July jobs report: 163K jobs added, 8.3% jobless rate

posted at 8:31 am on August 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Bureau of Labor Statistics gave some mildly good news for the first time in four months.  The US economy added 163,000 jobs, slightly outpacing population growth, while the jobless rate ticked up slightly to 8.3%:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in professional and business services, food services and drinking places, and manufacturing. …

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Hispanics (10.3 percent) edged down in July, while the rates for adult men (7.7 percent), adult women (7.5 percent), teenagers (23.8 percent), whites (7.4 percent), and blacks (14.1 percent) showed little
or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 percent in July (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In July, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 5.2 million. These individuals accounted for 40.7 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Both the civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.7 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little in July.

However, there is more bad news than good.  July saw a slight move up in U-6, which had been coming down earlier in the year to the mid-14 range.  That measure of un/underemployment has now risen to 15.2%, increasing in both adjusted and unadjusted measures.  It’s the highest rating in this measure since February, and it’s now up more than a full point since April.

The workforce lost 150,000 people last month, after adding 156,000 in June.  The civilian-participation rate dropped a tenth of a point to almost hit the 30-year low again it reached in April.  The measure of people not in the workforce jumped by 348,000, which may be why the jobless rate only went up a tenth of a point.

National Journal’s Jim Tankersley writes that this will give Barack Obama a boost on the campaign trail, but “the pace of growth still not strong enough to bring down the unemployment rate over time.”  Certainly the last part is objectively true, and I think he may be right about the boost for Obama, too — but anyone familiar with these numbers won’t buy it.  If this is what passes for good economic news for the Obama administration, it’s more of an indictment than a boost.  However, most people will hear “163,000″ and think that sounds pretty good.

CNBC gives the report a pretty fair assessment, noting that the report also says that the number of working Americans actually dropped by 195,000:

The U.S. economy closed out an otherwise weak second quarter by creating more jobs than expected, with 163,000 new positions added, but the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent. …

“While the monthly gain is still relatively small by historical standards, it might help spark somewhat higher consumer optimism and spending,” Kathy Bostjancic, director of macroeconomic analysis at The Conference Board, said in response to the report.

The report showed that the actual amount of Americans working dropped by 195,000, with the net job gain resulting primarily from seasonal adjustments. The birth-death model, which approximates net job growth from newly added or closed businesses, added 52,000 to the total.

June’s jobs gain got revised downward by 16,000 to 64,000, while May was revised upward by 10,000 to 87,000.  Roughly speaking, it’s a wash.

Update: Reuters says this is good news … for people who want the Fed to start another round of quantitative easing:

Employers in July hired the most workers in five months, but an increase in the jobless rate to 8.3 percent will probably keep expectations of additional monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve intact.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 163,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, beating economists expectations for a 100,000 gain. The report was dimmed somewhat by the increase in the jobless rate from 8.2 percent in June, even as more people gave up the search for work.

That won’t happen before the election, I’m guessing.


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 3

Economy Creates 163,000 New Jobs so but Rate Rises to 8.3%

Akzed on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM

It worked!

Electrongod on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Too bad for the White House that most people look at the unemployment rate, which went up, rather than the number of jobs added.

thuljunior on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM

We are on the right track!

Electrongod on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Focused like a laser!

Electrongod on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM

The Obama Recession, you bone it, you own it.

Chip on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM

McDonald’s bailing Barry out?

bayview on August 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Dear leader breathing a sigh of relief
-lsm

cmsinaz on August 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM

8.3% mostly middle class.
Except for that EFO that was fired over his rant at Chick-Fil-A.

Electrongod on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Not quite the change I thought President Obama was talking about.

TooTall on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Correction:

The Obama Recession Depression, you bone it, you own it.

Chip on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

The President’s plan is working!

Good Lt on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Heckuva job, Barky!

The Count on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

163K jobs created but unemployment rate went up and participation rate stayed the same. This sounds odd to me.

Mark1971 on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

don’t stop pivoting!

ted c on August 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM

McDonald’s bailing Barry out?

bayview on August 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM

More likely, Chick-fil-A hiring. ;)

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM

I think it’s safe to say Obama built that.

WesternActor on August 3, 2012 at 8:45 AM

libfree, uppereast, urbanelite:

OMG GO BARACK 2012!!!1

wargamer6 on August 3, 2012 at 8:45 AM

I wish that Drudge would start headlining the real unemployment number against the whitewashed one with every release.

tdpwells on August 3, 2012 at 8:46 AM

the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 8.3 percent

Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but I think we can all agree that the media label a +0.1% as ‘essentially unchanged,’ while they would label a -0.1% as ‘plummeted.’

