Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Massachusetts 20 Year High in Private Sector Job Gains

By

Employment numbers were released this morning and Massachusetts continues to add jobs in every month in 2010.  Overall jobs in the state grew by 13,200, which include a reduction in government jobs due to the continued reduction in temporary census positions.  There was a significant jump in private sector jobs, 19,200, the largest job gain in 20 years.  

The private sector added 19,200 jobs, the largest monthly job gain in the private sector over the past twenty years. This marks the sixth straight month for job gains in the Commonwealth, adding 60,200 jobs since December.

Hmmmmm.  It’s getting more and more difficult to take other candidates seriously when they repeat how Massachusetts is losing jobs.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. is that Massachusetts appears to have been responsible for 27% of all the private sector jobs created in the U.S. last month.

    <

    p>

    The US economy created just 71,000 private-sector jobs in July, the third consecutive month of disappointing growth.

    <

    p>MA’s 19,200 private sector jobs would be about 27% of the country’s 71,000 private sector jobs.  That’s a remarkable statistic, given our much smaller share of the population as a whole.  If these numbers are right, we are way outpacing the rest of the country.

    • There’s positives and negatives.  It’s possible that a total of 500,000 jobs were created in the states which had job growth, and 429,000 jobs were “destroyed” in the states which had job loss.  The net is 71,000 private-sector jobs, but you wouldn’t necessarily attribute 27% of it to MA.

        • It may ulitmately prove to be true, but until I see the source data I think it fair to view the statistics from the Patrick administration with some skepticism.  With an eye on November, the pressure on his administration to demonstrate economic improvement must be enormous…and the on-the-ground view from my part of Massachusetts does not support the rosy picture presented by the Governor.  I’ll wager a small amount of money that the numbers will be “adjusted” after November.

          <

          p>  

          • If the numbers are to be adjusted, it’ll happen in August, September or October and it will be the Bureau of Labor Statistics that will make the adjustment, not Patrick or anyone in the administration.  These aren’t Patrick’s numbers, these are the numbers from the BLS, so it won’t be the Patrick administration that will do it.  

            <

            p>

            Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys about 140,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 410,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls.

            <

            p>If you’d bothered to read any of the comments or follow the links in the comment you’re responding to, you’d know that.  

            • Actually, I did.  The data comes from both the BLS and from subsidiary entities of the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. We’ll simply have to wait to see if the numbers hold up.  

              <

              p>As I said, it is a small wager and the current administration does have a propensity to stretch the truth.  I’ll stick with my bet.  
               

              • You’re suggesting that the administration adjusts a survey to make the jobs numbers look better than they really are?  You’re suggesting that the measures of the economy such as the employment rates, employment population ratio and the unemployment rate are manipulated to make a press release in the middle of August look better?

                <

                p>You haven’t backed up your claim that the administration lies with any supporting evidence, but lets assume for a moment that Patrick over spins the truth for his own benefit – you really think he cooks the books on the jobs numbers?  You really think the statisticians at the BLS would accept a methodology from the state that would allow for such easy manipulation?  

                <

                p>I was planning on preemptively taking my winning from our bet and donating it to Patrick, but if this kind of garbage is the best you can dish out, maybe we don’t have too much to worry about – I’ll still donate the money, but you’ve made me feel that much more confident.      

  2. <

    p>Bordering on self parody, Baker’s press release on Massachusetts Job gains …

    Massachusetts cannot settle for a mediocre recovery. Massachusetts continues to have record unemployment that is dogged by the over-taxing, over-spending and over-regulatory policies of the Patrick-Cahill Administration

    • How it’s the Patrick-Cahill administration now! That’s awesome. Clever, even if so inaccurate as to be oh, I dunno, a LIE.

      <

      p>I mean, I thought we had a Lt Gov?

      • The Patrick-Cahill administration.  This from the person who wants to run the state.  These little half-truths that he’s peddling, similar to job growth.  Does he think that independents are going to flock to him with this strategy?

