September jobs report shows only 148K net jobs added

posted at 8:36 am on October 22, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Wall Street expected to see 180,000 net new jobs added in September’s long-awaited BLS jobs report, a bit over the 166,000 predicted by ADP before the shutdown.  Instead, the BLS only showed 148,000 jobs added in yet another stagnation result:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 148,000 in September, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in construction, wholesale trade, and transportation and warehousing.

The participation rates remained unchanged, with the civilian labor force participation rate remaining at its 35-year low:

Both the civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.2 percent, and the employment-population ratio at 58.6 percent, were unchanged in September. Over the year, the labor force participation rate has declined by 0.4 percentage point, while the employment-population ratio has changed little.

There were some revisions for July and August resulting in a net increase in jobs of 9,000:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +104,000 to +89,000, and the change for August was revised from +169,000 to +193,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 9,000 more than previously reported.

The jobless rate declined to 7.2%, but that’s not coming from an employment explosion. In order to keep up with population growth, the US economy has to add around 150K jobs net each month, which means we did slightly worse than tread water in September.  Both the U-3 and the U-6 number declined in this case by a tenth of a point, with U-6 now at 13.6%.  Before the Great Recession really got into high gear in the fall of 2008, U-6 was at 10.8%, and it was at 14.2% when Barack Obama took office.

This month, 136,000 people left the workforce in the population survey, which is almost the same number as the net jobs added in the establishment survey.  The number of employed in the same population survey only increased 133,000.  It’s a real demonstration of the continuing stagnation, and another indication of the decreasing value of the jobless rate as an economic indicator.

Reuters calls this a miss, while CNBC quoted an analyst that called the report “blistering”:

September saw the U.S. economy add just 148,000 jobs, significantly worse than expected, according to a report delayed more than two weeks by the government shutdown.

The unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.2 percent as the labor-force participation rate held near 35-year lows. …

“Today’s blistering jobs report has quickly reminded America that our economic problems are getting worse, despite talking point reassurances from Federal Reserve officials,” said Todd Schoenberger, managing partner at LandColt Capital.

The report likely will do little to move the needle on monetary policy.

It should be moving the needle on economic policy in Congress and the White House, but we missed our best chance of that in November 2012.

Update: Chart of the day, courtesy of West Wing Reports:

Like I said, stagnation.


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

B-B-B-ut Bush!

And Sequester!

Mr. Bingley on October 22, 2013 at 8:37 AM

That bodes well heading into the holiday shopping season.

Doughboy on October 22, 2013 at 8:38 AM

September jobs report shows only 148K net jobs added

It was because of a crappy website…..
Canada…
Verizon…
Tea Baggers..
Shutdown…
Some earthquake somewhere….

Anything but Obama’s policies..

Electrongod on October 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I have one word for this jobs market – stagnation.

I should have more to say later when I’m able to tear apart the numbers, but the drop in the number of those working fewer than 35 hours per week is more than overwhelmed by the increase in those holding more than 1 job, and specifically those holding mulitple part-time jobs.

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM

On the job market numbers, excuse me while I use my best “Droopy Dog” voice…

Yippie… yay… go economy… *snore*

Turtle317 on October 22, 2013 at 8:47 AM

This is the best we can do with the FED printing 95 billion a month in securities?

brut4ce on October 22, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Woohoo! UE at 7.2%

Economic Boooooooooooooom!

Hey, is anyone else here hungry for some pancakes and nachos?

Chris of Rights on October 22, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

5 years in and his policies are an epic failure. Obamacare is the driving force behind these economic numbers and things are about to get worse as disposable income disappears with massive premium hikes.

Ellis on October 22, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Wow, President Bush was a lot worse than anyone could ever imagine.

Just think, 5-6 years later and he is still causing unemployment…

And ruined the roll out of ObamaCare…

right2bright on October 22, 2013 at 8:58 AM

libfree:

Who knows what the jobs picture would look like if the government didn’t take over the healthcare industry.

jerryofva on October 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM

By the way libfree these numbers are from before the shutdown. It doesn’t matter anyway, government spending does not grow an economy, you should have figured that out by now.

Ellis on October 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Wow, look what just crawled out of obowmao’s azz.

BeachBum on October 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM

I’ve got an idea, print more cash and label the Tea Party terrorists for disagreeing.

mjbrooks3 on October 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM

W

ho knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

ah, september #’s dearie…nice try. what recovery? hasn’t happened since obozo said it started.

gracie on October 22, 2013 at 9:01 AM

September jobs report shows only 148K net jobs added

I don’t even see how that many jobs were actually “added”.

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

And all of the years of dismal employment numbers before the sequester?

We’re still waiting for the Democratic-controlled government to fix everything…any day now…tick tock, tick tock…

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 22, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Wow. You don’t like Obama’s sequester? And you feel like the government contributes to the economy instead of sucking the lifeblood out of it for dubious things like liberal arts?

You sound like you’ve turned over a new leaf this morning.

oldroy on October 22, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Good point. Remember how the economy was roaring before the sequester….oh wait.

Doughboy on October 22, 2013 at 9:04 AM

5 years in and his policies are an epic failure. Obamacare is the driving force behind these economic numbers and things are about to get worse as disposable income disappears with massive premium hikes.

Ellis on October 22, 2013 at 8:57 AM

And the Libs I know still refuse to see that. Comedy Central and Facebook posts tells them that everything’s A-OK and that the TEA Party and Republicans are evil for not being on board with the One, thus all of our economic woes.

You know, this entire society could literally collapse into bedlam, and these folks will try to rebuild it along the same nonsensical, Liberal beliefs that caused the mess in the first place.

You just can’t fix stupid.

People believe what they want to believe, and that’s all there is to it. Results don’t matter. What matters is how they feel and how they think things ought to be.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 22, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Good point. Remember how the economy was roaring before the sequester….oh wait.

Doughboy on October 22, 2013 at 9:04 AM

I think libfree is pointing out that there has been no private sector growth whatsoever under Obama, so the only lifeline that can be thrown is more spending on nothing. I guess they don’t teach that you have to add value, and someone has to buy what you are selling in the economy in college economics classes any more. Or maybe he didn’t take econ 101?

oldroy on October 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM

I have one word for this jobs market – stagnation.

I should have more to say later when I’m able to tear apart the numbers, but the drop in the number of those working fewer than 35 hours per week is more than overwhelmed by the increase in those holding more than 1 job, and specifically those holding mulitple part-time jobs.

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM

I look forward to reading what you have to say. I always admire how you distill the numbers!

herm2416 on October 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Might want to check the ol’ Stimulus projections chart, comrade. We should be below 5% unemployment by now. You what’s more frightening? Even the Stimulus projections had us below 6% had they not spent us into bankruptcy.

$7,000,000,000,000 in new debt since O took office (not counting the rest of the budget)… not enough for ya?

Oh, and the sequester was O’s idea. The Central Bureau of Information has erased that from your daily talking points which explains why you Leftists keep blaming it.

mankai on October 22, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Have you signed up for Obamacare yet? Just think You could be the very first in New York.

Oldnuke on October 22, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Hey, I have an idea. Let’s start a contest here where we predict what companies are going to shut the doors next year after this Christmas (oh, sorry, er, holiday season, no wait, that has “holy” in it, um, Winter Solstice Celebrations) season’s lousy sales.

But I’m sure it will be because one percenters and Conservatives in general are stingy and don’t like to spend money on gifts, because they don’t want to give things to little kids that should be working in sweatshops, coal mines and textile factories and earning their own damn money.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 22, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Don’t worry — Next month, the October unemployment totals the release will go way down, when hundreds of thousands of people drop out of the workforce because they’re stuck waiting on healthcare.gov to get their federally-mandated insurance.

jon1979 on October 22, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Just think, there are millions of libfreeordie’s out there and they are running the government into the ground.

docflash on October 22, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Ain’t Obamanomics WONDERFUL? Maybe King Barack should PIVOT to the economy. Again.

GarandFan on October 22, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Wow, look what just crawled out of obowmao’s azz.

BeachBum on October 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM

You’ve got that backwards. Lib’s a taker not a giver.

Oldnuke on October 22, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

ROFL

Always an excuse that can be cured by more government spending. We were told we were in “recovery” mode since what, 2010?

Maybe if the National Park Service hadn’t been busy accosting citizens at open-air memorials and scaring away others the “recovery” might have been greater.

Bishop on October 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM

These hard pivots on jobs seem to be more like grinding out a cigarette underfoot.

Murphy9 on October 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Most economist: Stagnation

Liberal media: Stuck in neutral

Rovin on October 22, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Hmmm….the government slim-down happened after the September jobs report.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Ut oh!

Faber: Fed could up QE to $1 trillion a month

Now, here’s a bright idea—print more money!

