Skip to comments.Economy Added Fewer Jobs Than Expected in November [unemployment rate: 9.8%]
Posted on 12/03/2010 5:48:02 AM PST by MinorityRepublicanEdited on 12/03/2010 6:00:23 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTONThe U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected in November and the unemployment rate rose to its highest level since April, underlining the continued weakness in the labor market 17 months into the recovery.
Nonfarm payrolls rose by 39,000 last month as private-sector employers added only 50,000 jobs, the Labor Department said Friday. The October number was revised up slightly to show a 172,000 increase from a previous estimate of 151,000.
The unemployment rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.8% last month. More than 15 million people who would like to work can't get a job.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast payrolls would rise by 144,000 and that the jobless rate would remain unchanged at 9.6%.
If that’s what it was, you just lost your job, lol.
See, I got back on topic!
“we’re now in the Fall of Prosperity.”
Nice double meaning. It would be humorous if it were not so painfully true.
It seems to me the take away is that their policies have failed. I don't understand why the media isn't treating Obama's economy like it treated Bush 41 or W's. W's had what was "full employment" under Clinton and was attacked for a "jobless recovery" and "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover" and yet their guy's failed policies halfway into his term? Oh! It's not his fault. Look over there he flew to Afghanistan to talk to its president on the phone. Way to escape bad news, O!
Bush 41 lost his job; unemployment was never this high and we saw story after story after story about homeless Americans, about epic long lines for menial jobs, starving children
Where's this coverage for O?
What jobs were created? Christmas sales people at retail, I’m guessing. Come January they’ll all be back at the unemployment line.
Last night/evening, Brent Baier labeled it as “surprisingly bad”.....lmao? =.=
When I saw the numbers on Fox and Friends yesterday morning, I thought to myself, a lot of businesses did not hire because of the Bush Tax Cuts expiring, and the uncertainty surrounding what Congress can agree to pass, if anything, to keep some or all permanent.
PatriotGirl827—Thanks. I visited the sight. Very enlightening.
Is it my old memory playing tricks or does Lord Ohaha leave the country before the real jobs reports hits the news?
This time 0b0z0 was in Afghanistan.
You got that right.
And the noxious way he talked to our troops-—cheering them on...........as if he meant it.
One would think he was a patriotic, flag waving, gun owner (not).
You really have to ask?
I think you are right. The gubbermint sees the ten percent level as a psychological threshold, one which blows up the talk about stimulus and recovery and all the rest. We will never see them admit to 10%. But then I think they are lying steadily already, so it will not mean anything to me when it plateaus at 9.8-9.9.
That’s good news according to Pelosi - the more people who lose work, the more that will be getting on unemployment benefits, which is a boost the economy and creates jobs - the more jobs lost, the more jobs that can be created by more unemployment benefits. Let’s hope the trend of more jobs being lost continues so that more jobs can be created by unemployment benefits. If the job market were to improve that would cause jobs to be lost by fewer people being on unemployment.
You should NB that the unemployment numbers from the Great Depression were:
1. Arrived at “after the fact” - ie, in the early 60’s. There was no national reporting of unemployment in the 30’s, and the modern BLS stats don’t begin until 1948. Stanley Lebergott arrived at the 25% figures in his 1964 book “Manpower and Economic Growth.”
2. Lebergott’s methodology varies significantly from today’s BLS methods, down to the very question of “who is in the employment pool?” Lebergott used assumptions of:
a) As soon as you were 14 years old, you were ‘employable.’ Today, the child labor laws prohibit most employment until 16, and even then, job prospects due to safety regs are marginal for 16 and 17 year olds. eg, they can’t hold a job that requires dispensing of booze (until they’re 21), they can’t drive a company car, truck or heavy machinery, etc. About the only place that kids under 18 are fully employable is in farm/ranch operations, and guess what? The BLS reports aren’t reporting farm employment.
b) Lebergott also considered men in prisons and in the military to be ‘employable’ but ‘unemployed.’ Today, the BLS disregards these people as “institutionalized” and not available to the labor pool.
c) Lebergott considered even those working on FDR’s make-work program jobs to be unemployed. ie, if you had a job for the CCC, WPA, et al, and you’d been working there for months, Lebergott discounted this as “not employed.”
So the figures at which Lebergott arrived are, IMO, significantly higher than what the BLS would find today if we could time-warp the current BLS methodology back into the 1930’s.
The U-6 number is the closest thing we have to determining “true” unemployment in the US now, and it is very high relative to GDP, which gives and ominous portent of the future employment landscape.
And I’ll bet these JACKASSES were “suprised” once again.
<Brian Williams>"Unemployment...SPIRAL...ING...OUT...OF CONTROL"</Brian Williams>
“17 months into WHAT recovery?”
HOW can they keep saying this? This reminds me of the AGW ‘science’ stats that they continue to try to cram down the world’s throat. I hate lies & liars.