Jobs report: 169,000 jobs added, 7.3% jobless rate

posted at 8:36 am on September 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession.  The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth.  The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 169,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in retail
trade and health care but declined in information.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in August. The jobless rate is down from 8.1 percent a year ago. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (6.3 percent), teenagers (22.7 percent), whites (6.4 percent), blacks (13.0 percent), and Hispanics (9.3 percent) showed little change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals accounted for 37.9 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,
the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 733,000. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, was essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)

At the same time, almost twice as many people left the work force as found new jobs, net:

On top of that, previous reports were revised downward:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Interestingly, U-6 unemployment dropped from 14.0% to 13.7%, its lowest level in five years, but that has to do with the shrinking workforce, too. In order to be counted in U-6, workers have to be at least marginally attached to the labor force.  That’s defined as “ those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.”

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force.  It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000, not 312,000.  That’s a half-million people who disappeared out of the labor force in a month.

CNBC notes that this is a miss on expectations, as well as a stagnation result:

Job growth was less than expected in August as the U.S. economy added 169,000 positions, raising questions over whether the Federal Reserve will begin a pullback on its historically easy monetary policy.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also said the unemployment rate dropped to 7.3 percent, due primarily to fewer Americans in the labor force. …

Some of the internals were poor as well.

The labor force participation rate slumped to 63.2 percent, a 2013 low and its worst reading in 35 years.

More than half the jobs added came through estimates the government does each month of the amount of positions gained or lost through new business openings and closures. The so-called birth-death model added 90,000 to the total.

Unemployment for blacks jumped to 13.0 percent from 12.6 percent, while the average duration of unemployment hit a five-month high at 37 weeks.

And job quality was at the low end of the income spectrum, as retail led the way with 44,000.

Is this a bad enough report to have the Fed reverse course and continue its quantitative easing? Ben White thinks not:

I think this demonstrates that the Fed simply isn’t having an impact any longer.


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

The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low

The new normal in America. Most new jobs are part-time and millions are dropping out of the workforce altogether out of frustration. This will not end well.

Doughboy on September 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM

I’m sure the champagne corks are popping over at MSNBC

BettyRuth on September 6, 2013 at 8:39 AM

here comes the spin…..

more downward revisions, the libs cry how wonderful the economy is doing under obama than W….what a bunch of maroons
*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 8:39 AM

BettyRuth on September 6, 2013 at 8:39 AM

they were definitely trying to spin it for the wh that’s for sure

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Those that departed went on disability, right?

Screw unemployment when you can get unlimited unemployment with disability.

Obama is turning the entire country into what too many blacks have been since the 1960s.

He was right about fundamentally transforming the country. Screw the white man’s work ethic–it’s racist.

BuckeyeSam on September 6, 2013 at 8:42 AM

How many of these are part-time jobs?

NotCoach on September 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM

I seem to recall the fight for the Stimulus/porkulus legislation, Obama laying down his (or the World’s?) red line as Unemployment.

To parody The Bard: How do I fail thee, let me count the ways.

socalcon on September 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Ok, so how’d I do?

+169K. I said 175K-200K, and closer to 200 than 175. Miss.
7.3% UE. I said 7.3%. Check.
Massive downward revisions from last month. Check.
Lowering of participation rate. Check.

Nice that 169K jobs were “created”, but 312K people left the work force. There’s just no way you can spin that as good news.

I’ll go ahead and predict more of the same for next month, but jobless rate will hold steady at 7.3%

Average work week did tick up from 34.4 to 34.5. The one tiny bit of good news in this report.

Chris of Rights on September 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

‘You know what would turn all of this around right about now? A big, fat war!’

/The Keynesians

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

more downward revisions, the libs cry how wonderful the economy is doing under obama than W….what a bunch of maroons

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Hey this is just a slow jobless recovery. Just wait until Obamacare kicks in and folks have all that extra money from lower healthcare premiums. The pump will really be primed then!

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

ding ding ding

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 8:50 AM

‘You know what would turn all of this around right about now? A big, fat war!’

