Unemployment Drops Below 8%
Good News!
The U.S. economy added 114,000 jobs in September, with the unemployment rate falling from 8.1% to 7.8%, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
Tags: The Economy, Unemployment
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Hot diggity.Come on Joe hit RYAN with this like a baseball bat .Unemployment is going down…did you hear me Joe.Smack him.
7.8% WOW
And that’s WITH the drag of the Bush tax cuts on the rich and investments. When (if) those cuts are gone in January I expect jobs to rebound within half a year. And of course the deficits will respond in about the same timeframe.
Mrs. K had on some news program this morning that I overheard as I was getting ready for work. They reported this story and I heard the female reporter say “keep in mind that the economy really needs 150,000 new jobs in order to recover so this is not good news for the President”. Then a male reporter chimed in that there is only one more jobs report due before the election and it will come out just 4 days before election day.
I asked over my shoulder why she would have Fox on, and she said “it’s ABC”.
Damned liberal media. Sigh.
The *real* drag that this number fights against is the fast and furious loss of government sector jobs. Because — once again — the Bush tax cuts will put a dent in the deficit. They won’t increase consumer demand that might actually move additional investments.
114K jobs is barely enough to keep up with population growth, yet is somehow enough to drop the unemployment rate .3%?!? Yeah, ok.
Birthers meet Jobbers.
That’s all you have? Guess the dishes need to get done.
Anon missed that the July and August numbers were revised *upwards*. And the unemployment number dropped before — last August and December. The only reason we have this new bit of tinfoil-hattedness is because the number is now below 8.
No one is pretending that the jobs added suddenly means the job market is healthy. The only people tuning in their tinfoil are the people who have been working for and hoping for economic disaster for this President in the first place.
Dishes? Wow! Sexism mixed with conspiracy. Way to root against your country.
So, after 99 weeks of unemployment benefits have run out…people are now taking part-time jobs?
If the jobs have now appeared, then why not? I guess the upper-middle class got tired of waiting in line and told the managers to hire some extra help, the hell with their portfolio.
The Republican reaction to the improved jobs numbers is killing me. “But… I don’t understand… We did everything possible to make him fail, and yet he is succeeding!”
Jack Welch and the party of Voter ID claim Chicago style politics regarding unemployment statistics? Seriously.
That makes me wonder why unemployment has been over 8% for all of this time if all you need to do to lower it is simply fix the statistics? Oh yeah that’s because you can’t.
Unreal.
Really. If numbers were to be cooked, why start now? And even if it is just now, why not a less anemic number?
The best response to Jack Welch’s beefing about Chicago-style politics was posted by Barry Ritholz over at The Big Picture. You’ll have to go over there for the takedown — GE’s Jack Welch Knows About Cooking the Books
The “Severely Underemployed” category is still holding at over 14%. I hope this is a real turn in things, but the economic indicators that I monitor do not, as yet, support this assertion. There has been plenty of political massaging of these figures over the years since George 1 went down in 1992 to Clinton during the early stages of that recovery. It just didn’t get felt by the public soon enough and Ross Perot muddled the message. The devil’s in the details.
Lest we forget, our current travails are a completely engineered experience. With better fiscal management during W2’s reign, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Who’d a thought Democrats were the fiscally responsible lot? Perhaps Barry will get the chance to prove this. Right now, things look dodgy, economically and other.
Jack Welch is a scum-sucking lowlife with obvious dementia brought on by feeding on the testicles of “Mad-Cows”. He is a crook and a cold-hearted job killer who should be in prison where he would be treated with the respect he earned throughout his greedy immoral life. I don’t usually wish ill on others but maybe exceptions should be made in the case of these rabid-dog conservatives and their spokespeople and propagandists.
The establishment survey deviated (substantially) from the household survey: 115k jobs vs. 875k jobs. The BLS calculates the jobless rate with the household survey: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm.
[Here is the establish survey table: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm.%5D
In general, the establishment survey is more reliable than the household survey. And, right now, the establishment survey is in line with prevailing economic trends. In all, the 7.8% jobless number likely understates current unemployment.
Also, during Bush’s jobless recovery, the household survey often painted a rosier picture of the economy than the establishment survey.
@Andrew Groff: U-6 is a better number than U-3. It’s sad that U-3 is the official jobless rate and thus the headline number. Oh well. 🙂
Agreed. The U-6 reality is 14.2% total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.
Or in the words of Barack ‘Warlock’ Obama……..WINNING!
Interesting how the unemployment numbers used for all previous Presidents suddenly aren’t good enough for Barack Obama.
Of course, if they rise to over 8% next month they’ll be gospel again.
And the only reason why 7.8% is a “headline” or “winning” is because Republicans set the bar (and the number). Republicans constantly hammered home that unemployment was over 8% – Didn’t hear them differentiating between U-6 and U-3.
All this whining is over the fact that Republicans lost a talking point. Get over it… unless that was all you had?
” In all, the 7.8% jobless number likely understates current unemployment.”
The point is not to measure absolute unemployment, the point is to measure trends. It is better than last month and months prior. So by that measure it shows the arrow pointing the right way.
Go pick any measure of unemployment you like and tell me if it’s getting better or worse (I haven’t actually checked).
I’m not terribly impressed by the jobs report myself. It could blip up over 8% in any given month. There is no strong trend driving unemployment down. I think Obama missed several major opportunities – and missed them deliberately and obtusely – to have the rate into a far more normal range by now. But the Republican plans are worse. In fact Obama’s plans were worse to the extent he allied with Republican economic policy.
Where were you U6 people when Bush was president? Oh right, supporting policies that put us in this mess in the first place.
@X Stryker: We were right here saying the same thing about U6. Many people do not know about it because the MSM does such a poor job of reporting these things. For those just learning about this, you also need to track the Velocity of Money: M1, M2, and the Baltic Dry Index, among others, to attempt to verify if these trends are economy-wide or just blips. I have little care for the whole Bush/Obama/Clinton blame thing when taking about the economy since they are merely the puppets on the string. You need to discern what the central banksters are doing to us. B(L)S numbers are just indicators and are only one way to figure out what we’re bending over for next; bubble or bust, how long, and why.
Oh please, Andrew. You lost the “serious” discussion in your last comment when you said, “Perhaps Barry will get the chance to prove this.”
Your agenda is quite clear. So drop the “I’m a serious person having a serious discussion” nonsense. You blew it, Andy. I see your strings.
Someone needs to change a patch…
And someone needs to stop changing screen names. Pick a name and stick with it. Sock puppetry is a sign of a weak mind and weak argument.
Andrew,
You’re a pretentious, pompous, self-aggrandizing ass. Go peddle your bull at Delaware Politics you can dazzle those morons with your “smelling-salts” theories.
Unless I am answering myself under other screen names, or using several aliases to pump up the SAME argument, and truly engaging in the REAL definition of sock puppetry, you need to drop the Webmaster of the Universe attitude. You’re going to give spineless liberals a bad name!
In the meantime, the freedoms of these United States says I can be Sean Puffy P. Diddy Combs as much as I like.
I promise one alias per thread, dearie. Hold me to it….I won’t let you down.
Actually, the freedoms granted to you by this blog do not include maintaining multiple names or personalities. You have been here in this thread as Gloworm and General Dooku. You have used other names here too.
This jailhouse lawyer bullshit in a place where you are a guest is not only rude, but a ticket to Bantown. Where you are free to be Gloworm or Sean Puffy WTFever. Enjoy, dearie.
U-6 is a better number during any administration. But, in this case, even the establishment survey conflicts with the household survey (like during the Bush administration).
In general, the establishment survey is more reliable than the household survey.
This is actually bullshit. If you look at both surveys you will see that they are two different surveys with two different populations. The Technical Note that comes with each month’s release of this data makes it pretty plain that you are dealing with two different data series. AND one of those series doesn’t measure unemployment. By definition.
@cassandra_m:
Here’s Yglesias on the historical gap between the two surveys:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/05/household_survey_vs_payroll_survey_the_household_survey_always_finds_more_.html
Here’s an explanation about the two surveys from the BLS:
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf.
Here’s a great interpretation of the figures:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443493304578038452687812958.html
Basically, we have slow, steady job growth (okay months). The volatility of the household survey obscures this (bad months and good months). But, over the long term, the household survey will match the payroll survey, which shows slow, steady growth. The payroll survey is more reliable simply because it has less volatility.
They are different data sets. They are two different surveys. But, they both measure job growth. The household survey measures job growth on the employee-side, and the payroll survey measure job growth on the employer-side.
The BLS calculates U-1 – U-6 with data from the household survey. But both surveys job growth, although (1) the payroll survey focuses on non-farm job growth and (2) the household survey includes farm jobs and the self-employed.
Also, the household survey has a far smaller sample size than the payroll survey. This is one source of the household survey’s volatility. This is why the payroll survey is considered more stable and reliable.
None of this is controversial.
All you’ve done here is to restate my objection with more links. What you *haven’t* done is demonstrate why the establishment survey if more reliable. Which was your original claim.
The household survey measures a larger group of people — including farm and self employment that the payroll survey does not capture. It might be a smaller sample, but it is a broader universe, and a universe that is very important as traditional employment is downsized. The Adjusted Household attempts to reconcile that, but it is also not controversial that the Payroll survey has potentially significant gaps that may not be capturing the changing employment picture.
“Here’s Yglesias on the historical gap between the two surveys:”
And here is Iglesias doing the Cat Daddy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymtGiK6nQYQ
@cassandra_m: Even in the current environment, non-farm jobs forms the core of economic growth. The number of farm jobs and self-employed are far smaller than the number of non-farm jobs. Also, the household data benefits from the rise of people who are part-time, want to be full-time, but cannot find a full-time job. This is shown by the U-6 number not budging, but U-3 improving.
It’s like core inflation vs. headline inflation.
Actually what it’s like is raising the bar for this president, and this president only. Suddenly, the unemployment numbers used for past presidents are no longer adequate. All this “analysis” is driven by the loss of the “Unemployment is over 8%” talking point.
However, if unemployment returns to 8.1% next month that number will be gospel again. Just like Romney’s bounce in the polls means Republicans are no longer questioning polls.
It’s BULLSHIT. How many people do we all know that are under employed or have just given up. This buffoon has had his chance now it’s time for someone else to try. If Mitt screws up then he’s out in 2016 and Hilary will get her shot.
@pandora:
I don’t care about talking points. I care about whether there is job growth and how much. [I don’t think that Presidents have much control over the economy. I think that Presidents merely take credit (or blame) for economic trends. I think that Bernanke saved the U.S. economy and that the President’s best move was reappointing Bernanke.]
There is slow, steady job growth. The payroll survey evinces this trend. And, the household survey, minus the September number, evinces this trend.
The household survey’s September number is an outlier, both historically and vs. the survey’s (upwardly) revised July and August numbers. [The household survey is more volatile and produces more outliers than the payroll survey.] The BLS will probably revise the September number downwards.
On a positive note, the October number will (likely) improve on a revised September number.
[Here is my only comment on the optics. If:
(1) the President touts the 7.8% number too much,
(2) the BLS revises the September number downwards, thereby increasing the unemployment rate to 7.9 or 8.0%, and
(3) the October number does not reduce the rate to or below 7.8%,
then there might be a backlash against the President. He should tout the trend, not the huge September number.]