Unemployment eases to 9.4%; percentage of working Americans still drops; Update: BLS juggling the numbers?

posted at 10:18 am on August 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported unexpectedly good news this morning, lowering the unemployment rate to 9.4% and noting a net loss of almost a quarter-million jobs in July.  Most analysts tracking the weekly data, where an average of 550,000 new jobless claims a week had been the norm, expected a slight increase over June’s 9.5%.  The reopening of car plants following the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler may account for the difference:

U.S. employers cut 247,000 jobs in July, far less than expected and the least in any month since last August, according to a government report on Friday that provided the clearest evidence yet that the economy was turning around.

With fewer workers being laid off, the unemployment rate eased to 9.4 percent in July from 9.5 percent the prior month, the Labor Department said, the first time the jobless rate had fallen since April 2008.

The government revised job losses for May and June to show 43,000 fewer jobs lost than previously reported.

Analysts had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 320,000 in July and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.6 percent. The forecast was made earlier this week before other jobs data prompted some economists to lower their estimates for job losses.

This may represent the bottoming out of the recession after almost eighteen months.  The BLS showed most industries still terminating jobs (except health care and education), but the rate has slowed considerably.  Manufacturing losses dropped to 52,000, the first time in 10 months it went below 100,000 in any month.  The service industry lost 119,000 following worse-than-expected news about the contraction of that sector.

Unfortunately, that statistic tells only part of the story.  According to the BLS, the percentage of Americans of working age with jobs continued to drop.  In July, the number was 59.4%, down from 59.5% in June and 60.5% in January.  That indicates that long-term joblessness may not get completely captured in the unemployment numbers shown in this report.

The curve still seems to be following the predicted path of an economy without the Porkulus bill, as noted in Christine Romer’s January analysis:

Having the upward trajectory of joblessness slow down does not make a recovery.  As Winston Churchill reminded the British after the miracle of Dunkirk, wars do not get won by successful evacuations.  Until the economy starts generating a net increase in jobs and not just a lower net decrease, the overall employment rate will creep upwards.  The only way for that to happen is to get capital into the markets to create jobs.  The stock market has shown some indications lately that capital may finally be getting off the sidelines, but it won’t jump fully back into play as long as the Obama administration insists on pursuing policies hostile to business.

Update: Jim Geraghty and James Pethokoukis throw a dash of cold water and reason on these numbers:

In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the civilian labor force was 154,926,000 people.

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce, and thus their unemployment calculations for this month, because they have stopped looking for work “because they believe no jobs are available for them.” Ten percent of the June workforce would be 15.4 million, 1 percent would be 1.5 million, and so 796,000 is roughly one half of one percent.

In other words, BLS took .5 percent of what you and I would consider unemployed and took them out of their total. And with that, unemployment went down one tenth of one percent.

I recall the Left accusing George W. Bush of doing the same thing in 2002-3 in the unemployment figures — when they didn’t get above 7% or so.  I guess it’s now OK to do it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

There are many who have stopped looking for work, whose benefits have run out and many more who are seriously underemployed. When these people are factored in, the actual number is HUGE.

Similarly, the housing data is seriously skewed. Most reports compare month over month rather than year over year data. Of course housing sales have gone up, mostly because of the FTHB tax credit incentive, but values have continued to decline in most areas. In fact, Deutsche Bank released a sobering report yesterday saying that almost half of U.S. mortgages will be underwater by 2011. Most banks have REO properties that haven’t even made it into the foreclosure process and if they were to be added to the inventories, prices would decline further. Also, watch for Option Armageddon in the future.

singer on August 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Less people to lose. Companies are pared down to the bone just trying to hold on; at this point if people get cut it will mean critical positions will be empty and that is the death knell.

