Unemployment Rate Falls
We’re still losing jobs, but the unemployment rate has fallen. Good news!
The unemployment rate fell to 10 percent in November as employers cut the smallest number of jobs since the recession began.
The Labor Department says the economy shed 11,000 jobs last month, an improvement from October’s revised total of 111,000. That’s also much better than the 130,000 Wall Street economists expected.
But the respite may be temporary, as many economists expect the jobless rate to keep climbing into next year as the economy struggles to generate enough jobs for the 15.4 million people out of work.
If part-time workers who want full time jobs and laid off workers who have given up looking for work are included, the so-called underemployment rate also fell, to 17.2 percent from 17.5 percent in October.
I wonder how the media will spin this? Accolades at how the Obama administrations skillful use of spendulus money has resulted in the end of the recession amid this strong economic news? Will our pro-bama media mention the fact that the economy still shed jobs, even amid the temporary hiring of seasonal Christmas workers? Will they discuss the ballooning deficit or the flagging value of the US dollar? Will they mention that no conservative pro-business groups were invited to BHO’s jobs summit?
I think we know how it would be treated if President Bush were still at the helm. Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1101 hrs
I am wondering how many have run out of unemployment benefits and still can not find work? Would that not put the unemployment rate the same?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1258 hrs
I suspect the Jan rate will be higher as you see people out of work after the temp holiday jobs are over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1316 hrs
“I wonder how the media will spin this?”
It’s safe to say that however it’s spun won’t satisfy the folks at the ongoing pity parties. They can never get enough bad news to satisfy their twisted logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1405 hrs
Is this a glimmer of hope I see? Only time will tell.
Posted by Gixxer on December 04, 2009 at 1426 hrs
My cousin and another friend along w/everyone in their dept lost their jobs this week. A buddy out east and his colleagues in his department are similarly SOL.
I’ll tell them the good news.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 04, 2009 at 2349 hrs
I’m not sure, but I think unemployment is determined by the number of people on the program. How about the folks still out of work and no longer on unemployment? They are no longer counted, are they.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 0208 hrs
I think that is correct, spotter, since there is also an estimated “real” unemployment number. There should also be more tracking of “underemployment,” to emphasize people who are working part-time or minimum wage jobs as a means of having a job.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 05, 2009 at 0853 hrs
Bogus numbers that don’t count the true number of unemployed. My son ran out of unemployment benefits in June ‘09 and has been working at a “temporary” job for the past 2 months. His girlfriend graduated from college May ‘09 and can’t find a job, can’t even qualify for unemployment. Are they being counted? I don’t think so. And there are hundred of thousands just like them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 2023 hrs
in other news, the stimulus plan is working according to the CBO.
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 1014 hrs
in other news, the stimulus plan is working according to the CBO.
If you’re basing this on that article you cited earlier last week, those were estimated numbers ONLY. Hardly proof of anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1042 hrs
I don’t remember what I cited last week. But I was thinking of this kind of thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/01/2139402.aspx
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 1053 hrs
Nothing has been stimulated yet, except the coffers of lots of pro-bama political groups that are getting their much promised paybacks for loyalty. No economic stimulation in sight.
Why do I say that? Well, here is what I see. U6 unemployment is still at 17.2% or so. That’s the folks drawing benefits and those who are still out of work, but no longer on the benefit rolls. That means about 1 in 5 workers has no job, and we are still losing jobs, not gaining them.
When the Christmas temps get layed off in January, U6 will jump even higher. I just heard that my local Walmart was looking to cut 3500 hours from it’s December labor. Anecdotal, but still disturbing.
Christmas spending is a great barometer of consumer confidence and the amount of discretionary income available. Christmas spending is also the time during which many retailers see a real jump into the black. Christmas spending, by all accounts, is either down, or has shown no real growth over last years numbers.
Lastly, much of the stimulus is spent, and few real jobs have been created. Many dollars have simply been funneled into local government budgets in order to temporarily delay the inevitable. More burden has been added to the economy by it though. Nations are losing confidence in our dollar due to uncontrolled debt, and the value of the dollar is plummeting.
All very grim news, no matter what political smiley faces that our main stream media has added to offer their president a needed boost to his flagging popularity. Saying it’s all ok does not make it so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1127 hrs
much of the stimulus is spent
Not what I’m reading. Less than half of it is. Can you educate me on where you’re getting that from?
Nothing has been stimulated yet, except the coffers of lots of pro-bama political groups that are getting their much promised paybacks for loyalty.
Where are you getting that? Take a look at the graphs in the NYTimes article. That data is from IHS Global Insight, Macoreconomic Advisors and Moody’s. Then there’s the CBO report referenced in the MSNBC article. What do you got?
You seem very sure and very clear about what you’re saying and yet everything I’m seeing (above) says the opposite. Can you tell me why I should believe you as opposed to them?
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 1146 hrs
We just look at things differently, Scott. Everything I said in my post is true. Looking at the lack of recovery, the HUGE new deficits, the high U6, the weak dollar; It all leads me to believe that this is, at best, a short stop on the way down. I analyzed that myself based upon past economics trends and the way things seem to be panning out. If it would make you happier, I can google up some “experts” who agree with me, and I can find my own charts and tables to show you. It won’t matter though. I call it the way I see it. Especially in economics, you can always find someone to agree with you. As far as MSNBC goes, and even the NY times, I suspect that they will always develop a rosy picture for you while BHO occupies the White House. In a far better and stronger economy that this one, those same sources correctly predicted 17 of the last 3 economic downturns. Under President Bush, everything was bad news. Under the BHO administration, they want to make their guy look good. That’s why I prefer to look at what is happening out there myself. Often, if you just use a bit of common sense, the road forward is quite clear, and free of partisan bias.
Gold may drop a bit soon as people take a short term profit, but it will likely rise as the US economy sinks. I’d buy some if I were you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1731 hrs
I was talking about the CBO report that you linked to, in the abortion of the “Afghan” thread.
And your second link in 12 links to it. If you’ll notice…
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) contains a variety
of provisions intended to boost economic activity and employment in the United States.
Section 1512(e) of the law requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to comment on
the reports filed by certain recipients of funding under ARRA that detail how many jobs were
created or retained through funded activities. This CBO report fulfills that requirement. It
also provides CBO’s estimates of ARRA’s overall impact on employment and economic output
in the third quarter of calendar year 2009. Those estimates—which CBO considers more
comprehensive than the recipients’ reports—are based on evidence from similar policies
enacted in the past and various economic models.All the “good news” is based only on historical data and computer models… and as we all now know (thanks to climate gate), it’s rather easy to fudge them. I’m not saying that’s what CBO has done, intentionally fudged data, but who the fuck knows how accurate their modeling is, or how cherry picked their historical datasets are. All you’ve shown is that the best guesses are that we’re on the right track… that’s not proof.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1929 hrs
So basically if I cite a CBO report (plus other sources) indicating how many jobs were created/saved by the stimulus spending, you have greater confidence in your very own “analysis” (though you thoughtfully offer to google some actual expert opinion if i’d like.)
And I am the one who needs to be free of “partisan bias”? Shit.
Here’s what i want to know. What would count as evidence that the stimulus spending was having its intended effect?
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 2030 hrs
I am just saying that I trust myself more than I trust some talking heads that you cite. I prefer to use the brain God gave me rather than rely on someone else to tell me what to think. Clearly the actual data shows the economy still slumping. You can choose to believe that a temporarily reduced rate of job loss is a recovery if you like. I can see that there is much more going on here though.
I remember when your experts promised that Stimulus would cap unemployment at 8%. I remember when the experts said that 600,000 new jobs would be created. I remember when Stimulus was going to fund shovel ready projects and infrastructure improvement. I was right about all that being a load of Milorganite then. I may have even commented about it on your own website, Scott.
Oh how those experts have changed their tunes. Now it’s not “new” jobs, now they simply claim to have “saved” jobs. Most of those “saved” jobs are government employees. Most of those “saved” jobs were not verifiably in danger of being lost. In any case, the “new” jobs never showed up, and the few that did were at enormous cost compared to actual salaried position. Some were total fakes, as we saw with the Stimulus website Debacle. Well, no one messes with Joe! Well, that is if you can actually find Joe… he’s rather done a “where’s Waldo on us.
What would count as evidence? How about any of those snake-oil promises coming true? Perhaps actual full time job growth rather than seasonal temporary jobs. How about a stronger dollar? Increased consumer confidence? Durable goods orders on the rise? Real sustained growth in the GDP. A U6 rate under 10%? Other nations expressing confidence in our economy rather than lecturing us the way China did… though they were totally correct in their estimates.
As far as Stimulus goes, that money is pretty much lost to us. It’s just so much more debt we have to carry. For now, with the Chicago machine in power, we’ll never really know what was truly gained, and what is simply “enhanced data” as the sleazy climatology folks put it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 2300 hrs
Perhaps you should read the actual CBO analysis, Scott. They provided no evidence that the stimulus worked. They simply declared it to have worked and further declared that any failure of the stimulus to prevent past, current or future job losses was due to a weaker than expected economy.
It’s nice to have a gig where you can simply define your policies as successful and even change the definition of success when the policies fail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 0928 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134060
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 06:18 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:37 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).