November unemployment rate down to 8.6%, 120K jobs added; More Updates
posted at 10:05 am on December 2, 2011 by Steve Eggleston
Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics site is down, I’ll be adding updates when that comes back up and I can confirm a couple more items for myself. However, I will go with what I managed to find before everything crashed.
There’s two things I can deal with right now; the U-3 unemployment rate, and the non-farm jobs added. While the official unemployment rate dropped down to 8.6%, that is much more a function of people departing the workforce than people finding a job. The Atlantic managed to screen-cap the major parts of the household data, the basis of the unemployment figures (H/T – Jason Whitman.) The civilian labor force dropped by 315,000, which caused the participation rate to drop to 64.0%, down from 64.2% in October. James Pethokoukis ran the numbers, and declared that if the participation rate were the same as last month, the unemployment rate would be 8.9%. Worse, if it were the same as when President Obama took office, it would be 11%.
Things are a bit better on the jobs added front. Tom Blumer noted that the seasonally-adjusted jobs created numbers were revised upwards for both September (for the last time) and October (for the first time). September’s job growth jumped from 158,000 to 210,000, while October’s jumped from 80,000 to 100,000.
Do expect updates as the Hot Air team can dig deeper into the BLS data.
Update (Allahpundit): Derek Hunter captures the insanity of the unemployment rate dropping as more people drop out of the labor force in despair: “If we’d just kill all the sick people we’d be the healthiest country in the world!”
I wonder how many would have to quit looking for work to get unemployment back down to five percent. Start calculating, White House spin team.
Update (Allahpundit): Smirnoff-ian perfection from Anthony Fisher: “In United States, unemployment drops you!”
Update (Steve): The BLS site is back up, and the press release, along with the various charts, is here.
The 315,000 seasonal drop in the civilian labor force is almost unprecedented for a November. Since 1982, there have been only 7 times the labor force has dropped between an October and a November, and only 3 times has the drop been even close to this steep. In 2002, 273,000 departed the labor force, in 2008, 332,000 departed the labor force, and in 2009, 227,000 departed the labor force.
Related to that, the number of people not in the labor force, but who want a job now, rose to a seasonally-adjusted 6,595,000, the highest since the first month that statistic was tracked, January 1994. As a percentage of the civilian population, the 2.74% rate is the highest since June 1996.
The final bit of bad news was dug up by Zero Hedge – the average duration of unemployment rose to a new record of 40.9 weeks from the prior 39.4 weeks.
On the other hand, the number of employed persons did go up by 278,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 140,580,000. That drove up the employment-population ratio to 58.5%, the best it has been since May 2010.
Update (Steve): Stvnscott noted down in the comments I forgot to mention the U-6 number. It is 15.6%, down significantly from the 16.2% it was in October.
However, that requires a longer explanation. There are three elements that U-6 tracks that the official U-3 does not – “discouraged” workers (which is not nearly the same as the “want a job but haven’t looked lately” number mentioned above), those who hadn’t searched for work in the last 4 weeks because of reasons other than the job market (both not seasonally adjusted, and together being the number of those marginally attached to the workforce), and those employed part-time because of economic reasons.
The number of “discouraged” workers rose from October’s 967,000 to 1,096,000 in November, though the BLS does note that November 2011′s number is less than November 2010′s 1,282,000. Hence, the U-4 unemployment measure, which adds in said discouraged workers, only dropped by 0.3 percentage points to 9.3%.
The total number of workers marginally attached to the workforce increased by 36,000 to 2,591,000 in November. That brought the U-5 unemployment measure down by 0.3 percentage points to 10.2%.
The number of people working part-time due to economic reasons, especially because of slack work, dropped significantly on a seasonally-adjusted basis. Those working part-time because of slack work dropped from 5,901,000 in October to 5,605,000 in November, the lowest level since November 2008. Those working part-time because that’s the only work they could find dropped from 2,631,000 in October to 2,526,000 in November, which though significant is higher than it was in June 2011.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI, and my Congressman) discussed the unemployment numbers on WIND-AM’s Big John and Amy Show this morning.