/The Keynesians

OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII!

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 8:50 AM

heh

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Devastating.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-06/august-jobs-rise-169k-less-expected-unemployment-rate-73

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Clearly, we need to start another Middle East War to juice the economy. Oh, wait, just in time here comes President Red Line to the rescue.

Whewwwwww. Thanks goodness he’s focused like a laser on JOBS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1nz60J39eM

Uploaded on Nov 22, 2008

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President-elect Barack Obama outlined his plan to create 2.5 million jobs in coming years to rebuild roads and bridges and modernize schools. (Nov. 22)

PappyD61 on September 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

The no-work-search-required food stamp program is having its intended effect of discouraging people from even wanting to try to work. Except for a year-over-year non-seasonally-adjusted 22,000 increase of “discouraged” workers, every other measure of the number of unemployed (official, “others” marginally attached to the workforce, and those who want work) dropped rather sharply both on monthly seasonally-adjusted terms and yearly non-adjusted terms. This is despite the number of employed also dropping by 115,000 seasonally-adjusted from July.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM

……AND he was focused on jobs in 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ga-T3uvPeI

Uploaded on May 7, 2011

President Barack Obama is reassuring the public that jobs and the economy are his top priority. (May 7)

PappyD61 on September 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

People continuing to drop out is an unmitigated disaster and it’s long past the point where it’s rendered the unemployment rate nearly useless.

forest on September 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ae2Anha7ig

And THIS gem from 2004.

Obama In 2004: Dismisses Job Creation Of 310,000 New Jobs

After the economy added 310,000 jobs in May 2004 and the unemployment rate was 5.6%, then-candidate Barack Obama used the Democrat weekly radio address to attack the Bush administration for citing good economic numbers.

PappyD61 on September 6, 2013 at 8:55 AM

PappyD61 on September 6, 2013 at 8:55 AM

good times

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I can’t wait until everyone drops out the workforce then unemployment rate will be 0%.

Viator on September 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

And THIS gem from 2004.

Obama In 2004: Dismisses Job Creation Of 310,000 New Jobs

After the economy added 310,000 jobs in May 2004 and the unemployment rate was 5.6%, then-candidate Barack Obama used the Democrat weekly radio address to attack the Bush administration for citing good economic numbers.

PappyD61 on September 6, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Obama’s biggest accomplishment as President will be rehabilitating the image of Bush in both domestic and foreign affairs.

Doughboy on September 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Ok, so how’d I do?

+169K. I said 175K-200K, and closer to 200 than 175. Miss.
7.3% UE. I said 7.3%. Check.
Massive downward revisions from last month. Check.
Lowering of participation rate. Check.

Nice that 169K jobs were “created”, but 312K people left the work force. There’s just no way you can spin that as good news.

I’ll go ahead and predict more of the same for next month, but jobless rate will hold steady at 7.3%

Average work week did tick up from 34.4 to 34.5. The one tiny bit of good news in this report.

Chris of Rights on September 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

I was down for +158K (which after the inevitable downward revisions in the September and October reports should be just about right), 7.3% U-3 on the strength of the Heroes of the Election no longer looking for work (NAILED IT!), and downward payroll revisions of the prior two months (NAILED IT!).

As for the average work week, it’s all on the mostly-salaried “supervisors” working longer – production and non-supervisory employees had an unchanged (from both July 2013 and August 2012) 33.6-hour workweek.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Obama’s biggest accomplishment as President will be rehabilitating the image of Bush Carter in both domestic and foreign affairs.

Doughboy on September 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM

FIFY

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

There shoud be some improvement next month with missile manufacturing on the rise.

hillsoftx on September 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

good news, the number dropped to 7.3%
-luke on msdnc

lol

cmsinaz on September 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM

This is Soviet/Chinese communist style data faking when it comes to the economy by the Obama administration… Also how many of the 169,000 jobs are part time because of Obamacare?

mnjg on September 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Who needs a job, man????

Argh.