Washington Nearsider on August 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM

When the report was p-ss poor YET the unemployment rate dropped to 8.0 because of the lower participation rate; MSM focused just on the 8.0. Today is the first day that a lot of democrats will learn about how participation rate affects the stats as the media will finally school the lemmings in order to gloss over the 8.3 number.

Is what it is.

Bensonofben on August 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I wonder how many of the 163,000 were government jobs, jobs (for example) in the IRS for ObamaCare, or temporary ones…. “A job under any other name would smell as sweet”… oh wait…

PackerFan4Life on August 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM

“We tried our plan and it worked. The private sector is doing fine.”

Next week: The added jobs number has been revised down to 89,000.

“Um, I didn’t build that, it’s Bush’s fault.”

The Rogue Tomato on August 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM

If you want to read why the July jobs report is pure fiction, read this:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/beware-the-jobs-report-of-july/

It is by far the most easily manipulated number of the year. After 2 weeks of wildly oversampled polls, we get a wildly overstated jobs number.

Has anyone else noticed that every single “random error” seems to benefit Obama?

mitchellvii on August 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Employment rose in professional and business services, food services and drinking places, and manufacturing. …

Malt shops???

AubieJon on August 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM

163K jobs created but unemployment rate went up and participation rate stayed the same. This sounds odd to me.

Mark1971 on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Too much fudging of the numbers by the Obama regime… If they are truthful the unemployment would be at 9.5% if not 10% and that is using the U3 model… Using the U6 model the unempployment would be 15%…

mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Obama campaign response ….hey did you know Romney is a Morman and he’s rich

Aggie95 on August 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I wish that Drudge would start headlining the real unemployment number against the whitewashed one with every release.

tdpwells on August 3, 2012 at 8:46 AM

@JimPethokoukis: 11.0%: Unemployment rate if labor force participation was as high as when Obama took office

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM

the cnbc link is not liked here…. but this is what I noticed:

Professional and business services led the job gains with 49,000 new positions, while the hospitality industry added 29,000 and manufacturing grew by 25,000.

Hmm 49K + 25K + 29K = 103K. So where are the 60K other jobs?

upinak on August 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I think the American people know that Bark is trying really hard.

Trying and failing consistently for nearly 4 years now.

CorporatePiggy on August 3, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Obama campaign response ….hey did you know Romney is a Morman and he’s rich

Aggie95 on August 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM

And he did not pay his tax for 10 years.

bayview on August 3, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Look closer at these numbers and you ca see the problem.

While the jobs number is open to wild manipulation based upon the “seasonal adjustment” fudge factor, the unemployment rate is based upon an actual survey of households with no seasonal adjustment.

So, this explain how we can have a spike in hiring and the unemployment rate goes up even though workforce participation remained unchanged.

The 163,000 jobs? Pure statistical fiction, just like the samples in the Pew, NBC and Quinipiac polls.

mitchellvii on August 3, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but I think we can all agree that the media label a +0.1% as ‘essentially unchanged,’ while they would label a -0.1% as ‘plummeted.’

Washington Nearsider on August 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I was just going to say that same thing. Since when is an increase essentially unchanged? I guess they wore out the ‘X’ key on their keyboard pounding out ‘unexpectedly’ every month.

Lost in Jersey on August 3, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Rejoice you inhabitants of Baracktopia!!

NickDeringer on August 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

I wonder how many of the 163,000 were government jobs, jobs (for example) in the IRS for ObamaCare, or temporary ones…. “A job under any other name would smell as sweet”… oh wait…

PackerFan4Life on August 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Grasping. At. Straws.

‏@mikeallen

on @CNBC, Steve Liesman calls jobs a “bounceback” …Rick Santelli: “a bit better than expected”…Austan Goolsbee: “solid, encouraging”
Retweeted by Brad Woodhouse

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

@JimPethokoukis: 11.0%: Unemployment rate if labor force participation was as high as when Obama took office

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Bump.

petefrt on August 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Libtards often forget that stagnation is bad.

wargamer6 on August 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Spending money that came out of the economy to start with…
Libs often forget that….

Electrongod on August 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

163K It has to be tied to schools.

Did anyone see the revised June? Down from 80K to 65K.

If the leaps are becoming that great, 163 will end up under 150, when revised.

Barry might actually hit 8.5 by November.

The U-6 state-by-state is Bru-tal.

I have no idea how Barry can hold Nevada at 22% U-6.

And the I’d love to say the Cali people deserve what they get, but it’s going to take Libertarians to save that state from progs. The GOP is a buried with Ronnie.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

No we don’t. We pay for it.

Jabberwock on August 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Obama campaign response ….hey did you know Romney is a Morman and he’s rich
Aggie95 on August 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM

And he has a Horse.

reddevil on August 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Har! The BLS characterizes the 8.2 to 8.3 movement as ‘relatively unchanged’. Had it moved to 8.1 , the coronation would have started.

socalcon on August 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

@jimpethokoukis: In 2009, Team Obama predicted 5.6% unemployment rate in July 2012 w/ stimlus, 6% w/o stimulus

‘Splain Lucy.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Except Government has to go borrow more money AND rob the producers of the society to pay those government workers. The money that stayed with the producers will still be spent, by those who earned it, on what they see fit.

bayview on August 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Money is taken out of the economy to pay for them. Government employees are not net stimulators.

stvnscott on August 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM

163K jobs created but unemployment rate went up and participation rate stayed the same. This sounds odd to me.

Mark1971 on August 3, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Wait for the unexpected downward revision that comes out later when no one is paying attention.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

The jobless rate for Asians was 6.2 percent in July (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.

Three billion people, & their unemployment rate is 6.2%?
Wow, they’re booming!

Seriously, this is poorly written, BLS.

itsnotaboutme on August 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

And what money do they spend? Their paychecks. Where do those paychecks come from? Oh. Right. They’re drained from the economy.

As they don’t spend 100% of their check, clearly there is a net loss in the economy vis a vis government workers.

Try again.

Washington Nearsider on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

163,000 is a Godsend for Obama.

The political reality of the situation is that this is being spun all over the news as a very good number. Whether it really is or not does not matter.

And it looks like there is no double dip recession.

gumbyandpokey on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

@mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM

“Using the U6 model the unempployment would be 15%…”

Just so. And the U6 measure is easily the most accurate.

Think the general public is slowly realizing the economy is more like the U6 measure and much less like the Pravda numbers being provided by the current regime.

So long, earflaps mcSandtraps. Maybe you can catch on as a caddy somewhere next February.

GrassMudHorsey on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

National Journal’s Jim Tankersley writes that this will give Barack Obama a boost on the campaign trail, but “the pace of growth still not strong enough to bring down the unemployment rate over time.”

An F’in Boost, are you people serious?

reddevil on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Historically the “seasonal adjustment” to July jobs numbers has been about 1.3 million added. I am willing to be that THIS July that number mysteriously spiked to 1.5 million added.

Would LOVE to see this number.

mitchellvii on August 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Wait for

Obama: I brought the economy back from the brink

Revised down next week, Obama: we didn’t know how bad it was, it’s bush’s fault

Now what about Ann Romney’s horse

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM

@GumbyAndPokey:

“And it looks like there is no double dip recession.”

Correct, as we never exited the first one.

GrassMudHorsey on August 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM

So the increase to 8.3% unemployment rate is saying many more people became unemployed than got a job and then there is the “seasonal adjustment” that added an arbitrary # to hike the jobs added to over 100K to make it look good and then that 163K will be adjusted down next week to back under 100K and we still have a lot more people un/underemployed in July than there was in June?

gracie on August 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM

National Journal’s Jim Tankersley writes that this will give Barack Obama a boost on the campaign trail, but “the pace of growth still not strong enough to bring down the unemployment rate over time.” Certainly the last part is objectively true, and I think he may be right about the boost for Obama, too — but anyone familiar with these numbers won’t buy it. If this is what passes for good economic news for the Obama administration, it’s more of an indictment than a boost. However, most people will hear “163,000″ and think that sounds pretty good.

It is delusional to think that a majority of voters are going to be happy with 8.3% unemployment rate. This is not going to boost Obama and it is delusional to think otherwise… A majority of voters are not that stupid as the liberals think and (unfortunately) as some on our side think… The majority of voters know very well that 8.3% unemployment rate is very bad and they are not going to say “ok, economy added 163000 jobs so we are doing great and forget about this 8.3% unemployument rate”….

mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

The CNBC panel was giddy with the numbers. Goulsby and Zandi said its enough to “move the economy forward”. Zandi then asks someone why we aren’t getting more job creation. Hmmmm. I wonder why. Could it be the economic policies coming out of the White House?

Wigglesworth on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Too close to the election to actually analyze this.

The unemployment rate went up. Thank you president Obama.

Did I mention that the unemployment rate went up?

forest on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Who cares?
Where are the Mitt Romney sex tapes?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

From now til November, initial announcements will be positive and heralded. The subsequent downward revisions will be quiet and buried by the MSM.

socalcon on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Then why don’t we just ALL have government jobs?