EDIT: (Jazz) “both not adjusted for inflation” changed to “both not seasonally adjusted”









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 Next »
People hiring for the holidays perhaps?
Happens every year. Then come the new year, buy-bye, and unemployment spikes back up.
fogw on December 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Keep in mind the seasonal hiring that goes on at this time. I seen a lot of UPS ads for seasonal drivers as well as other job hiring places.
William Amos on December 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Pretty dismal report. The only reason the unemployment rate dropped was because hundreds of thousands of people finally gave up looking for a job.
I’m around people all day long, and I can’t remeber anyone telling me they feel like the economy is getting better. Everyone says either it’s staying the same or getting worse.
eyedoc on December 2, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Here is the key piece of information:
Chip on December 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM
Also:
Chip on December 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM
For a layman like me, that’s the maddening thing about “government statistics”.
To me, your either employed or not. Doesn’t matter if you’ve “dropped out” of the workforce or not. Why don’t they just report the unemployed number and then give all of the “what if’s”.
BacaDog on December 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM
We can have 100% employment!
All Obama needs is a program to support the people out of unemployment benefits!
Oh wait, we have that! It’s called Disability for now
golfmann on December 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM
I also wouldn’t put it past the Obama Administration’s Labor department to fudge the numbers later on…
Chip on December 2, 2011 at 10:13 AM
DON’T give ideas to the evil party.
antisocial on December 2, 2011 at 10:15 AM
More gamed numbers. Expect “recovery Christmas” to hit soon!
John_Locke on December 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM
Not to mention that Obama’s low approval numbers are persuading some employers to start hiring based on an outlook of a rosy future without Obama and complete Republican control of Washington.
Buddahpundit on December 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM
Don’t give them any ideas.
trigon on December 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM
DON’T give ideas to the evil party.
antisocial on December 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM
A more relevant number would be the number of Americans with a full time job. That number can easily be compared to previous months without any phony data massaging to get a more favorable report. Either a person works 40 hours a week in one job or they don’t. If they don’t, they don’t count as a fully employed person in the overall number of employed “full time”.
They should also track the number employed in a part time job and a 3rd number would be how many full time employed people also have a part time job, too.
Those 3 numbers would give everyone a better idea on the overall health of the jobs picture in our economy.
Not counting people who quit looking for work or who ran out of unemployment benefits is a stupid way to count the unemployment numbers.
karenhasfreedom on December 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM
From ABC News:
Care to explain the 280,000+ job discrepancy ABC? No? Well alright then.
forest on December 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM
Keep lying, Obamao, somebody might believe you. I’m going to wait for the unexpectedly adjusted upward announcement. This whole unemployment equation the BLS uses appear more like the good deal you got from a used car salesman. No offense to ucs.
Kissmygrits on December 2, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Palin’s death panels revisited!
Rovin on December 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM
What, are Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling running the BLS now? These numbers are a crock.
thirteen28 on December 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Will it go back up after the holidays?
Cindy Munford on December 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM
Spin spin spin!
No worries about those that have dropped off, let’s just focus on the big number…why won’t the gop give any credit for dear leader
-lsm talking heads
cmsinaz on December 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Isn’t that the point of Obamacare?
Also, if I heard the news correctly this morning, wages are down. And of course prices are up for everything except homes. So even if you are employed, and have confidence your job is safe, things still suck.
SPCOlympics on December 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM
the 120K sounds a little fuzzy to me. You need @ 50K jobs to drop .1%, so how does 120K drop it .5%?
ConservativePartyNow on December 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Ack wrong quote, should have been:
Isn’t that the point of Obamacare?
Also, if I heard the news correctly this morning, wages are down. And of course prices are up for everything except homes. So even if you are employed, and have confidence your job is safe, things still suck.