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Don’t worry, black Friday is right around the corner, and if the results are as good as they were last black Friday, well, we are in for a solid, SOLID, 2014.

Gatsu on September 6, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Also how many of the 169,000 jobs are part time because of Obamacare?

mnjg on September 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

200% Give or take a 100.

Gatsu on September 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Sometimes I wonder if the country can survive another term with this destructive, narcissistic half-wit in the White House.

DRayRaven on September 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM

So we have an unemployment rate that is “improving” because people aren’t even trying to find work anymore and markets that are “improving” because the Fed has been buying securities with tons of fake money.

What could go wrong?

forest on September 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Hey, let’s add 20 million new citizens!

WisCon on September 6, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Some good news from the July downward revision.

23,000 government jobs were lost.

Before the revision, several thousand government jobs were created.

sentinelrules on September 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Soon enough the fools will stop counting unemployed people at all because they obviously don’t want to work, and the jobless rate will drop to 0%.

Lean Forward! Right into the grave.

Bishop on September 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM

What difference does it make….??????

SPGuy on September 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August.

And yet the unemployment rate is 7.3%. New math.

The Rogue Tomato on September 6, 2013 at 9:21 AM

And yet the unemployment rate is 7.3%. New math skool.

The Rogue Tomato on September 6, 2013 at 9:21 AM

You old skool.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Hey, let’s add 20 million new citizens!

WisCon on September 6, 2013 at 9:13 AM

LOL. Hispanic unemployment at 9% – let’s get it up to 15%!!!!

NJ Red on September 6, 2013 at 9:27 AM

You old skool.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM

He must be a nasty azz cracka, too.

NJ Red on September 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Specifically, 604,000 fewer people were employed this month .vs. last on the household
survey. There has been a lot of question as to how Gallup can have such a wild disparity
between itself and the BLS numbers — well, between the revisions in this report and that
number off the household survey do you still wonder?
In addition the “not in labor force” number skyrocketed this month:

at market-ticker.org

Murphy9 on September 6, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I’ll go ahead and predict more of the same for next month, but jobless rate will hold steady at 7.3%

Average work week did tick up from 34.4 to 34.5. The one tiny bit of good news in this report.

Chris of Rights on September 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

As I recall, the DOL revised its methodology a couple of months back. The gov’t has been looking for a way to massage the unemployment numbers for years now, and not just in this administration. By simply transferring people from the unemployed ranks out of the workforce they have been so far successful in keeping the pitchforks and tar and feathers out of the streets. There will eventually be a tipping point and I believe it’s not far off. That extra six minutes of work isn’t going to pay for the increase in health care cost.

yesiamapirate on September 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Rumor is that Jimmy Carter threw a party and is doing a lot of smiling.

GarandFan on September 6, 2013 at 9:38 AM

7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%

Talking point memo (Via Daily KOS) to MSDNC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, NYT, WaPo. After all, isn’t this what really matters?

NOMOBO on September 6, 2013 at 9:40 AM

It doesn’t matter, at least in terms of motivating any change.

The American people, if they are paying attention at all, only see the 7.3% number, and see that it’s coming down. Any attempt to explain the smoke and mirrors that is making it come down will fall on deaf ears.

Shump on September 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM

How many of these jobs were part time?

William Teach on September 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

It doesn’t matter, at least in terms of motivating any change.

The American people, if they are paying attention at all, only see the 7.3% number, and see that it’s coming down. Any attempt to explain the smoke and mirrors that is making it come down will fall on deaf ears.

Shump on September 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM

LIVs on parade. La La La I can’t hear you.

NJ Red on September 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

And yet the lying media is heralding this as good news. Hey. If everyone would just give up and drop out of the labor force it could be 0%! Yea Barry!!!!!!!!!!!

Minnfidel on September 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

We’ve lost a generation…maybe the next one as well.

Just some rambling thoughts…didn’t sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night…

The normal pattern, over the past century or so, is that young workers enter the work force, learn skills and crafts taught by older workers through “hands on” and direct observation, OJT, apprenticeship.