        • It’s rhetoric, in other words, shorthand for “these two guys were in the government and screwing up” regardless of the fact that they had entirely different jobs (and Cahill really can’t screw things up THAT bad short of terrible investments, and running the lottery into the ground – oh wait, he did screw up a bit there).

          <

          p>But also what’s really funny is, the fact he’s trying to run on “these two guys were in the government and screwing up” in the first place, right after stellar job news for MA.

          <

          p>He’s a gas, that guy! Sorta like a reverse Pollyanna. LMAO!

      • …that assumes that Dem Gov plus Dem Lege equals steamroller.  Cahill was elected Treasurer as a Democrat so by this logic he must be part of the administration.  Maybe he’s hoping low-info voters don’t realize that we elect Treasurer separately and will think Cahill was appointed to this cabinet-like post by Patrick.

    • about that post is this bit:

      <

      p>

      Now I am as happy as the next person about the jobs report released earlier today which showed that private employers added 19,200 jobs last month and 58,900 over the past six.

      <

      p>All due respect, no you’re not (unless “the next person” happens to be Charlie Baker).  For candidates whose campaigns depend on the ability to describe Governor Patrick’s policies as failures, such as yourself, news of any job growth – to say nothing of the biggest single-month job growth in 20 years – is awful news.  Because it means your campaign’s raison d’etre isn’t gonna cut it.

      <

      p>Awkward.

      • political candidates cannot be happy (or unhappy) about anything that happens “if” that event helps/hurts their opponent and their campaign’s raison d’etre is based on it.

        <

        p>Were/are Anti-war candidates or anti-Bush candidates who were against the Iraqi War (and based much of their campaign strategy on it) who said they were “happy” about positive news about the war… lying? Are outspoken candidates against the Afghanistan War “unhappy” if no US soldiers are killed? Maybe we can all be happy about “good news” even if it lessons our chances of be elected.

        <

        p>I’ll be naiveté and you can be the cynic.

      • in an earlier draft of that post I had included the line “If the trade off for thousands of more citizens having jobs is my failing in my bid for the state legislature, I’m okay with that.”

        <

        p>From your comment I think I should have included it.

        <

        p>Actually my campaign doesn’t depend on Governor Patrick at all. I’ll leave that to Baker and Cahill. I am running for state representative and have previously questioned why the legislature has over-ridden EVERY budget veto by Governor Patrick. http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…

        <

        p>I think I can make the case that over the last 5 1/2 years, the incumbent has the 3rd worst record of any legislator for supporting bills favored by the National Federation of Independent Business which represents the interests of small business and entrepreneur.

        <

        p>I can make the case that the incumbent claims that the Film Industry Tax Credit creates jobs but raising taxes by nearly $2 billion a year doesn’t have the opposite effect.

        <

        p>I can make the case that the incumbent claims to be concerned with quality of life issues in the district, she has voted for budgets that cut $140 million in local aid to Boston and Cambridge, cut funds to libraries, the DCR, Head Start, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault prevention, primary care programs at community centers, environmental law enforcement. The list goes on.

        <

        p>Regardless of who occupies the corner office on January 6, 2011, I believe the people of the 8th Suffolk and of the Commonwealth will be better served by a balanced government that denies Speaker Deleo a veto-proof majority and the ability to craft important legislation in secret.

        <

        p>If at some point you would like to discuss the substance of what I say in the post, please let me know.

        • Because you realized that it wasn’t true. Or because you wanted to set yourself up to respond to allegations of cynicism. Or for some other reason.

          <

          p>Interested readers would love to know.

    • governing MA so none of the Gulf oil hit our coasts/beaches… and let’s thank him for the good weather while we’re in la-la land.

  4. And even if there may have been some job gains these are the type of jobs that could not possibly sustain what used to be a middle class lifestyle.

Archives