I think you’re right about that. Plus, some companies are rightfully worried that if they let go of good talent, it may be really tough to compete later and get that quality back.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

And on many cars and boats…FOR SALE
And on many homes…For Sale/Foreclosure

bridgetown on August 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I saw a sign last week “will trade boat for job”.

myrenovations on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM

What was the Kool-Aid flavor this morning? This is what is unbelievable, is the sheep following the new slave masters in DC.

kirkill on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

It’s so fun watching the far-right hacks scrambling to spin this news away. They only want bad news and more jobs lost to score political points, regardless of who it hurts. Better hurry up and create a new attack meme soon!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

The “Obama Magic” is gone. The “Obama Tragic” has arrived.
ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I hope you are right. Frankly, I’m shocked that Deeds wanted to be seen with the filty liar. Virginia isn’t as blue as the filthy liar’s party thinks.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Uh…Uh…but..THE STIMULUS PACKAGE ISN’T WORKING!!! KEEP REPEATING THAT!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM

why? everyone knows already, especially oboobi and the demonrats.

SHARPTOOTH on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Captain to crew of the Titanic: “Good news. We are sinking at a slower rate than before!”

albill on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I smell troll.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

This really is good news. I still think the recovery will be painfully slow on this one.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Ann your attitude is like someone waking up in the hospital after being mugged for your entire paycheck so you have no money for rent or the bills, beaten up for not having more money, mocked by the hospital staff for having mess up hair and thinking “Well at least I still have my lucky quarter”.

That’s some serious optimism

LincolntheHun on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Similarly, the housing data is seriously skewed. Most reports compare month over month rather than year over year data. Of course housing sales have gone up, mostly because of the FTHB tax credit incentive, but values have continued to decline in most areas. In fact, Deutsche Bank released a sobering report yesterday saying that almost half of U.S. mortgages will be underwater by 2011. Most banks have REO properties that haven’t even made it into the foreclosure process and if they were to be added to the inventories, prices would decline further. Also, watch for Option Armageddon in the future.

I saw that report. What’s irritating to me is that the Banks aren’t interested in short sells, either. They are turning down reasonable proposals right and left, while picking off the properties for themselves!

I guess they are banking on a turnaround.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

I think you’re right about that. Plus, some companies are rightfully worried that if they let go of good talent, it may be really tough to compete later and get that quality back.
AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

That’s a good point, and one that’s supported by the average hour work week being the lowest its been in decades. Companies are having their best employees work 30 hours a week and take unpaid vacation days to avoid having to lay them off. Those numbers are reflective in the U6, which stands at over 16%.

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Things are so good in CA, that they are tearing down nearly finished houses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsgOaCZ2Lag

Vashta.Nerada on August 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I smell troll.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

big time

cmsinaz on August 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

The ‘right’ is generally more interested in factual evidence than you are, which is why a) you won’t use any facts in your arguments and b) won’t even ackowledge that the facts right now are ugly.

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Actually I just learned these numbers are completely BOGUS.

The U6 unemployment rate is actually 16.5%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/unemployment-rate-expected-to-rise-to-97-2009-08-06

First bullet point and that percentage does not include 1099 workers who can’t find work.

Can you guys at least manage to report the facts and not regurgitate Bozo’s propaganda?

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Yea yer right we’re such bastards for warning people they are driving off a cliff.

Should just be quiet like you and let the misery spread. Never help and never try to improve things.

LincolntheHun on August 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

that’s what make trolls so special.

SHARPTOOTH on August 7, 2009 at 10:58 AM

It’s so fun watching the far-right hacks scrambling to spin this news away. They only want bad news and more jobs lost to score political points, regardless of who it hurts. Better hurry up and create a new attack meme soon!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I don’t want bad news. I’d love for the economy to recover. You think I enjoy worrying about losing my job? You think I like the prospect of my taxes going up?

What I won’t accept however is being lied to. Don’t show me a net job loss of 247,000 for July and then tell me that the unemployment rate is going down. It’s insulting.

Doughboy on August 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I saw that report. What’s irritating to me is that the Banks aren’t interested in short sells, either. They are turning down reasonable proposals right and left, while picking off the properties for themselves!

I guess they are banking on a turnaround.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Banks are hanging on to properties, thereby not having to report losses on those properties. Taking the losses would impact their solvency calculations.

