August job losses outstrip expectations; Update: Initial claims still at 570K, retail sales off

posted at 12:17 pm on September 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How will the Washington Post report the latest assessment of job losses in August?  Earlier this week, the Post said that the expected loss of 228,000 jobs would give “strong evidence that improvement in the economy is finally filtering through to the job market.”  Unfortunately for the Post’s attempts to spin a growth in unemployment from 9.4% to 9.5% as great news for the Obama administration, job losses were more than 30% above expectations, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Service-sector employment declined by 146,000 in August, while goods-producing jobs including construction and manufacturing fell by 152,000, according to Automatic Data Processing Inc., a payroll firm.

The combined loss of 298,000 jobs was an improvement from July’s revised drop of 360,000 and was less than half the pace of declines seen earlier this year. …

Still, many were hoping to see more of an improvement in August now that key sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing and the housing market, are showing some encouraging signs.

ADP tends to be slightly more pessimistic than the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so that number will come in a little lower in tomorrow’s BLS reports.  Why?  ADP only surveys private-sector jobs.  As the WSJ notes, government has expanded its hiring by 2,000 each month this year, on average.

Regardless, the August numbers belie the notion that a significant recovery is upon us in the job market.  The CBO made that plain enough for everyone last week, when it predicted net job losses throughout 2010.  Economies do not recover through job losses, although they eventually recover despite them.

What is also plain enough is that the stimulus has done very little to stimulate, now more than six months after its passage.  Joe Biden will make the mistake today of bragging about Porkulus rolling ahead of schedule, which should prompt people to ask — where’s the stimulus?

Vice President Joe Biden will claim Thursday that the $787 billion stimulus plan “is doing more, faster, more efficiently, and more effectively than we had hoped.”

In a speech planned to mark the 200-day mark since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act took effect, Biden will say that $62.5 billion in tax cuts have been delivered, $1.9 billion contracts have been awarded to small businesses, and more than 10,000 transportation projects approved.

If so, then why has the money slowed?  If Porkulus is ahead of schedule, then why haven’t we seen an economic stimulus?  The President’s Council of Economic Advisers justified the spending of $787 billion on the prediction that it would create enough jobs to keep unemployment under 8%.  We’re now heading towards 10% and above without a single sign that this massive spending has done anything but stimulate the government.

Update: Initial claims also didn’t decline as much as analysts predicted, and more bad news comes from the retailers:

The Labor Department said the number of laid-off workers applying for benefits dipped to 570,000 last week from an upwardly revised 574,000. That was a weaker performance than the drop to 560,000 claims that economists expected.

The number of people receiving jobless benefits totaled 6.23 million, up 92,000 from the previous week, which had been the lowest level since early April. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected that number, which lags new claims by a week, to fall to 6.13 million. ….

Most retailers posted sales declines last month as shoppers restrained back-to-school purchases to focus on necessities. Discounters did better than upscale chains, but the results Thursday raised further concern about the upcoming holiday season.

I suspect the overall unemployment number may go higher than 9.5% tomorrow, as the Post predicted.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I thought Obama promised at the beginning of the summer that by the end of the summer they would create 600,000 jobs. Where are they? Labor Day Weekend is upon us.

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Obama nevered stated what kind of jobs would be created. I think he meant czars and professional agitators would be the ones created.

larvcom on September 3, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Obama nevered stated what kind of jobs would be created. I think he meant czars and professional agitators would be the ones created.

larvcom on September 3, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I think there’s been about 25 police jobs created in Ohio–then I think they were summarily unfunded. I vaguely recall a new parking lot attendant and “public works representative” who was responsible for keeping the shovel in the vertical position with the option of leaning on it with one arm or two in the contract. Came with a nice hard hat, a yellow vest, and $80K a year with full benefits and retirement as long as you get “666″ tattooed behind your ear.

ted c on September 3, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I notice you didn’t excerpt this part:

One big question: Will the boost evaporate once the programs end?

We’ll see what the economy looks like after all the massive tax cuts, spending cuts and the Fed stops pumping trillions into the economy.

Or is the plan to borrow 40% of spending every year?

Chuck Schick on September 3, 2009 at 2:07 PM

I thought Obama promised at the beginning of the summer that by the end of the summer they would create 600,000 jobs.

Create or save. And, if the numbers in the WSJ article I linked to above are even remotely true, he can claim success (GDP 2% better than it would have been in 2Q, 3% better in 3Q) he can claim success.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM

after all the massive tax cuts hikes

Chuck Schick on September 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Forget the rest
For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. “Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero,” said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.
Dave Anderson, chief financial officer of Honeywell International Inc., said the stimulus package actually froze business activity at first as firms tried to figure out how they could benefit from the government spending

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM

1) Since when has anyone relied on the “Goldman Sachs” statistics instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
2)Goldman Sachs is biased in favor of this administration

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

I thought Obama promised at the beginning of the summer that by the end of the summer they would create 600,000 jobs.
Create or save. And, if the numbers in the WSJ article I linked to above are even remotely true, he can claim success (GDP 2% better than it would have been in 2Q, 3% better in 3Q) he can claim success.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Since that is an number that can neither be proved or disproved why stop there? Just assert he “saved” a million jobs. Whats the difference, and it looks so much better.

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Create or save. And, if the numbers in the WSJ article I linked to above are even remotely true, he can claim success (GDP 2% better than it would have been in 2Q, 3% better in 3Q) he can claim success.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Wrong again.

Since you can actually measure the stimulus and the GDP, you can calculate what part of growth is due to it.

Last quarter the WSJ said about .15 pts were the stimulus, or about 3% of the positive difference in GDP shrinkage from Q1.

Obviously the trillions in debt monetization and the 0% real interest rate dwarfs the $12 billion per month in Stimulus spending.

See you on the second dip.

Chuck Schick on September 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM

1) Since when has anyone relied on the “Goldman Sachs” statistics instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
2)Goldman Sachs is biased in favor of this administration

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

1) I chose to believe the private sector over the government. Plus the BLS and G-S are looking at different numbers, the BLS at employment statistics; G-S at GDP projections.

2) Goldman Sachs is biased in favor of money. Also, the idea that a private firm — even with one with ties to the administration — would be more likely to be biased in favor of the president than a bureau whose boss reports to the president is slightly stupid.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

One big question: Will the boost evaporate once the programs end?

We’ll see what the economy looks like after all the massive tax cuts, spending cuts and the Fed stops pumping trillions into the economy.

Or is the plan to borrow 40% of spending every year?

Chuck Schick on September 3, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Fair question.

And, it is cuts (just announced today an $83 billion extension of a middle class tax cut.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Fair question.

And, it is cuts (just announced today an $83 billion extension of a middle class tax cut.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM

So let me get this straight.

Tax cuts under Bush with $400B deficit = bad.

Tax cuts under Obama with $1.8B deficit = good?

Chuck Schick on September 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM

But, but, but, my Democrats in Oregon have assured me that Bush’s recession is almost over!

Browncoatone on September 3, 2009 at 12:20 PM

This is Obama’s depression we’re feeling.
Bush’s recession was over months ago.

mrt721 on September 3, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Sorry- $1.8T deficit under Obama

Chuck Schick on September 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM

I chose to believe the private sector over the government. Plus the BLS and G-S are looking at different numbers, the BLS at employment statistics; G-S at GDP projections.

I asked where the 600,000 jobs Obama promised were. You brought up GDP and Goldman Sachs, which was nonresponsive to my question. The BLS is relevant to my question because they measure job creation, which Obama has failed to deliver. Again, where are the promised 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer?

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM

The adults are in charge now.

Del Dolemonte on September 3, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Yes, the ones who put the “adult” in “adult entertainment”.

Every Obama speech should be accompanied by a soundtrack straight out of a porn film.

NoDonkey on September 3, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Vice President Joe Biden will claim Thursday that the $787 billion stimulus plan “is doing more, faster, more efficiently, and more effectively than we had hoped.”

…only if your expectations are lower than a snake’s belly!

dominigan on September 3, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Bleeds Blue, although I don’t read HuffPo, I suspect you do so here is the money quote,

He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.

from an article on June 8, 2009.

Where are the 600,000 promised jobs?

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM

I chose to believe the private sector over the government. Plus the BLS and G-S are looking at different numbers, the BLS at employment statistics; G-S at GDP projections.

I asked where the 600,000 jobs Obama promised were. You brought up GDP and Goldman Sachs, which was nonresponsive to my question. The BLS is relevant to my question because they measure job creation, which Obama has failed to deliver. Again, where are the promised 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer?

Obama’s commitment was “created or saved.” Obviously, there’s no precise way to calculate whether a job was created or saved (or not saved) because of the stimulus). However, with a civilian labor force of about 150 million people, a GDP that declined by 2% less than expected could easily have saved 600,000. I can’t prove that it has; you can;t prove that it hasn’t. But it’s pretty reasonable to think that if as, reported in the Journal, the stimulus prevent an additional 2 points of GDP contraction ($275 billion) then at least 600,000 jobs were saved.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Where are the 600,000 promised jobs?

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Obama should have been fired from HIS job 600,000 times by now for being an incompetent, corrupt idiot.

So there are the 600,000 jobs. All of them are his.

NoDonkey on September 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM

And, it is cuts (just announced today an $83 billion extension of a middle class tax cut.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM

You do realize these “Tax Cuts” for the working poor are actually a subsidy paid for by the people that actually do pay taxes, right? You can’t cut something that doesn’t exist in the first place.

darury on September 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Grasping at straws.

If you can’t prove a metric one way or another, it’s just a weasel word promise that means nothing.

Nothing this clown has done has positively affectived the private sector, nothing. For him to claim that he’s “saved” jobs is a sick, stupid joke that insults our intelligence.

The unserious, juvenile delinquent antics of this joke of an “administration” march on.

NoDonkey on September 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Wow. I certainly hope noone’s economic livlihood depends on your ability to analyze or even discern facts.

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Duh. The economy is already fix. Credit has already been taken for the recovery.

Scrappy on September 3, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Create or save. And, if the numbers in the WSJ article I linked to above are even remotely true, he can claim success (GDP 2% better than it would have been in 2Q, 3% better in 3Q) he can claim success.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM

He can claim success? How about holding that unemployment rate down to 8%? Not exactly a success.

And I’m sure he’ll claim success for all kinds of bogus recovery metrics..doesn’t matter…unemployment is still going up, up, up and his poll numbers are going down, down, down. Those are the facts.

AUINSC on September 3, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Sorry libs….you can’t spin this one.

Winebabe on September 3, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Either you’re saying that you don;t believe the analysts in the Journal article, which is fair enough but suspect, since you wouldn’t believe anything anywhere positive about Obama. Or, you’re sating that GDP performance doesn’t affect job creation, which is moronic.

Just let me know which.

I’m not spinning, btw. I’m not saying it’s great. I’m just saying that Bush’s recession isn’t as bad as it might have been, thanks to Obama’s actions, and the big guns (and some of the numbers) agree.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Way to Go Obama…that plan is working well….NOT!

Jeff from WI on September 3, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Forget the rest
For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%.
Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Economists at Goldman Sachs??? Are you serious? Goldman Sachs area bunch of thieves who have robbed this country of billions upon billions of dollars. If there were actually any justice in this country most of those bastards would be tarred and feathered.

And as far as the Economy GROWING in the third quarter…muahahahahahaha. Growing smaller perhaps.

PierreLegrand on September 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM

I’m just saying that Bush’s recession isn’t as bad as it might have been, thanks to Obama’s actions

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Maybe, but the softening definitely wasn’t worth the cost.

Few conservative economists every doubted that huge deficit spendings can artificially raise GDP. That doesn’t mean it’s not bad economic policy.

blink on September 3, 2009 at 3:05 PM

You are correct at one level — long-term deficits at this level are unsustainable. Glad to see Republicans are embracing the Clinton deficit strategy.

On the other hand, $700 billion in stimulus against a $26 billion, two-year economy is not exactly massive: about 2.6%. measured against the potential losses of an economy in free-fall, it was the best option available.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM

1) I chose to believe the private sector over the government. Plus the BLS and G-S are looking at different numbers, the BLS at employment statistics; G-S at GDP projections.

2) Goldman Sachs is biased in favor of money. Also, the idea that a private firm — even with one with ties to the administration — would be more likely to be biased in favor of the president than a bureau whose boss reports to the president is slightly stupid.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Goldman Sachs is the “private” sector??? Most of the tresury and federal reserve are ex-goldman sachs employees. Nothing the government does is done without Goldmans approval. The idea that the Government is independent of this massive financial institutions is more than slightly stupid.

Unemployement is VASTLY higher than it was in the 70′s or 80′s the last time we had a recession.

This isn’t a battle between Republicans and Democrats it is a battle between those of us who believe we have a right to our checks and those of you who don’t. Both Republicans and Democrats have facilitated the robbery of the wealth created by our sweat. The robbers were the financial institutions and the gunmen had government badges…

What is being done in this country right now is criminal.

PierreLegrand on September 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I’m not spinning, btw. I’m not saying it’s great. I’m just saying that Bush’s recession isn’t as bad as it might have been, thanks to Obama’s actions, and the big guns (and some of the numbers) agree.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM

who was running congress during BOOOSH’s recession??? hmmm??? and who controls spending and taxes…hmmmmmm???

right4life on September 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Still, many were hoping to see more of an improvement in August now that key sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing and the housing market, are showing some encouraging signs.

More BS. Those “encouraging signs” are the result of government dragging demand forward. Gimmicks like “Cash-for Clunkers”, artificially low interest rates (fueled by the government buying its own debt), and home buyer tax credits will not fuel a lasting recovery in either manufacturing or housing.

Mike Honcho on September 3, 2009 at 3:49 PM

On the other hand, $700 billion in stimulus against a $26 billion, two-year economy is not exactly massive: about 2.6%. measured against the potential losses of an economy in free-fall, it was the best option available.
Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. You do seem to know seem to know a bit more about economics than the usual lefty Obamaphile but reading even the Wall Street Journal does not an economist make.

Pro-tip, not even Keynes thought simply throwing money out the door was a good idea and he actually believed in the great liquidity trap. It isn’t the total that matters but the value it creates which matters (the multiplier). In that regard the stimulus has been and will be a massive waste. It’s made worse by the economic reality of where the world is, where it is heading, and where it needs to go.

The last thing we need right now is more debt and spending in the US. Then again, to be somewhat fair to Obama, no nation is doing what it needs to, except maybe Srakozy the American in France.

jarodea on September 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I’m not spinning, btw. I’m not saying it’s great. I’m just saying that Bush’s recession isn’t as bad as it might have been, thanks to Obama’s actions, and the big guns (and some of the numbers) agree.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Nope, Bush’s wasn’t that bad…..but Obama’s is.

Fighton03 on September 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Not to worry , Oramadan and his crew of idiots says the recession is over.

bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

who was running congress during BOOOSH’s recession??? hmmm??? and who controls spending and taxes…hmmmmmm???

right4life on September 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Lefties seem to think the president writes the budget. Understanding the Constitution, like understanding economics, is something of an anathema to that side.

jarodea on September 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

The reason fewer people are losing their jobs is because fewer people have jobs to lose.The monthly job loss figures are probably going to appear better,simply because there are fewer jobs to cut.
The big question is: How high does unemployment have to go before the economy collapses to the point at which businesses can’t afford to retain minimal numbers of employees?We will then see an enormous jump in unemployment.Economists are predicting unemployment rates as high as 10%,if however we reach the “critical mass” scenario that I’ve tries to otuline here,the numbers could double almost overnight.

DDT on September 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM

a GDP that declined by 2% less than expected…

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM

ahhhhh, the good ol’ ‘created or saved’ trick again.

Fighton03 on September 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM

We will then see an enormous jump in unemployment.Economists are predicting unemployment rates as high as 10%
DDT on September 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM

According to the Atlanta Fed I believe it was, the true unemployment rate is already over 16%. I doubt Bleeds Blue would accept them as a source since they aren’t in the pro-Obama “green shoots” crowd, but I don’t know if I entirely agree. Counting part-time who want to be full-time should be a seperate statistic. I do think though we should at least include the discouraged workers which would put the rate over 10% already and rising.

Government’s understating unemployment isn’t uncommon right now around the world, Germany claims its unemployment rate has only increased from 8% to 8.3% when the real rate is more like 11-12%, Japan says its increased from 5% to 5.7% when it is more like 13%, and Spain is claiming its unemployment dropped from 18% to 16% when it actually seems to have risen to 21%. So as I mentioned before, we can criticize Obama (and I certainly will) but most other nations are doing the same thing.

jarodea on September 3, 2009 at 4:20 PM

If Obama is ‘saving’ so many jobs, then why the need to “increase Stimulus spending”?

And in using the actual unemployment numbers for the summer, over 1 million jobs lost, against the ‘Unicorn’ numbers of jobs ‘saved’, we’re still in the hole by almost half, WITH the unemployment rate Increasing again, back to 9.5% (perhaps 9.6).

AND the CBO says the unemployment numbers will continue to increase through 2010 (to at least 10.2%), regardless of Stimulus spending, which is saving so many jobs that we need to increase the spending of it to save more, but which is actually increasing unemployment.

catmman on September 3, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Pee Wee’s vice president Howdy Doody was just on Fox telling how great the stimulus plan is working and how many jobs it has saved.

I just can’t this glorified bull shit anymore. These A–holes wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the ass

Hope & Change

bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM

they failed to mention that 35 million folks needing food stamps now and that the ineffective government has not paid the dealors of the Oramadan clown cars yet or being the great apologist they are to apologize for giving marching orders to their braindead non-mortgage paying friends and and retard union buddies to get in peoples faces and biting old peoples fingers off. I guess their memory elevator is like their IQ and doesn’t go all the way to the top floor. They need to slow down to rest the MSM and allow Chris Matthews from having too many sexual experiences with himself.

bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Sucks less than being bitter and taking perverse glee in your fellow Americans’ misfortune.

Ahem:

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” — Rahm Emmanuel
“The war is lost.” — Harry Reid

Among other greatest hits.

ObjectionSustained on September 3, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Why won’t someone just ask them:

“If the stimulus is ‘saving’ so many jobs, then why is the unemployment rate continuing to rise?”

Or, even better:

“Why isn’t the Stimulus ‘saving’ the jobs which were lost?”

catmman on September 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Scoundrels and Fools

This ‘created or saved jobs’ pudding is just not ready to eat.

It is an attempt to side step something that truly approximates economic conditions. You know, the unemployment rate? The other reports?

The amusing part is the left wing sheepie walking right over to admire and accept it. I guarantee that there are operatives and PR hacks in DC slapping one another on the back about people buying it. And I bet that the Dunce from Delaware and The One had a satified laugh, at least. Now they have something to say, other than explaining why all the local governments didn’t have their brothers in law ready for the overpriced sales and contractor theft which Porkulus will bring to them.

PierreLegrand on September 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Great analysis.

IlikedAUH2O on September 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM

And the ‘jobs saved or created’ extrapolation?

BTW, translating GDP or GNP to ‘jobs created or saved’ is not simple or clear. Of course from a president who can’t correctly use words like ‘economics’ (on video) we can’t expect much more. And his base is more ignorant than he.

IlikedAUH2O on September 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Sucks less than being bitter and taking perverse glee in your fellow Americans’ misfortune.

Bleeds Blue on September 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Glee? You think we are all happy that Obama got us all on the hook for 11 trillion dollars? It was fun to see the national deficit triple in 6 months? It was a hoot to see friends and family unemployed during the Obama experiment?

Your a real piece of work Bleeds Kool-Aid.

portlandon on September 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Prosperity is right around the corner!

corona on September 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM

And the ‘jobs saved or created’ extrapolation?

BTW, translating GDP or GNP to ‘jobs created or saved’ is not simple or clear. Of course from a president who can’t correctly use words like ‘economics’ (on video) we can’t expect much more. And his base is more ignorant than he.

IlikedAUH2O on September 3, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Bleeds Blue is not an economist, but he plays one on the internet. He stayed at a holiday inn last night as well.

txmomof6 on September 3, 2009 at 5:21 PM

ADP data does not come from surveys, but from actual payroll data processed by ADP>

damonst on September 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM

My unscientific prediction:

The jobless numbers will continue to show more people losing their jobs, but the unemployment rate reported will, again, be lower than the previous month. I realize this is a contradiction on it’s face, but that is exactly what happened last month. And they got away with it. And they will again.

runawayyyy on September 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

HoustonRight on September 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Actually, if you dig a little on the BLS website you can find the U6 number. They actually maintain a table with all the U numbers. The fudged one the administration uses is the U-3. The actual number is the U-6 number and that, people is close to 17%.

Some have reported the “real” number is over 20%.

You want to know how really bad it is? Talk to the folks working at the unemployment office. You can tell which ones they are, they have panic stricken expressions on their faces. Well, more panic stricken than the people outside, not even in the lines.

dogsoldier on September 3, 2009 at 6:12 PM

By the original stimulus package’s graph, we should be at under 8% unemployment and it would be dropping heading into Q3-4. That IS what the stimulus was SUPPOSED to do….and without the stimulus the projection for high unemployment was supposed to be 2010. And reach barely 9%.

There is a problem with spinning the numbers of ‘jobs saved or created’: he can save them in one month and lose them all the next. I’ll take it as a given that he ‘created or saved’ jobs in FEB 09 and they are gone now. And if you include those who have gotten discouraged or are taking part-time or less, the old Carter ‘misery index’ deal, then you can add on a good 4-5% to the current numbers.

The big bonus is only a fraction of the stimulus has been spent.

Cancel it so as to NOT get high inflation in 2010-2012.

The stimulus is not working. C4C ‘worked’ to the extent it put a hard burden on used car buyers who won’t get their hands on trade-ins… and convinced people to buy now, not months down the road for steady economic activity. Just what are we getting for AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc? The banks took the money from TARP that had no oversight worth mentioning and have started buying up local banks, thus making an already top heavy system more top heavy. GM gets political favors. Keep this up as its going and we get stagflation for about 6 years, an unstable banking system, two moribund car companies, and folks getting a real gleam in their eye because politicians wouldn’t listen to the public and end this nonsense.

ajacksonian on September 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM

“almost 300,000″ rather than “almost 400,000″ is a sure sign that the recession is indeed over.

BTW, what’s Sarah Palin up to? Need a fix here.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 3, 2009 at 8:30 PM

BleedsBlue: First, Goldman isn’t private; they were bought into the government by TARP. He who pays the piper calls the tune….

Second, which fellow Americans woes am I celebrating? I’m only celebrating Copperhead woes; as Sam Adams put it, “you are no longer my countrymen.”

SDN on September 4, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2