Rovin on October 22, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Hmmm….the government slim-down happened after the September jobs report.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Don’t you realize that facts is racist….and irrelevant? It’s the thought that counts and how it make you feel. Lib got a 3.0 and be nooskool.

Oldnuke on October 22, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Just think, there are millions of libfreeordie’s out there and they are running the government into the ground.

docflash on October 22, 2013 at 9:15 AM

**shudder**

herm2416 on October 22, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Two sets of numbers of the “prime” working age (25-54) population for everybody to chew on:

- The 80.9% seasonally-adjusted labor force participation rate among the “prime” working-age population is the lowest since November 1984, with the unseasoned 81.2% LFPR the lowest September since 1984.

- The 75.9% seasonally-adjusted employment/population rate among the “prime” working-age population is, other than the months following the official start of the Wreckov…er…”recovery” in June 2009, with no year-over-year improvement in either the seasonally-adjusted or unadjusted (76.3%) over September 2012.

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Just think, there are nearly 100 millions of libfreeordie’s out there and they are running the government into the ground.

docflash on October 22, 2013 at 9:15 AM

ReWrite™ engaged for orders of magnitude.

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Is it time for another speech in the Rose Garden? How about we pack the dais with some people that hope to have a job soon?

EA_MAN on October 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM

- The 75.9% seasonally-adjusted employment/population rate among the “prime” working-age population is, other than the months

following

the official start of the Wreckov…er…”recovery” in June 2009, the lowest since April 1984, with no year-over-year improvement in either the seasonally-adjusted or unadjusted (76.3%) over September 2012.

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Where’s that promised edit button?

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Sentinelrules can’t read. I said the SEQUESTER and then said who knows how much the shutdown WILL hurt growth. Literacy….invest in it.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Sentinelrules can’t read. I said the SEQUESTER and then said who knows how much the shutdown WILL hurt growth. Literacy….invest in it.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 9:50 AM

News flash – sequester’s effects were supposed to be felt around April, and the jobs gain in the second quarter, such as they were (average of 182K), dwarfs the third quarter gain average of 143K.

Oh yeah, your White House has given up the ghost on sequester and reopened tours on a limited basis. Shouldn’t you be doing the same?

Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

It’s Obama’s policies, stupid.

ChuckTX on October 22, 2013 at 9:57 AM

As Barack would say “Winning!”
This is a Marxist’s wet dream.
Destroying Americas finances and morals
in less than two Presidential terms.

redguy on October 22, 2013 at 10:06 AM

the civilian labor force participation rate remaining at its 35-year low

Another reason the Chamber of Commerce and our CongressCrooks want Amnesty. Get that down to a 50 year low.

RADIOONE on October 22, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Probably even worse.

tommyboy on October 22, 2013 at 10:10 AM

This piece puts the government slowdown, not shutdown, into perspective. Toward the end of the commentary, it summarizes the media’s willful ignoring of economic facts re the administration’s failure to address real growth.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/10/22/democrats-and-media-do-a-numbe/1

onlineanalyst on October 22, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

The shutdown started Oct 1. These numbers are for Sept. Try to keep up.

Oh, and another question. What is this “recovery” you and your delusional friends keep speaking of? It would seem your “recovery” is leaving most Americans behind. Is this the plan?

goflyers on October 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

LOL, it’s alternately infuriating and hilarious to see sub-moronic idiots like libfree show up and say the crap they say. Astounding, really. Such a clear lack of basic common sense and intelligence, and yet seemingly able to string sentences together and apparently able to feed themselves without accidentally shoving a fork in their eye socket.

Midas on October 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Re the economy, don’t miss Niall Ferguson’s epic beatdown of Saint Krugman (PBUH), introduced and linked here: Niall Ferguson’s Public Flogging Of Paul Krugman

slickwillie2001 on October 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

The sequester, which was the brainchild of the President, effectively called for the culling of $85B in spending from a $3.6T spending plan – and that is to blame for the dismal, stagnant economic numbers?

I recall the President’s Economic team touting charts during the push for the ‘one-time’ $850B ‘Porkulus’ spending program that if we engaged in that program, we’d have by now a 5% unemployment rate and annualized economic growth in the 4.5%-5% range.

Not only did we spend that $850B, but we have included that same ‘one-time’ expenditure in every single CR since the end of FY2009 – with $3.6-$3.7T of annual federal government spending becoming the ‘new normal’….along with other elements of the ‘new normal’ like a real unemployment rate north of 11.5%, 35 year record lows in the labor participation rates, and sub 2.5% annualized GDP growth rates.

