Unemployment drops to 9.7%

posted at 8:55 am on February 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

For once, the AP uses its favorite adverb correctly:

The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs.

The Labor Department says the rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.

The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.

However, November’s numbers got a boost from 11,000 jobs created to 64,000 jobs created.  The net losses in December went from 85,000 to 73,000.  Another indicator doesn’t look as good, though.  Tax collection on payroll dropped sharply in January, in the same way as last year (via Dog Soldier):

Taxes are another indicator of payrolls, specifically withheld income taxes. The daily Treasury Department statement tracks withheld income taxes. In January, income taxes withheld dropped about 9.4% from December, about the same as the drop from December 2008 to January 2009. December withholdings are sometimes inflated due to end-of-year bonuses. That the decline from December to January this year was the same as last argues that the direction of payroll jobs will track year-year.

Moving out of the double-digits on unemployment will be a political boost for Barack Obama, but the improvement is less dramatic than that.  The civilian employment population (ie, looking for jobs) finally increased by 111,000 people, the first increase in several months, but over 1.5 million left the job force in 2009.  Furthermore, the hiring mostly took place in the government sector:

Construction employment declined by 75,000 in January, with nonresidential specialty trade contractors (-48,000) accounting for the majority of the decline. Since December 2007, employment in construction has fallen by 1.9 million.

In January, transportation and warehousing employment fell by 19,000, due to a large job loss among couriers and messengers (-23,000).

Employment in manufacturing was little changed in January (11,000). After experiencing steep job losses earlier in the recession, employment declines moderated considerably in the second half of 2009. In January, job gains in motor vehicles and parts (23,000) and plastics and rubber products (6,000) offset small job losses elsewhere in the industry.

In January, temporary help services added 52,000 jobs. Since reaching a low point in September 2009, temporary help services employment has risen by 247,000.

Retail trade employment rose by 42,000 in January, after showing little change in the prior 2 months. Job gains occurred in January among food stores (14,000), clothing stores (13,000), and general merchandise retailers (10,000).

Health care employment continued to trend up in January. Ambulatory health care services added 15,000 jobs over the month.

In January, the federal government added 33,000 jobs, including 9,000 temporary positions for Census 2010. Employment in state and local governments, excluding education, continued to trend down.

It’s not as bad as people feared, but it’s not really good news, either.  The bounce in retail suggests that people may be ready to spend, but the declines in most other areas show that there are still fewer of them who can.

Update: This passage seems like a key to understanding why the rate dropped:

In January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by 378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent job losers.  (See table A-11.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) continued to trend up in January, reaching 6.3 million. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of long-term unemployed has risen by 5.0 million. (See table A-12.)

As before, shrinking the denominator of the population of  jobseekers has the same effect as increasing the nominator of people holding jobs — it decreases the ratio of unemployment to the population.  Also, according to this chart, December’s losses got adjusted to 150,000, not 73,000.  We’re still trending downward.

Update II: The civilian employment population increased by 111,000, not the employment level as I originally wrote.  Thanks to BizzyBlog for pointing out my error.

Update III: Here’s a relatively new chart from BLS to look at differing measures of unemployment:

U-3 is the published unempl0yment rate, while U-6 has become a lot more popular over the last couple of months as a measure of “true” unemployment.  Both improved month on month when seasonally adjusted, which is good news.  Without the seasonal adjustment, both jumped rather significantly.  Most people use the seasonally-adjusted numbers when comparing for progress.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

Lulz. . .people are ready to spend?

Our country may be dumber than our President.

Maybe.

Notorious GOP on February 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM

dear leader will be showing his smug mug in 5…4…3…

cmsinaz on February 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM

My A$$!

thomasaur on February 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM

It’s due to sun spots.

Akzed on February 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM

20k jobs lost and more people stopped looking for work.

Green shoots!

artist on February 5, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Call the fire department, someone’s been cookin’ the books!

yoda on February 5, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Actually, it is as bad as we feard. From CNN:

The U.S. economy lost 20,000 jobs in January, but the unemployment rate fell to 9.7%, according to a government report released Friday.