ICBM on August 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Oh and before I forget, I’m calling BS on the number of new people unemployed as reported by Bozo’s regime. They deliberately cooked the numbers in May and I am sure they have done it again.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I guess they are banking on a turnaround.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Or they are banking on another bailout should the need arrise.

myrenovations on August 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

What’s irritating to me is that the Banks aren’t interested in short sells, either. They are turning down reasonable proposals right and left, while picking off the properties for themselves!

I guess they are banking on a turnaround.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Banks are reluctant to sell the underwater properties they have because they will have to report it as a loss. Some of the large banks have literally hundreds of billions of dollars in losses that, by not selling, they are allowed to keep on the books as ‘investments’. It’s a numbers game, and one you can’t really fault them for playing.

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Next quarter they’re going to “correct” their reports and 0.1% is well within their usual correction. There may be no movement at all.

Chris_Balsz on August 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Watching CNBC this morning, the job losses for the three preceding months were all revised upward, meaning that they were not as severe as the Labor Department first calculated. Thus, even with this month’s job losses, the unemployment rate actually went down because the previous unemployment rate was not as high as the DOL thought. Of course, that will make no difference to working Americans – to be told that the situation in the past was not as bad as they imagined it, or were told.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

One phrase explains it all: government math.

If the numbers are actual, it’s not much of an improvement but it’s better than burrowing deeper, that’s for sure. I don’t like the numbers anyway taking in all the fluff around the edges, it’s still negative.

It’s just not AS negative as it could be, but then again….gubmint math.

Spiritk9 on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Next quarter they’re going to “correct” their reports and 0.1% is well within their usual correction. There may be no movement at all.

Chris_Balsz on August 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Exactly.

singer on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I recall the Left accusing George W. Bush of doing the same thing in 2002-3 in the unemployment figures — when they didn’t get above 7% or so. I guess it’s now OK to do it.

silly rabbit :-)

cmsinaz on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

On the same topic, I want to remind you all that many unemployed people are exhausting their benefits completely this month, as I learned from workers at the local unemployment office.

What will happen to those folks then?

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

O/T Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) is retiring immediately!

Very weird!!

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2009 at 11:03 AM

We are still 1.4% above the 8% that Barack Throckmorton Obama said that we’d hit if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill.

How many days are we now above 8%…How many days above 9%… How long will it be until we get down to the ceiling that administration predicted that we’d be at if we didn’t pass the stimulus bill?

answers please Throckmorton…..Throckmorton…?

ted c on August 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Spiritk9 on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

In May they reported 345,000 more people became unemployed. A few days later we learned it was actually 787,000.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM

On the same topic, I want to remind you all that many unemployed people are exhausting their benefits completely this month, as I learned from workers at the local unemployment office.

What will happen to those folks then?

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Simple, that is now good news because unemployment drops. See how this works?

Alden Pyle on August 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Or they are banking on another bailout should the need arrise.

Only if armagedden happens will they get a bailout. LOL*

Seriously, after sitting on the TARP money and posting record returns?

In their fantasy will there be more money.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Better hurry up and create a new attack meme soon!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

How about this?
I want a freaking job and your messiah is f*uking this country into non-existence. You better hope your mindless devotion comes with plenty of money attached other wise I’ll see you in the bread line.

I’m going to pray every day that BO is successful because communist don’t want or like slackers. I can think of no better reward then seeing all the useless liberal idiots getting what will be coming to them under the iron fist of BO. Revel in it while you can because that 25million dead isn’t going to come from the productive conservative ranks.

jmarcure on August 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Watching CNBC this morning, the job losses for the three preceding months were all revised upward, meaning that they were not as severe as the Labor Department first calculated. Thus, even with this month’s job losses, the unemployment rate actually went down because the previous unemployment rate was not as high as the DOL thought.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Exaplain that please. Numbers revised upwards means that less people lost their jobs?

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

In my suburb of So. Cal, the tanking of the economy may actually help in one sense: Slow down retail growth. It’s my personal mean-spirited thought that I’m not unhappy about that one.