SPCOlympics on December 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Whoever is the GOP nominee needs to take the number of employed Americans on election day in 2008 and compare it to the current number of employed americans each and every day they give a speech and hammer it home that MILLIONS don’t have the job they had back in November, 2008.
karenhasfreedom on December 2, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Of course. @JakeTapper is reporting that most came from retail. So, yeah expect Jan and Feb #’s to be back up @ 9.0%+
ConservativePartyNow on December 2, 2011 at 10:36 AM
@ ConservativePartyNow
By increasing the “not in workforce” numbers.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/key-charts-nfp-report-records-jobless-duration-and-people-who-want-job-civilian-labor-force-plu
voiceofreason on December 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Well, I’m glad to say that I got hited last month in my chosen field. PT to start, but going full by the spring.
Markvike on December 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Hired
Markvike on December 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Luckily the unemployed don’t loose their right to vote.
CW on December 2, 2011 at 10:41 AM
I saw that, but still not sure. Maybe I need to study economics even more than I do now.
ConservativePartyNow on December 2, 2011 at 10:43 AM
The baseline has been adjusted for people that are no longer counted. They’ve been doing unemployment numbers like this for years. There isn’t a way to get an honest month to month number but everyone wants something right now so the best they can do is estimates with adjustments later.
Politicians spin this stuff any way they want because they know that the casual voter eats it up.
Dare I say, this is why you need someone who can debate Obama’s lies instead of just saying “you lie.”
Vince on December 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM
*lose …darn it.
CW on December 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM
We should have an employed rate based simply on the population.
It won’t be perfect either but this tool is terrible.
CW on December 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM
One thing that staggers me, is that conservatives aren’t doing anything to expose the blatant hypocrisy and fraud of the democrats, especially when it’s staring us right in the face. This article is a prime example of that hypocrisy and fraud. Bill Clinton changed how the unemployed were to be counted, in ways that actually hid the true unemployment rate, this was done to help hide the true harm being done by NAFTA and MFN with China, also the claim that we’ve been hearing and do so in this article, about Americans who ‘stop looking for work’ that is a term put in place by the Clinton administration, a way to distract us away from the Clinton administration policies that have increased unemployment. When you hear the term being used, Americans stopped looking for work, what that means is not that those Americans actually stopped job hunting, it means they had fallen off the unemployment rolls. After 26 weeks of being unemployed, an unemployed American is purged from the rolls that are used to count unemployment. Exposing this, and harping on it, would forever tarnish Bill and Hilary Clinton and the democrats, who have spit in the faces of long term unemployed US citizens as an excuse for refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to exploit our visa programs to displace US citizen workers with cheap foreign labor, who view the US as a host to bleed parasitically, and to undermine. Can’t you see the impact a hard hitting commercial pointing out these pertinent facts would have, reminding voters of who exactly is to blame for the hardship that has eroded our middle class, and destroyed the lives and futures of so many?
Ceolas on December 2, 2011 at 10:49 AM
Excellent link. People should read the brief explanation above the charts.
Vince on December 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM
Good news Mark!
cmsinaz on December 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM
That is adjusted for. Tom Blumer has a further look using the unadjusted numbers, and the 2011 performance is mildly disappointing.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Question. Are people purged from the rolls after 26 weeks or has it been changed because of longer unemployment benefits? They should not be purged until they’ve found a job or after 99 weeks which is the length of time they get benefits now.
Vince on December 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Too late; that is the major point of PlaceboCare.
Time for renewal.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM
The only criterium for the “population survey” unemployed is whether one has searched for work in the 4 weeks prior to the population survey. Presence/non-presence on the unemployment rolls is not accounted for.
If memory serves, there’s roughly 7 million on various stages of unemployment insurance, with about 3.2 million on the “regular” 26-week version.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Fiona must have got a job.
Dingbat63 on December 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM
I hope Obama latches onto this as proof of his economic awesomeness. Because we can all see it is smoke and mirrors and doomed to implode.
csdeven on December 2, 2011 at 11:08 AM
This is the plan for Obama. Keep people on UI forever. They eventually give up looking for work since getting paid to not work is a better deal than getting paid to work.
