Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Economy Added Fewer Jobs Than Expected in November [unemployment rate: 9.8%]
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, December 3, 2010 | By LUCA DILEO And JEFFREY SPARSHOTT

Posted on 12/03/2010 5:48:02 AM PST by MinorityRepublican

Edited on 12/03/2010 6:00:23 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON—The 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%.

TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: economy; ecoonomy; expectedlyunexpected; joblessrate; jobs; obama; recession; recovery; unemployment; unexpected
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 next last
To: devolve

If that’s what it was, you just lost your job, lol.
See, I got back on topic!

161 posted on 12/03/2010 8:26:16 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: repentant_pundit

“we’re now in the Fall of Prosperity.”

Nice double meaning. It would be humorous if it were not so painfully true.

162 posted on 12/03/2010 9:54:03 PM PST by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
How do you continue to claim there's "recovery" ongoing 17 months in?

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?

163 posted on 12/04/2010 12:06:26 AM PST by newzjunkey (Expiring "Bush taxcuts" = Obama Tax Increases.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

What jobs were created? Christmas sales people at retail, I’m guessing. Come January they’ll all be back at the unemployment line.

164 posted on 12/04/2010 3:00:34 AM PST by 3catsanadog (If healthcare reform is passed, 41 years old will be the new 65 YO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Last night/evening, Brent Baier labeled it as “surprisingly bad”.....lmao? =.=

165 posted on 12/04/2010 3:44:22 AM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya
"Further evidence (as if we needed more...) that the Bush tax cuts need to be made permanent...especially for those business that could be capable of hiring and digging us out of this jam!"

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.

166 posted on 12/04/2010 6:18:12 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PatriotGirl827

PatriotGirl827—Thanks. I visited the sight. Very enlightening.

167 posted on 12/04/2010 8:12:53 AM PST by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican; Liz; Ernest_at_the_Beach; BOBTHENAILER; SierraWasp; tubebender; BIGLOOK

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.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

You got that right.

And the noxious way he talked to our troops-—cheering them if he meant it.

One would think he was a patriotic, flag waving, gun owner (not).

169 posted on 12/04/2010 8:46:37 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
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?

You really have to ask?

170 posted on 12/04/2010 9:28:31 AM PST by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
I reckon they figure 9.8% is as high as they can go without us getting out our pitchforks

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.

171 posted on 12/04/2010 5:44:16 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
It will take him at least two books to explain it all away...
172 posted on 12/04/2010 5:49:12 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

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.

173 posted on 12/04/2010 8:11:01 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: olrtex

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.

174 posted on 12/04/2010 9:03:25 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

And I’ll bet these JACKASSES were “suprised” once again.

175 posted on 12/04/2010 10:28:43 PM PST by RasterMaster (The only way to open a LIEberal mind is with a brick!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dools0007world
I wouldn't believe much that comes out of the gov't as far as indexes that get wide use or reporting. CPI & UE stats are/have been fiddled with considerably.

I've found by ignoring CPI, and indexing markets to gold everything starts to make alot more sense, for instance.

Maybe using employment numbers rather than unemployment numbers might clear things up a bit. Unsure if these numbers include estimates for the illegal immigrant population.

CPS bulk employment data
176 posted on 12/04/2010 11:24:08 PM PST by CowboyJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: socialism_stinX
"Essentially what the numbers mean is that we had a net gain of 50K workers who were employed at the end of the month. Based on the weekly unemployment claims, over 1.6 million workers stopped working during the month and over 1.6 million workers started working during the month. The number who started working was 50K more than the number who stopped working during the month.

True. 55,000 more jobs. Temp & part-time are included in that 55,000. However, there are 132,000 more people added to the potential workforce due to coming of age, immigration, et c.,. So 82,000 net more needing a job that don't have one. Hence the rise in the UE numbers.
177 posted on 12/04/2010 11:42:55 PM PST by CowboyJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"If it is true that some of those 1.6 million new filers will have found new jobs by the end of the month, why are they not counted in the 50,000? If they are, then we’ve still got a net job loss of 1.55 million plus for the month. If they aren’t, why?"

1.65 million hired - 1.60 million new net claims = 50K new net jobs.

The economy needs to generate somewhere north of 200K jobs per month to keep up with new entrants into the workforce due to demographics (legal immigration, et c.). So the UE numbers still go up even though there are a few more people working.

We lost 7 million jobs from '07 to '09, while the available labor pool grew by over 4 million people. Need to add 11 million jobs plus enough to cover new entrants to get back to where we were in 2007 (rough figures).
178 posted on 12/05/2010 12:12:11 AM PST by CowboyJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
"Translated headline if a Republican was president:

Unemployment Highest In More Than Six Months "

<Brian Williams>"Unemployment...SPIRAL...ING...OUT...OF CONTROL"</Brian Williams>

179 posted on 12/05/2010 6:45:39 AM PST by cake_crumb (Why do we call them "pat downs" when they're obviously "feel ups"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: John W

“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.

180 posted on 12/05/2010 9:34:18 AM PST by SeattleBruce (We voted - NOW we fight against vote fraud! Tea Party like it's 1773! Pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson