December Job Losses Worse Then Expected; Unemployment Rate @ 10%

Loading

What has Obama done for you lately?……or ever?

stimulus-vslarge-unemployment-december-dots_thumb

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-85,000) in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment fell in construction, manufacturing, and wholesale trade, while temporary help services and health care added jobs.

In December, both the number of unemployed persons, at 15.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent, were unchanged. At the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons was 7.7 million, and the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent. …

Total nonfarm payroll employment edged down in December (-85,000). Job losses continued in construction, manufacturing, and wholesale trade, while temporary help services and health care continued to add jobs. During 2009, monthly job losses moderated substantially. Employment losses in the first quarter of 2009 averaged 691,000 per month, compared with an average loss of 69,000 per month in the fourth quarter.

Recall that many economists had predicted no job losses over this period, it was to remain stagnant or very little in lost jobs. Not so…..85k lost.

Great graph below shows job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms.


employmentrecessionsdec

Then check out the analysis of the latest report at Calculated Risk, specifically about temporary workers. The writer ends with this:

Overall this is a grim employment report.

You said it brother.

Oh, and waiting in the wings is the news that the man continues to run up our deficit:

The Congressional Budget Office late Thursday released a report estimating that the federal budget deficit was $390 billion for the first quarter of fiscal year 2010.

During the same quarter in 2009, the federal deficit was $56 billion less due to an 11 percent reduction in federal revenues over that time period while the nonpartisan office reported that spending fell by 4 percent.

“This is the second consecutive December that the federal government will record a budget deficit,”CBO officials in its Monthly Budget Review. “Typically, that month yields a budget surplus because most corporations make quarterly income tax payments and withholding for individuals is relatively high owing to year-end bonuses and seasonal employment.”

Now….how will the MSM and Obama cover this?

“It’s all Bush’s fault!”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I haven’t heard Obama use the phrase “save or create” in months…

“Worse than Expected”

The press, even the financial press, is LIBERAL. Because of this, when there is a Democrat president and congress, their every expectation is high, and, when there is a Democrat president and congress, the economic facts are ALWAYS worse than the liberal financial press’ predictions – thus, they are always surprised.

I noticed this during the last few administrations, as well. When a Republican is in the White House, and when Dems do not control congress, the same exact liberals who make wild happy positive (and dead wrong) prognostications during Lib administrations tend to make dire, dismal predictions about the economy. The economy under conservatives invariably does better than the predictions of the Karl Marxes in the press, and AGAIN they are always surprised, and the headlines, EVERY SINGLE MONTH during the Bush administration, said….

“…Better than Expected.”

It is like physics, like death and taxes, like the sun rising and setting. It is an unchanging, innate feature of the liberal financial press that they expect unicorns and rainbows from (D) and they expect the end of the world, soup kitchens and breadlines from (R), AND that they will always express surprise when the exact opposite occurs, which it always does.

GoogleNews the two phrases inside quotes, and I’ll bet that you’ll find proof of my observation.

So, where are the markets going. Up, down or side way?

I’m going with John Williams’ Shadow Stats which shows the real U.S. Unemployment number at 22% right now.

The SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994

LEADING DEMS ATTACKED BUSH WHEN MILLIONS OF JOBS WERE BEING CREATED …

In 2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

•But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Criticized 2003 Job Creation As “Far From Enough.” “The slight increase in jobs last month is wonderful news for 57,000 Americans. But the 2.1 million Americans who have been actively looking for work for more than two years … know that it is far from enough …” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Slight Jobs Increase Far From Enough — We Must Do More to Create Jobs and Growth,’” Press Release, 10/3/03)
In 2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

•But In 2004, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Claimed Bush “Created A Climate … Where The Number of Jobs Is Not Growing.” “This President has created a climate in this country where the number of jobs is not growing. It did not have to be that way.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 10/08/04, p. S10764)
In 2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

•But Pelosi Called 2005 Job Creation Numbers “Anemic.” “Today’s anemic jobs numbers confirm that President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Today’s Anemic Jobs Numbers Confirm the Administration Has Failed to Create a Single New Private-Sector Job,’” Press Release, 6/3/05)
In 2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

•But Pelosi Claimed Bush Policies “Favored The Privileged Few At The Expense Of America’s Working Families.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Democrats Will Restore the Economic Security of America’s Working Families,” Press Release, 9/22/06)
By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

•But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Claimed Bush Had “Shameful History Of Losing American Jobs.” (Sen. Harry Reid, “Reid: As Unemployment Reaches Two-year High, American Jobs Are The Latest Casualty Of Bush’s Failed Economic Policies,” Press Release, 1/4/08)
THEN PROMISED THEIR $787 BILLION STIMULUS WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS

In February, Obama Signed $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, Claiming It Would “Fix The Economy.” “President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion stimulus package … ‘We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,’ Obama said, calling the legislation ‘the beginning of the end’ of what needed to be done to fix the economy.” (Michael A. Fletcher, “Obama Leaves D.C. To Sign Stimulus Bill,” The Washington Post, 2/18/09)

And Obama Pledged That Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. “[W]hat makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years …” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)

SO DEMS NEED TO CREATE 6.3 MILLION JOBS IN 2010 TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARD, A LEVEL OF JOB GROWTH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED

2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama’s Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09)

•Including 85,000 More Jobs Lost Last Month. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/8/09)
In Addition To 3.5 MILLION Jobs Obama Promised Would Be Created By His $787 Billion Stimulus By December 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)

That Equals 6.3 MILLION Jobs Dems Need To Create This Year Alone To Declare Economic Success, A Level Of Job Growth That Has Never Been Achieved in American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

•Because In 1946, 4.3 MILLION Jobs Were Created, Largest Job In A Single Calendar Year In American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
KNOWING AMERICANS WILL JUDGE THEM ON JOB CREATION, AT LEAST ONE DEM IS OUTRAGED OVER SQUANDERED 2009

Obama Says “The Yardstick Should Be … Am I Creating These Jobs?” (Sam Stein, “Obama: Judge Me On The Jobs I Create,” The Huffington Post, 12/15/08)

•Pelosi: “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs … We Will Measure Our Success In That Way; And Hopefully The American People Will, Too, In The Next Election.” (Greg Sargent, “Pelosi: Judge Dems’ Success On Whether We Create ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,’” “The Plum Line” Blog, 12/3/09)
DGA Chairman, Gov. Jack Markell (D-DE), Says “Burden Of Proof” On Dems To Show That They’re Creating Jobs. “When you’ve got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it’s understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there’s a burden of proof here.” (Peter Wallsten and Naftali Bendavid, “Departures Shake Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/7/09)

•But Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Says Obama Made A Mistake In Pushing Health Care, And Should Have Focused On Jobs. “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy… I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move …” (Chris Zavadil, “Nelson: We Should Have Waited On Health Care,” The Fremont Tribune, 1/6/10)
•And Obama’s Liberal Agenda Preventing Small Businesses From Creating Jobs, “Could Impede An Economic Recovery.” “But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses’ energy costs. … Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60% of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government’s Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery.” (Gary Fields, “Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze on Small Businesses,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)

Stimulus was supposed to create jobs “IMMEDIATELY”

Actually if you read the report, the real unemployment U-6 is 17.3%.

If you read the demographics section you find that 20% of the male USA workforce is unemployed.

Actually, that number is called the Underemployed which is vastly different to Unemployed in the fact those placed in that number are people who are making minimal wage on part time shifts trying to seek better paying jobs in various markets. This percentage reflects only percentage of persons currently employed and seeking job improvements, not those who are unemployed. Edit- The link I share combines National Underemployement with National Unemployed for the 17.3. True Underemployed is a variable just as much as True Unemployed and ranges wildly depending on the Economist questioning the subject. (edit)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

It’s still a bad bit of news to hear in terms of market recoveries to spur economical recovery as that means almost roughly 20 percent of the currently employed are working in less than stellar situations and highlights the Market both in Labor, Service, and Manufacturing still has steps to make. Any point of decrease in the Underemployed figure is as important as any decrease in unemployed figures. However, with the upcoming prospect of new labor regulations and series of taxations to be emplaced on individuals and businesses relating to many hot button topics the Underemployed figure seems to be prone to increase along with the Unemployed figure in coming months as businesses prepare to buffer their operating budgets for fiscal year of 2010.

The true Unemployment numbers, depending on the source and prediction, ranges roughly around 15.8 percent as speculated by news media such as The Washington Post here and other Mainstream Media:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/05/actual_us_unemployment_158.html

True unemployement is hard to really gauge, given that it is hard to accuratly count people who have ceased all attempts at job hunting and have gone to other means of survival outside of the current labor and service markets. This number is the total combination of those seeking jobs and those who have quit, the the number is very dynamic depending the Economist covering the subject ranging from being a repeat of the current National Unemployement (such as the main article here shows via graph) or taking a median of all 50 State’s individual Unemployement rates or simply doubling the National figure.

It is not healthy news at all, as our Markets and Economy has historicaly known to survive and thrive with lower numbers far below 10 percent. The Great Depression saw the National Rate hit the 20’s, and some Historians have questioned if that was a very conservative number considering how large and problematic Shanty towns were across the Nation in the 1930’s.

Part of the blame for unemployment numbers must also be passed on to the Washington and Wall Street “free trade” crowd for insuring that manufacturers could and would move factories from the United States to other countries to chase cheap labor, without their having to pay tariffs when import goods that American workers used to make. I know a lot of people who lost jobs to this, nor were these workers all in union shops. As far as I’m concerned, The transformation of America from a “manufacturing economy” into a “service economy” was a betrayal of all the hardworking middle and lower class workers, and one big reason why Democrats and Republicans have lost voter support.

When neither party, nor candidate supports you and your values, you have no one to vote for.

I lost my job at Cessna in due part of the Congress assaulting private aircraft industry when the three major Automakers flew in private jets asking for Government bailouts. While Congress didn’t pass any laws regulating the Aircraft industry, its comments alone caused other private firms to reconsider their pre-orders of private jets and either cancel or delay such orders for 5 or 10 years or more. Ontop of this, creditors who help structure the payment system for these private jets started to freeze credit lines of businesses wanting to buy jets in preperation of new credit laws that went into effect recently which further delayed orders and highly needed cash to the strained industry.

Here are a couple of articles that I read yesterday that gave me one of those WTF kind of moments:

Massive Jump In Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Benefits – Up 43% In One Month!

I was intrigued by a post by Zero Hedge asking Is The Government Misrepresenting Unemployment By 32%?

Is The Government Misrepresenting Unemployment By 32%?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/01/2010 09:38 -0500

There is an old saying, “when in doubt follow the money.” These days investors have lots of doubt about pretty much everything (if not so much money). And with data from the government increasingly bearing the Quality Control stamp of approval of the Beijing Communist Party, there is much doubt in store courtesy of an administration which will stop at nothing in its competition with China as to who can blow the biggest asset bubble the fastest, data integrity be damned. Undoubtedly, of all government released data, the most important is, and continues to be, anything relating to unemployment. This is precisely where the government’s propaganda armada is focused. Yet in matters of (un)employment, the ultimate authority is, luckily, the Treasury, and not the Fed. “Luckily,” because when it comes to making money “difficult to follow” Tim Geithner’s office still has much to learn. Which is why when we looked at the Daily Treasury Statement data we were very surprised: because it indicates that the government could be underrepresenting employment data by up to 32%!

Now we all know that the Fed Gov’t, regardless of the letter of the party in control, is never completely honest with We the People….

We also know that the Feds routinely, and habitually, understate bad news )ie unemployment) and over state good news (ie GDP growth). Those understatements or overstatements are then routinely brushed away later with “revisions” to the numbers later on when less people are paying attention.

Is it really possible that the Gov’t is truly misleading us on unemployment by double digits? As much as 32%?

With this current batch of corrupt politicos, nothing would surprise me.

Washington, DC needs an infusion of sunshine and a clean sweep.

Rasmussen reported yesterday that 45% of respondents would trust randomly selected names from the phone book more than the currently elected and serving CongressCritters.

I would say that number is actually much higher.