Good grief, we have 3 Wall-Marts where I live and 2 Super-Centers. There’s a Lowes Lumber on every corner.

It wasn’t just the housing market that went nuts.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Ann, don’t those retail stores provide jobs for people that need them? Why would you want to slow the growth of the retail sector?

TXMomof3 on August 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Banks are hanging on to properties, thereby not having to report losses on those properties. Taking the losses would impact their solvency calculations.

ICBM on August 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Yes,despite their recently passing of Timmy’s Stress Test!

singer on August 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM

O/T Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) is retiring immediately!

Very weird!!

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Not weird. Marco Rubio is rising in the pollls… Charlie Crist will appoint himself so he can run as an incumbent.

Enoxo on August 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Thanks for the update Ed.

I wonder if the 9.9 rate was deliberately skewed so that the Congress didn’t have to deal with anger over jobs along with nationalizing healthcare.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM

On the same topic, I want to remind you all that many unemployed people are exhausting their benefits completely this month, as I learned from workers at the local unemployment office.

What will happen to those folks then?

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM

They drop out of the numbers, hence the lovely news today. People dropping off the list net against new claims.

Vashta.Nerada on August 7, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Banks are reluctant to sell the underwater properties they have because they will have to report it as a loss. Some of the large banks have literally hundreds of billions of dollars in losses that, by not selling, they are allowed to keep on the books as ‘investments’. It’s a numbers game, and one you can’t really fault them for playing.

I understand that aspect, but it also makes more sense to release in batches and spread out the pain.

But then, I don’t think prices are coming back up anytime soon. People who have to work 2 jobs to make the house payment aren’t going to go into the market unless it’s truly cheap. Right now, if you can find a house, it’s cheaper than renting here.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Ann, don’t those retail stores provide jobs for people that need them? Why would you want to slow the growth of the retail sector?

A few jobs, true. But I noticed big stores with few workers. Try finding help!

Mostly, it looked to me like stupid expansion planning.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Not weird. Marco Rubio is rising in the pollls… Charlie Crist will appoint himself so he can run as an incumbent.

Enoxo on August 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM

It would be nice if Crist did the right thing and appointed Rubio, but that’ll happen never.

Doughboy on August 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Exaplain that please. Numbers revised upwards means that less people lost their jobs?

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

It’s Government/CNBC math – you wouldn’t understand.
/

Vashta.Nerada on August 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM

In July, 796,000 of those were taken out of their definition of the workforce, and thus their unemployment calculations for this month, because they have stopped looking for work “because they believe no jobs are available for them.” Ten percent of the June workforce would be 15.4 million, 1 percent would be 1.5 million, and so 796,000 is roughly one half of one percent.

The good news here is that, one way or another, Obama will reach full employment in just a few months.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Raise that number by 1…. Mel Martinez (R-Florida) is announcing his retirement. Another RINO GONE! Good Riddance!

CC

CapedConservative on August 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

It would be nice if Crist did the right thing and appointed Rubio, but that’ll happen never.

Doughboy on August 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM

If there ever was a squishy Republican, that would be Crist. He is not the direction we want to move.

TXMomof3 on August 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM

It’s so fun watching the far-right hacks scrambling to spin this news away. They only want bad news and more jobs lost to score political points, regardless of who it hurts. Better hurry up and create a new attack meme soon!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

We have to go back to The Bush Presidency to find good news. Resident Obama can’t show employment growth last month. There were still less employed.

seven on August 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Watching CNBC this morning, the job losses for the three preceding months were all revised upward, meaning that they were not as severe as the Labor Department first calculated. Thus, even with this month’s job losses, the unemployment rate actually went down because the previous unemployment rate was not as high as the DOL thought.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Idiot. More people unemployed means the unemployment rate went up.

The actual unemployment number, the U6 number is 16.5%.

Link is posted in my previous post.

If that can even be believed. Math created by politicians or controlled by politicians cannot be trusted. It must be verified and confirmed by impartial and objective outside entities.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

So we’re at 9.9% if you count the people who have recently exhausted benefits and may have given up any hope of finding a job.

