Althouse: 7.9%.

November 2, 2012

7.9%.

Unemployment.

80 comments:

MadisonMan said...: Good enough!; 11/2/12, 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: How can Obama not win if he is capable of manipulating statistics. Even if he loses the election, his evil minions will cheat and fix the results in his favor.; 11/2/12, 8:20 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: I always wonder about the emphasis placed on this number and how it will affect voting. Does anyone other than the pundit class go and look up the actual unemployment rate and draw any conclusions? It seems obvious to me that the vast majority of voters are making their decisions based on their direct experience in their own communities and on the anecdotal data in their lives. How are their careers and finances looking? How about their friends and neighbors and business associates? Isn't that information more influential than the actual number put out by the government? I suppose the campaigns can use those numbers to make ads, but who in the hell is listening to those anymore?; 11/2/12, 8:21 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Nothing suspicious about that stat! What could be suspicious about that?; 11/2/12, 8:21 AM
Paul said...: And you know Obama and his menions are trying their best to, uh, fake those results to be lower. I wonder if California is missing again, or maybe NY this time.

It's all fake. We know unemployment is much higher.

Either we vote him out or 'four more years' of this, but WORSE.; 11/2/12, 8:21 AM
George M. Spencer said...: The Commerce Department's U6 unemployment number shows the real rate of unemployment at 14.7.

ShadowStats says it is an amazing 22.8 percent, according to Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/; 11/2/12, 8:22 AM
AF said...: But the LSM keeps spinning for Obama:

WaPo: "Job market gains momentum in last look before the election. Rate ticked up because work force grew and more people searched for work."; 11/2/12, 8:22 AM
X said...: you can't spell bullshit without BLS.; 11/2/12, 8:22 AM
chickelit said...: "The more important fundamental laws and facts of economic science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being implemented with consequence of new economic growth is exceedingly remote....Our future economic growth must be looked for in the place of decimals."

link; 11/2/12, 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: This is always been a dishonest number, much better is the labor force participation rate which captures the long term unemployed; 11/2/12, 8:23 AM
Tank said...: OK, my prediction a day or two ago of 7 or below was wrong.

However, my prediction of two years ago that it would be below 8%was correct.

Raise your hand if you think actual unemployment is 7.9%.; 11/2/12, 8:24 AM
Matt Sablan said...: 7.9%, how unexpected. I wonder what it will be after the routine revisions that happen a week or so after these are announced.; 11/2/12, 8:24 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Good thing we borrowed $5.1 trillion for jobs during this administration so that we could achieve ... the same unemployment rate we started with.; 11/2/12, 8:25 AM
Matt Sablan said...: If we had the same labor force participation, unemployment would probably be higher (I'm seeing some people spitballing 10%+, but I'm no math whiz so I can't verify.); 11/2/12, 8:27 AM
TWM said...: So real unemployment is what, almost double that probably?

Yeah, we really need this guy around for four more years.; 11/2/12, 8:29 AM
Patrick said...: This is always been a dishonest number, much better is the labor force participation rate which captures the long term unemployed

I have always been mystified as to why they report the numbers the way they do. The 7.9% rate really has no meaning. I know a lot of people will say "the press only reports the larger number when a Republican is President," and sometimes think so myself. If they reported the participation rate always, there wouldn't be that discussion, and they'd be more accurate. I don't see the downside.

Maybe some economist can explain?; 11/2/12, 8:31 AM
Minzo said...: I notice a lot of skepticism here. Anyone have any evidence that the numbers have been manipulated? Bad job numbers are accepted without any problem (and repeated frequently to show how badly Obama is doing) but when the same institution releases good numbers suddenly its conspiracy time. Funny that.; 11/2/12, 8:32 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I do remember hearing about "real unemployment" and labor force participation a lot when I was in college. In fact, I'm often confounded by recent reports on unemployment since it was drilled into me during the Bush years that the 5% or whatever number "doesn't mean much to the millions out of work," etc., etc.

I guess all the good economic journalists retired recently and they're still bringing the new ones up to speed.; 11/2/12, 8:33 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Minzo: Well, since last time, the BLS literally left California out of its count to get an artificially low number, some skepticism is warranted.; 11/2/12, 8:33 AM
dreams said...: Actually I'd like to see the unemployment number go up, go up by one on January 20th.; 11/2/12, 8:35 AM
LilyBart said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/2/12, 8:35 AM
LilyBart said...: 7.9%*

*not including the millions who've given up looking for a job or have taken a part-time job because they can't find full time work.; 11/2/12, 8:36 AM
SteveR said...: Damn my lyin' eyes. I would have sworn this wasn't good news.; 11/2/12, 8:40 AM
garage mahal said...: Some people seem to be upset over significant employment gains over the past months.

I suppose terrorists hate good job numbers for us too. So we have terrorists and Republicans, like totally making out. Get a room guys!; 11/2/12, 8:41 AM
Tank said...: The new normal:

7.9%

Yay.; 11/2/12, 8:42 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Obama said that if we voted for the Stimulus package, unemployement would be 5.2%.

What happened. We spend a $trillion on government jobs and bankrupt green energy.... Now we have 7.9% unemployment.; 11/2/12, 8:44 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Garage: I'm not upset about the minimal job gains barely keeping up (or sometimes falling short) of the people growing up and entering the work force. I'm glad we're not failing worse than we are.

I am disappointed that we gave the president so much power and he couldn't even bring us down to Bush-levels of unemployment. If Bush's economy was so terrible, I can't imagine what people who think that must think of Obama's economy.; 11/2/12, 8:45 AM
X said...: So we have terrorists and Republicans, like totally making out.

and we have a president who issues stand down orders to keep terrorists safe.; 11/2/12, 8:46 AM
Patrick said...: This is what, the fourth year of "recovery summer?"; 11/2/12, 8:47 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: 7.9 is a good number? In what universe?; 11/2/12, 8:47 AM
TWM said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/2/12, 8:48 AM
TWM said...: "Some people seem to be upset over significant employment gains over the past months."

Unemployment is still higher than when Barry started so gains that aren't really gains aren't much to be happy about.; 11/2/12, 8:49 AM
TWM said...: Besides by following your logic, garage, we should be happy about ONLY losing four Americans in the Benghazi terrorist attack. I mean obviously it was only because Barry was in charge that it wasn't much worse.; 11/2/12, 8:50 AM
LilyBart said...: "Some people seem to be upset over significant employment gains over the past months."

The country has made employment gains - which is good. But they have been anemic compared to other recoveries. Very slow job growth, and higher paying jobs lost, the lower paying jobs created. We are losing ground in this country.; 11/2/12, 8:51 AM
Scott M said...: Unemployment is still higher than when Barry started so gains that aren't really gains aren't much to be happy about.

They are not gains if the number of new people entering the workforce is higher every month than the number of jobs created.; 11/2/12, 8:53 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: If Obama wins, unemployment will soar, our economy will continue stagnate and worsen, and more businesses will close.
No worries - we can all get gov jobs, welfare and food stamps.

We can embrace our decline and embrace socialism at its worst.; 11/2/12, 8:57 AM
kcom said...: The GDP growth rate for 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for re-election, was 7.2%. (That was after he inherited a 16 month recession and loads of other problems - i.e. 13% inflation, 20% interest rates, etc.)

Four years after Obama inherited an 18 month recession, the GDP growth rate for 2012, the year he was running for re-election, is about 2%.