Good Lt on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

No, we are all familiar with the Obama doctrine. Dig a hole and fill it in, dig a hole and fill it in… Government workers are a drain on the economy, unless you agree that unemployment checks are a stimulus, which puts you in the Nancy Pelosi math is hard camp.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Update: Reuters says this is good news … for people who want the Fed to start another round of quantitative easing:

The Ruling class are just hoping they can keep this economic charade together long enough for the election to be over and Obama re-elected. But frankly, Romney is NOT one of us, he’s one of them so what difference would it make in the long run?

PappyD61 on August 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM

So, I’m guessing the Sept and Oct BS numbers will come in @ 300,000 just in time for Barry to be reelected. Then adjusted down 150,000.

reddevil on August 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over
Monthly data, seasonally adjusted
Number Employed in the Civilian labor force
June: 142,415,000
July: 142,220,000

Change from June to July: -195,000

Someone please explain to me how a LOSS of 195,000 in the number employed is reported as a GAIN of 163,000?!?

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July

ITguy on August 3, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Oh, please. Government workers get pro-rates and discounts through state and federal plans.

The most SFCM benefit is to the food industry, which has still had major cutbacks in public dollars from catering events.

The uptick is from education hiring.

Stick to your sociological blather.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Government workers spend money that has been taken from private workers through taxes. That money would have been spent by those private workers if it had not been taken from them.

Epic fail.

Johnnyreb on August 3, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Which conservatives forget that, and how often does that happen?

BlueCollarAstronaut on August 3, 2012 at 9:06 AM

@GumbyAndPokey:

“And it looks like there is no double dip recession.”

Correct, as we never exited the first one.

GrassMudHorsey on August 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Recession charted: \________________

socalcon on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Who cares?
Where are the Mitt Romney sex tapes?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Ask Harry Reid.

Happy Nomad on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Then why don’t we just ALL have government jobs?

Good Lt on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

That would be pretty awesome…then our tax money could pay our salaries, and the whole system would be self-sustaining…right?

BlueCollarAstronaut on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

In a couple weeks, the 163k number will be quietly revised down to 130k, and then when the August numbers are released, July will end up around 110k.
This Regime majors in funny business, not actual business so why would anyone expect positives to come out? Even at 163K, it’s weak weak weak. But at least we have pictures of Obama holding a baseball bat while talking on the phone. Symbolic of what he’s doing to the economy.

smfic on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I’m confused. How can a rise in the unemployment rate be a boost for Obama?

People who aren’t paying attention will just see the rate rise and people who are paying attention will see the rate rise and notice the added jobs numbers aren’t impressive.

I know Ed is much smarter than me but I don’t see how he thinks this can help Obama. I say let him go out there and brag about this. It will be another sound bite to add to the ” you didn’t build that” and ” it worked” commercial.

Ampersand on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Ding ding ding reddevil

cmsinaz on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Question here, since I’m not well versed in the data. Can the Obama administration manipulate the jobs numbers?

It’s hard to trust this administration, or numbers that seem to be revised downward nearly every month, after the initial headlines that are touted as a sign things are improving before the “oops, it was actually not quite that good” which of course gets less attention.

Mayday on August 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over
Monthly data, seasonally adjusted
Number Employed in the Civilian labor force
June: 142,415,000
July: 142,220,000

Change from June to July: -195,000

Someone please explain to me how a LOSS of 195,000 in the number employed is reported as a GAIN of 163,000?!?

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July

ITguy on August 3, 2012 at 9:05 AM

It’s all summer jobs, waitresses, waiters, bartenders etc. look for sept number when all the kids go back to school and get unemployment. It’s phones numbers, no worries Romney wins in a landslide

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

163,000 is a Godsend for Obama.

The political reality of the situation is that this is being spun all over the news as a very good number. Whether it really is or not does not matter.

And it looks like there is no double dip recession.

gumbyandpokey on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Yeah whatever makes you happy in the delusional world you live in… It is an interesting a case study in psychology to see the state mind of liberals… They simply live in a delusional world detached from any facts or reality where they see themselves always victorious and powerful….
You are the same fool who gets all so excited by the polls that insanely oversample democrats and you think that it is all true…

mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

BREAKING NEWS……New poll gives Obama average 19 point lead in 6 swing states.

________________ unveiled a new poll this morning that showed a surging President Obama crushing gop nominee to be Romney by 19 points in Ohio, 44% lead in Pennsylvania, 11 point lead in Florida, 5 point lead in Wisconsin and a 17 point lead in North Carolina. The poll also showed Obama leading in Arizona by 11 points. Sample sizes were 75/10/15. Senator Harry Reid has called on Romney to concede the election and to “spare the country the divisive campaign” that kicks off after the Olympics.