Industry, service, trades, you name it, the cycle of perpetuating a trained willing “next shift,” if you will, keeps the economy flowing generally in the same direction. And allows for employees to learn, hone and master necessary skills, and employers to be assured of a smooth flow, and a smooth transition as older workers retire or otherwise leave the work force.

Only academia seems exempt.

Today? Tomorrow?

After this much time lost, wasted, and these overall rates of unemployment…when and if the economy picks up to, say, a miserable George W. Bush level of 4.5% unemployment…service industries will be the sole sector of the economy that can have any chance to bounce back…quickly.

The rest?

Industry? Gone…may never return.

Skilled Crafts? Many may be irreparably lost at this rate. You have to be doing it daily to maintain a competitive level of skill.

The Trades? Too many priced out of existence. Many supplanted by DIY. Many potential apprentices lost after four or five years of “college” that they could not handle nor should not have been encouraged to attend.

When the recovery fumbles and stumbles back…low paying unskilled or semi-skilled labor (legal or otherwise) will flow in to the lower end jobs..the ones too many American youth refuse to do. Beneath them, you know.

Services? Flipping burgers is no longer a guaranteed route for the young…replaced by machines…easily. And jobs that require human hands being filled by those who in other times would be comfortably retired long ago. Almost all service jobs can be replaced by machines or simply not replaced at all.

Minorities? Blacks? Already too far gone in too many cities and places, and yet another generation of slavery to government largesse has begun.

Unless government plans to employ millions directly, develop a whole generation of prols…government-paid “workers” performing meaningless tasks, producing nothing of worth, totally dependent on government for their every need, we’ve lost a generation, and stand to lose yet another….and another…becoming bricks in the wall, nothing more.

The ideal level of unemployment in a modern industrial or post-industrial society is about 4%. Such allows for transfer of labor to other sectors quickly, keeps costs of labor manageable. Keeps wages relatively reasonable. Allows for expansion and allows for innovation, risk taking, with no serious threat to the overall employment market.

Get up past 6% or 7% for any length of time, past a quarter or two, then labor costs drop significantly, wages drop as well. Wages that are paid are insufficient for labor to prosper. Mechanization is found to be cheaper.. And industries can fold or relocate with minimum disruption.

Maybe this is the goal…turn the United States into one mass government controlled-and-owned army of “prols.”

Save costs by issuing work uniforms.

Mao jackets?

Insist on standardized non-discriminatory housing? Barracks?

Keep them on an “approved” diet…no waste. Mess halls?

Insist on energy saving modes of transportation. Cattle cars?

I almost get the feeling that this 7.3% – 8.35 unemployment is part of a plan…not an accident, not simply an unfortunate result of an economy out of whack.

So, let’s be sure to celebrate how wonderful the economy is doing, and we have had a wonderful change of course in unemployment…and the sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar, tomorrow there’ll be sun…

coldwarrior on September 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Hooray for the seasoned citizens. The unseasoned August employment-population ratios of various age groups:

- 16-19 year-olds – 29.0% (while the highest August since 2009′s 30.9% and up a bit off 2012′s low of 28.3%, otherwise the lowest August going all the way back to 1948)

- 20-24 year-olds – 62.4% (while up from August 2011′s 61.9% and August 2012′s 61.2%, otherwise the lowest August since 1963)

- 25-54 year olds – 75.9% (while the highest August since 2008′s 78.8% and up a bit from 2010/2011′s modern-era low of 75.0%,

otherwise the lowest August since 1984 when far fewer women were in the workforce) Note: each 5-year subgroup’s employment-population ratio, with stats going back only to 1994, is below that of any August before Obama came into the Oval Office
- 55-64 year olds – 60.7% (the best August of the Obama era, and other than August 2005-2008, which topped out at 61.5% in August 2006, the best August going back to 1948) Note: the 60-64 year-old group had its second-best August going back to 1994′s start of stats for the subgroup, 51.8%, with only August 2007′s 52.2% beating it
- 65 and older – 17.8% (the best August since 1962) Note: while the 65-69 year-olds and 70-74 year olds had their best August going back to 1994′s start of stats for each subgroup, the 75+ group’s 7.2% was beaten by August 2010′s 7.4%

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I don’t believe anything that comes out of DC, nothing!!

Rio Linda Refugee on September 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

As I recall, the DOL revised its methodology a couple of months back. The gov’t has been looking for a way to massage the unemployment numbers for years now, and not just in this administration. By simply transferring people from the unemployed ranks out of the workforce they have been so far successful in keeping the pitchforks and tar and feathers out of the streets. There will eventually be a tipping point and I believe it’s not far off. That extra six minutes of work isn’t going to pay for the increase in health care cost.

yesiamapirate on September 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM

What changed a couple (several, really) months ago was Teh SCOAMT administratively wiped out the work-search requirement for food stamps. Since searching for work in the 4 weeks prior to the mid-month survey is a requirement for being counted as unemployed, and searching for work in 5-52-week period prior to the survey is a requirement for being counted as “marginally attached to the workforce”, it has had its intended effect of thinning the ranks of the “unemployed”.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM

The American people, if they are paying attention at all, only see the 7.3% number, and see that it’s coming down. Any attempt to explain the smoke and mirrors that is making it come down will fall on deaf ears.

Shump on September 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM

At least as long as the EBT card is charged and the PlaceboCare subsidy checks keep rolling in. Once the money runs out,….

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM

In truth, this 7.3% unemployment figure is totally false, bogus, manufactured, correct?

All factors considered, we are actually looking at an unemployment rate of 16%-18% overall, if not higher.

Broken down further…Black unemployment is well above 25%, for example.

.

coldwarrior on September 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM

The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low

The new normal in America. Most new jobs are part-time and millions are dropping out of the workforce altogether out of frustration. This will not end well.

Doughboy on September 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM

The proggies are counting on the passing of time and their friends in the liberal media to make our sad situation the new normal. It’s human nature. Who even talks about the price of gasoline anymore?

slickwillie2001 on September 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

It seems that unemployment has become a career choice. Pretty lucrative too. Probably be college courses in it soon.

Oldnuke on September 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Jobs report: 169,000 jobs added, 7.3% jobless rate
posted at 8:36 am on September 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession.

Keep in mind that the so-called “Great Recession” happened on the Democrats’ watch, after they had taken control of both houses of Congress and passed a bill that raised the minimum wage three times in three years.

Keep in mind that Republicans warned of, and tried to prevent, the crisis at Fannie/Freddie, while Democrats falsely accused the Republicans of racism (“Political lynching” of Franklin Raines, who is black), and falsely claimed that there were no “safety and soundness issues” at Fannie/Freddie.

Obama voted “present” on Fannie/Freddie reform, after receiving more campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie, per year, than any other member of Congress.

When you look at this data, keep in mind that Chris Dodd was in office all 20 of those years, and received a total of $165,400 in Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions.

Barack Obama was in office as U.S. Senator for ONLY FOUR of those years and received a total of $126,349 in Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions.

When you look at PER YEAR receipts of Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions, Barack Obama is far and away #1 on that list.

Obama likes to pretend that he “inherited” the sub-prime mortgage crisis and “the Great Recession”, but the truth is that he helped CAUSE it and refused to help reform Fannie/Freddie when the Republicans tried.

ITguy on September 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Now, the compliment to the age-specific employment-population rates mentioned above, the unseasoned August labor force participation rates of those same age groups:

- 16-19 years old – 37.3% (tied with August 2011 for the all-time August low of 37.3%)
- 20-24 years old – 71.8% (other than August 2011′s 71.1%, the lowest since August 1969)
- 25-54 years old – 80.9% (the lowest since August 1984, when far fewer women were in the workforce) Note: except for the 50-54 year-olds’ 78.2% being the lowest since only 1995, each 5-year subgroup had its lowest LFPR since the 1980s (with the 40-44 year-old group tying the August 2011 modern low of 82.2%)
- 55-64 years old – 64.1% (other than August 2010′s 64.8% and August 2009/2012′s 64.1%, the highest LFPR going all the way back to 1948)
- 65+ years old – 18.7% (the highest since August 1962) Note: the 75+ group had a higher LFPR in August 2010, at 7.8% versus 7.5%

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM

In truth, this 7.3% unemployment figure is totally false, bogus, manufactured, correct?

