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

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

That’s what I thought, but better to ask than assume. Love that Bruce Willis line, BTW.

Mayday on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Seasonal And Birth Death Adjustments Add 429,000 Statistical “Jobs”

Happy by the headline establishment survey print of 133,245 which says that the US “added” 163,000 jobs in July from 133,082 last month? Consider this: the number was based on a non seasonally adjusted July number of 132,868. This was a 1.248 million drop from the June print. So how did the smoothing work out to make a real plunge into an “adjusted” rise? Simple: the BLS “added” 377K jobs for seasonal purposes. This was the largest seasonal addition in the past decade for a July NFP print in the past decade, possibly ever, as the first chart below shows. But wait, there’s more: the Birth Death adjustment, which adds to the NSA Print to get to the final number, was +52k. How does this compare to July 2011? It is about 1000% higher: the last B/D adjustment was a tiny +5K! In other words, of the 163,000 jobs “added”, 429,000 was based on purely statistical fudging. Doesn’t matter – the flashing red headline is good enough for the algos.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/seasonal-and-birth-death-adjustments-add-429000-statistical-jobs

sentinelrules on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Summer jobs?

Obama to extend Summer past November!

Electrongod on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 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

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

Math is hard…So’s economics…Running your mouth is easy.

‘Professor of Humanities’

I know!! President PantLoad should just make every one a government worker!!! Every one would have a job!!!

That would stimulate the hell out of everything!!!

BigWyo on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Living on 30% less income in our mid-50′s is looking better and better, compared to the alternative.

Naturally Curly on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

To the average Joe doesn’t it still look like many more people became unemployed than employed to have the unemployment rate go up? Looks like CNN is kinda saying that, too.

gracie on August 3, 2012 at 9:16 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

“libfreeordie” is a professor? Let me guess she is a professor in some stupid liberal art major that requires an IQ no more than 90….

mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Two words: Seasonal Adjustments. From Zero Gedge

So how did the smoothing work out to make a real plunge into an “adjusted” rise? Simple: the BLS “added” 377K jobs for seasonal purposes. This was the largest seasonal addition in the past decade for a July NFP print, possibly ever, as the first chart below shows… But wait, there’s more: the Birth Death adjustment, which adds to the NSA Print to get to the final number, was +52k. How does this compare to July 2011? It is about 1000% higher: the last B/D adjustment was a tiny +5K! In other words, of the 163,000 jobs “added”, 429,000 was based on purely statistical fudging. Doesn’t matter – the flashing red headline is good enough for the algos

I’ll tell you what I think, and contrary to Ed’s Reuters update, this is a signal to the equity markets that it cannot get the QE it wants with out a major retracement of stock values. But stocks wont sell off if they think the Bernanke will rev up the printing press. By seasonally adjusting the numbers to “beat” expectations, it gives the FED cover not to print while many other economic indicators are simply plunging. Wich will force stocks to stand on their own for a while.

Finally, to add insult to injury, again from Zero Hedge:

As can be seen below, courtesy of Table A9 from the Household Survey, in July the number of part-time jobs added was 31K, bringing the total to 27,925, just shy of the all time record of 28,038. Full time jobs? Down 228,000 to 114,345, lower than the February full-time jobs print of 114,408. Once again, more and more Americans are relinquishing any and all benefits associated with Full Time Jobs benefits, and instead are agreeing on a job. Any job. Even if it means working just 1 hour a week.

Weight of Glory on August 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM

8.3 and 1.5

Eat that libfree.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Fuzzy Obama job math strikes again. Nearly 200,000 less Americans have jobs.

Philly on August 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

When will we find out the numbers for those who joined the SSI disability roles in July?

Philly on August 3, 2012 at 9:18 AM

However, most people will hear “163,000″ and think that sounds pretty good.

I would hope most people would instead hear the unemployment rate increased to 8.3% and think that sounds pretty bad.

Ukiah on August 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The political reality of the situation is that this is being spun

daveyandgoliath on August 3, 2012 at 9:01 AM

We know.

Del Dolemonte on August 3, 2012 at 9:20 AM

That’s what I thought, but better to ask than assume.

Mayday on August 3, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Tell your friends.

The more people that wake up and look past the fudged U-3 number spouted by the state run media and look to the U-6 and the labor participation rates, the better.

Lost in Jersey on August 3, 2012 at 9:20 AM

What these numbers don’t measure are the folks who have just flat given up and are selling their belongings at the Flea Market.

kingsjester on August 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM

To the average Joe doesn’t it still look like many more people became unemployed than employed to have the unemployment rate go up? Looks like CNN is kinda saying that, too.

gracie on August 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM

And what it looks like to the average person is perfectly accurate. I don’t see a positive spin for Obama here. I’m surprised Ed does.

More people were out of work and the unemployment rate went up. What am I missing here?

Ampersand on August 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM

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

Agree. I would even say that the only number that really matters to most of us in the unwashed masses is the UE number. 8.2% just became 8.3% that means UE increased. Period. I don’t see this helping Obama.

magicbeans on August 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I would hope most people would instead hear the unemployment rate increased to 8.3% and think that sounds pretty bad.

Ukiah on August 3, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I think most people will see 8.3 and 1.5 GDP growth.

This President is pathetic and oh boy we are going to pay. This debt is going to drag on us for years to come. I don’t even want to think about what has been lost and the opportunity costs.

Good job libfree and your ilk. /

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:22 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

Much like a snake that eats its own tail to sustain itself, right?

VietVet_Dave on August 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM

The funny thing is that the pathetic performances of the last several months this deep into the “recovery” will be used as a bench mark. Almost hilarious.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I found Table B-1, and here’s my point and my question:

Table A-1 shows that the seasonally adjusted “Number Employed in the Civilian labor force” FELL by 195,000 from June to July (from 142,415,000 down to 142,220,000).

Table B-1 shows that the seasonally adjusted “Total Employees on nonfarm payrolls” ROSE by 163,000 from June to July (from 133,082,000 up to 133,245,000).

Someone please help me make sense of the relationship between these two tables. One shows a LOSS of 195,000 employed, while the other shows a GAIN of 163,000 employed.

What the heck?!?

Since the “nonfarm” presumably filters out farms, did we gain 163,000 in non-farm payrolls and lose 358,000 in farm payrolls (for a net of 195,000 lost in the Civilian labor force)?!?

ITguy on August 3, 2012 at 9:24 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

Boooooossssshhh!! /lib

95 days!!

Sue Doenim on August 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent.”

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

That (QE3) won’t happen before the election, I’m guessing.

I think it will. The Wall Street guys will run up the score when they hear about all the fake money coming out. It’ll be timed perfectly to provoke a rally just in time for the election.

And the Regime will find ways to get state voter ID laws blocked. Hell or high water, that’s going to happen.

And maybe issue a student loan forgiveness EO of some kind too.

forest on August 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

One more time:

“We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent.”

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Oops. Forgot to mention that the unemployment rate went up again.

forest on August 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

All most people are going to see is an increase to 8.3%-the underlying numbers are too “in the weeds” for most folks. This is very bad for obama.

Ta111 on August 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Time to start hammering the “Unemployment is heading back in the wrong direction” theme in campaign commercials and speeches… who cares if it is only half the story, this is hardball.

Professor_Chaos on August 3, 2012 at 9:27 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

Spoken like a true parasite.



8.3 and 1.5

Tell us more oh wise knee pad wearing Obama lackey.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

163K “added” and 8.3 overall? Sounds like we’re making excramental progress.

oldroy on August 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

One EXPECTED increase was in the BARS industry.
Who’da’thunk ?? DOH !!

*clink*

(too early, but you get my drift)

pambi on August 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

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

The employment-population ratio decreased from 58.6% to 58.4%.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
Employment is still not growing fast enough to even keep up with population growth.
The only good news is that things aren’t getting worse as fast as they had been.

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

The funny thing is that the pathetic performances of the last several months this deep into the “recovery” will be used as a bench mark. Almost hilarious.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM

From the CNN link Flora Duh posted above:

“You wouldn’t break out the party hats, but certainly coming off several months where the numbers were below expectations and fairly weak because the economy wasn’t growing fast enough with the events in Europe and some of those things, this is a pretty solid number. I mean, it came in well above expectations,” Goolsbee said.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Unemployment went from 8.2% in June to 8.3% in July.

“We tried our plan — and it worked”…comes to mind.

timberline on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

163K “added” and 8.3 overall? Sounds like we’re making excramental progress.

oldroy on August 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Hey this is good news. What be wrong with you?

//

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

“It ((the stimulus)) is the right size, it is the right scope. Broadly speaking it has the right priorities to create jobs that will jump-start our economy and transform it for the 21st century,”

– President Barack H. Obama, Feb. 9, 2009


8.3 and 1.5

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent.”

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

And just as importantly, not all jobs are the same. I heard some idiot and cheerleader for the jug-eared Kenyan talking about job growth for truck drivers and hotel workers…… How many laid off IT types are looking to drive a truck?

Happy Nomad on August 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

“We tried our plan — and it worked”…comes to mind.

timberline on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 AM

The private sector is doing fine.

Happy Nomad on August 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent.”

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Obama was in office how many months?

Discuss.

timberline on August 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

If they couldn’t fudge
The U-3 to show a drop,
How bad must it be?

You know that every hack in the BLS was pulling out all the stops to get that 8.2 to go to 8.1. How bad must the underlying data have been that they couldn’t make that number go down, in spite of pulling every trick in the book, and then some?

Haiku Guy on August 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent.”

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Has anyone from the administration issued the monthly “You can’t just look at one month’s numbers and take that too seriously.” statement?

To the average Joe doesn’t it still look like many more people became unemployed than employed to have the unemployment rate go up? Looks like CNN is kinda saying that, too.

gracie on August 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Every once in awhile, the dumbing down of the public does NOT work out for the democrats! I know that just about everyone I know will just see that the UE rate went up, spin it however they want.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:34 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

Where does a government employee derive their money from?

The sky?

Good Lt on August 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

That 8.3% Unemployment Rate… Obama didn’t build that. Other people made that happen…

Haiku Guy on August 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

That 8.3 Percent
Obama didn’t build that!
Somebody else did!

Haiku Guy on August 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM

We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent.”

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

… and 47 consecutive months with the emplyment-population rate below 62%.
The last time rates were this low was 39 years ago, in the middle of the Reagan recovery.

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 9:40 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 argumenttotheir dumbargument… They simply believe that there is no possibly a counter argumenttowhatever dumbthingthey say orbelieve 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

It will be interesting to see what kind of survival skills they possess when the whole behemouth collapses. Dopey ba$tards.

Naturally Curly on August 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Employment is still not growing fast enough to even keep up with population growth.
The only good news is that things aren’t getting worse as fast as they had been.

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

When Obama came in to office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month! ANY increase in jobs at all means Obama is doing the best he can! It would be even better if those Republicans would quit blocking him every time he tried to do something!!!!! /////

It hurt to type that.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

… and 47 consecutive months with the emplyment-population rate below 62%.
The last time rates were this low was 39 years ago, in the middle of the Reagan recovery.

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

39 yrs ago?

Jeez, I must be older than I thought.

upinak on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

It hurt to type that.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

ugh, don’t do that again.

upinak on August 3, 2012 at 9:43 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

..you are not.

The War Planner on August 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

This is all geared to low-information voters.

Cheer-lead 8.1, ignore 8.3

Cheer-lead 163K, ignore 64K

It’s up to Romney. He has to crush the MSM for distorting the facts.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

According to the Rasmussen presidential tracker it shows to me Obama is toast at -23

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Obot spin: Don’t look at the unemployment rate. The facts are that over the last 22 months, we’ve created blah blah millions and millions of jobs.

Us: Why are you ignoring the first 20 months of your president’s administration and taking the entire duration of his term?

Obots: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

Good Lt on August 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

jump-start our economy and transform it for the 21st century,”

– President Barack H. Obama, Feb. 9, 2009

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Gotta love a transformational President.

The guy’s entire administration is based on perpetuating misery, and many Americans have been transformed into believing they don’t have a better alternative.

rwenger43 on August 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

More manipulation of the numbers. I thought the number was going to be 140k with screwy math, but they were even bolder.

For anyone that doesn’t think this number is a fraud, go read the NYT article that Drudge links to, where every July they basically make up the number and then revise it down, by a lot. Here, the number is disingenuous because its sole purpose is to help Obama, and once its revised to under 100k (the number looks like it should be in the 55-70k range), no one will make a production out of that.

The other interesting thing to me is what I heard a Morgan Stanley analyst say this morning – that through fuzzy math, they moved up some of the number for August to make July look better. However, where he thinks the August number will be worse next month, I think they will just double count those jobs, and then revise the July number down. That way they will artificially inflate 2 numbers on the only days the average voter hears those numbers, and not suffer the consequences.

milcus on August 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Only with a Democrat running for re-election would an increase in unemployment be spun as a good thing.

catmman on August 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Employment is still not growing fast enough to even keep up with population growth.
The only good news is that things aren’t getting worse as fast as they had been.

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

When Obama came in to office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month! ANY increase in jobs at all means Obama is doing the best he can! It would be even better if those Republicans would quit blocking him every time he tried to do something!!!!! /////

It hurt to type that.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Reagan created dbl the amount of jobs at this time in his term with a dem congress

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

For every month since Obama was inaugurated, the jobs were revised downward. I think we can assume that the numbers for July are worse than what is being reported today.

jeffn21 on August 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

the employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little in July.

“Changed little in July”? it was down from 58.6 percent in June. And since it is a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over (which in July was 243,354,000), each tenth of 1 percent represents 243,354 people.

If the employment-population ratio had been 58.6 instead of 58.4 in July, approximately 486,708 more people would have been employed than actually were employed.

That’s a pretty big deal.

Population continues to grow. If employment doesn’t adequately grow with it, (or worse yet if employment goes DOWN while population goes UP, as happened in July!), you go down on the employment-population ratio.

——————–

Let’s talk about whose plan worked, and whose plan didn’t work…

The average Employment-population ratio over the 12 years of Republican-majority control (Jan 1995 – Dec 2006) was 63.3%.

The Republican plans worked.

Over the Obama pResidency (Jan 2009 – July 2012), the average Employment-Population ratio has been 58.7%. And he has not had a single month above that average since August 2009.

The Obama plans failed. (Or succeeded, if you believe that he fully intended to bring the American “Empire to its knees”.)

If we had the same Employment-Population ratio now that was the average over 12 YEARS (144 months) of Republican majority-control, it would be 63.3%. How many more people would be employed?

Over 11.8 Million more people would be employed!

The the BLS.gov data shows that the current Civilian noninstitutional population is 243,354,000.

If the Employment-population ratio right now was back to the average of what it was under the Republican majority for 12 years, that 63.3% applied to our current population would mean that the number employed should be:
243,354,000 * 0.633 = 154,043,082 people should be employed

However, the ACTUAL Number Employed in the Civilian labor force in July 2012 was = 142,220,000 people actually are employed

representing an Employment-Population Ratio, of:
142,220,000 / 243,354,000 = 58.4%

So how many missing jobs are represented by that Obama level of employment (58.4%) as compared to the 1995-2006 Republican average level of employment (63.3%)?

154,043,082 – 142,220,000 = 11,823,082

Over 11.8 MILLION jobs are missing from the Obama economy!

Yes, it really is that bad.

If we still had the Republican average Employment-population ratio of 63.3%, over 11.8 Million more people would be employed right now.

ITguy on August 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Has anyone from the administration issued the monthly “You can’t just look at one month’s numbers and take that too seriously.” statement?

…..
Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

+1

Errr …I ..uhhh…don’t think we will be seeing that line.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

IT IS NOT WORKING.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

8.3% unemployment is ‘good news’?

WTF?

faraway on August 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

ugh, don’t do that again.

upinak on August 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Sorry!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM

When Obama came in to office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Hmmm. I thought we were losing 500 million jobs a month.

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Obama is doing the best he can!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Then we need to hire someone who can do better!!

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

8.3% unemployment is ‘good news’?

WTF?

faraway on August 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Has anyone from the administration issued the monthly “You can’t just look at one month’s numbers and take that too seriously.” statement?

…..
Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

CW on August 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Reagan created dbl the amount of jobs at this time in his term with a dem congress

Conservative4ev on August 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Amazing, isn’t it. That’s what we get for hiring someone who is too stupid to look at what he’s doing, see it doesn’t work and make corrections. Except, like a lot of people, I think for Obama, it is working exactly as he wanted it to.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Why didn’t Romney go straight to CNBC once these numbers came out?

They’re the ones who start the cheerleading. Knock it down at the source.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Obama is doing the best he can!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Then we need to hire someone who can do better!!

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Sorry…missed the sarc tags!

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Hmmm. I thought we were losing 500 million jobs a month.

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

LOL- I remember that. As I said earlier, for Nancy Pelosi, math is hard!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

@LukeRussert: WH on jobs report: “today’s employment report provides further evidence that the US economy is continuing to recover”

And of course the queen of the dingbats has to bring Booooooosh into it.

@NancyPelosi: The Bush record on jobs vs. the Obama record on jobs. http://t.co/l8qg35RP

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Sorry…missed the sarc tags!

topdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

You were still right!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Much better than expected, and if the number holds up it will be a strong indicator that business did indeed pick up in July. Two things to note: This may be influenced by the scenario we noted earlier, namely that businesses are freeing up budget on six month intervals now due to the uncertain environment. If that’s true, we will see another good report in August before slowing again in September. The other thing to note is that they seemed to have had real trouble with the season adjustments in July (e.g. the gyrations in the weekly first time claims), so this number may be significantly revised next month. But as it stands, it is unexpected good news and we’ll take it …

Also, ISM-non manufacturing came in today at 52.6, beating expectations and another indication that the Spring slowdown is over. Markets up over 200 pts …. rally time? Bulls are running, QE3 back in the holster for now …

TouchdownBuddha on August 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Love that chart! Simple, easy to understand, and no facts at all to back it up!

Hey, any updates on gay day?

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

TouchdownBuddha on August 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Always moving the goal posts.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM

How far down will it be revised.next week?

tom daschle concerned on August 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Night Owl …there was a great link in reply to Nan’s BS….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem–in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html

Bookmark it.

8.3 and 1.5

CW on August 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Welcome to the new normal.

vcferlita on August 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

@iowahawkblog Rejoice! Unemployment report means fewer people are able to afford Chick-fil-A hate chicken. #MSNBCspin

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

From what I understand the festivities are supposed to commence around 8.

I myself intend to give it the attention it deserves – none.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

By the way, is there anybody else here who thinks there will be suddenly appear to be a massive and miraculous improvement to the economy numbers just before November? When you control the numbers released you have more than the “bully pulpit” – you also have the ability to deceive more convincingly.

PackerFan4Life on August 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

From what I understand the festivities are supposed to commence around 8.

I myself intend to give it the attention it deserves – none.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I say it is time for a chicken sandwich.

You know some of the pro SSM folks will get violent. I hope the cops are ready.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

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.

Is it possible that the drop in Hispanic unemployment rate is due to the Dream act, and the *conversion* of jobs from illegal (under the table) status to legal status?

sarainitaly on August 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

@NancyPelosi: The Bush record on jobs vs. the Obama record on jobs. http://t.co/l8qg35RP
Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Majority of voters will take Bush record anytime over the welfare queens agitator record. Bush records, average 5.6% unemployment rate in 8 years…. Obama record, average 9% unemployment rate in 43 months…

mnjg on August 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

TouchdownBuddah,,, you forgot your sarc tag…

sandee on August 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

will it be revised.next week?

tom daschle concerned on August 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Section A, Page 8.

CW on August 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

TouchdownBuddha on August 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM;

See itguy’s post if you can stop fking that chicken long enough…

tom daschle concerned on August 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

When Obama came in to office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I sense the sarc tag, but let me address that lefy point anyway…

Obama became part of the minority party in our Federal Government on January 3, 2005.

And Obama became part of the majority party in our Federal Government on January 3, 2007.

Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, etc., along with new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, won majority control of both houses of Congress by promising:

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

And instead of keeping that promise, they were responsible for the explosion of spending in the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budgets, as well as for passing TARP.

Senator Obama, despite his short tenure in the Senate, came in the top 3 of Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 (exceeded only by Chris Dodd and John Kerry, and if you consider that Obama was only campaigning for Federal office 2004-2008, Obama’s per year receipts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions easily tops the list).

The Republicans tried for years to rein in Fannie & Freddie, while the Demonrats obstructed, said that there were not any “safety and soundness” issues, and falsely accused the Republicans of racism. (shocker!)

Watch Maxine Waters and other Democrats accuse Republicans of racism as the Republicans tried to increase regulation of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, and Democrats covered up the corruption.

It was the Democrats who drove the economy into the ditch, including Senator Obama who was a Senator in the minority in 2005-6, a Senator in the majority 2007-8, and a top recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions.

It wasn’t the Bush Tax Cuts that tanked the economy. It was the Democrats’ reckless, irresponsible, and likely criminal handling of Fannie/Freddie the created the sub-prime mortgage crisis that tanked the economy. And his crony capitalist Stimulus made things WORSE, not better.

And let’s not forget that in early January 2009, Obama specifically asked President Bush to request the second half of the TARP money. Bush got all of the blame, but Obama got half of the TARP money.

The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts turned the economy around and added over 8 million jobs in 4 years, and even though tax rates went DOWN, revenues went UP… FY 2007 receipts were 44% LARGER than FY 2003 receipts.

It was the policies and practices of Democrats that drove the economy into the ditch and have kept it in the ditch for the last three years.

What did Obama and the Democrats “inherit” when they took majority control?

Due to the policies of George W. Bush and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, on January 3, 2007 Obama and the Democrats “inherited” an Employment-population ratio that was 63.4%. (December 2006 number)

By September 2009, the Democrat majority had driven that down to 58.7%, and it has not been above that number since. We’re currently at 58.4% and the Obama administration thinks that is “good news”.

ITguy on August 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

8.3 and 1.5

CW on August 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Good one! Thanks.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

It would be even better if those Republicans would quit blocking him every time he tried to do something!!!!! /////

It hurt to type that.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

..I feel your pain, but how would you propose the Republicans do that? Withdraw the 30+ jobs bills that they submitted to the Senate that Reid blocked?

Also, check the stats:

(1) The first year Obama was in office (with Reid and Pelosi at the controls of the Congress, 2009, the economy LOST and average of 422,000 jobs per month.

(2) In 2010, it only gained an average of 86,000 per month.

(3) In 2011, it averaged 153,000 per month.

(4) And so far this year, job creation it has tailed off precipitously after January and February (at over 250,000 per month each), to average 151,000 — which includes this month’s spike upward.

“It worked”(?)

The War Planner on August 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

And let’s not forget that in early January 2009, Obama specifically asked President Bush to request the second half of the TARP money. Bush got all of the blame, but Obama got half of the TARP money.
ITguy on August 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

There were 5 sarc tags! This part of what you wrote is the part that bothers me the most. I distinctly remember this, and I remember thinking Bush shouldn’t have done that, but since the election, I can understand why he did it.

I appreciate all the information you bring to us! It’s, well, informative!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Unemployment rates while Harry Reid has ran the Senate?

4.6 to 8.3.

Wagthatdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

8.3% unemployment and no budget from the Senate in 3 years. Who cares about America again?

Wagthatdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

..I feel your pain, but how would you propose the Republicans do that? Withdraw the 30+ jobs bills that they submitted to the Senate that Reid blocked?

Also, check the stats:

(1) The first year Obama was in office (with Reid and Pelosi at the controls of the Congress, 2009, the economy LOST and average of 422,000 jobs per month.

(2) In 2010, it only gained an average of 86,000 per month.

(3) In 2011, it averaged 153,000 per month.

(4) And so far this year, job creation it has tailed off precipitously after January and February (at over 250,000 per month each), to average 151,000 — which includes this month’s spike upward.

“It worked”(?)

The War Planner on August 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I am giving up sarcasm.

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

When Obama came in to office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month!

Night Owl on August 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM

and Democrats ran both Houses of Congress, don’t ignore that part.

Wagthatdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

“It worked”(?)

The War Planner on August 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

To understand the phrase “It Worked” you must first understand what it was that “Worked”. The what in question is indisputably “The Cloward-Pivens Strategy” and Yes, it most assuredly has worked exactly as intended.

SWalker on August 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM

@NancyPelosi: The Bush record on jobs vs. the Obama record on jobs. http://t.co/l8qg35RP

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I wonder if she knows she ran Congress the last 2 years when things went South.

Wagthatdog on August 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I must have relocated to another planet overnight and no one told me. How in the name of all that is holy is an increase in the number of unemployed a good thing? Oh, right. Because we have a Democrat for president, that’s why!!!

natasha333 on August 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3