January jobs report: 113,000 jobs added, 6.6% unemployment rate

posted at 8:36 am on February 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The American economy once again failed to keep up with population growth in job creation in January, the second poor jobs report in a row. Only 113,000 jobs were added last month according to the BLS, but the labor force rebounded a bit as well:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.2 million, and the unemployment rate, at 6.6 percent, changed little in January. Since October, the jobless rate has decreased by 0.6 percentage point. (See table A-1.) (See the note and tables B and C for information about the effect of annual population adjustments to the household survey estimates.) ….

After accounting for the annual adjustment to the population controls, the civilian labor force rose by 499,000 in January, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 63.0 percent. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over the month, and the employment-population ratio increased by 0.2 percentage point to 58.8 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population
adjustments, see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

The BLS applied its annual revisions to benchmarks, which in the end didn’t change too much of its analyses over the past year. The impact to the December-January calculations was almost nil, for instance.

There are a couple of bright spots. The U-6 measure of overall unemployment dropped to 12.7% even with the increase in the labor force, its lowest reading since December 2008 near the apex of the job-loss meltdown in the Great Recession. The number of people employed in the Establishment survey hit its highest level since June 2008, and in the private-sector since March 2008. The workforce participation rate bounced back a little, but not much; 63.0% is still tied for the fifth-lowest month since the 1970s.

Still, we need to add 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth. We’re closer to it than in December, which was upgraded to 75,000 jobs added, but still far off the pace for even stagnation.

Reuters reports this as a big miss from expectations, and says don’t blame the cold weather this time:

U.S. employers hired far fewer workers than expected in January and job gains for the prior month were barely revised up, suggesting a loss of momentum in the economy, even as the unemployment rate hit a new five-year low of 6.6 percent.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 113,000, the Labor Department said on Friday. But with strong job gains in construction, cold weather probably was not a major factor in January.

The second straight month of weak hiring – marked by declines in retail, utilities, government, and education and health employment – could be a problem for the Federal Reserve, which is tapering its monthly bond-purchasing stimulus program.

The AP called it “a surprisingly weak” jobs report:

Hiring was surprisingly weak in January for the second straight month, likely renewing concern that the U.S. economy might be slowing after a strong finish last year.

The Labor Department says employers added 113,000 jobs, less than the average monthly gain of 194,000 in 2013. This follows December’s tepid increase of just 75,000. Job gains have averaged only 154,000 the past three months, down from 201,000 in the preceding three months. …

The anxiety marks a reversal from a few weeks ago, when most analysts were increasingly hopeful about the global economy. U.S. growth came in at a sturdy 3.7 percent annual pace in the second half of last year. The Dow Jones industrial average finished 2013 at a record high. Europe’s economy was slowly emerging from a long recession. Japan was finally perking up after two decades of stagnation.

But then came December’s weak jobs total. And on Monday, an industry survey found that manufacturing grew much more slowly in January than in December. A measure of new orders in the report sank to the lowest level in a year. That report contributed to a dizzying 326-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average.

Also this week, automakers said sales slipped 3 percent in January. And last week, a measure of signed contracts to buy homes fell sharply, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Basically, we’re going through cyclic stagnation. We get small boosts in job expansion, which economists keep treating as solid portents for explosive growth, only to see corrections to the downside shortly afterward. The average effect is still stagnation, and as long as we’re disincentivizing investment and labor, that’s what we will keep seeing.

Update: Steve Eggleston does the deep dive in the comments:

Let’s take a look at that “rebound”, using unseasoned numbers from last January and this January:

  • Civilian noninstitutional population – +2,252,000
  • Labor force – -413,000 (yes, that’s right, 413,000 fewer people were participating in January 2014 than in January 2013)
  • Employed – +1,912,000 (that’s right, the population increased more than the number of employed)
  • Officially unemployed – -2,326,000

What of those who were working? Production and non-supervisory employees had their workweek shrink by 0.1 hour from last year to 33.5 hours (the same as December). Their weekly pay increased by $12.75 over the course of the year to $683.07, a not-quite-inflation-matching 1.9% increase.

The supervisors took up the slack because the average workweek of all non-farm employees remained unchanged from both January 2013 and December 2013 at 34.4 hours. Overall weekly pay increased by $15.82 to $832.82, also a 1.9% increase (through the magic of rounding; it is higher than the production/non-supervisory increase).