All factors considered, we are actually looking at an unemployment rate of 16%-18% overall, if not higher.

Broken down further…Black unemployment is well above 25%, for example.

.

coldwarrior on September 6, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Depends on whether you want to count underemployment. Had labor-force participation rates among the various 5-year age groups stayed the same as they were in August 2008, the U-3 would be somewhere north of 9%.

Take the current numbers and factor in the massively-shrunken but still-high 6.3 million (both seasonally-adjusted and non-seasonally-adjusted) who want to work but hadn’t looked in the prior 4 weeks and what would be termed U-5+ would be 10.9%.

Add the underemployed to that and U-6+ would be right around 15.9%.

As you noted, the black unemployment situation is even more appalling, and no-work food stamps isn’t covering that up fully.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Those that departed went on disability, right?

Screw unemployment when you can get unlimited unemployment with disability.

Obama is turning the entire country into what too many blacks have been since the 1960s.

He was right about fundamentally transforming the country. Screw the white man’s work ethic–it’s racist.

BuckeyeSam on September 6, 2013 at 8:42 AM

It takes a bit longer to get the actual numbers of those on SSI and SSDI out of the Social Security Administration, but the percentage of the civilian noninstituional population that was classified as “disabled” by the BEA climbed from 11.57% (28.2 million) last August to 11.68% (28.7 million) this August. Do bear in mind that some of them do work, but 22.8 million of the 28.7 million classified as disabled were not in the workforce, a higher percentage than last year’s 22.3 million of 28.2 million disabled not in the workforce (79.52% versus 79.15%).

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

The part that bugs me the most, aside from the bald-faced lying of the administration on every matter, especially this one? … The fact that this is the ONLY form of media this am, that I have seen these stats on.

a5minmajor on September 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM

So much for the Gallup numbers. Barry’s BLS to the rescue!!!

cdog0613 on September 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM

The media hasn’t told the truth that for 12 straight years (144 consecutive months) from January 1995 – December 2006, Republicans controlled a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and the average monthly Employment-Population ratio was 63.3%.

The media hasn’t told the truth that during the last 6 and 2/3 years (80 consecutive months) from January 2007 – August 2013, Democrats have controlled a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and the average monthly Employment-Population ratio has been 59.8%. The Democrat average employment over the last 6 and 2/3 years is three and a half points lower than the Republican average over the previous 12 years.

The media hasn’t told the truth that during Obama’s pResidency, the average monthly Employment-Population ratio has been 58.7%.

The media hasn’t told the truth that if we had the same level of employment now as we had when Republicans last controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency (December 2006, when the Employment-Population ratio was 63.4%), over 11.8 Million more people would be employed right now (*).

The media has told young people to blame the economy on Bush and Republicans. But the truth is that the economy did very well for 12 straight years of Republican majority control, and didn’t tank until after Pelosi, Reid, and then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc. took majority control of Washington, D.C.

It’s Democrat policies that tanked the economy. But since it happened in 2008 and 2009, and most young people don’t realize that Dems took majority control in 2007, they “Blame Bush”.

Take a look back at the Employment-Population ratio over the last 20 years and ask which party has a better track record of employment when they held majority control?

Republicans held majority control (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency from January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2007. Over those 144 consecutive months, the average was 63.3%, and the last of those 144 months, the last time that Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, December 2006, was slightly above that average, coming in at 63.4%.

THAT is what Obama and his fellow Democrats “inherited” from Bush and the outgoing Republican majority!

Democrats drove it down under 59%, where it has stayed for FOUR YEARS.

(*) If we had 63.4% employment today, instead of 58.6%, then 4.8% more of the population would be employed.