PappyD61 on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I know what it is, I just don’t think it gets nearly enough attention that it should.

tdpwells on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

which puts you in the Nancy Pelosi math is hard camp.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Speak of the she-devil.

@NancyPelosi: Today’s jobs report is small step in the right direction. But more needs to be done.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Wigglesworth on August 3, 2012 at 9:03 AM

they may be giddy, but they still didn’t say where 60K jobs are.

upinak on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Rising numbers in
The Top Line and the U-6,
So Bammy is toast!

Haiku Guy on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

163,000 is a Godsend for Obama.

The political reality of the situation is that this is being spun all over the news as a very good number. Whether it really is or not does not matter.

And it looks like there is no double dip recession.

gumbyandpokey on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

If you don’t mind my asking, who are you supporting for President?

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

In a couple weeks, the 163k number will be quietly revised down to 130k, and then when the August numbers are released, July will end up around 110k.
This Regime majors in funny business, not actual business so why would anyone expect positives to come out? Even at 163K, it’s weak weak weak. But at least we have pictures of Obama holding a baseball bat while talking on the phone. Symbolic of what he’s doing to the economy.

smfic on August 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM

You’re on to him

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Sample sizes were 75/10/15. Senator Harry Reid has called on Romney to concede the election and to “spare the country the divisive campaign” that kicks off after the Olympics.

PappyD61 on August 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Clearly the Dems were undersampled, ergo his lead is really something more like 25%.

tdpwells on August 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM

And it looks like there is no double dip recession.

gumbyandpokey on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

that is because we are in the start of a depression.

I know, it is hard to understand for you, but keep trying…. you and libdie will figure it out.

upinak on August 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM

CNBC gives the report a pretty fair assessment, noting that the report also says that the number of working Americans actually dropped by 195,000:

CNBC gives the report a pretty fair assessment, noting that the report also says that the number of working Americans actually dropped by 195,000:

CNBC gives the report a pretty fair assessment, noting that the report also says that the number of working Americans actually dropped by 195,000:

Worth noting.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Question here, since I’m not well versed in the data. Can the Obama administration manipulate the jobs numbers?

Mayday on August 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Can they? yes. Do they? Definitely.

oh and … Welcome to the party pal.

Lost in Jersey on August 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Zero hedge.com has a great review on these cooked numbers. Lots of seasonal adjustment BS…..as usual.

David in ATL on August 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM

They spend OUR money, perfesser.

kingsjester on August 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM

163,000 is a Godsend for Obama.

The political reality of the situation is that this is being spun all over the news as a very good number. Whether it really is or not does not matter.

And it looks like there is no double dip recession.

gumbyandpokey on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

CNBC gives the report a pretty fair assessment, noting that the report also says that the number of working Americans actually dropped by 195,000:

Yeh for the likes of you gumby.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Wait, so we’re supposed to get excited that we barely created enough jobs to keep up with population growth? Since we need 150,000 a month just to keep up with new workers entering the workforce the actual number created was a measly 13,000. Wake me up when the numbers are actually good, you know, around 250,000 and up.

Capitalist Infidel on August 3, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Right wing lie machine!

I checked the Stimulus unemployment trajectory and we’re currently below 6%, the oceans have receded, there is peace in the middle east, and equality and racial harmony continue to spread across the land…

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind’s true liberation!

mankai on August 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

They spend OUR money, perfesser.

kingsjester on August 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Yeh the perfesser seems to forget we too would have SPENT and invested that money. These “educated elite” types are a hoot.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Government workers still spend money in the economy, which helps other businesses. Conservtives often forget that…

libfreeordie on August 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Government workers spend money that has been taken from private workers through taxes. That money would have been spent by those private workers if it had not been taken from them.

Epic fail.

Johnnyreb on August 3, 2012 at 9:06 AM

It is really amazing how stupid liberals are… The problem with low IQ liberals (sorry for the redundancy) like “libfreeordie” is that they never ever use their brains in any logical way and can never anticipate what would be a counter argument to their dumb argument… They simply believe that there is no possibly a counter argument to whatever dumb thing they say or believe in…The fact that you presented to her i.e. government workers are paid by private workers through taxes has never crossed her tiny brain before… That is how stupid she is…

mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Libdie and Gumby know exactly what they’re doing.

Poking a stick in the hornet’s nest.

They should be worried, but by showing absurd over-confidence, in every little thing, it mounts frustration. The hope is that frustration spills over onto Romney.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The economy is doing just fine booming.

Bacrap

hillsoftx on August 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Pssst less people worked in July.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3