Update: Steve had two typos in his bullets that called out the wrong years, which I have fixed.


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

Not even treading water…embrace the suck

thunderhorse on February 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM

How long before the MSM blames the “polar vortex” for this weak report?

Johnnyreb on February 7, 2014 at 8:44 AM

More communist style numbers faking… The BLS commies who make up these fake statics do not need an order from Obama anymore to fake the numbers, they know how to serve the communist cause on their own…

mnjg on February 7, 2014 at 8:44 AM

This will allow even more people to escape the wage/job trap, and persue more important and enligh……….BWHAHAHAHAHAHA,( not with a straight face) :-D

Offhanded on February 7, 2014 at 8:44 AM

But fewer jobs are awesome according to Libs, so they rejoice..

hillsoftx on February 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

How about we report the U6 in the headlines? At least it is a little closer to the truth.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

You wingnuts don’t get it. This is clearly due to all the people who’ve recently escaped job-lock. The recovery continues unabated.

Lost in Jersey on February 7, 2014 at 8:47 AM

This is great news….all those newly ‘liberated’ Americans not having to work anymore. Isn’t the Dog Eater just dreamy??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Economic BOOOOOOOOOOM!

Chris of Rights on February 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Let’s take a look at that “rebound”, using unseasoned numbers from last January and this January:

Civilian noninstitutional population – +2,252,000
Labor force – -413,000 (yes, that’s right, 413,000 fewer people were participating in January 2013 than in January 2012)
Employed – +1,912,000 (that’s right, the population increased more than the number of employed)
Officially unemployed – -2,326,000

What of those who were working? Production and non-supervisory employees had their workweek shrink by 0.1 hour from last year to 33.5 hours (the same as December). Their weekly pay increased by $12.75 over the course of the year to $683.07, a not-quite-inflation-matching 1.9% increase.

The supervisors took up the slack because the average workweek of all non-farm employees remained unchanged from both January 2013 and December 2013 at 34.4 hours. Overall weekly pay increased by $15.82 to $832.82, also a 1.9% increase (through the magic of rounding; it is higher than the production/non-supervisory increase).

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 8:49 AM

O.K., all you recently added enrollees to this website,

later today there will be a test for you from rogerb.

ToddPA on February 7, 2014 at 8:49 AM

How about we report the U6 in the headlines? At least it is a little closer to the truth.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

The Obama regime has no interest in the truth…

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Is this Groundhog Day? Every single month the same story…. Not enough jobs to keep up with population growth but the unemployment rate ticks down a point or two. By 2016, nobody is going to be working but unemployment will be .0001%

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 8:50 AM

If another 3 million people lose their jobs we’ll be at full employment. Success!

– Sheila Jackson Lee

HumpBot Salvation on February 7, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Failure = success!

albill on February 7, 2014 at 8:51 AM

O.K., all you recently added enrollees to this website,

later today there will be a test for you from rogerb.

ToddPA on February 7, 2014 at 8:49 AM

The morning shift hasn’t woken up yet. They roll in around 11.

Lost in Jersey on February 7, 2014 at 8:52 AM

How about we report the U6 in the headlines? At least it is a little closer to the truth.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

That’s likely getting cooked too – I strongly suspect that the accepted economic reasons for being part-time are being squeezed so it can be reported as 12.7% (a drop of 0.4 percentage points).

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 8:52 AM

This is disturbing, all these people having to be job-locked, how far our nation has fallen from the Founder’s ideal of sitting around waiting for the gubment check to arrive.

Bishop on February 7, 2014 at 8:53 AM

O.K., all you recently added enrollees to this website,

later today there will be a test for you from rogerb.

ToddPA on February 7, 2014 at 8:49 AM

This recently enrolled poster is just dying to be schooled by libiotfreeordie…He IS a perfessor, is he not??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM

How about we report the U6 in the headlines? At least it is a little closer to the truth.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

The Obama regime has no interest in the truth…

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:50 AM

That doesn’t mean HA has to follow his lead.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM

From Tom Blumer:

Now let’s look at the revised raw and seasonally adjusted results:
- The total nonfarm payroll job loss was 2.870 million — the worst since 2009 (barely, but still worse), and 340,000 below my pre-release benchmark (yes, I’m looking at the numbers after the population control adjustments.
- The private-sector job loss was a nearly as awful 2.346 million — the worst since 2009, and a sliver less than 300,000 below my pre-release benchmark.