UI rate will be 6% by this time next year and a landslide re-election.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 11:08 AM
You would be correct, though I did not see the drop from $795.76/week in October to $795.07 in November as statistically-significant, especially since it was $778.39 in November 2010.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM
We at HA can. The idiot masses who get their news from Matt Lauer and Brian Williams can’t.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Who is Steve?
lorien1973 on December 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM
She stopped looking.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Raises hand
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Being on unemployment doesn’t factor into the unemployment rate.
The survey asks are you looking for a job. The answer can be yes or no whether you are or are not on unemployment.
Not everyone qualifies for unemployment. Part time workers laid off don’t get it usually. Self employed people don’t get it. Those who only worked a few months before getting laid off don’t get it. And all these people are still “unemployed” for the purposes of the UI rate, even though they are not receiving unemployment insurance. And vice versa, someone can be on UI for 26 or 99 weeks. Once that term expires, they are still unemployed if they are actively looking for a job and can’t find one.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM
When just about all information is filtered through a government office of some kind what makes you think that what you see and hear is the truth? Why do you think that they want to control the internet? Here is just about the best we can get and even then a lot of the sources are from a very edited source. Some sites are closely watched for offending truth and if you are quick enough you’ll get some good news. Makes me laugh at the talking heads of the MSM.
mixplix on December 2, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Only the govt could take a simple thing like the % of people unemployed and turn it into a useless cluster of meaningless numbers.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Copy/paste fail on my part; the wages answer should have been in reply to SPCOlympics.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 11:19 AM
When ever I recall seeing a good number, it gets adjusted within 2 months and when it is adjusted, it is worse. This may get adjusted to 8.9%.
seven on December 2, 2011 at 11:19 AM
What a cruel joke on the American people…
PatriotRider on December 2, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Hey, if you can’t lower the numerator, raise the denominator.
John Deaux on December 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM
So how many jobs has Barry “created” or “saved” this week?
GarandFan on December 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM
The whole thing is a joke. This “participation” rate, effects the number more than actual employment?
Just another game the government plays in order to manipulate us.
Im tired.
alecj on December 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM
I am the 64%.
Red Cloud on December 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM
The rate going down will, at least, have a psychological benefit. This economy needs some good news.
The number that matters is this:
Number of people employed Jan 09. Number of people employed today.
What is the difference there.
lorien1973 on December 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM
When the BLS claim that people have “dropped out” of looking for work, doesn’t that just mean that people who’ve been unemployed for more than six months are no longer considered as actively looking for work?
I seem to recall a post not too long ago about how the BLS would change the way it looks at the umeployment numbers, which if true, would mean this current unemployment rate is wholly false.
Maybe I’m thinking of this.
madmonkphotog on December 2, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Gov’t unemployment numbers are as accurate as inflation numbers. In other words, they aren’t.
Wrong. All workers have Social Security Numbers and SSA knows exactly how many people are working at any given time. This includes the self employed.
Our system is manipulated daily to brainwash the masses.
BierManVA on December 2, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Go to ShadowStats, they have charts that still calculate the U #’s using the pre-Clinton formulas.
http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/employment/unemployment/unemployment-rates
preallocated on December 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM
I’m sure they’ve already made their calculations and are slated to be rolled out gradually through next November.
FloatingRock on December 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Spin spin spin
cmsinaz on December 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM
What is the U6 number? I can’t find it anywhere yet. The U3 number is useless until taken in context with the U6.
stvnscott on December 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Yep, people dropping out altogether is much more serious than people being out of work for a period of time. Tells me we’re still in a depression. But the stats aren’t geared to measure this stuff because depressions were supposed to have been made impossible by the Fed and all the government wizards of smart out there.
forest on December 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM
The real unemployment rate is 11%.