That's the difference between a recovery and just limping along. Why vote for more limping when you can vote for an actual recovery?; 11/2/12, 9:00 AM
SteveR said...: You realize garage, this kind of spin is why you are so easily mocked on here. It almost seems you go out of your way to come across as naive. But the fact is you are typical of many who are unwilling to entertain even the pretense of intellectual honesty. Not a partisan crticism BTW. Links don't make you smart.; 11/2/12, 9:02 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Voting for a chance at a recovery; there's no guarantee Romney's plan will work. But, we know it isn't a plan that has already failed.; 11/2/12, 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: If Obama wins, he'll keep killing the horses to feed the swelling ranks in the wagon, all the time wondering why the cart is slowing down.

Yes, he's that stupid.; 11/2/12, 9:05 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Obama's focus was on rewarding his wealthy donors.; 11/2/12, 9:09 AM
MadisonMan said...: 7.9%, how unexpected. I wonder what it will be after the routine revisions that happen a week or so after these are announced.

I thought the same with last month's 7.8, but apparently that hasn't been revised. (Yet?); 11/2/12, 9:10 AM
kcom said...: And have any of you seen that whiny Obama commercial narrated by Morgan Freeman?

Every president inherits challenges. Few have faced so many.

Yeah, right. Whine much? Just about every president, except Bill Clinton, has faced so many. Really, what a baby whiner this man is. He didn't have to face the Soviet Union like Truman and seven presidents after him. He didn't discover nuclear missiles in Cuba like President Kennedy. He didn't inherit the Vietnam war like President Nixon and the political aftermath of multiple assassinations. He wasn't thrust into the situation that Gerald Ford was after Nixon resigned and the country was at its lowest point ever (including the effects of the oil embargo). He didn't have a 444 day hostage crisis like Jimmy Carter. He didn't inherit 13% inflation, 20% interest rates, and all the geopolitical issues Reagan had to deal with. Saddam Hussein didn't go gallivanting through the Middle East on his watch as happened with President Bush I.

Really, show me how poor little Barry has faced more problems than the average post-war president. And show me how he's dealt with them any better than others. The numbers say he hasn't.; 11/2/12, 9:12 AM
garage mahal said...: From "It's morning in America", to "Good Morning, you have untreatable bubonic plague".

Thanks, but I'm going to have to go with a bit more cheery party.; 11/2/12, 9:13 AM
Sammy said...: So after 4 years and 6 trillion in new debt .... Obama going into reelection with the official unempyment rate still HIGER then when he took office,...

Besides the work force participation rate is lower then it was 4 years ago, the lowest it been in 3 decades... Meaning their are millions more people who have left the work force and are other on welfare, SS disability or jobless.

How is this even a close election.. On what metric has Obama been successful.; 11/2/12, 9:17 AM
garage mahal said...: I thought the same with last month's 7.8, but apparently that hasn't been revised. (Yet?)

Revised: in August up from 142,000 to 192,000 and in September up from 114,000 to 148,000.

:(; 11/2/12, 9:23 AM
SteveR said...: On what metric has Obama been successful?

He's cool, really cool.; 11/2/12, 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/2/12, 9:28 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Employment Jan 2009: 133,561,000
Employment Oct 2012: 133,755,000

200,000 jobs. Great! Right? Except that the Fed says we need job growth of over 100,000 a MONTH to keep up with population growth. The only reason the unemployment stat isn't much higher is because of "discouraged workers" not actively seeking work any more. And 200,000 jobs for $1 trillion in stimulus? Such a bargain(when it's ONLY taxpayer money??) at $5 million per job.; 11/2/12, 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Garage,

Care to opine on the black 20-30 EMPLOYMENT rate of 17% or the white 20-30 rate of 20%.

Not only is Obama robbing their tomorrow blind with his immoral spending today, but he is killing their today also.

A great leader among men, this Obama - leaving ruin and plunder in his path wherever he goes.

What say you Garage?; 11/2/12, 9:30 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Some sore sore losers in here today.

Romney has fallen behind in the polls, Christie has jumped off the bus and the economy, while not great, doesn't suck like it did under the last Republican president.

Not a good day for the Republican trolls.; 11/2/12, 9:32 AM
test said...: Paul said...
It's all fake. We know unemployment is much higher.

I remember the good old days when the media characterized 4% unemployment as a problem, and employment increases as "McJobs". Funny how those standards mirror the party of the president.

We have less than 8% unemployment only because the government is using SS disability as an extension of unemployment benefits.; 11/2/12, 9:33 AM
test said...: garage mahal said...
I thought the same with last month's 7.8, but apparently that hasn't been revised. (Yet?)

Revised: in August up from 142,000 to 192,000 and in September up from 114,000 to 148,000.

Even garage agrees last months HH survey which reported 850k jobs was bullshit. Makes you wonder why RV isn't focused on Obama's lies. Well, not really.; 11/2/12, 9:35 AM
David said...: In January 2008, 144,607,000 Americans 16 and over were employed.

This month, 140,987,000 Americans 16 and over are employed.

During the same period, the national debt has increased by approximately $5 trillion or one-third.; 11/2/12, 9:35 AM
cold pizza said...: Thanks, but I'm going to have to go with a bit more cheery party.

So you are going to vote R afterall? Good for you! Bless your heart! -CP; 11/2/12, 9:37 AM
TWM said...: "Romney has fallen behind in the polls, Christie has jumped off the bus and the economy, while not great, doesn't suck like it did under the last Republican president.

Not a good day for the Republican trolls."

Oh yeah, it's looking good for Barry now. We might as well give up.; 11/2/12, 9:37 AM
edutcher said...: I seem to recall full employment was 3.

For those interested:

U5 - 9.3 (long-term discouraged)

U6 - 14.6 (under- and unemployed)

Workforce participation - 63.8; 11/2/12, 9:39 AM
Bob Ellison said...: When I was in high school in the (ahem) early 80s, I took an excellent economics class. The teacher taught the basics of supply and demand, the differences between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism, etc. Mostly macro- stuff.

One of the things we learned was that economists pretty much agreed that 5% unemployment was about as low as even theoretically possible, because there was 5% "structural" unemployment caused by people moving around, having personal disasters, trying new careers, etc.

What a crock! That was "the new normal" then. They also taught us that the structurally unavoidable inflation rate was at least 3%. What another crock!

So now, 7.9% is a good unemployment rate, and presumably a 64% labor participation rate is a good new normal as well. Yay.; 11/2/12, 9:40 AM
Bob Ellison said...: edutcher, I think the "full employment" number blows in the wind.; 11/2/12, 9:41 AM
Minzo said...: "Really, show me how poor little Barry has faced more problems than the average post-war president. "

He took office during the biggest post-war economic crisis America has experienced. I guess you kinda missed that whole recession thing.; 11/2/12, 9:41 AM
TWM said...: "He took office during the biggest post-war economic crisis America has experienced. I guess you kinda missed that whole recession thing."

And made it worse. I guess you kinda miss that thing.; 11/2/12, 9:45 AM
SteveR said...: "Romney has fallen behind in the polls"

Well except its to the point now that turnout will be all that matters. Polls are imprecise and vary widely in spite of presumed statistical validity. So I'm glad you are cheered by polls.; 11/2/12, 9:45 AM
MadisonMan said...: How is this even a close election

You are basing this statement on polls. Consider that.; 11/2/12, 9:52 AM
edutcher said...: AnUnreasonableTroll said...

Some sore sore losers in here today.

Romney has fallen behind in the polls, Christie has jumped off the bus and the economy, while not great, doesn't suck like it did under the last Republican president.

Not a good day for the Republican trolls.

The only polls where the Romster's behind are the ones D +13 and actually the economy sucks worse.

+.1 % unemployment.

63.8 workforce participation.

Gas double what it cost 4 years ago.

Most commodities up 50%.

And it's the Lefties who are the trolls.; 11/2/12, 9:57 AM
Sam L. said...: Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

I'm for verifying first, and extensively, for I have learned not to trust.; 11/2/12, 10:47 AM
Icepick said...: Minzo: Well, since last time, the BLS literally left California out of its count to get an artificially low number, some skepticism is warranted.

That was a different report. That was a weekly initial claims report from two or three weeks back. That report uses data sent in from the states about new claims for UEC.

The monthly reports don't use data reported from the states. Instead, two polls are used. One poll, the Establishment Survey, surveys established businesses to determine how many jobs were added. (The dreaded birth/death model is a part of this process.) This is where they get the 171,000 jobs added number.

The Household Survey surveys, yep, households. They ask people about whether or not they're employed, looking for work, etc. From this we get the various percentages, such as the 7.9% for the UE-3 number this month.; 11/2/12, 10:53 AM
Icepick said...: And anyone talking about what a great few months we've had employment-wise is a fucking idiot. Millions of us haven't even been able to get interviews for years.

So you want to brag about this, go ahead. It just shows that the only thing you care about is that your party wins, and damn everyone else. The Republicans may not be any better, but the Democrats have shown that they just do not care about anything other than their own power. Otherwise they wouldn't have pissed around doing not one goddamned useful thing for the last several years. Big Bird? That's all you've got. Great fucking set of ideas you've got there.; 11/2/12, 10:57 AM
Kelly said...: Who are these people surveyed? I've never been surveyed for a jobs report nor do I know anyone who has. Are these people selected by random phone calls? Just curious.; 11/2/12, 11:10 AM
Icepick said...: And let's not forget to mention that this employment report (that guys like garage mahal think is so fucking great) also shows decreased incomes. Again. Or perhaps I should say, "Still." Income keeps falling even during an alleged recovery. A total disaster of an employment report over three years into a "recovery".; 11/2/12, 11:11 AM
machine said...: "[T]he numbers do describe, in the clearest terms we've seen yet, that our unemployment crisis is on the mend. And unless you're a partisan hack for whom political momentum is more important than the alleviation of human misery, that's a good thing. "

but not in here...don't worry, I'm certain the House will continue to obstruct recovery...certain.; 11/2/12, 11:13 AM
Rusty said...: Black unemployment is at 14.7% as well.; 11/2/12, 11:14 AM
Icepick said...: Kelly, I have no idea. A few years ago, after I started paying attention to this stuff closely (i.e., after I lost my job), I started asking around. The BLS surveys a large number of households and rotates them out regularly. But I have yet to meet anyone that has ever admitted to being surveyed by them, or knows anyone that has. I once read in an econ blog comment section (I think it was Calculated Risk) that someone claimed they knew someone who HAD been surveyed, but that's pretty tenuous.; 11/2/12, 11:14 AM
kcom said...: "He took office during the biggest post-war economic crisis America has experienced. I guess you kinda missed that whole recession thing."

I lived through the late '70s. I didn't miss that and that was no picnic. And yet Ronald Reagan did a much better job of putting things back on track. Again, Reagan 7.2% GDP growth - Obama 2% GDP growth.

And beyond that, your whole answer is a dodge. Here's the key bit:

Few have faced so many.

This is Obama's narcissism speaking again. He's not that special. Every president has faced many, many problems. So has Obama. That's the nature of the job. But instead of accepting it and getting down to work, he has to whine about how put upon he's been. Boo hoo! He asked for the job, no one forced it on him. He should be a man and quit his "poor me" shtick and provide some real leadership.; 11/2/12, 11:31 AM
Icepick said...: The bulk of the jobs added since the "recovery" began have been temp, contract or part-time jobs. The last time I checked about 58% of the jobs added since the "recovery" began have been low paying. (Which explains the falling median income situation.)

But yeah, whatever, this is the best fucking thing in the history of things that fuck.

The basic numbers (171,000 jobs added, a slight uptick in the UE-3 rate) would make for a decent employment report - if a jobs recovery had actually taken place. Given that we're up about 200,000 jobs on net since the recovery began back in June 2009 this is just another disappointment.

As for the idea that the Republicans have obstructed anything meaningful - come on. The President's jobs bill is so weak that even if it did what he claimed it would do (and the President has had the worst forecasting record imaginable) it would still be far short of what was needed. Given that it isn't that good one can understand why he hasn't really pushed it. But he couldn't even get a budget through Congress when his party ran the whole show, and he can't even get a single Democrat to vote for his budgets now.

The Dems passed a stimulus package in the first few weeks of Obama's term, when they held all the power, and have largely ignored the economy ever since. Little programs like Cash-for-Clunkers would never, COULD never, account for much. But that's all they'd even bother trying. Republican intransigence doesn't explain anything until January 2011. And it fails entirely in explaining the President's absolute inability to get out there and push for programs he allegedly believes in. Reagan and Clinton both showed a lot more skill and balls when dealing with an opposition party.

There is no way that anyone can look at this Presidency as anything other than an abject failure. This "recovery" is the weakest since they started keeping good records after WWII - the weakest by a lot. And the President's only ideas for how to turn it around involve making up words (Romnesia? Say wht you want about the Ford "WIN" buttons, at least they addressed the issue at hand!) and trying to bail out another company that doesn't need any help. (Big Bird's corporate master is doing fine.)

Utter abject failure three and a third years into a recovery. I'll believe it's a recovery when all the unemployed professionals I deal with all the time start finding jobs again. And I mean any job. The LTUEs can't even get interviews to be greeters at Walmart these days.; 11/2/12, 11:42 AM
ricpic said...: The MSM and the Dems are in agreement: high unemployment of bitter clingers is the new normal they'll just damn well haveta get used to dammit!; 11/2/12, 11:42 AM
Icepick said...: Few have faced so many.

Bullshit. Franklin Roosevelt faced worse. Truman faced worse. Eisenhower had to figure out how to live in a world with opposing sides having the power to destroy civilization in minutes. No picnic that.

LBJ faced much worse - a dead President in a time of increasing national crisis. When he ultimately failed (having accomplished much more for good AND ill than Obama has), his party at least had the good grace to force him out and search for someone better.

Reagan had a shitty economy too, and an expansive opponent on the international stage.

GHBush had a crummy economy and that little thing called 9/11.

If Obama wasn't up to the challenge, he shouldn't have run for office. Since he isn't up for the challenge (except to whine about how fucking tough it is), then he should step aside. If he isn't willing to do so, then his party should have removed him, as the Dems did to LBJ and the Republicans did to Nixon. (Nixon was a goner anyway. But so was Johnson.)

Failure to recognize failure is the worst failing of this Democratic party. Except that they just do not care. They celebrate the wrecked livelihoods and wrecked families, believing it will give them electoral advantage. So fuck 'em.

Food stamp usage up HUGE during this "recovery", so are diability claims. This is the economy that they're BRAGGING about. This is what they want MORE of.

God help us, the Republicans are terrible and deserve more punishment. But the Dems are even worse, as they actually celebrate failure, dependency, broken lives and broken homes. What a fucking disaster for the Republic.; 11/2/12, 12:01 PM
Methadras said...: MadisonMan said...

Good enough!

Rofl. So which state left out there stats again?; 11/2/12, 12:58 PM
machine said...: "...even accounting for the horrific month for jobs that was January 2009, the private sector has added 759,000 jobs overall under Obama. At this same point in the George W. Bush administration — October 2004 — the private sector had lost more than 1 million jobs."

IOKIYAR; 11/2/12, 1:16 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: I don't care, #ObamaIsAwesome; 11/2/12, 4:59 PM
gk1 said...: I wonder if obama had a father in his life, a strong father figure whether he would be capable of shouldering responsibilities without whining? This race has shown what a fragile creature he really is. His venom towards Romney shows his character and his wounds.; 11/2/12, 6:06 PM