Boom!

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM

How did the unemployment rate go down if jobs added didn’t keep pace with inflation and the workforce participation rate went up (for once)?

forest on February 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

How about we report the U6 in the headlines? At least it is a little closer to the truth.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

The Obama regime has no interest in the truth…

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:50 AM

That doesn’t mean HA has to follow his lead.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM

But we wouldn’t want Barack to accuse HA of being unfair to him, now, would we??? Perish the thought, man…

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:59 AM

More book-cooking. The workforce increases 500k, but only 113k more jobs appear. That by basic math HAS to lead to an increase in both U3 and U6. The Obama Administration claim both declined. Not buying it.

Zumkopf on February 7, 2014 at 9:00 AM

How did the unemployment rate go down if jobs added didn’t keep pace with inflation and the workforce participation rate went up (for once)?

forest on February 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

That’s what ‘laser-like focus’ will do for you, my friend…

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 9:00 AM

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:59 AM

True, narcissists have fragile egos, and it wouldn’t be “FAIR”.

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

How did the unemployment rate go down if jobs added didn’t keep pace with inflation and the workforce participation rate went up (for once)?

forest on February 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Lies. Damned Lies. Statistics.

(They’re manipulating the numbers, not including people in the U-3. See the Labor Force Participation numbers for clarity.)

I love watching even Fox News call this “good news.” Gak.

RSNTR on February 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM

6.6 my hairy @$$!!!!

PrettyMooch on February 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Boom!

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Is that a philisophical exclamation? If the economy goes boom and nobody reports the truth, did the economy really go boom?

Seriously, the theme today in the media and certainly with Jay Carney will be that we’re still steadily recovering, not as fast as the administration would like, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. And, of course, that Republicans are hurting the recovery by holding up the extended welfare (unemployment) bill in the Senate.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM

How did the unemployment rate go down if jobs added didn’t keep pace with inflation and the workforce participation rate went up (for once)?

forest on February 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Using the seasoned numbers (except for the unseasoned civilian noninstituion population) between December 2013 and January 2014:

Civilian noninstitution population – +170,000
Labor force – +523,000 (drove the participation rate up from 62.8% to 63.0%)
Employed – +641,000 (drove the employment-population ratio up from 58.6% to 58.8%)
Unemployed – -115,000

That drove the U-3 rate down from 6.7% (6.68%) to 6.6% (6.58%).

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Do we have a newly registered troll or did I miss something here??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

How did the unemployment rate go down if jobs added didn’t keep pace with inflation and the workforce participation rate went up (for once)?

forest on February 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Oh look another one that has no idea what that number really means.

gophergirl on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Most of the major market predictors were expecting a print between 170k and 205k.

133k is not a “miss”. That’s like aiming for the moon and ending up on Pluto.

We are at a 35 year low on the labor participation rate. That’s the real scary figure people should be worried about.

And touting a 6.6% unemployment number is focusing on the squirrel when a tractor trailer is about to run you over.

Bottom line; Obamacare and Democrats fiscal policy (or the lack thereof)is to blame. Period. Full stop.

Marcus Traianus on February 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

As if the unemployment rate is the only number of significance. You can’t cherry pick data like that.

But, I’m sure you’ll agree that the Republicans are right. There is no longer a need for extending unemployment benefits now. What with a 6.6% unemployment rate.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Do we have a newly registered troll or did I miss something here??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

He’s new. (but, so am I) Proving once again that truth isn’t as important to them as much as what can be used to political effect.

RSNTR on February 7, 2014 at 9:06 AM

At this point the Government might as well just make up the U3.

Gatsu on February 7, 2014 at 9:06 AM

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Didn’t take long for you to prove yourself a moron.

BeachBum on February 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM

From my friends at Americans for Limited Government:

The ups and downs of any monthly unemployment report pale in comparison to this startling analysis. While the labor participation rate shifted upward slightly, it still remains that 3.5 million fewer people who are 16-54 are participating in the workforce compared to January 2009 levels. If they were included in today’s jobs report, the unemployment rate would be 8.6 percent, instead of the reported 6.6 percent.