AJStrata on December 2, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Wow. I feel better now. Oh, wait. My son still doesn’t have a job. 6 months and counting…
Beaglemom on December 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM
I used to be unemployed. Then I got laid off.
smellthecoffee on December 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2011/11/perry_versus_ob.html
Seriously, if you think job creation is important, you have read this summary. This why Perry is my candidate, no matter what happens. Jobs.
juliesa on December 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM
It is less now. There are fewer people with jobs in the US now than there were at the official end of recession in ’09. States like TX are huge exceptions to that. The number of jobs in Texas has grown for decades and continues to do so, even in this economy.
juliesa on December 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Which is why the numbers are bullcrap.
If you don’t have a job, but would like to have one and for some reason have become discouraged and say “screw it”, you no longer count in the numbers.
Hey, all you Obamabots, for the good of the country, just quit looking for a job and the unemployment rate will be 0% in no time.
BacaDog on December 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM
fuzzy math
ErnstBlofeld on December 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM
lorien, here is a graph that show the shrinkage in the size of the US workforce during Obama’s tenure.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-slA3R_F6X14/TegVcN4I27I/AAAAAAAAAKo/4pY5wNt8CE4/s1600/labor%2Bforce%2Bchange.png
juliesa on December 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM
True story. I start a diet a few weeks back which is nothing more than weighing every morning. So one day I drop 3 pounds. In one day.
I brag about it to everyone. The next day I not only gain it back, I add a pound. Four point swing. I discover it’s all in where I place my scales. Doesn’t matter, though, as I swoop into depression.
Moral: don’t believe your faulty scales, Mr. Obama. Today’s victory is tomorrow’s defeat.
MaxMBJ on December 2, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Still 15.6%, which is down rather significantly from October’s 16.2%. That reminds me; I need to send Jazz/AP one more update to post as it’s something that requires a bit more explanation than the comment area can realistically fit.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM
And now that it is heralded as great employment news – the currently not looking for work will re-engage and become looking for work and the number will go back up.
Zomcon JEM on December 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM
steveegg: with jobs such a timely and important issue, how about spotlighting what’s going on in red states like Texas? It’s such a contrast to Obama’s jobfail.
This is a good summary about Texas:
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2011/11/perry_versus_ob.html
Yes, it is to push Perry as a candidate, but beyond that, the TX record is astonishing and blows the US numbers away. The Texas (and red state) model is the one we need to follow to save the US.
juliesa on December 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Pushing candidates is a bit beyond my scope here (paging Jazz/AP/Tina), but the contrast is still quite notable. If Texas’ job report is on the same schedule as Wisconsin’s (1 week after the BLS), and I can find it, it may well make a useful Green Room post.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Ala unemployment dropped – after the illegal immigrant law started being enforced.
My wife got a job after 15months. She starts Mon, making less than her old job.
The reason she was layed off? Well, because the company she worked for hired this manager. He is a wrecking ball manager. He came in, disrupted everything, ran off or managed to get fired anyone who would point out that he didn’t know spit about food service. He totally destroyed the operation. He turned in his notice last week after 21 months. He did the same at his previous job, and I’ve no doubt he will do the same at his next job, which will only last 20-24 months. This is the current state of American management now.
orbitalair on December 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM
1099
Key West Reader on December 2, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Thank you. That’s a keeper!
lorien1973 on December 2, 2011 at 12:27 PM
I’m not sure the total number employed is a good number to use because it doesn’t factor in population growth. Then again it doesn’t factor in retirements or other “acceptable” exits from the workforce.
Anyways, the non-farm payroll in January 2009 was 133.563 mm. The same figure in november 2011 is 131.708. Therfore there are 1.85mm less people employed now then in january 2009. Compelling number but it doesn’t tell the whole unemployment story. In fact it seems to sugar coat the actual unemployment problem. (Yes, having 1.85mm less people working is a rosey picture compared to actual.)
As a comparison, we could look at the non-farm payroll in January 2001 (132.469 mm) and november 2003 (130.146mm). Therefore there were 2.3mm less people employed duirng the same amount of time during the comparatively less severe 2001-2003 recession.
Source BLS Data
This just to illustrate that dealing in unemployement rates, rates of growth, etc tell a more complete picture than absolute numbers. This is a long way of saying that comparing total employment at start of Obama’s term to now is not the most effective way of illustrating the point that his presidencey has harmed the economy. There are much better (and accurate) statistics to prove this point.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on December 2, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Who gets these surveys?
Vince on December 2, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Dear leading spinning away, created more than 3 million jobs
All hail dear leader
cmsinaz on December 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Ohhhh…just wait until next October! 1.8%!!! Barack is duh mastah!
SouthernGent on December 2, 2011 at 12:35 PM
It doesn’t matter what the truth really is, that approximately 315,000 Americans have stopped looking for jobs and are not even counted any more. All that matters is that this Obamination, er, administration got the headline that it so desperately needed: “Unemployment at 8.6%”. It doesn’t even matter that this is a faje AVERAGE, that there are some communities still experiencing as much as 25% unemployment. The fact is no President has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 8%. The ‘.6%’ deosn’t matter, either, as they will ignore that and tout an unemployment rate of 8% being real, which any Intelligent American knows is a lie. This administration is manipulating and reporting false unemployment numbers just as they did with the failed stimulus’ ‘jobs created/saved’ (Now called ‘jobs supported’) numbers. Its all propoganda designed to get Obama re-elected.
easyt65 on December 2, 2011 at 12:35 PM
My wife is a self employed Architect who has had no work for over 18 months now due to this economy. She is not listed in the U-3 report along with all of those who have simply run out of benefits. One must go to the U-6 report to find the truth which is 16% real unemployment in America.
Keemo on December 2, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Is there a metric we can use that objectively captures the health of employment? Percent of total population employed? Percent of adult population employed? I understand that the underlying fundamentals are dynamic, but when we focus on numbers that attempt to guess whether a person is unemployed by choice rather than circumstance, we lose objectivity.
It rankles me that people whom I’ve known for decades were cut from my company yesterday, but the only employment metric that anyone pays attention to looks so cheerful. Not much to cheer about from where I’m sitting.
Immolate on December 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM
This comment reminds me what someone told me at Wal-Mart. They said that they applied for food stamps and the local family services people called her. They knew exactly what her gross was on her paychecks and told her that it is reported, for each worker, by her employer.
I asked who Wal-Mart reports the numbers to and she didn’t know but felt that it was wrong to have her wages known by just a press of a computer key or two.
Vince on December 2, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Of course it matters.
You claim you created 3 million jobs.
My counterpoint: BLS shows 133 million people employed in 2009, there are 131 million people employed now. That’s a net loss of 2 million. You can make up 3 million if you want, but your own government numbers disagree.
lorien1973 on December 2, 2011 at 12:43 PM
“If we’d just kill all the sick people we’d be the healthiest country in the world!”
ISN’T THAT OBAMACARE????
SDarchitect on December 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Fixed:
I think the statistic that should be tracked is the percentage of adults working (i.e., the number of adults working per every 100 adults in the USA).
Ira on December 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Blame Occupy for this sudden unexpected drop… It has been proven many times that once some one has joined that group… they no longer are looking for work.
-
RalphyBoy on December 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Which is the participation rate of 64.0%. That, by the way, is the lowest since January 1984, when far more women were stay-at-home moms.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:05 PM
Where’s bayam to tell us these numbers are real?
Del Dolemonte on December 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Who do you count as employed? That’s why these stats are useless, you can’t even define employment in govt speak. 2 people doing the exact same thing for the same pay. One is a W2, one as a 1099. According to the govt, only the W2 is “employed”. The 1099 doesn’t even exist, whether he’s employed or unemployed.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM
Heh, I was just about to ask the same question. You can get a lot of insight into what the trolls say (or don’t say). Bayam, Ernesto, Sesque et al are sure quiet about this glorious jobs report.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »