Unemployement rate climbs back to 8.2%

[freegeeks]

umm yeah..

lol.. that unemployment number is ppl who receive benifits.. times... ppl total...

lol c'mon you know this.

I'm Belgian not American, I have no idea how US unemployment numbers are calculated
what is the "real" number then, any statistics about that?

 

[thraashman]

Of course it is, the dear leader could not possibly be at fault for anything. But boooooooosh!



What makes 6 years or 7 years the magical time frame? Congress has been controlled by libs for at least 6 years already, and obummer has been in the white house for 3+ years. When should we expect him to start being a leader and be accountable rather than pointing the finger?

Well considering that Obama and Democrats have had several ideas and the few they've gotten enacted have worked to stem the blood loss and start the healing, yet the only ideas that Republicans have had are ones that are either tied to some socially conservative tie in law or are concepts that have been PROVEN not to work ... I think we can safely say that it isn't Obama's fault. And the collapse happened as a DIRECT results of Republican policies, the same policies they somehow think will now fix the problem that they created! Definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


Edit: I must apologize for that ridiculous run-on sentence, but I'm also too lazy to fix it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well considering that Obama and Democrats have had several ideas

Really? Like what, the same old "spend spend spend some more and raise taxes".

And the collapse happened as a DIRECT results of Republican policies

Really? What policies did the republicans enact that caused lenders to lend money to unqualified buyers and eventually cause the financial markets to collapse when the housing bubble burst? What policies did they enact that made people get mortgage loans they could not possibly pay back?

 

[Fern]

I'm Belgian not American, I have no idea how US unemployment numbers are calculated
what is the "real" number then, any statistics about that?

I don't know what the above poster is talking about.

We have six definitions of the unemployment rate. The one most commonly quoted in articles etc is U3.

See below for definitions:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates six alternate measures of unemployment, U1 through U6, that measure different aspects of unemployment:[89]

U1:[90] Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[1]
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work isavailable for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics

Fern

 

[mshan]

"Stipp: Bob, we talked yesterday about May being a tough month for the employment market. You mentioned some of the factors behind that. I want to step away from just this one report and put it into some context, because we are looking over a series of several reports. When you take a step back and look at this report in that context, in that perspective, what sorts of trends do you start to see, and does this report change your mind about some of those trends?

Johnson: Well, I think overall my conclusion is that we're still growing and have a decent economy. Certainly, this report isn't wonderful, but when you look on a year-over-year basis and use a three-month moving average, we're still up over 1.9% in terms of employment growth, which is right in line with the GDP report that we had the other day. So, the numbers are consistent, and we certainly don't appear to be falling apart when you look at it on that more careful, more thoughtful year-over-year basis, which [adjusts for] this effect that May is often a messed up month because of all the huge seasonal adjustment factors that are in there.

Stipp: So, let's talk about those adjustment factors. If you just looked at the raw numbers, what do those say about the jobs that we actually created--and this is not to say that you should look at that way only, but what kind of jobs did we actually add before they adjusted?


Johnson: Well, we added more than 700,000 jobs this month, and we added more than 800,000 jobs the previous month, and then we took out these big seasonal adjustment factors that were obviously in the neighborhood of 700,000 to 800,000, and got the small growth number that we had. So...

Stipp: Why do they make these adjustments around this time of the year, and why are they so big?


Close Full Transcript


Johnson: They are so big because a lot of the hiring historically happens this time of year when people graduate from school or when summer hiring kicks in, and so you see a lot of growth this time of year. At one point in time, almost all the jobs were added in April-May-June, and the rest of the year you really hardly had any growth.

So, just like we do with retail sales, to compare July to December, even though they are miles apart in terms of how much is actually sold, they calibrate them so we can talk to each other, we make the seasonal adjustment factor, and it is a huge number, but the problem is that the adjustment factor is so huge that just a small error in the adjustment factor messes up what the [final] number is. I said this adjustment factor was over 700,000, and we had 69,000 job growth. So, if the seasonal adjustment factor was only off by 10%, which everybody would gladly admit that it could be, the numbers may not be quite as bleak as they look.


Stipp: After they did the seasonal adjustment factors, and you also mentioned the revisions that they had [in prior months], we did see a little bit of growth from April to May...

Johnson: At least it didn't create a trend where we're going 200,000 to 100,000 to zero or something like that. At least it looks like we've kind of flat-lined there a little bit, so that was certainly good news.

And the household report, which gathers the data by asking households, instead of businesses, if they were working or not, actually showed growth of about 400,000 people. So, again, those two usually converge eventually. They are not revised away, but in a later months we'll get a stronger establishment report and then a weaker household report. So, that kind of bodes well for the months ahead."



Whole Morningstar Video Clip here: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=555946

Thing I don't like is if number was intentionally manipulated to be low to provide political cover for QE3 by the Fed in next month or so. :thumbsdown:

 

[Doppel]

Right or wrong Obama better hope this was a blip. If unemployment starts consistently going up between now and November it's going to be a great deal of ammo for Romney.

In any other election that would cinch it for Romney, but then of course he has personally profited in business while being involved in laying people off. GOP, you stupid idiots, why did you choose him? This election could have been yours. Oh well.

 

[CPA]

Underlyings were awful.

Hard to take anything from this report that isn't awful.

The only good out of this seems to be Europe's problems are depressing oil prices, so maybe we will get some relief at the pump soon. Otherwise, most everything looks bleak.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Really? Like what, the same old "spend spend spend some more and raise taxes".

Which stands in stark contrast to the Republican policies of "spend spend spend some more and lower taxes -- then complain about the debt".

 

[cybrsage]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/story/2012-06-01/may-employment-report/55325614/1



Not good news :thumbsdown:

QUICK! We need to spend anothe TRILLION DOLLARS to fix it again!

 

[Jaskalas]

QUICK! We need to spend anothe TRILLION DOLLARS to fix it again!

To stimulate at the levels of WW2, we would have needed a $3.5 trillion boondoggle.

 

[Jhhnn]

Right or wrong Obama better hope this was a blip. If unemployment starts consistently going up between now and November it's going to be a great deal of ammo for Romney.

In any other election that would cinch it for Romney, but then of course he has personally profited in business while being involved in laying people off. GOP, you stupid idiots, why did you choose him? This election could have been yours. Oh well.

You seem to forget that Romney is the best pup in a bad litter. Who else would they pick? Perry is too dumb, Newt too obnoxious, the rest too nuts to attract swing voters.

Obama can annihilate them with their own bullshit, because their record speaks for itself.

 

[sportage]

Yet again another lesson to be learned...
It's easy to burn down a house, and quite time consuming to rebuilt it.
Damn straight, GW held all the matches.
Obama is holding the bucket of water.

Sure... Vote Romney and see unemployment sky rocket to 21%.
And it will !!!
Romney's plan consists of more matches. A lot of matches. Tons and tons of matches.

The only mystery to Romney is... How will he spin 21% unemployment under his administration?
Mitt 2013: "there are plenty of good jobs out there... People are just too lazy to work for $4.50 an hour". (Mitt Romney, November 2013)

That, naturally, is after Mitt dismantles the minimum wage laws....
SURE.... Vote the snake into office. See what happens. Rock n roll.

If people are not smart enough to have learned the hard lessons left by old GW, and prefer to re-learn those lessons all over again, the hard way... Then they deserve Mitt Romney.

Look at it this way.... The stables in America, the jobs within our boarders, the jobs in healthcare are one of the few stable job creations we still have left.
Question... Can Romney kill even those stable jobs off???
Damn straight he can. AND Mitt will.
Yep! It absolutely could get much more worse.
Question that? Then vote Romney. Re learn the hard lessons of the previous president.
See the unthinkable become reality. Discover how even the stable jobs in America can be hacked into a worthless muck.
Discover the hard way if an unemployment rate of 21%+ is not entirely possible under a return to failed policies.
And watch how they spin.... And spin.... And spin.....
Next time, it could be YOU standing in the unemployment line.
And Mitt? He's the vacationing president off to some land far far away.

 

[sactoking]

Unemployment will likely play a role in the upcoming election and it's unfortunate because the U3 figure is mostly meaningless in this economy. Jobs can be lost and U3 can drop or jobs can be gained and U3 can increase because of the disenfranchised rolls. In fact, that's probably likely to happen: as jobs come back those who stopped looking for work, whose benefits ran out, or who are vastly underemployed will be more willing to reenter the job market. If the pace of reentry exceeds the pace of job creation U3 will go up in spite of net job gain. Conversely, if things slow down more people will lose benefits and give up looking for work and U3 will drop in spite of very slow net job gain or even net job loss.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unemployment will likely play a role in the upcoming election and it's unfortunate because the U3 figure is mostly meaningless in this economy. Jobs can be lost and U3 can drop or jobs can be gained and U3 can increase because of the disenfranchised rolls. In fact, that's probably likely to happen: as jobs come back those who stopped looking for work, whose benefits ran out, or who are vastly underemployed will be more willing to reenter the job market. If the pace of reentry exceeds the pace of job creation U3 will go up in spite of net job gain. Conversely, if things slow down more people will lose benefits and give up looking for work and U3 will drop in spite of very slow net job gain or even net job loss.

Quite true. Funny how things work in the great recession after the bubble, huh?

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

Ironically, by not being able to do anything, the economy appears to be ready to tank as soon as Romney is sworn in. Obama may have been "Bushwacked", but Romney is going to be RepublObaminated (say that 10 times fast). I give Bush more credit for his disaster since it was 8 years in the making, and I would argue Bush passed policies that worsened the crises.

Obama failed to do enough, and in hindsight, should have left healthcare alone due to the magnitude of the economic downturn. To be fair, it's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. I wanted the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act passed at the time, but now it's going to be repealed anyway.

 

[Anarchist420]

Sadly, unemployment is going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better. If the fucking banks hadn't been bailed out, there would've been a massive bust that would've allowed the market to correct itself to full employment by now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ironically, by not being able to do anything, the economy appears to be ready to tank as soon as Romney is sworn in. Obama may have been "Bushwacked", but Romney is going to be RepublObaminated (say that 10 times fast). I give Bush more credit for his disaster since it was 8 years in the making, and I would argue Bush passed policies that worsened the crises.

It's still the same crisis Bush left behind. Credit bubbles have long lasting consequences. History tells us that.

Obama failed to do enough, and in hindsight, should have left healthcare alone due to the magnitude of the economic downturn. To be fair, it's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. I wanted the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act passed at the time, but now it's going to be repealed anyway.

Obama, or Congress? After Brown took Ted Kennedy's seat, it was all obstructionism all the time. It takes 60 votes to appoint the DC dogcatcher, let alone do anything that's truly important. Repubs like it the way it is, and are actually striving to make it worse, because there's no better time to be Rich than when everybody else is busted.

Throw in a little defeatism over the ACA while you're at it.

 

[Craig234]

Ironically, by not being able to do anything, the economy appears to be ready to tank as soon as Romney is sworn in. Obama may have been "Bushwacked", but Romney is going to be RepublObaminated (say that 10 times fast). I give Bush more credit for his disaster since it was 8 years in the making, and I would argue Bush passed policies that worsened the crises.

Obama failed to do enough, and in hindsight, should have left healthcare alone due to the magnitude of the economic downturn. To be fair, it's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. I wanted the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act passed at the time, but now it's going to be repealed anyway.

Obama did the right thing pursuing the ACA, but it was doomed to be gutted between the Republican abuse of the filibuster requiring 60 votes, and the money of the industries.

Without that abuse, Democrats had the votes to pass a single-player plan and much better bill. But they say it 'was the only chance for many years to pass a bill'.

 

[Doppel]

You seem to forget that Romney is the best pup in a bad litter. Who else would they pick? Perry is too dumb, Newt too obnoxious, the rest too nuts to attract swing voters.

Obama can annihilate them with their own bullshit, because their record speaks for itself.

fair enough.

 

[IGBT]

it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it. your obama knows this.. his economy is also his enemy. And he has no note worthy record to run on.

 

[Craig234]

it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it. your obama knows this.. his economy is also his enemy. And he has no note worthy record to run on.

It's the Bush economy under recovery by Obama.He's responsible for his actions in the recovery. Only simpletons would ignore the Bush crash.

He has a good record to run on (better for Republicans than Democrats, really), see the 'list of what Obama has done' thread.

People have a funny way of forgetting how bad the alternatives are. The same people who destroyed the economy point to the mess they made and ask for getting power again.

We made this mistake before - after Clinton improved the disaster from Reagan/Bush, people almost elected George W. Bush, choosing to have another disaster.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

it's the obama economy.

If you want to call this the "Obama economy", then from now on I will refer to the "Bush/Cheney 9/11 terrorist attacks".

Mine is actually more accurate -- it happened well after they took office. This financial mess started well before Obama was elected.

 

[jman19]

Standard Democratic logic. accept no blame; claim the gain.

You're using Dave McNutjob to paint a broad brush? Weak.

This is standard partisan logic.

 

[Balt]

I still don't really see a fundamental reason why companies are going to start hiring people in first world countries.

Me neither. And on a related note, I don't really see any reason that the housing market should recover. I think it may come back a little bit because rent has become more expensive than a monthly mortgage payment in some markets, but I don't think it's going to be much of a bump.

 

[Jhhnn]

Me neither. And on a related note, I don't really see any reason that the housing market should recover. I think it may come back a little bit because rent has become more expensive than a monthly mortgage payment in some markets, but I don't think it's going to be much of a bump.

Part of the problem is that the market is in lockdown because of negative equity. Many families who are weathering the storm just fine are underwater, so they can't move up or even sideways to a different locale. Empty nesters can't trade down & cash out, either, because demand is low because of that lockdown, & also the fact that banks who'd loan your dog $500K five years ago on a no-doc adjustable rate negative amortization note have become very, very picky who'll they'll lend to...

Prices still need to go down in many areas, but servicers are holding back on foreclosures to limit availability & keep prices up, protect the value of their own assets, avoid insolvency- not to mention that they make more money by dragging it out...

Few realize how horribly overextended the financial houses were allowed to become under the Bush Admin. They still are in many ways.