Cue the ObamiNation National Anthem.

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Stand up, Chuck. Stand up and take a bow!

bidenmytime on February 7, 2014 at 9:09 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

The formula used has nothing to do with the accuracy of the numbers being reported by the administration. You can come up with 0% unemployment if you plug the right numbers into the formula. Obama’s numbers are fake.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:09 AM

This recently enrolled poster is just dying to be schooled by libiotfreeordie…He IS a perfessor, is he not??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM

It is a commonly accepted requirement when referring to the child/adult sexual relations advocate to spell his “so-called” position, “prefessor”

hawkdriver on February 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

False. The BLS revised the Current Population Survey, which gathers the data needed to determine these rates, in 1994. Among the changes made, the U3 rate was named the new “official” unemployment rate, instead of the U5 rate.

RSNTR on February 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Is that a philisophical exclamation? If the economy goes boom and nobody reports the truth, did the economy really go boom?

Seriously, the theme today in the media and certainly with Jay Carney will be that we’re still steadily recovering, not as fast as the administration would like, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. And, of course, that Republicans are hurting the recovery by holding up the extended welfare (unemployment) bill in the Senate.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM

It’s “boom” as in “destructive explosion”, not “boom” as in “it’s boom times again”.

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Liberation!!!!

Why stop now?

Electrongod on February 7, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

I see. So, you’re not interested in the truth, just in the talking point. But then you say that some other talking point (which you don’t identify) is up in flames.

Me, I don’t care about your talking points, or about the GOPs. I care about getting the economy growing, which isn’t going to happen with a +115K jobs, and isn’t going to happen with a 63% labor force participation rate. It also isn’t going to happen with a shift from full-time to part-time work.

Chris of Rights on February 7, 2014 at 9:11 AM

As if the unemployment rate is the only number of significance. You can’t cherry pick data like that.

But, I’m sure you’ll agree that the Republicans are right. There is no longer a need for extending unemployment benefits now. What with a 6.6% unemployment rate.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM

True…in this booming economy and soaring job market, the Dog Eater ought to be pushing for a reduction is the unemployment extension. After all, it was an ‘emergency’ extension, was it not? What say you, libiotrules??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6
Another republican talking point goes up in flames.
liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM</blockquote
Why aren't you interested in the number of times Barry acts like:
A queer
A Muslim
A communist
An arrogant scumbag
A traitor
And on and on and on….

PrettyMooch on February 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Do you understand math?

numerator?
Denominator?

If the democrats had their way…

Everyone would be liberated from Job Lock…

And no one would be working..

The unemployment rate would be 0%.

Electrongod on February 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

listening to npr accidentally on the way to work.

healthcare market shrinking………the moderator thinks that maybe obamacare may be having an effect.

lol. ya think?

renalin on February 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules liberal arts major on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

MarxMyWords on February 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Moron.

They changed the formula to calculate the U3 rate in 1994 under Clinton.

sentinelrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:14 AM

It is a commonly accepted requirement when referring to the child/adult sexual relations advocate to spell his “so-called” position, “prefessor”

hawkdriver on February 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Duly noted, hawkdriver…he DID attend Hawvawd, didn’t he??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

Math is hard.

Since 2009 every single decrease in the unemployment rate has come from reducing the size of the labor force. That would be, people out of the workforce. Which, as I noted, is now at a 35 year low.

In past testimony, even Ben Bernanke “too optimistic to a measure of the state of the labor market”.

Marcus Traianus on February 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Actually, it changed in 1994 to exclude those who hadn’t looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey. Add in the 6,348,000 who want to work but were excluded from being termed unemployed and the unemployment rate would be 10.2%. That is worse than every month between August 1994 (also 10.2%) and December 2008 (10.5%).

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Right. The Messiah taking five years to even be able to cook the numbers down to 6.6 with the numbers chiefly predicated on Americans leaving the work force and the CBO testifying the ACA incentivizes people to stay out of the work force to qualify for healthcare subsidies makes your Joe Goebbels style rosy labor report seem so …

hawkdriver on February 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

But, I’m sure you’ll agree that the Republicans are right. There is no longer a need for extending unemployment benefits now. What with a 6.6% unemployment rate.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Boom!