According to BLS table A-1, the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in August 2013 was 245,959,000.

4.8% * 245,959,000 = 11,806,032

If we had the same level of employment that we had during the last month of a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush, then over 11.8 Million more Americans would be employed right now.

ITguy on September 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The part that bugs me the most, aside from the bald-faced lying of the administration on every matter, especially this one? … The fact that this is the ONLY form of media this am, that I have seen these stats on.

a5minmajor on September 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The gang on CNBC, mostly Rick Santelli, touched on some of these points right after the release.

I don’t know how Fox Business handled it (at the moment, it’s a lot easier to access CNBC than Fox Business while working from the desktop, though that’s changing next week).

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM

ITguy on September 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Imagine how much worse it would be if the seniors retired at the rates they have been since the Great Society and the “youths” continued to not work at the rates they are not working now.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM

People continuing to drop out is an unmitigated disaster and it’s long past the point where it’s rendered the unemployment rate nearly useless.

forest on September 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

It’s even rendering my measure of all those who want jobs but aren’t counted meaningless because of the free bread factor.

I can’t wait until the circuses are mandated to be free for that segment of the population.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Imagine how much worse it would be if the seniors retired at the rates they have been since the Great Society and the “youths” continued to not work at the rates they are not working now.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM

And those “youths” are counted on to pay for the seniors’ healthcare. LOL some brilliant strategy. Libs have it ALL FIGURED OUT.

NJ Red on September 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

And those “youths” are counted on to pay for the seniors’ healthcare. LOL some brilliant strategy. Libs have it ALL FIGURED OUT.

NJ Red on September 6, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Actually, they’re being counted on to pay for the middle-aged single wymyn’s (aka the Sandra Flukes of the ObamiNation) health care. Obama is stealing from the seniors for that purpose as well (remember the evisceration of Medicare Advantage?).

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I think this demonstrates that the Fed simply isn’t having an impact any longer.

Strictly speaking, that isn’t true. It’s having an impact. “Impact” is even the right word, I think.

- 65 and older – 17.8% (the best August since 1962) Note: while the 65-69 year-olds and 70-74 year olds had their best August going back to 1994′s start of stats for each subgroup, the 75+ group’s 7.2% was beaten by August 2010′s 7.4%

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

So patriotic. :)

(I’m not writing the dang sarc tag.)

Axe on September 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth.

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force. It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000

Obviously it isn’t enough to keep up with population growth.

MNHawk on September 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM

If we had the same level of employment that we had during the last month of a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush, then over 11.8 Million more Americans would be employed right now.

Unfortunately, the sycophants within the lamestream media, advocating the progressive agenda in a manner unseen since Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, continue to do the bidding of the Administration by focusing on the ‘shiney object’ – the drop in the ‘official’ unemployment rate to 7.3 while ignoring the missed expectations of new jobs, the downward revision of past new job’s created, and the massive drop in the labor participation rate to the lowest level in 35 years (1978).

This is the direct effects of the Administration’s feckless domestic economic policies – Alinsky+Cloward/Piven that is designed to ‘fundamental change’ the country by making it fundamentally bankrupt with a stagnant (at best) economy and massive dependence on a bloated and corrupt federal government.

This is change you can believe in.

Athos on September 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM

It seems that unemployment has become a career choice. Pretty lucrative too. Probably be college courses in it soon.

Oldnuke on September 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM

There already are – the paths are called the Liberal Arts majors.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:49 AM

So patriotic. :)

(I’m not writing the dang sarc tag.)

Axe on September 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Geezers – doing the jobs the yutes won’t.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Slight correction to the above listing of LFPRs by age group…

- 20-24 years old – 71.8% (other than August 2011′s 2012′s 71.1%, the lowest since August 1969)

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Why don’t the Conservative news sites just start reporting an unemployment % that includes the 90+Million that have dropped out of the labor force?

We all know the State-Run media won’t, why won’t Conservative sites?

People need to start understanding what the REAL unemployment rate is. The actual one, apart from the one the Obama Regime is cooking the books on.