Then try counting people who don’t qualify for unemployment benefits. Those numbers that come out are always “people applying for first time unemployment benefits”. That doesn’t count people who worked on 1099 (10-15 million before the recession), and people who had their own businesses that have since gone down the tubes. These folks don’t apply for UC because they don’t qualify for it. I’m one of those people, but I still have work (although considerably less than I had last year). If I go out of work, I won’t get counted.

I hope things do actually improve, but these numbers are telling me things are still getting worse.

forest on August 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

the media reporting that signs are showing the economy is improveing. What a fu*ked up lie. 9.4 % unemployment is hardly any improvement. This is MOB rule reporting this horse sh*t. It was safer with Capone. Time to march on Washington.

bluegrass on August 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Enoxo on August 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Really?? This is so weird. I didn’t think Crist would do that but I did see it as a problem for him.

Cindy Munford on August 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

The actual unemployment number, the U6 number is 16.5%.

This number is bullcrap. It assumes a lot.

The number, 9.4% (whether gamed or not, and Bush gamed it too) is the official one.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Raise that number by 1…. Mel Martinez (R-Florida) is announcing his retirement. Another RINO GONE! Good Riddance!

CC

CapedConservative on August 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

My mistake… not retiring… RESIGNING.

CC

CapedConservative on August 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

No its based on actual accounting. Did you read the marketwatch article? Thats the official U6 number. no assumptions.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The curve still seems to be following the predicted path of an economy without the Porkulus bill, as noted in Christine Romer’s January analysis:

Take a closer look: its more like the ‘expected’ impact of the stimulus bill is exactly opposite from the actual impact.
For every job it was supposed to save, it destroyed a job instead.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Liberals singing Hallelujah.

Wadda’ joke.

Has anyone considered seasonal adjustment?… I mean, besides, and on top of juggling the books.

franksalterego on August 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Thanks for the update Ed.

I wonder if the 9.9 rate was deliberately skewed so that the Congress didn’t have to deal with anger over jobs along with nationalizing healthcare.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Anyone remember this? <a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002277.html”>

singer on August 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM

In my suburb of So. Cal, the tanking of the economy may actually help in one sense: Slow down retail growth. It’s my personal mean-spirited thought that I’m not unhappy about that one.

Good grief, we have 3 Wall-Marts where I live and 2 Super-Centers. There’s a Lowes Lumber on every corner.

It wasn’t just the housing market that went nuts.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Commercial real estate is the next bubble to burst. Many loans are going bad.
Many of these retail centers are losing tenants and no one is coming in to fill the void. This crash will be larger than the housing crash. Bigger numbers as far as loan to value ratios. It is much harder to find a buyer for commercial space than single family homes. Some markets are so over built that I doubt any new development will occur for decades. Obama is making it much worse as the business community has NO FAITH in this man what so ever. Obama can command a car company into submission but it won’t make people rush out to buy the product. His “Cash for Clunkers” program has helped Toyota the most. Soon Obama will probably extend “Cash for GM Only” courtesy of the US taxpayer – you & me. (Or maybe just me?)

izoneguy on August 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM

I understand that aspect, but it also makes more sense to release in batches and spread out the pain.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:07 AM

These companies are so large that they can afford to hold on to that much debt for several years until prices recover. What they can’t afford to do is write the losses on their books, which will affect their solvency.

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:19 AM

It’s so fun watching the far-right hacks scrambling to spin this news away. They only want bad news and more jobs lost to score political points, regardless of who it hurts. Better hurry up and create a new attack meme soon!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

You don’t have to make up the bad news friend. Taxes haven’t been raised yet and that’s next in the queue. The effects of over a trillion dollars added to the deficit haven’t had time to kick in yet. And yes, it looks like they are cooking the books on unemployment. There’s plenty of bad news to go around, unlike most of the Bush years where the MSM had to basically twist themselves into pretzels to find negative economic news to report.

The MSM frankly wouldn’t care if cities were on fire and people were starving in the streets as long as Republicans are out of power. And I’ll remind you that they have been out of power since 2007 with the exception of a lame duck president that acted more like John the Baptist to Obama Christ than a Conservative.

