superintendent of schools.
Meanwhile, the Peabody School Committee last night voted to send a proposed $61.9 million budget for the new fiscal year, which begins on July 1, to the City Council for a final vote later this month. The council has the final approval for the budget.
blame it on Olympia Snow and Susan Collins
They're the two people right now doing all in their power to prevent the federal government from sending increased aid to the states so they don't have to make the same level of cuts to local aid. Those job cuts will be on their heads, or at least they should be.
When do we stop relying on the feds?
I'll call the Maine gals tomorrow.
We don't rely on the Feds 100%
and we'll never rely on them 0%.
Nuance doesn't seem to be a GOP strong suit.
So where does it end?
I never said we rely on them 100%. Do they bail us out of a $2 billion plus hole in fy 2012 and do you really think 2013 is going to be easy? Or do you want to raise taxes?
when the economy recovers?
We're on that path right now. As you, yourself, have mentioned, cutting thousands of state employees right now will only set us back in the wrong direction. When the economy grows, we'll get back in the black, and we won't have to worry about getting relief from the feds during these incredibly difficult times.
When is that going to happen Ryan?
Have you seen the economic hole that the feds are creating? Thankfully they can print money.
I think we're on the road right now
Yes, Bush's recession was the worst since the Great Depression... it'll take some time to get back on our feet. But if we starting making deep cuts into public spending now that costs thousands of jobs in every state of the country, all that hard work to get outside of the recession could be for nothing, because a new recession could begin. You're right -- the federal government can print money, and that's not always a bad thing.
The economic hole is in part caused
by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. See how that trickle down effect works.
Perspectives on the...
... Economic hole.
1) Short term stimulus and the resulting revenue from the rebounding economy that comes from robust employment will do more for the long term deficit than almost anything else right now.
2) Our federal tax burden has been consistently lightened over the last several decades. Ezra:
As some point we're going to have to wake up and realize two things: 1) Tax cuts do not cure all ills. 2) It's dumb to talk about addressing debt while pretending that cutting revenues will help.
Since you asked...
Yes. Yes I want to raise taxes. I'll even tell you which ones.
1. Federal gas tax. 2. Carbon tax (though I'd prefer cap'n'trade, if a carbon tax is easier to make happen, lets do it and make sure that the value doesn't erode with time like our gas tax does now.) 3. Tax dividends as income. 4. Add a new marginal tax bracket for those making $1M or more at a higher rate, let's say 40%. Standard joint filers nuance applies. 5. Tax stock options and other non-paycheck financial payments as income. 6. Remove Sched A mortgage deduction on portion of home which exceeds 1000 square feet plus 100 square feet per dependent.
And, since I recognize that my wish isn't Congress' command anyway,
7. Tax guns, gun accessories, and bullets.
Who measures the house?
BTW, stock options are taxed as ordinary income if granted options are exercised and sold at a profit before 12 months expires. If the options are granted exercised and held in excess of 12 months they are taxed as cap gains.
but we're talking dividends not cap gains ...
it is not considered ordinary income and is taxed at 15%, but I thought that provision is going to expire in 2011 (unless someone does something). It's been extended a few times already. Don't know that I would necessarily agree that it should be treated as ordinary income. We need to do something in order to spur investment.
Stock options are not dividends
I read #3, didn't see #5, carry on ...
8. SS Tax cap
Eliminate the income cap on the Social Security Tax.
I'm not so sure.
I'd certainly be in favor of raising the cap, but one of the elegances of SS is that the more you put in, the more you get back. Unlimited contributions (without unlimited benefits) eliminates this reality.
Raising the cap in a way which both (a) raises the reimbursements slightly for the larger contributors, and (b) makes SS more solvent for longer is certainly A-OK with me.
Screw you with the GOP crap
My comment is a fair one. For the record, I am supporting Mr. Baker but my voting record is fairly moderate.
ahem
1) We're all capable of reading your posts. Unless your statement is short for "fairly moderate compared to Michelle Bachman" your votes don't match your stated opinions.
2) You are David Whelan of the Swampscott Republican Town Committee, right? I'd be ashamed of admitting it, too, but it really seems like something you should disclose in a conversation such as this.
Good research skills asshole
No need for the personal attack. It's unfortunately a typical right-wing reation
when cornered or caught in a lie. You're also the David Whelan that spews hateful nonsense on the Governor's Facebook page. So don't try to hide behind internet anonymity when you've left a big enough footprint that sinks your claims of moderate political beliefs.
Hmm
I think I meant it.
Then you're living up to the stereotype that I mentioned in the previous post.
What a shame that you have to resort to insults.
I don't like to give zeros
I rather people see the comment, and the poster. Why not let foolish comments add to the poster's reputation?
an excellent point
I wasn't sure it was the same David Whelan. Now I am.
The guy is absolutely obsessed with Deval Patrick. Like unhealthy, personal hatred, spewing about Deval any chance he gets, obsessed. As Kathy says, read his writings on Deval's Facebook page.
I took my zero back. People should see this stuff.
People can see it
At least registered members can see hidden comments, if they want to. I think leaving that kind of comment out in the open encourages more of the same, which I do not want.
you need to settle down ...
try arguing with facts, in this post at least it's been lacking.
Self-contradictory
On other threads, you've touted the fact that your are not anonymous. You sign your name. You have all sorts of identifiable information. You've even emailed folks your phone number.
However, when huh points to a part of your identity that typically we do disclose, you're all huffy.
IMHO, it would be better if you posted under the handle "Big Wheel" or some such and disclosed your role in the GOP, than if you posted under "David Whelan" and kept that association under wraps.
But in any case, which is it? Anonymous or named? And explain, if you please, why huh's disclosure is so bad in light of your previous statements. You want us to know who you are without knowing who you are?
For some context:
Here is the link to the current Bureau of Labor Statistics fact sheet for the Boston area.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 3:33 AM