ClownsToTheLeftOfMe on February 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM

While the labor participation rate shifted upward slightly, it still remains that 3.5 million fewer people who are 16-54 are participating in the workforce compared to January 2009 levels. Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Banner headline: Under Obama, 3.5M Freed from Joblock.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Sounds like a liberal to me. Who gives a crap about actually putting people back to work? As long as the regime can spin the numbers.

Doughboy on February 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Big thank you to Steve Eggleston and ITGuy and others that add useful information to these important threads.

Murphy9 on February 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM

At this point the Government might as well just make up the U3.

Gatsu on February 7, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Who says they stopped?

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

The level 1 trauma center where the wifey works has been laying off 10-20 a day for weeks.Can you guess the reason why?

docflash on February 7, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Do these clowns, at the BLS, realize that no one takes them seriously anymore. You would think that at some point in time professional pride would take over.

whbates on February 7, 2014 at 9:19 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Did you miss the article where the BLS admitted they lied on the Unemployment numbers a while back, say right before the 2012 elections?

Johnnyreb on February 7, 2014 at 9:19 AM

This is the freedom the dems have been talking about

cmsinaz on February 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Right. The Messiah taking five years to even be able to cook the numbers down to 6.6 with the numbers chiefly predicated on Americans leaving the work force and the CBO testifying the ACA incentivizes people to stay out of the work force to qualify for healthcare subsidies makes your Joe Goebbels style rosy labor report seem so …

hawkdriver on February 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Remember when Obama took office we were losing over 500K to a million jobs per month.

This is a massive improvement. it may not be the best scenario but it beats the previous years.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

hawkdriver on February 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Duly noted, hawkdriver…he DID attend Hawvawd, didn’t he??

bimmcorp on February 7, 2014 at 9:15 AM

I don’t know. He used to spend a lot of time in Washington DC when he posted as DeathToMediaHacks. Is Hawvawd in Washington?

Hard to say. He lies a lot.

Welcome to Hot Air though.

hawkdriver on February 7, 2014 at 9:21 AM

Cowboy poetry is really going to take a hit with everybody back to work and all.

/

Murphy9 on February 7, 2014 at 9:22 AM

But, I’m sure you’ll agree that the Republicans are right. There is no longer a need for extending unemployment benefits now. What with a 6.6% unemployment rate.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Curious how they want it both ways.

tru2tx on February 7, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Those figures aren’t lower than expected.

They’re just not factoring all of the liberation going on out there.

Good Lt on February 7, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Well this figures since the WOTC expired at the end of the 2013:

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a Federal tax credit available to employers for hiring individuals from certain target groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment.

WOTC joins other workforce programs that incentivize workplace diversity and facilitate access to good jobs for American workers.

businesses no longer getting paid to hire workers===less workers. not rocket science.

unseen on February 7, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Remember when Obama took office we were losing over 500K to a million jobs per month.

This is a massive improvement. it may not be the best scenario but it beats the previous years.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

You could have had McLaim a prez..

and there would have been a recovery…,

Electrongod on February 7, 2014 at 9:24 AM

How did the unemployment rate go down if jobs added didn’t keep pace with inflation and the workforce participation rate went up (for once)?
forest on February 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

This has been the joke of Obama’s employment numbers since the beginning of his administration: How can the unemployment rate go down during a period when there was a net increase in the amount of people not employed. Of course that’s impossible but it been reported this way over and over. Ever since the unemployment rated peaked at around 10% during Obama’s first year in office, every reduction in the rate has been a result of people arbitrarily removed from the workforce for purposes of calculation.

tommyboy on February 7, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Tranforming America one less job at a time. Please pass the food stamps…

Static21 on February 7, 2014 at 9:25 AM

you could see the writing on the wall from theISM number this month:

U.S. manufacturing grew at a substantially slower pace in January as new order growth plunged by the most in 33 years, driving overall factory activity to an eight-month low, an industry report showed on Monday.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity fell to 51.3 last month, to its lowest level since May 2013, from a recently revised 56.5 in December.

January’s figure was also well below the median forecast of 56 in a Reuters poll of economists, missing even the lowest estimate of 54.2. Readings above 50 indicate expansion.

industry rushed to fill orders at the end of the year before tax credits expired on 12/31/13. they forward filled orders so there is going to be a big drop off of orders and thus hiring for the next couple months. Got to love government it screws with the business cycle daily, monthly, yearly.

unseen on February 7, 2014 at 9:26 AM

add into the mix the high energy cost of gasoline at around $3.50 and the economy will remain weak for as long as energy/food prices are high and wages are held steady.

unseen on February 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

listening to npr accidentally on the way to work.

healthcare market shrinking………the moderator thinks that maybe obamacare may be having an effect.

renalin on February 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Accidentally? Sure it was an accident and not wanting to hear the sultry sexy reporting of Nina Totenberg or something. ;0

But, frankly, the media revisionists are going to have fun with Obamacare. To believe the reports, the media was completely blindsided by all the effects of Obamacare from day one. On October 1st they tried to treat it like Mardi Gras, New Years Eve, and a birthday celebration rolled up into one. The reporters breathlessly pointed out individuals who had “signed up” for Obamacare. And then, according to the media, they started to discover the glitches in the website and “unforeseen” consequences.

The reality is that every single thing that has happened with Obamacare was well known by HHS and the media for years. They were hoping that a smooth roll-out would hide the systemic problems beyond the website long enough that Obamacare would be too big to ever be killed. In the cold bare light of unspinnable truth, National Panhandler Radio and the rest of the MSM is having to start admitting the truth.

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Last data dump from me (for now, at least) – the labor force participation rate and employment-population ratio for the 25-54 year-olds (the “prime” potential workforce):

- 81.1% seasoned LFPR, which while up from December 2013′s 80.7% is lower than every month between December 1984 (81.0%) and August 2013 (81.0%).
- 80.9% unseasoned LFPR, down 0.1 points from January 2013 and the lowest January since January 1984′s 80.1%.
- 76.5% seasoned employment-population ratio, which while up from December 2013′s 76.1% is lower than every month between November 1984 (76.1%) and March 2009 (76.2%).
- 75.9% unsesoned employment-population ratio, which, while the best January since January 2009′s 76.5%, is the lowest January between January 1984 (74.2%) and January 2009.

No, it is not a willing return to a 1-worker/2-adult household.

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Focus on that like a laser, forget the rest.

Bishop on February 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

They also tweaked the formula in September of 2012. I wonder why?

captnjoe on February 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM

28 Signs That The Middle Class Is Heading Toward Extinction

#3 Real disposable income in the United States just experienced the largest year over year drop that we have seen since 1974.

#4 Median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row.

#5 The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row.

#6 In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be “middle class”. In 2014, only 44 percent of all Americans consider themselves to be “middle class”.

#7 In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be “lower class”. In 2014, an astounding 49 percent of them do.

#8 Incredibly, 56 percent of all Americans now have “subprime credit”.

#9 Total consumer credit has risen by a whopping 22 percent over the past three years.

#10 The average credit card debt in the United States is $15,279.

#11 The average student loan debt in the United States is $32,250.

#12 The average mortgage debt in the United States is $149,925.

#13 Overall, U.S. consumers are $11,360,000,000,000 in debt.

Murphy9 on February 7, 2014 at 9:33 AM

I love when libs come on the site, like a new puppy trying out the world for the first time, or trying to play with the family cat, and they get a clawful in the nose.

renalin on February 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

This is getting some traction but it is not because of what they are saying – at least not directly.

The economy stinks and so with it the number of people covered by private insurance. We have seen an easing in the utilization rates in general as fewer people have good coverage. As a result of Obamacare we will be seeing reduced utilization as real narrow networks result in less supply being available – in effect the rationing of health care has begun, and as I predicted is hitting the lower classes first. They may be saving some money on premium, but they cannot see providers. Medicaid has always had this problem and narrow network exchange plans will act the same way. You may be insured, but you cannot receive services. Nice deal huh!

As to prices themselves, hospital providers have been buying up private doctor practices as well as other independent medical services providers to stock their own service lines in support of the ACO concept (consider it HMO version 2) and in so doing are generlaly raising the prices of those once independent providers substantially. Most employer benefit managers are seeing actual unit costs becoming a bigger issue than utilization. If that continues you will see employers embrace very narrow networks as well, or really hike up monthly premiums for their employees.

So yes Obamacare is doing what it was designed to do – raise prices substantially, restrict access, and still leave 30-40 million people unemployed. Anyone who defends the act here is essentially condemning most of the lower classes to an earlier death.

Zomcon JEM on February 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

The level 1 trauma center where the wifey works has been laying off 10-20 a day for weeks.Can you guess the reason why?

docflash on February 7, 2014 at 9:18 AM

The same reason I lost my job in the healthcare industry – obaka-noncare!!

ladyingray on February 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

This is a massive improvement. it may not be the best scenario but it beats the previous years.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Did you read the article at all? If you did then you must have been absent the day they taught reading comprehension.

BeachBum on February 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Anyone who defends the act here is essentially condemning most of the lower classes to an earlier death.

Zomcon JEM on February 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

the lower classes will be fine. its the shrinking middle class that’s taking it in the shorts.

renalin on February 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Remember when Obama took office we were losing over 500K to a million jobs per month.

This is a massive improvement. it may not be the best scenario but it beats the previous years.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM

No, not really. I remember a single month where the job losses were that bad. After that, the recession bottomed out and the job losses abated. You idiot Obama sycophants keep pretending as if every month we were losing half a million jobs which was never the case. The fact is the recession technically ended in the summer of 2009 and we’ve been in a stagnant p-sspoor “recovery” ever since. If you’re gonna give credit to Obama for somehow ending the recession within months of taking office, fine. But that means you also have to give him the blame for what’s happened in the 4 1/2 years since then.

Doughboy on February 7, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Only number I’m interested in is 6.6

Another republican talking point goes up in flames.

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Focus on that like a laser, forget the rest.

Bishop on February 7, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Looks like the hard pivot to jobs worked.

oldroy on February 7, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I would suggest we stop feeding liberalrules – they have nothing of value to say and enjoy killing off their fellow citizens they deem undesireable.

Zomcon JEM on February 7, 2014 at 9:41 AM

…as many illegal aliens came across the border…in the same month!
..oh wait1…that too will be revised…downward!

KOOLAID2 on February 7, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Happy Nomad on February 7, 2014 at 9:28 AM

yep.

renalin on February 7, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Well…at least they appear to have stopped using the word “unexpectedly”

a5minmajor on February 7, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Economic Disaster Coming Our Way

Michael Snyder regularly puts the best internet lists together on economic decline. For those who don’t like abstract approaches and prefer lots of details, his approach is a great antidote or substitute for mine. He has put together a list of 83 factoids. Some of these may shock you. Be assured, the totality of them will scare the hell out of you.

Murphy9 on February 7, 2014 at 9:46 AM

3 more years of Obamanomimcs and we’ll be in great shape! And the freaking idiots will still say “It’s all Bush’s fault!”

GarandFan on February 7, 2014 at 9:49 AM

renalin on February 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Nope – its both. As the middle class is attacked by progressive/statist dogma policy acting as help, the lower rungs will drop out of the middle class altogether.

The poor – even though they are being subsidized by Obamacare, as a number of charts recently have shown – will be moved into medicaid – which has worse medical outcomes than having no care at all. The very narrow networks which they have joined will act the same way – you have insurance but practically no one will see you. So with substandard care attached to the very real problems poverty brings to life expectancy – the lower classes will die sooner. This has always been the true progressive goal – kill off the undesireable – particularly minorities – so as to lesson their burden on the rest of society. Obamacare is early twentieth century progressive eugenic’s policy made law. They would be so proud. And how fitting that a black president made it all possible. Talk about eating your own.

Zomcon JEM on February 7, 2014 at 9:50 AM

The same formula used to calculate unemployment has not changed in over 60 years.

If you think these numbers are being cooked, then that would mean we would have to throw out every unemployment stat since the 1930′s

liberalrules on February 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Uh, BS!

Indeed – effectively all of the decreases in unemployment rate percentages since 2009 have come not from new jobs, but through reducing the workforce participation rate so that millions of jobless people are removed from the labor force by definition.

Libertarian Johnny on February 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Who says they stopped?

Steve Eggleston on February 7, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Good point.

What is the over/under on when they abandon the whole “unemployment” thing and just go back to the “saved/created” metric?

Gatsu on February 7, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3