Asher on August 7, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The base workforce should be what it was at peak employment, at least.

Since a few houndred thousand people enter the workforce each month because young people graduate, the true number should be higher.

And on top of that, many retirees are looking for work no because the Thug and his gang tanked the economy and stole the savibgs of retirees, so those people should be added to the workforce as well.

True unemployment is probably over 20% right now, and climbing.

notagool on August 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I understand where it comes from. U6 includes the people who are part time but want full time but can’t because of economic reasons. The number is always going to be high – even in the best of times. The reported number is always U3 and has always been.

Leftists used to chuck around U6 during Bush. It’s silly then and it’s silly now. A person’s reason why they are part timed but are full timed (I want a better job, but it’s the economy’s fault) isn’t a rational way to get a statistic.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Take a closer look: its more like the ‘expected’ impact of the stimulus bill is exactly opposite from the actual impact.
For every job it was supposed to save, it destroyed a job instead.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM

THIS IS WHY THE STIMULUS NEEDS TO BE KILLED

Obama sends stimulus aid to foreign firms

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/06/stimulus-to-aid-foreign-battery-builders/

Nearly half of the $2.4 billion in federal grant money awarded Wednesday to stimulate the U.S. economy and boost the production of hybrid and electric vehicles went to six companies with ties to places as far away as Russia, China, South Korea and France.

izoneguy on August 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Captain to crew of the Titanic: “Good news. We are sinking at a slower rate than before!”

albill on August 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM

“The number of people in danger of drowning has gone down (because some of them have already drowned).”

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

***
FIGURES CAN LIE AND LIARS CAN FIGURE!
***
If the rate of unemployment really went down this is good news in the future. However, it will take a long time to return to the pre-recession level of employment. And the horrendous wasteful spending and bad energy policies of the Messiah’s / “democratic” congress will slow down or kill economic recovery. The total number of jobs lost or gained is the best indicator of our economic health.
***
When President Bush 43′s economic recovery only provided a few thousand new jobs it was called the JOBLESS RECOVERY by the State Run Media. When President Obama’s non-recovery delivers a few percent less jobs lost the SRM hails this as great economic news.
***
My wife and I are having house work done by skilled workers who are still “down on their luck”–they were busier than hell two years ago.
***
REALITY CHECK NEEDED! STAT!
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on August 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

BLS usually revises their numbers, so it will be interesting to see if the unemployment numbers are actually revised up later on.

CP on August 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

the fact is even using the BLS numbers over 1/4 million fellow Americans lost their jobs in July…how is that a positive…???
ChrisB if numbers are revised upwards then that means there were more people unemployed not less…upward means higher not lower.
Dcwvu you sir with no due respect are an idiot…Explain how a quarter million new unemployed Americans is a good thing?

JKotthoff on August 7, 2009 at 11:25 AM

If you add back in the unemployed total, the 796,000 people who stopped looking for work, what is the unemployment percentage? Is it 9.9%? Or is it higher? Given that the percentage would be almost 10% or is higher, you know why the Obama Administration played with the numbers.

Phil Byler on August 7, 2009 at 11:27 AM

You don’t have to make up the bad news friend. Taxes haven’t been raised yet and that’s next in the queue. The effects of over a trillion dollars added to the deficit haven’t had time to kick in yet. And yes, it looks like they are cooking the books on unemployment. There’s plenty of bad news to go around, unlike most of the Bush years where the MSM had to basically twist themselves into pretzels to find negative economic news to report.

The MSM frankly wouldn’t care if cities were on fire and people were starving in the streets as long as Republicans are out of power. And I’ll remind you that they have been out of power since 2007 with the exception of a lame duck president that acted more like John the Baptist to Obama Christ than a Conservative.

Asher on August 7, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Do the Bush tax cuts end in six months? That will be a big hit when they do. Also, the stimulus spending hasn’t really gotten rolling yet, so expect the damage that is doing to the economy to increase when it really gets going.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Commercial real estate is the next bubble to burst. Many loans are going bad.
Many of these retail centers are losing tenants and no one is coming in to fill the void. This crash will be larger than the housing crash. Bigger numbers as far as loan to value ratios. It is much harder to find a buyer for commercial space than single family homes. Some markets are so over built that I doubt any new development will occur for decades.

That makes sense. It’s sure what I’m seeing locally. There was incredible over-development going on here.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM

“The number of people in danger of drowning has gone down (because some of them have already drowned).”

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Perfect analogy.

thomasaur on August 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Simple question.

If more people are unemployed this month than last month (there are) how does the overall unemployment number drop? I know math is hard, but think about it.

I recall the Left accusing George W. Bush of doing the same thing in 2002-3 in the unemployment figures — when they didn’t get above 7% or so. I guess it’s now OK to do it.

And republicans went along with it, Ed. That’s the problem. Bush -did- do this. But see what happens when you do this is that when the economy does start to improve the “discouraged” people re-enter the job market and unemployment actually rises before it falls again.

So this is one of those short term bandages that doesn’t fix the underlying problem. It just postpones it till another day.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:29 AM

If you add back in the unemployed total, the 796,000 people who stopped looking for work, what is the unemployment percentage? Is it 9.9%? Or is it higher? Given that the percentage would be almost 10% or is higher, you know why the Obama Administration played with the numbers.

Phil Byler on August 7, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I don’t think they actively played with the numbers so much as used the standard flawed approach.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:29 AM

These companies are so large that they can afford to hold on to that much debt for several years until prices recover. What they can’t afford to do is write the losses on their books, which will affect their solvency.

There’s a depressing reality-check!

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:29 AM

For every job it was supposed to save, it destroyed a job instead.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Even more importantly, look at how much of the job growth is in the public sector and not the private sector. You just can’t base economic recovery based on putting everybody to work for government.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Idiot. More people unemployed means the unemployment rate went up.
dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Headline: Unemployment eases to 9.4%

Reading not your strong suit in elementary school?

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

If more people are unemployed this month than last month (there are) how does the overall unemployment number drop? I know math is hard, but think about it.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM

ChrisB if numbers are revised upwards then that means there were more people unemployed not less…upward means higher not lower. JKotthoff

Correct. I mistyped.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM

That makes sense. It’s sure what I’m seeing locally. There was incredible over-development going on here.

AnninCA on August 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I’ve seen a disturbingly large number of vacant highway-side shopping centers reciently.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:32 AM

If more people are unemployed this month than last month (there are) how does the overall unemployment number drop? I know math is hard, but think about it.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Conceded. I mistyped.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Headline: Unemployment eases to 9.4%

Reading not your strong suit in elementary school?

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Just reading the headlines? That explains many of your posts today.

myrenovations on August 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM

In other words, BLS took .5 percent of what you and I would consider unemployed and took them out of their total. And with that, unemployment went down one tenth of one percent.

Pure, unadulterated propaganda.

RepubChica on August 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Even more importantly, look at how much of the job growth is in the public sector and not the private sector. You just can’t base economic recovery based on putting everybody to work for government.

highhopes on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

That’s part of it. When the government hires someone to do something, ultimately it means that more than one person didn’t get hired in the private sector.

Count to 10 on August 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Troll. The number didn’t actually go down. The actual number that we all used to use is the U6 number. In fact for a long time there was no other number. All these “U” numbers are a recent invention.

You appear to be the one with reading and history issues.

The U6 number is 16.5%, but that is probably low also.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Actually Lorien, what they call the U6 number is the way unemployment used to be reported 30 years ago or so. The process and the numbers got changed since then.

Just like the inflation and cost of living numbers. Politicians removed certain things from the calculations to suit their political purposes.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Just reading the headlines? That explains many of your posts today.

myrenovations on August 7, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Troll. The number didn’t actually go down. The actual number that we all used to use is the U6 number. In fact for a long time there was no other number. All these “U” numbers are a recent invention.

You appear to be the one with reading and history issues.