The Labor Department said the economy continued to shed jobs, even as economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected a net gain of 15,000 jobs in December.

The unemployment rate fell to 9.7% in January, much lower than economists’ forecasts of 10%. It is the lowest rate since August.

The Labor Department also released an annual revision of U.S. payrolls on Friday, using data that wasn’t initially available. Losses for 2009 alone came to 4.8 million jobs, more than 600,000 more than previously estimated. The revision showed the economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007 — 1.4 million more job losses than initially reported.

The payroll number for December was revised to a net loss of 150,000 jobs. The government had previously indicated that 85,000 jobs were lost in December.

THe ONLY way we lost more jobs in january AND had a lower unemployment number is a MASSIVE increase in “discouraged” workers.

todler on February 5, 2010 at 9:00 AM

What a joke … just like we saw a bump from cash for clunkers, we now see a bump from government hiring.

Adding more government jobs creates zero wealth.

darwin on February 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM

When does that big 850K number get officially thrown in? Is that later today?

Darksean on February 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM

On the spectrum of lies, damned lies and statistics where do you think this nugget of data falls?

It seems to me that someone is hacking away at the definition of an unemployed citizen such that fewer and fewer are counted in the published figures.

turfmann on February 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Todler, you are correct. When you look at the numbers, they make absolutely zero sense whatsover.

Notorious GOP on February 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Bring in the testimonies. How Barry saved my (life,health,job,family,happiness,soul).

bloggless on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

can i get a green job?

blatantblue on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Arin Burnett explained just a bit ago that there are two different surveys producing huge differences in the numbers. One is the the numbers Ed has posted here, and the other WAS UGLY BAD–MUCH WORSE.

Rovin on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Obama, Rahm and Axelrod = the Three Stooges

darwin on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Ah yes . . . isn’t “Obamamath” wonderful? This is nothing more than rounding manipulation and only his gullible cult will buy this garbage.

rplat on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

And in 2 months this number will be revised down.

All of this administrations numbers get revised down after the fact.

p0s3r on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

They can revise the numbers downward “unexpectedly” later…

Realist on February 5, 2010 at 9:04 AM

The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs.

The Labor Department says the rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000.

Someone explain this to me. How did the number of employed Americans increase by over half a million? The revisions don’t equal that amount and we’ve had reports(including yesterday) of higher than expected numbers of Americans filing for unemployment.

The numbers don’t add up. And when you see that income taxes withheld dropped in one month by 9.4%, one can’t help but question the validity of any of these figures.

Doughboy on February 5, 2010 at 9:04 AM

dear leader: the system worked!

cmsinaz on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Call the fire department, someone’s been cookin’ the books!

yoda on February 5, 2010 at 9:00 AM

exactly…
even the “revised” figures will be fork-tender.

itsacookbook on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Consider this number a shibboleth.

ANYONE who trumpets this as something other than an anomoly in our wonderful government accounting methods, should be taken to the woodshed, and summarily drawn and quartered.

They will show themselves to be the enemy.

singlemalt_18 on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Focusing on the 9.7 percent unemployment is the wrong number to look at. It’s the jobs lost number that’s important.

CNBC had the best discussion of employment data that I’ve seen in a very long time.

The Keynesian are all whooping it up, but the real news is the poor are getting poorer in this economy because people are still losing their jobs. In a growing economy the low end of the wage ladder finds increased opportunity to better their circumstances and that is not what is happening here. It’s the rich continuing to get richer. The liberal democrats and their Keynesian theories doing the exact opposite of what they say will happen.

Skandia Recluse on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

I’d trust Punxsutawney Phil more.

petefrt on February 5, 2010 at 9:06 AM

And how many of these ‘new hires’ were government ‘paper-shufflers’?

CPT. Charles on February 5, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Todler, you are correct. When you look at the numbers, they make absolutely zero sense whatsover.

Notorious GOP on February 5, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Heh. Nice description of Zero’s new “achievement.”

ConservativeTony on February 5, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Politically, that’s very good news for President Obama.

But these numbers, from the block quote, seem on their face contradictory.

BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Up = down, down = up.

Mayhem on February 5, 2010 at 9:07 AM

We’re saved!!

All Praise St. Obama

angryed on February 5, 2010 at 9:07 AM

This makes no sense. The economy needs to add 100,000+ jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. So as long as we aren’t adding that many, the unemployment rate should be trending higher. Instead, over the past 3 months it’s fallen from 10.2 to 9.7 percent- even as the economy had a net loss of jobs? If next month the rate doesn’t go back up after we again fail to generate 100,000 jobs, they are cooking the books.

Jon0815 on February 5, 2010 at 9:07 AM

The Labor Department said the economy continued to shed jobs, even as economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected a net gain of 15,000 jobs in December.

Sounds like some one from the Dulfer Survey group is on the payroll at the labor dept. Good job Brownie!

Rovin on February 5, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Doughboy on February 5, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Stuart Varney was working on a decent explanation for this when he spoke with Rick Santorum on the radio. Check in with Fox Business this morning.

myrenovations on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

singlemalt_18 on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

count dear leader and gibbsy in that group…they will be doing their little happy dance today…guaranteed!

cmsinaz on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

It will be fun to hear what the Republican echo chamber comes up with to spin this negative. What say you Sean Hannity?

Decider on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I would say too that the Obama Administration can put out all the BS statistical reports they want, but Americans vote based on what they see and feel around them. And I can guarantee most people don’t feel like unemployment is dropping (because it isn’t).

Mayhem on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

If you pump in a couple of trillion, doesn’t it make sense that something should happen? However little, something has to happen with that much money…

right2bright on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I call B.S. These are Bananana Republic stats.

flyfisher on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I messed that up. Retry.

Todler, you are correct. When you look at the numbers, they make absolutely zero sense whatsover.

Heh. Nice description of Zero’s new “achievement.”

ConservativeTony on February 5, 2010 at 9:09 AM

It appears to be a setup timed so Obama can go forth and say “See? Our economy is growing and jobs are coming back! It’s working! … trust me”.

darwin on February 5, 2010 at 9:09 AM

itsacookbook on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

The government will have to have call lots of Bamulances today for all of the Democrats that have injured their backs from the back pats they are giving themselves.

yoda on February 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Factor in the 800,000 more jobs lost last year than published and the number of people who have given up on finding a job, and then what do you get for true unemployment in this country?? Somewhere around 20%?

Christian Conservative on February 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I believe this statistic the same way I believe that Obama was a straight A student (can anyone say “corpseman”)…

texabama on February 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I have a feeling it would take a recipient of the Fields Medal to figure out the math involved in arriving at this figure.

Or not, maybe they just got rid of the people they didn’t want counted and whoop, there it is.

Bishop on February 5, 2010 at 9:11 AM

At least the bunny will be employed soon….Easter is right around the corner!

atlgal on February 5, 2010 at 9:11 AM

The unemployment numbers went down because people gave up looking. The actual job losses increased.

Frankly it’s so bad that the modeling they are doing doesn’t return realistic numbers anymore.

Asher on February 5, 2010 at 9:11 AM

It’s the rich continuing to get richer.

Bingo.

Democrat economy.

rickyricardo on February 5, 2010 at 9:11 AM

It will be fun to hear what the Republican echo chamber comes up with to spin this negative. What say you Sean Hannity?

Decider on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I’m not trying to spin here. I want the economy to improve. But I’m not understanding these figures. They’re completely contradictory. You can’t be losing tens of thousands of jobs and revising job losses for 2009 by hundreds of thousands yet someone lower the unemployment rate and increase the number of working households. Especially when tax revenue is decreasing by nearly 10% in that same time frame.