Meople on September 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Does anybody know this (I’m sure Steve or IT guy have covered this on an unemployment thread somewhere).
They report the average work week hours -does that mean that they include part time jobs and if so is that anywhere as a separate count? How do they count people who are working two jobs?

hopeful on September 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Why don’t the Conservative news sites just start reporting an unemployment % that includes the 90+Million that have dropped out of the labor force?

We all know the State-Run media won’t, why won’t Conservative sites?

People need to start understanding what the REAL unemployment rate is. The actual one, apart from the one the Obama Regime is cooking the books on.

Meople on September 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

It’s harder to do, especially somewhat-properly. The overly-simplistic holding steady of the overall LFPR ignores the fact that the population is aging and most of those elderly do legitimately retire, and using historical LFPRs by age subgroup requires several spreadsheets and access to the slightly-delayed release of detailed numbers available only through the BLS database.

With that said, I did just that to the May jobs report. I don’t have the time to repeat that work this month, but it’s safe to say that the U-3 rate would have been somewhere between 9% and 9.5% with that calculation.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM

It’s harder to do, especially somewhat-properly. The overly-simplistic holding steady of the overall LFPR ignores the fact that the population is aging and most of those elderly do legitimately retire, and using historical LFPRs by age subgroup requires several spreadsheets and access to the slightly-delayed release of detailed numbers available only through the BLS database.

With that said, I did just that to the May jobs report. I don’t have the time to repeat that work this month, but it’s safe to say that the U-3 rate would have been somewhere between 9% and 9.5% with that calculation.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Ah, ok. I appreciate the explanation.

Meople on September 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Does anybody know this (I’m sure Steve or IT guy have covered this on an unemployment thread somewhere).
They report the average work week hours -does that mean that they include part time jobs and if so is that anywhere as a separate count? How do they count people who are working two jobs?

hopeful on September 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The average workweek, both the longer-series production/non-supervisory private non-farm workers and the shorter-series all private non-farm workers, is per job and also seasonally-adjusted.

The first answer is that, while the BLS does break down the hours worked per industry category, they do not break it down by part-time versus full-time.

The second answer is that because it is per job, those who work multiple jobs are counted twice, just like every other statistic from the Current Employment Survey.

The Current Population Survey does not double-count multiple-jobholders, and does offer a limited breakdown of primary job classification (full-time/part-time) versus secondary job.

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth.

Does this number keep going down? Didn’t it used be in the 200k range?

LoganSix on September 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Even WaPo hates this report, and notes it continues a dismal trend.

MTF on September 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Even WaPo hates this report, and notes it continues a dismal trend.

MTF on September 6, 2013 at 1:36 PM

From the WaPo article:

Consider this: The nation has averaged 148,000 new jobs a month for the last three months. The number was 160,000 for the last six months, and 184,000 a month over the last year. That looks to me like a downward trend, no two ways about it.

Want another sign? The proportion of the U.S. population that had a job in August was 58.6 percent. Six months earlier, the number was a whopping — wait for it — 58.6 percent. The year is nearly three-quarters over, and the economy isn’t growing fast enough to put a higher proportion of its citizens back to work.

You don’t have to squint hard to see evidence that the “nice, steady improvement” theme that has been the conventional wisdom is missing part of the story.

You don’t have to squint hard to see evidence that the “nice, steady improvement” theme that has been the media’s conventional wisdom is missing part of the story a LIE.

======

The Employment-Population ratio that Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc. “inherited” from the outgoing Republican majority on January 3, 2007 was 63.4%.

The Democrat majority drove the economy in the ditch and has left it sitting there for over four years.

The average Employment-Population ratio during Obama’s pResidency has been 58.7%, and August’s number, at 58.6%, was another BELOW-AVERAGE month, even by Obama’s low standard.

The media mantra of a “nice, steady improvement” is a MYTH.
The Employment-Population ratio was higher in September 2009 than it was in August 2013.

ITguy on September 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Steve Eggleston on September 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Thanks :)

hopeful on September 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM