Skip to comments.10 reasons why this jobs market is even worse than the weak June employment report
Posted on 07/07/2012 6:57:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Nonfarm payrolls rose by just 80,000 in June, slightly worse than expected and the third straight month of sub-100,000 job growth. The jobless rate held at 8.2%. The employment report was disappointing. Here are 10 reasons why the jobs market is even worse than the headline figures. 1. Unemployment has topped 8% for 41 straight months. Last time above 8% - December 1983.
2. The jobless rate actually makes the labor market look better than it actually is. The rate only counts people who want a job but don't have one. But the labor force participation rate was 63.8% in June, just above near modern-era lows. (It was 66.2% in January 2008 and 67.3% in April 2000). Otherwise, unemployment would be around 11%.
3. The employment-to-population ratio for those aged 25-54 dipped to 75.6% in June, down sharply from 80% in January 2008. Many economists left and right view the core employment ratio as one of the cleanest views of the labor market, because it includes those who have stopped looking for work while excluding the bulge in retirees and young adults in school.
4. Chronic unemployment. The average length of unemployment rose to 39.9 weeks in June, close to recent peak. It was 17.4 weeks at the January 2008 peak and 23.9 weeks in June 2009, when the recession officially ended. Long-term joblessness is particularly bad because skills erode or become obsolete, leading to permanent losses in income.
5. The U.S. added 225,000 jobs in the second quarter vs. 677,000 in Q1. That was the smallest quarterly gain since Q1 2010 excluding the Q3 2010 post-Census decline. June's gain of 80,000 is not enough to absorb new workers to prevent the unemployment rate from rising over the long term.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
From the American Thinker:
The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.
The disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama’s recovery. While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits.
In other words, the number of new disability enrollees has climbed 19% faster than the number of jobs created during the sluggish recovery
Restore Free Enterprise - that will renew and restore our nation.
This is exactly what happens when you regulate rule and tax businesses to death and all those educated geniuses in Washington have no clue. To top it off the whole works is run by some one whose idea of success is how many people he can get on food stamps and his business acumen is such that he could not even run a popcorn stand if his life depended on it. At times it makes a person wonder if this is not done on purpose, repeating the same mistakes history has shown not to work over and over and expect different results.
Zero is both evil and incompetent. A bad combination for all of us.
very interesting chart. Especially going forward from 1981.
Know for SURE that all the destruction to our free enterprise was done on purpose. Doing harm to the hated USA was Obama’s mission.
My questions are: Where did he get the authority to bypass Congress? Did the Democrats give him this authority? Did the Republicans give him this authority? Did the two parties conspire to allow him to bypass Congress?
Or, it could be made like this:
Obama Jobs Score = (Zero logo)
And this recent health care ruling is pouring more gas on the fire. This job market is not getting better anytime soon.
Total INITIAL [+revised] claims for June: 1,547,000
1,547,000 initial [+revised[ claims for unemployment vs. 80,000 new jobs for the month.
At that rate, it would take over 19 MONTHS just to recover from the June numbers.
Does anyone know if the formula for determining unemployment rates today are the same as those used during the Great Depression? If not, it would be interesting to apply today’s criteria to the 1930s and vice versa.
Shame we have to go across the pond to get the news:
I answere my own question. The unemployment rate for the time period before 1940 was essentially an estimate. If you were FDR, you would want an exceptionally high rate in 1933 and trending lower. That is was in fact happened and what would have happened in any case. The exaggeration, if any, was slight.
Today, however, we have large numbers of disabled and this category was not large in 1940. Today a far larger portion of the potential work force is in school of some sort. They are not counted as unemployed even though unemployment may have pushed them into a school where they can live off loans, grants, etc.
Why am I rehashing all this? Merely because, Romney could justifiably say that Obama has given us unemployment rates to rival those of the Great Depression. Of course he won’t for a variety of reasons. Of course, to do so would be unabashed racism.
**Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.**
As bad as this all is (and it is bad, BTW), I have yet to hear anyone in the GOP cop a clue what it will take to fix this situation.
Jim, I've read many times here on FR that the ShadowStats numbers represents the formula used as recent as the Clinton presidency.
Looks like 22-23%...depression era numbers IMO.
Is there a 'fix' that can be publically revealed?
Isn't it just chaos.... forever? (Or, complete collapse?)
There are only two numbers that really matter. All the rest of this is mumbo jumbo, one-dimensional, fluff. In any particular time period, take a month for example, if the number of unemployment filings is greater than the number of W4 new job filings then the workforce is sliding. Anyone using one to make a point without comparing it to the other is a waste-of-space blowhard and needs to be dismissed as a partisan axe-grinder.
I’m not sure if jobs have actually stopped going out of the country, it seems to be slowing, but until that happens the US workforce prospects will be circling the bowl.
Your chart nails it. But, remember, the private sector is doing “just fine”.
Yes, it could be revealed and talked about.
But inside the Beltway, it would cause a furor.
1. Immigration needs to be curtailed - both legal and illegal. When the economy isn’t generating jobs, we’re just not able to absorb immigration.
2. We need to end the “free trade” charade.
3. We need to take on the financial sector with fire and sword. The fraud is rampant in the financial sector, and now it has reached levels where perhaps the only way to break apart the banking cartel(s) is to use martial law.
Too many people asked themselves these questions:
Why am I working when that guy/gal is sitting around all day?
Why am I paying this money into Social Security when I’ll never see a dime of it?
Why am I paying taxes so politicians can buy poor people’s votes with it?
Why struggle to do an honest day’s work politely while the crooks and the rude thrive?
Why speak up when I’ll just be shouted down?
Yeah, but remember, from Obama's perspective, this is a feature, not a bug.
The nations workforce expanded by 189,000 in June, 85,000 were added to social securitys disability rolls while only 80,000 unemployed found jobs, and Obama calls it a step in the right direction. Anyone who thinks he deserves another four years must be getting all their news from MSNBC.
“Long-term joblessness is particularly bad because skills erode or become obsolete, leading to permanent losses in income.”
That one jumped right out at me. I guess I hadn’t thought about the fact that NOT having a job for a very long time makes you less employable in the future. Reminds me of the days when many SAHMs were forced back into the workforce under President Carter, to keep their families afloat. My Mom, included.
Scary times for us all.