The U6 number is 16.5%, but that is probably low also.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM

This thread is about the unemployment rate dropping to 9.4%. Just trying to stay on topic, is all.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I know this. It doesn’t change the fact that U6 suffers from a post hoc logical error.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I didn’t catch all the posts this time around, so it might have alredy been mentioned, but I predicted at least a month ago that there is no way that anyone in the administration (which of course now includes the MSM) will admit when unemployment has crossed the 10% mark. It’s a psychological barrier. People are upset, but are not gasping out loud at a number like 9.4% or even 9.9%, but 10%-that gets people’s attention. The whole “double digit” thing.

It’s why things are advertised as costing $9.99 instead of $10.00

There could be 3 people left in America with a job, the numbers will still somehow “work out” to less than 10.0% unemployment as long as the MSM has anything to say about it.

DrAllecon on August 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Reading not your strong suit in elementary school?

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I was going to pile on with math not being your strong suit, but it looks like you got it.

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM

This thread is about the unemployment rate dropping to 9.4%. Just trying to stay on topic, is all.

ChrisB on August 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM

The reported number dropped .1%, but a quarter of a million people lost their jobs. That’s impossible without manipulating the numbers.

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM

The ADP number (~371,000) is closer to an actual count and far more accurate. Furthermore, planned layoffs increased 26% from June to July, so if the Obama administration wants to crow about these still lousy employment numbers, so be it.

Come October they’ll be eating crow when the numbers get worse.

Mike Honcho on August 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM

In other words, BLS took .5 percent of what you and I would consider unemployed and took them out of their total.

Figgered as much.

petefrt on August 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Hum? Only 247,000 Americans lost their jobs. I was one of them. But I feel much better now that I know that unemployment went down to 9.4%, even though only 246,999 lost their jobs along with myself.

kcarpenter on August 7, 2009 at 11:51 AM

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I love the Government numbers…

I used to own and run a consulting company… all my employees were contractors (1099s)… due to the economy and lack of contract work, I closed it down…

Funny though, the FIVE of us, who are still looking for work, count in the Government numbers of the unemployed…

Romeo13 on August 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM

BadgerHawk on August 7, 2009 at 11:45 AM

And the update above by Ed shows, at least partially, how the Bozo regime politically manipulated the numbers to arrive at a desired outcome.

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I concede the point regarding part time workers, but 1099 unemployed are not even present in the U6 number. Still I think the U6 is far more accurate than the U3.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Funny though, the FIVE of us, who are still looking for work, DO NOT COUNT in the Government numbers of the unemployed…

Romeo13 on August 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Had to fix it for me… no coffee yet… sorryy….

Romeo13 on August 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM

dogsoldier on August 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM

It’s all an estimate, anyways. My point is simply to be consistent. If you crowed about Bush having a 5 or 6% unemployment rate during his term (using U3), it’s disingenuous to say that Obama has a 16.5% (using U6) now. See what I’m saying?

lorien1973 on August 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I don’t want bad news. I’d love for the economy to recover. You think I enjoy worrying about losing my job? You think I like the prospect of my taxes going up?

What I won’t accept however is being lied to. Don’t show me a net job loss of 247,000 for July and then tell me that the unemployment rate is going down. It’s insulting.

Doughboy on August 7, 2009

That’s not urine splashing on your leg, it’s rain.
Obama treats you like a sap because he’s sure you won’t do anything about it. I don’t know you but I think he’s wrong.

SKYFOX on August 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM

It’s so fun watching the far-right hacks scrambling to spin this news away. They only want bad news and more jobs lost to score political points, regardless of who it hurts. Better hurry up and create a new attack meme soon!!

dcwvu on August 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM

So losing 250,000 jobs in one month is now a good thing since Obama is president? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. Ah well, not much for the left to cheer, beggers can’t be choosers I suppose.

Though to be fair to Obama, it does look like he’s found a way to get the unemployment rate down to 5%. If jobs continue to be lost at a 3 million per year rate and workers leave the workforce at a 10 million per year rate, the unemployment rate will be 5% in about 14 months.

jarodea on August 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3