In other words, not only did one one-time Obama stimulus package not achieve the promised results – 5 consecutive stimulus packages also failed to achieve the promised results.

Frankly, Obama’s record in economic development is about as successful as the Obamacare launch has been. The word that fits both is…. incompetence.

Athos on October 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Chart of the day, courtesy of West Wing Reports:

The employment-population ratio 58.6%, (proportion of Americans 16+ that is employed) peaked nearly seven years ago

Close, but no cigar.

The employment-population ratio peaked at 64.7% in April 2000.

Then the Dot Com Bust hit…

…followed by the double-whammy of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

The employment-population ratio dropped to 62.0% in September 2003.

Then, the effects of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts started to kick in, and both employment and revenues rose (that’s right, tax rates went down, but tax revenues went up, largely because employement rose) each year until the Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate.

On January 3, 2007, then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Kerry, along with Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, etc. and new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, took majority control of the Senate and House.

Two days, later, they proposed a bill to raise the minimum wage three times in three years (a total increase of over 40%). The recovery of the employment-population ratio came to an abrupt halt.

Here’s what the Democrats “inherited” from the Republicans on January 3, 2007:

December 2006 Employment-Population ratio: 63.4%

December 2006 Unemployment:4.4%

FY 2007 budget deficit: less than $161 Billion.

For 12 straight years, from January 3, 1995, to January 3, 2007, Republicans held majority control (2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate, and Presidency). For those 12 years, 144 consective months, the Employment-Population ratio never dropped below 62.0%, and averaged 63.3%. The last month of a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush, December 2006, ended slightly above average, at 63.4%.

The Democrat majority drove the economy in the ditch, and as left it sitting in the ditch for over 4 years. The Employment-Population ratio has now been below 59% since September 2009.

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM

The Democrat majority drove the economy in the ditch, and has left it sitting in the ditch for over 4 years.

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 11:29 AM

If we had 63.4% employment today (like we had in December 2006 under Bush and the Republican Congress), instead of 58.6% (like it was in September 2013), then 4.8% more of our population would be employed.

How many people does that represent?

According to BLS table A-1, the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in September 2013 was 246,168,000.

4.8% * 246,168,000 = 11,816,064

If we now 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 October 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

50% of the sequestration cuts are defence-related, which is something you applauded.

Obama advisor: Hagel will bring “huge cuts” to the military

This is awesome. Cut the beast.

libfreeordie on January 9, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Resist We Much on October 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Resist We Much on October 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Well done!

I love it when Democrats are reminded of their past statements.

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

It’s the SEPTEMBER jobs report, idiot. The sequester was in October, and lasted fora rip-roaring two weeks, after which everyone returned to work and got all their back pay.

Stop paying your eight-year-old nephew to troll for you.

Maddie on October 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM

September jobs report shows only 148K net jobs added

It was because of a crappy website…..
Canada…
Verizon…
Tea Baggers..
Shutdown…
Some earthquake somewhere….

Anything but Obama’s policies..

Electrongod on October 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Heh.

There was an earthquake! A terrible flood!

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Excellent info; you and RWM are invaluable resources!

Midas on October 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM

slickwillie2001 on October 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Niall Ferguson AND an epic takedown of Krugman??

(Looks around…)

Am I in Heaven?!?

Maddie on October 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Niall Ferguson AND an epic takedown of Krugman??

(Looks around…)

Am I in Heaven?!?

Maddie on October 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Krugman fanboy bayam is surely huddled in the fetal position over the 3 part Ferguson smack-down of the former Enron consultant.

Athos on October 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Imagine what those numbers would look like without the sequester. Who knows how much the shutdown slowed the recovery.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Might want to check the ol’ Stimulus projections chart, comrade. We should be below 5% unemployment by now. You what’s more frightening? Even the Stimulus projections had us below 6% had they not spent us into bankruptcy.

$7,000,000,000,000 in new debt since O took office (not counting the rest of the budget)… not enough for ya?

Oh, and the sequester was O’s idea. The Central Bureau of Information has erased that from your daily talking points which explains why you Leftists keep blaming it.

mankai on October 22, 2013 at 9:13 AM

The Employment-Population Ratio peaked in April 2000 at 64.7%. That was the peak of the Dot Com bubble, but then the bubble burst and a lot of jobs were lost. By August 2001, the ratio was down to 63.2%. Then the September 11, 2001 attacks came, and the economy took another hit.

The second part of the Bush Tax Cuts, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, was signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003. The Employment-Population Ratio that month (May 2003) was 62.3%. While we were still losing jobs at that point, the low point came four months later, in September 2003 at 62.0%.

The Bush Tax Cuts helped turn the economy around, and by December 2006, just over three and a half years since the passage of the second part of the Bush Tax Cuts, the Employment-Population Ratio was back up to 63.4%.

The next month, Pelosi took control of the House, Reid took control of the Senate, and the recovery came to a halt as the Democrats passed a bill raising the minimum wage three times in three years.

===

Compare the impact of the Bush Tax Cuts to the impact of the Obama “Stimulus”

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was signed by pResident Obama on February 17, 2009. The Employment-Population Ratio that month (Feb 2009) was 60.3%. What was the E-P ratio three and a half years after the passage of the “Stimulus”? In August 2012, the E-P ratio was 58.4%.

In the 3.5 years after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, revenues went up every year as employment increased from a low of 62.0% to a high of 63.4%.

In the 3.5 years after the passage of the 2009 Obama “Stimulus”, employment decreased from 60.3% to a high of 58.4%.

So, while the Bush Tax Cuts led to true recovery and more of our population being employed, the Obama “Stimulus” did the exact opposite… and less of our population is employed now than when the “Stimulus” was passed!

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM

have one word for this jobs market – stagnation.I should have more to say later when I’m able to tear apart the numbers, but the drop in the number of those working fewer than 35 hours per week is more than overwhelmed by the increase in those holding more than 1 job, and specifically those holding mulitple part-time jobs.
Steve Eggleston on October 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Happened to watch cnn couple of hours ago and the new labor sec perez (latest Baghdad Bob) was swearing up and down that the job market had turned the corner. He kept saying 7.2% and when the newsreader mentioned that the majority were parttime jobs, he said that was a flat out lie put out by naysayers that the truth is most jobs were good paying fulltime.

Erm. just because perez calls them good fulltime jobs doesn’t mean it’s true, but there you Have it. The tp is there so look for our trolls to repeat the lie that these are good jobs. And that Oboobi care had nothing to do with people losing jobs or forced to go parttime.

AH_C on October 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Midas on October 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Thank you for your kind words.

Please be sure to thank Steve Eggleston, too… his analysis usually goes several steps beyond mine!

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Close, but no cigar.

The employment-population ratio peaked at 64.7% in April 2000.

Then the Dot Com Bust hit…

…followed by the double-whammy of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

The employment-population ratio dropped to 62.0% in September 2003.

Then, the effects of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts started to kick in, and both employment and revenues rose (that’s right, tax rates went down, but tax revenues went up, largely because employement rose) each year until the Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate.

On January 3, 2007, then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Kerry, along with Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, etc. and new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, took majority control of the Senate and House.

Two days, later, they proposed a bill to raise the minimum wage three times in three years (a total increase of over 40%). The recovery of the employment-population ratio came to an abrupt halt.

Here’s what the Democrats “inherited” from the Republicans on January 3, 2007:

December 2006 Employment-Population ratio: 63.4%

December 2006 Unemployment:4.4%

FY 2007 budget deficit: less than $161 Billion.

For 12 straight years, from January 3, 1995, to January 3, 2007, Republicans held majority control (2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate, and Presidency). For those 12 years, 144 consective months, the Employment-Population ratio never dropped below 62.0%, and averaged 63.3%. The last month of a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush, December 2006, ended slightly above average, at 63.4%.

The Democrat majority drove the economy in the ditch, and as left it sitting in the ditch for over 4 years. The Employment-Population ratio has now been below 59% since September 2009.

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Now just think for a moment what it would be like if this was common knowledge………

Tenwheeler on October 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM

If we had 63.4% employment today (like we had in December 2006 under Bush and the Republican Congress), instead of 58.6% (like it was in September 2013), then 4.8% more of our population would be employed.

How many people does that represent?

According to BLS table A-1, the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in September 2013 was 246,168,000.

4.8% * 246,168,000 = 11,816,064

If we now 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 October 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Echoing Midas, the three of you,IT, SteveEggleston and RWM are doing yeoman service. And also for our resident archivist…
Dang it, the nomme de guerre slips my mind.

Someone remind me?

Tenwheeler on October 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Now just think for a moment what it would be like if this was common knowledge………

Indeed.

I keep trying to get this information to members of Congress, the MSM, and conservative bloggers.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

- Barack Obama July 3, 2008

Contrary to Obama’s 2008 assertion, the President does not affect the debt limit (or most any other part of the government or economy) “by his lonesome”.

I think it is fair to give the majority of the credit and/or blame not to the President, but to the party which controlled a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency at the time.

Republicans held majority control from January 3, 1995 to January 2, 2007, and were majority responsible for the appropriations bills passed for Fiscal Years 1996-2007. In those 12 years, FY 1996-2007, Republican majorities increased the national debt from $5 Trillion to $9 Trillion
an increase of $4 Trillion over 12 years, or
an average of $333 Billion per year.

Democrats have held majority control from January 3, 2007 to present, and have been majority responsible for the appropriations bills passed for Fiscal Years 2008-2013. In those 6 years, FY 2008-13, Democrats majorities increased the national debt from $9 Trillion to over $17 Trillion
an increase of more than $8 Trillion over 6 years, or
an average of more than $1,333 Billion per year ($1.33 Trillion per year).

The Democrat majority has created more than twice as much debt in half the time…
deficit spending at OVER FOUR TIMES the average rate of the previous Republican majority.

ITguy on October 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Democrats have held majority control from January 3, 2007 to present, and have been majority responsible for the appropriations bills passed for Fiscal Years 2008-2013. In those 6 years, FY 2008-13, Democrats majorities increased the national debt from $9 Trillion to over $17 Trillion…
an increase of more than $8 Trillion over 6 years, or
an average of more than $1,333 Billion per year ($1.33 Trillion per year).

The Democrat majority has created more than twice as much debt in half the time…
deficit spending at OVER FOUR TIMES the average rate of the previous Republican majority.

At the present pace, by the time Barack Obama’s second term of office ends in January 2017, he will have increased the national debt more in his 8 years than all 43 previous President’s did over 220 years.

His smallest annual budget deficit will be larger than the previous Administration’s largest (FY2008).

On the day that the government re-opened last week, the Administration of Barack Obama set a record in borrowing – increasing the debt by $328B on that single day.

The annual budget deficit of FY2007, the last year where the Republican’s controlled both the WH and Congress, was only $161B – less than half of the ONE DAY BORROWING RECORD set by the Obama Administration.

Athos on October 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Sentinelrules can’t read. I said the SEQUESTER and then said who knows how much the shutdown WILL hurt growth. Literacy….invest in it.

libfreeordie on October 22, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Yeah, but have you signed up for Obamacare yet? C’mon lib you can not only be the first in New York you can be the only subscriber in New York. Get busy and sign up. Don’t you want to promote The Won’s signature piece of legislation? Just think you could get a gig in the Rose Garden and priss around before the dozens of people that would watch. You might even manage to faint for the cameras.

Oldnuke on October 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Also tucked into this ‘jobs report’ is this gem:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-22/us-somehow-adds-691k-full-time-jobs-september

The PROPAGANDISTS in the LABOR DEPARTMENT are striking back against the PEOPLE by RIGGING the numbers to obfiscate the truth!

Look for EVERY democrat to pretend this OBVIOUS FRAUD is now the TRUTH!

Somehow, I doubt that ANY Republican, or media member, will EVER point out this BLATANT FRAUD and will simply accept this LIE as a FACT!

Freddy on October 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM

September jobs report shows only 148K net jobs added

And 90% of them are probably part-time.

xblade on October 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Also tucked into this ‘jobs report’ is this gem:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-22/us-somehow-adds-691k-full-time-jobs-september

The PROPAGANDISTS in the LABOR DEPARTMENT are striking back against the PEOPLE by RIGGING the numbers to obfiscate the truth!

Look for EVERY democrat to pretend this OBVIOUS FRAUD is now the TRUTH!

Somehow, I doubt that ANY Republican, or media member, will EVER point out this BLATANT FRAUD and will simply accept this LIE as a FACT!

Freddy on October 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Wow.

In brief: according to the BLS’ magic calculations, in one month, the month during which the so-called uncertainly surrounding the government shutdown hit its peak (if one listens to CEO apologists), the US work force saw the rotation of some 594K part-time workers into a whopping 691K full-time jobs, in addition to adding over 100K net new jobs in the month.

ITguy on October 23, 2013 at 8:57 AM