None of this makes any sense. And when we’re dealing with an administration that has a system for counting “saved” jobs that can only be described as dubious at best, you’ll have to forgive me for taking these numbers with a grain of salt.

Doughboy on February 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Huzzah for Fox News:

Federal employment levels reach heights not seen in several years‘.

CPT. Charles on February 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Can anyone get into the U6 data at BLS? My normal link is malfunctioning right now. I get some stupid chart about “Table A-12.Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment”

Johnnyreb on February 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Census workers?

Itchee Dryback on February 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM

So, the Labor Department “found” 500,000 jobs
not previously counted.
How unexpectedly convenient.

mrt721 on February 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM

How many people fell off the list of people claiming unemployment because their benefits ran out?

hawksruleva on February 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Never Fear, Americans! The latest unemployment figures were compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen Math Department.

BigAlSouth on February 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I think these “numbers” are to help the stock market from crashing today.

Bad job numbers and I think it could have been a bloodbath.

gophergirl on February 5, 2010 at 9:14 AM

1.5 million left the job force in 2009…

Since reaching a low point in September 2009, temporary help services employment has risen by 247,000…

In January, the federal government added 33,000 jobs…

33,000 federal vogons added in one month – most impressive.

Numbers of people in the job force is way down, temporary workers are up and government workers are up. All this is very bad, but it helps keep the official unemployment numbers from going up. This isn’t going to end well.

“But you can only get that sh!t so shiny, when you polish a turd” – Supersuckers

forest on February 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Only in Obama’s American can we have lost 1 million jobs more than we thought and still have the unemployment rate go down.

Daggett on February 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM

If you pump in a couple of trillion, doesn’t it make sense that something should happen? However little, something has to happen with that much money…

right2bright on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Excellent point R2B. When / if the government INFUSION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS ever stops we will see real market numbers and financial institutions without the government cash in the books.

It’s all a false economy propped up by the Treasury and the Fed to the tune of trillions.

Rovin on February 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Doughboy on February 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Exactly

gophergirl on February 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM

The liberal democrats and their Keynesian theories doing the exact opposite of what they say will happen.

Skandia Recluse on February 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM

on second thought, I want to amplify my own comment.

Keynesian ‘stimulus’ as practiced by the Obama administration does not ‘stimulate’ the economy, it stimulates the rich and politically well connected. The friends of Obama get rich, while everyone else, especially those in opposition to liberal democrat policies struggle to hold onto what that have.

Skandia Recluse on February 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Captain Ed you are not very clear in your last paragraph. The unemployment rate went down because more people stopped looking for work is what that means. The way you phrased it is confusing.

PierreLegrand on February 5, 2010 at 9:16 AM

They’re talking up the household survey employment numbers pretty big on the T.V. So look for that to be the main talking point.

Weight of Glory on February 5, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Ok, who’s our resident mathmetician? If 20k jobs are lost AND the employment rate gets better by 1%, how many actual jobs have been lost?

ConservativeTony on February 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM

It will be fun to hear what the Republican echo chamber comes up with to spin this negative. What say you Sean Hannity?

Decider on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Hammity will probably go on a speil about his days in construction.

Anyway, Obama’s a miserable failure who is doing the exact opposite of what has been PROVEN to spur economic growth and end a recession. Why?

David2.0 on February 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM

The unemployment rate dropping even though employers are still shedding jobs (at a much slower rate) isn’t unexpected. The same thing happened in two or three different months last year. It’s just people falling off the back end, either from running out of benefits or giving up looking for work.

The odd part is employer data (-20k jobs) being so far off from the Labor Department survey (+541k). I’d also like to see what impact the March 09 and Apr-Oct 09 changes have on U3 data.

BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM

The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs.

Do those 20,000 jobs fit in the ‘saved’, or the ‘created’ category?

percysunshine on February 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Not in my house it didn’t, still holding at 50%

Elizabetty on February 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

It will be fun to hear what the Republican echo chamber comes up with to spin this negative. What say you Sean Hannity?

Decider on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Er, there were 20k jobs LOST and MORE people stopped looking.

Which resulted in a fall to 9.7%

If you think that’s GOOD news, run with it.

artist on February 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent job losers.

I love this characterization. I hope it sticks to some Dems this year

ted c on February 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

unexpectededly

rollthedice on February 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM

So, lots of people gave up on finding a job and the gov’t hired lots of people, plus a load of temps were hired. Yay!!! If it weren’t snowing I’m sure I’d see that glorious rainbow we were all promised.

changer1701 on February 5, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Good analysis, Ed. The unemployment rate is meaningless, as it is a manufactured statistic, easily manipulated by the politicized Labor Department of Gigantic Tool Obama.

Ignore the employers’ report of jobs and job losses, and replace them with a “survey of households”, which claims both that hundreds of thousands of the unemployed are “no longer looking for work” and that “hundreds of thousands of other unemployed persons are now working”.

Great stuff. Unexpected is right.

Jaibones on February 5, 2010 at 9:19 AM

and I agree Ed. I predicted that a >0.2% drop would be unexpected. The adverb use is correct in this case. Both the direction and the magnitude of the drop were unexpected. However, your further analysis shows that this isn’t all rosy…

I also predicted the redhead—but got the bunny. Also unexpected.

ted c on February 5, 2010 at 9:20 AM

I think these “numbers” are to help the stock market from crashing today.

Bad job numbers and I think it could have been a bloodbath.

gophergirl on February 5, 2010 at 9:14 AM

No doubt. They know that Joe Sixpack often confuses rising stock prices as a sign of a healthy economy. That’s why the market has been almost openly manipulated this past year and no longer reacts rationally to real economic data. Just after Obama told everyone it was time to buy stocks they kicked their operation into high gear and the market went on a tear. That’s not a coincidence.

flyfisher on February 5, 2010 at 9:20 AM

It’s amazing what cutting a million jobs from the denominator can do.

Vashta.Nerada on February 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM

“The Labor Department says the rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000.”

Is this the “saved jobs” technique? Quoting a survey that has no teeth…Did they call 150million homes? Nobody called me. Just wondering…

orlandocajun on February 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM

From AP on February 25, 20101, dateline: DC

The initial January unemployment figures were found to contain a statistical error and have been adjusted upward. The January unemployment figure is now 10.1%. This unexpected ….blah, blah, blah….

jbh45 on February 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Never Fear, Americans! The latest unemployment figures were compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen Math Department.

BigAlSouth on February 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM

That’s fantastic! I really trust those guys at NASA, especially Hansen!

darwin on February 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM

It will be fun to hear what the Republican echo chamber comes up with to spin this negative. What say you Sean Hannity?

Decider on February 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Wow, this is sad. This is what makes me want to scream. Do Obamorons even know how to read?

The economy LOST MORE JOBS!!! The unemployment rate didn’t go down because people found work.

MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM

I’m sorry, these numbers have become a shell game. Or a climate game–hide the decline!

They just revised last year’s numbers to include a loss of 800,000 jobs not previously counted, and “unemployment” went down to 9.7? Riiiight.

I’m getting tired of being lied to.

Enoxo on February 5, 2010 at 9:22 AM

First, this number is complete BS! Read the BLS release. They just shoved a whole bunch more people into the “they don’t count” category to make the number look better.

If you read the whole report you will see the decline is largely due to those who they consider permanently out of work AAAAnd that there are still 17.7 million people unemployed.

You will also see they changed again how they calculate the results. The U-6 percentage is not available on the site now. They reported earlier this week they were changing how the numbers get reported.

They also report that they conducted a survey and factored those results into their number.

This is complete HORSE MANURE.

As for today’s adjustment number, it may be as high as 930,000, it only covers Q1 2009 and some analysts predict the Q2-4 adjustment will be truly ugly.

dogsoldier on February 5, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Ok, who’s our resident mathmetician? If 20k jobs are lost AND the employment rate gets better by 1%, how many actual jobs have been lost?

ConservativeTony on February 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM

I can only guess that it’s based on that last part posted by Ed. They’re dropping hundreds of thousands of discouraged Americans from the figures and are no longer counting them as unemployed.

I don’t see how this sort of manipulation of the data helps in the long-term though. The government(at local, state, and federal levels) will continue to take in less and less revenue due to the shrinking work force which will lead to even higher deficits.

Doughboy on February 5, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Ok, who’s our resident mathmetician? If 20k jobs are lost AND the employment rate gets better by 1%, how many actual jobs have been lost?
ConservativeTony on February 5,. 2010 at 9:17 AM

Let’s see here…divide by 4…carry the 2…times the square root of pi…minus however many monkeys flew out of PBHO’s butt…and the answer is…uhh…

2. 2 jobs lost.

Bishop on February 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM

jbh45 on February 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Hey, LOL**

ted c on February 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Even if the falling unemployment numbers are contrived, the reports themselves can help improve the future employment situation.

blink on February 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Huh? You’re going to have to explain that one further. I’ve never hired nor been hired based on employment reports.; rather whether there’s a profit to be made, market share to take, and work required to do both.

Weight of Glory on February 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM

can i get a green job?

blatantblue on February 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM

yep, kermitt the frog impersonators are a smash at kid’s parties.

jbh45 on February 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Ok, who’s our resident mathmetician? If 20k jobs are lost AND the employment rate gets better by 1%, how many actual jobs have been lost?

The unemployment rate is determined by measuring how many people are actively looking for jobs. It is a number which excludes people who are not employed and not looking. People move back and forth between the two groups, which makes the ‘unemployment rate’ a fuzzy number.

percysunshine on February 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM

ted c on February 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Thanks ted, i can now go to work feeling i accomplished something…

jbh45 on February 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Looks like another chunk of people ran out of unemployment benefits, and thus lowered the unemployment rate.

Vashta.Nerada on February 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Only in Obama’s American can we have lost 1 million jobs more than we thought and still have the unemployment rate go down.

Daggett on February 5, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Which is why we are going to need a Republican presidential candidate who can respond to and refute the endless stream of lies and distortions that come out of Obama’s pie hole!

Romney could do it, and he don’t mind getting down and dirty.

Never again should we allow a Joe Biden(or Obama) to go unchallenged in a televised debate where he flat out lies 12 times and gets away with it.

David2.0 on February 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Can anyone get into the U6 data at BLS? My normal link is malfunctioning right now. I get some stupid chart about “Table A-12.Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment”

Johnnyreb on February 5, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Its gone. They have replaced it with Obamamath numbers.

dogsoldier on February 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Obama economic data are as believable as vote counts in Zimbabwe.

jwolf on February 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM

jbh45 on February 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM

That’s what I’m here forpse…

ted c on February 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rose to 10.6%

And non-seasonally adjusted U-6 rose to 18%

flyfisher on February 5, 2010 at 9:27 AM

20K additional jobs lost in the Obama economy.

Top this off with hundreds of thousands of avaiable jobs that are gone forever (or at least until Obama is booted out) and people like DECIDER are playing this up?

Go with that.

ConservativeTony on February 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Big brother

SouthernGent on February 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Well ted I am out the dorspe. I hope the job won’t be a borspe today. I don’t want to be caught with the snorpses.

okay, I’ll quit….

jbh45 on February 5, 2010 at 9:30 AM

flyfisher on February 5, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Where did you find that? Or is that your guesstimate? They may not be far off.

Anyone reading teh BLS report will see that 17.7 millions people are still unemployed – as far as they are telling us.

dogsoldier on February 5, 2010 at 9:30 AM

This just does not add up, I call BS. These are the same tools that have been trying to convince us that the election of Brown was because we failed to pass healthcare reform. No claim is too outlandish for this group of amateurs.

conservnut on February 5, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7