Twinsdad comment:
So let me get this straight. If 12 million full time jobs were turned into 24 million part time jobs, America would no longer have any unemployment ?
What do they take us for ?
Friday, October 5, 2012
Reason For Today's Unemployment Rate Plunge: Part-Time Jobs For Economic Reasons Surge Most Since QE1 Announcement
We already noted the absolutely stunning surge in reported Household Survey jobs which "added" 873,000 jobs, or the most since 2003 and the second most in the past decade, which was just a little bit off the Household Survey used in the monthly NFP jobs changes, which came at 114,000, or about 8 times less. But what was the reason for this epic jump in Household survey jobs? Simple, and those who have read our series on America's transition to a part-time worker society know the answer. The reason is that the number of part-time people employed for economic reasons soared by 582,000 to 8,613,000, the most since October 2011, and the largest one month jump since February 2009, when "restoring" confidence in the economy was all the rage... and just before the Fed announced the full blown QE1 in March of 2009. Odd symmetry.
So putting it all together, what does this mean for the true state of the US economy? Recall back in September one of our Charts of the Day was the number of Unemployed and Underemployed for the month of August, which was 25.8 million. Readers may be surprised to learn that when putting it all together, in September this number increased to 26.2 million.
Twinsdad comment:
So let me get this straight. If 12 million full time jobs were turned into 24 million part time jobs, America would no longer have any unemployment ?
What do they take us for ?
Twinsdad comment:
So let me get this straight. If 12 million full time jobs were turned into 24 million part time jobs, America would no longer have any unemployment ?
What do they take us for ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Twins ...this is par for this admin
ReplyDeleteI know... but the debates seem to be the focus for the undecided now. If you have a job, you're getting underpayed and if you're a part timer, well you're a part timer....
ReplyDeleteReporting of this type (7.8% unemployment) by the central planners of the former USSR was a canary in a coal mine towards it's ultimate demise.
ReplyDeletePropaganda is propaganda, whatever the source.
1773-2009 Thirty two days remaining.
"So let me get this straight. If 12 million full time jobs were turned into 24 million part time jobs, America would no longer have any unemployment ?"
ReplyDeleteWe need to fix this by broadening the tax base. Too many people don't pay any tax at all. Start taxing them and everything will get better.
What we need is more government workers.
DeleteUnemployment Rate Plummets to 4.3%--For Government Workers
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 5, 2012
(CNSNews.com) - The best news anywhere in the U.S. economy over the past three months has been in the government sector, where unemployment has dropped dramatically from 5.7 percent in July to 5.1 percent in August to 4.3 percent in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Both the federal and state governments increased their employees in July, August and September.
Seems we should add 23 million new government jobs, problem fixed.
Are you going to just stay in bed all day on halloween and say that you are dressed up as a government worker?
DeleteI'm dressing as an EPA hack. Searching for people farting in public. That's an air pollution violation according to the clean air act. 100K fine. Maybe I can get them to install filters.
DeleteHmmm.
EPA hack is a redundancy of terms LOL
DeleteRecalling the commercial where Friar Fuggit stands at the Xerox copier:
ReplyDeleteIT'S A MIRACLE!~~beaming face with eyes skyward~~
None of this is a surprise to me as I expected it all along, may have even commented so last month (somewhere). This is the proverbial hat/rabbit trick. We heard or read of the seasonal increase arriving last week so there was expectation of a better report in the wind. The operative word here if you didn't know is SEASONAL. Stop gap upward revision of part time, low pay, benefitless make bizziness that crashes the second week of January '13 as it has always previously operated.
This report didn't even bother to add the mirrors ... those will be employed NEXT month. Today smoke is more than sufficient.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the odds that the employment number jumps back to 8% before the election? 0.0000000% Oh and I forgot, the statistician in Chief is OFFENDED that people are skeptical of the number. 900,000 more people performing some type of work almost overnight? BS!
Let me tell you that things are slowing down big time here and THIS TIME it's not just the middle class. My Nordies store has become a ghost town these days unless it has a special event like a trunk show...
"My Nordies store has become a ghost town these days unless it has a special event like a trunk show..."
DeleteCareful Thurston, don't spill tonic on your silk ascot.
Please explain to me, how 114,000 new jobs, drops the unemployed rate 3 tenths of one percent, which equals 873,000 new jobs. It takes 125K new jobs to break even.
DeleteCould it be that 759,000 more Americans have quit looking for work.
When will the media report the real facts instead of the hype????
Washington Free Beacon Staff
ReplyDeleteOctober 5, 2012 11:31 am
The United States economy lost 16,000 manufacturing jobs in September, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, on top of the 22,000 lost in August.
Losing manufacturing jobs is generally regarded as bad for the economy.
THIS is the only comment of the whole bunch that is truly on to something. Manufacturing is not the end all be all, but in a country that is falling behind academically, manufacturing jobs are what allow you to maintain a middle class.
DeleteNot to disparage the work that you do Max because it is important and needed but how many of those diagnostic machines have you or could you design to turn over to a Chinese worker to build? Making things in an economy is EVERYTHING. Not creator is an designer and not every medical person is a heart surgeon. Furthermore, I would dare say that if you offered equal, high quality education to the general populous with the intent of creating great surgeons.. 97% would wash out. Besides someone, regardless of their education needs to wash those bed sheets and nurses are way too busy...
Deletesoooo many people have come out and said the numbers must be, makes you think are they really?
ReplyDeleteThese economists DO manipulate the numbers.
Examples:
1.) Seasonal Adjustments
2.) Hegemonics
3.) Birth Death Adjustments
So any MSM reporter that says the numbers aren't manipulated is LYING
One of Greenspans many tools of bullshit was Hedonic adjustment, was that what you meant in point #2?
DeleteThe data is manipulated Live, but it's typically manipulated the same way. Some people in your realm of the political spectrum are freaking losing their mud over what is at best, a talking point.
Let's repeat this again for those following at home, PRESIDENTS DON'T CREATE JOBS!
PRESIDENTS DON'T CREATE JOBS!
DeleteBut their policies affect creation of new jobs.
I do have to laugh. The unemployment rate is a survey of 60K households which equates to 110K working people.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone believe the numbers being broadcast are even close to accurate good or bad???
The reality of life for every human being Lou is to believe any and all information that agrees with their outlook and to cast aspersions on things that don't agree with what they believe. You go through some nice math up above, but it's not like this is some new reality. The reality that some people stop looking for jobs is a long has been known for a long time. It would be nice if you held that same kind of rational scrutiny to the numbers Romney is proposing.
DeleteI have to say, I am honestly baffled by the hairball spitting that is going on over this number. If, Lou, what is really bothering you about this is that liberals are using this to say the tiniest of positive things about the economy, then welcome to my world of listening to the endless bullshit spewed on this site supporting Romney's fantasy math wherein we can cut everything, not increase the deficit and create 12 million jobs.
This number, to me, is meaningless. At best, it's like being tossed a bone that has a tiny piece of meat left on it. Nothing more, nothing less.
My fantasy, listening to an unbiased news source. It's great that 500K people found part time work even if it doesn't agree with new jobs created.
DeleteI prefer to hear believable lies, the truth is out there, we just are not being told.
I wonder if the Republican supporters would try to diminish the figures were they were to show a corresponding increase in the rate of unemployment?
ReplyDeleteWith statistical information promulgated during election campaigns I am reminded that "figures can't lie but liars can figure"
Cheers from Aussie
I would like to think that the people on here would look at the math objectively. Their was a time not to long ago that we were adding some jobs... it was indisputable but at the same time we were rolling thousand for the back end of extended unemployment. The modest gains in jobs did not jive with the overall drop in unemployment... same as now. Its not partisanship when I say the numbers don't make sense...
Delete12 million jobs?!?! That sounds awesome, Mitt!!!
ReplyDeleteUm, how you gonna do that?
You have to elect him to find out. We did something like that once with healthcare. We have yet to see how that's going to work out. Not sure I'm up for that but I know I'm not up for a replay of hope and change.
DeleteC'mon Lou. You're using the ACA as a strawman here and I think you know it. You're way too smart for that.
DeleteIt's preposterous and impossible. There's no magic wand that any president can wave to conjure up 12 million jobs out of thin air.
Unless, of course, his plan is to reeaaalllly expand the scope and role of the federal government. Think about that for a minute ...
Does Romney want to expand the government to add 12 million jobs? Wow. That'd make Obama look like Ayn Rand, wouldn't it?
Even if that is the case, he couldn't do it without Congress.
A campaign promise that ridiculous in both scope & significance made during a presidential run absolutely requires an explanation - or at the very least, a few details.
pfunky,
DeleteYou are correct, politicians make statements during the election cycle. Some of the statements are fulfilled some are not. Much like the current president, ending wars, cutting the debt in half, healthcare for all. Some are actually filled, the gay issue in the military, the 2 year work permit for the illegals.
What does it take? A congress that will work with you or you will work with congress.
I view O and R's alleged promises as statements to work from. 12 million jobs? Could be done however it will require revisiting the Free Trade agreements and how we deal with businesses that export jobs and import junk. Not sure either Prez candidate is up to that. I suspect there will be little difference between R and O. The only difference is we know what we are getting with O and R is an unknown until he's in office just like O was in 2008.
As far as details in statements made by either candidate. It comes back to congress. In 2009, 2010, the Democrats marginalized and isolated the Republicans in their endeavor to provide governance to the nation. The results in 2010 was a replacement of the majority in the House. Will it happen again? Maybe if people are tired of the grid lock and who can spin the story of gridlock in their favor.
The PPACA isn't a straw man but an example of how our government runs today. Congress didn't read the PPACA nor did they read Dodd, Frank. They passed the bills and now we are seeing what's in them. Could be part of a new plan. Make the laws so big, cumbersome that nobody reads it and push it through. In the back pages load the bad stuff that wouldn't have a chance of passing. As a side note Obama spoke of Healthcare reform prior to the 2008 election with few details.
Actually, Candidates Obama and Clinton debated and discussed their ideas about healthcare reform extensively during the Primary. The ACA is just what we got after it was crapped out of the intestines of Congress
DeleteGranted, the Obamacare we have is very different from what was actually discussed during the '08 campaign (it's essentially a national Romneycare with was basically Bob Dole's plan in response to Hillarycare from the 90s), none of the candidates ever promised something sweeping and huge and then had the balls to say, "Just shut up and vote for me. Then you'll find out what I'm talking about".
You know, one of the most oft repeated talking points I've heard from the right-wingers since Obama's election was what a lousy job the MSM did in vetting him (I don't believe that's true, but that's a different discussion).
Yet here, when it's one the Right's guys, it's suddenly ok.
This one's a whopper, Lou. This man, running for President, is promising to create 12 million new jobs outta thin air. Wow. 12 MILLION NEW JOBS!!! And when asked how he plans to do it, he tells everyone to go pound salt - "Vote for me and you'll find out."
Doesn't that bother you, Lou? You, a Small Government, Deficit Hawk, Right-Leaning Independent? I would think folks like you would be holding Romney's feet to the fire on this one.
How's he gonna create 12 million jobs? Sounds like it could be expensive for the taxpayers, no? It also sounds like it could involve a lot more government, doesn't it? Or maybe it just sounds like some grand bullshit that Romney's saying to get votes.
Whatever Romney's secret plan may be, I would think that voters like you would demand at least a few nuggets of info before you pulled the lever for him.
I know I want it, and I don't want to give him a pass on this particular gigantic policy point. This man could be our next president. I can't believe that voters would overlook this.
Or maybe just the fact that Romney's not Obama is enough for you, which is understandable and fine. Then in your case, what either guy promises or says doesn't really matter at all.
But I never want to hear that bullshit "Vetting" talking point with regards to Obama again. Max is right with regards to the hypocrisy of the right. It only wrong when the other side does it.
pfunky,
ReplyDelete12 MILLION NEW JOBS!!!
No pfunky, I don't believe it. Like the PPACA, it has to go through congress and there will be no pass for R if he's elected prez. Same goes for O if he's re-elected. Why you ask? This is the most divisive government we have ever had. If O goes, the Senate remains where gridlock will continue. If O stays gridlock continues in the House, passing laws, budgets to the Senate where they die. 12 million jobs is a great goal but hardly attainable in today's environment. Should R tell it like it is? Is that what the American people want? It would probably go something like this: I would like to work with the congress to pass legislation to create 12 million jobs however it's likely the Senate will block any legislation passed by the house. A refreshing bit of honesty but not what the people want to hear.
O will continue to spend if re-elected. Is that what we need as a country? Paying 450 billion in interest this year. If the interest rate goes up 1%, that's 160 billion dollars in interest or 600 billion a year. O spends another 4 trillion in the next year at 3%, that's 600 billion. At 4% it's 800 billion, unsustainable yet. How much longer can the Fed buy treasuries propping up the dollar before inflation is truly killing us?
R doesn't have all the answers probably few if any. The only hope is spending less, raise taxes across the board and try to create more jobs to generate more tax dollars.
p.s. I didn't mention vetting did I.
I do know where R went to school, Cranbrook, just down the street from where I grew up. I also know he had a dog kennel on his roof when traveling. Ran Bain capital, worked on the Olympics, is a Mormon and a number of other useless facts.
I do know financially we cannot afford another 4 years. We cannot afford a bloated military and 45 million people on food stamps. I know that SS and Medicare as we know it is toast and it's disingenuous for O to claim they are fine. All in all if there were another choice for change with a breath of chance I would take it.
Has Romney been vetted enough yet?
Please don't take any indictment I make of either Romney or Obama as an endorsement for the other. I will not be voting for either.
DeleteBut Romney has basically promised the American people that if elected, he will provide us all with unicorns and rainbows and when asked how he's gonna do it, he basically responds with, "It's magic. Now shut up and vote for me."
Sorry, that shouldn't fly, ever, with any candidate.
My "vetting" point was not directed at you personally. Please don't take it as such. Sorry it came off that way. It was different point that I just crossed in to help make mine.
Both candidates have promised Nirvana. Neither can provide it. The only hope for this country is smaller government, not sure either will provide it. I know Obama will certainly not and will add to the debt we currently carry.
ReplyDeleteI hear your point on Romney, below is the Obama score card from the last election. Hear anyone calling him out on 60% that haven't been kept or compromised on? Why is it the American people aren't demanding an answer. I suspect it's because it's not been brought to light via the biased media.
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 192 (38%)
Compromise 75 (15%)
Promise Broken 85 (17%)
Stalled 46 (9%)
In the Works 108 (21%)
Not yet rated 2 (0%)
And you know, it just doesn't matter as they may have been perceived as promises but they were just ideas that he wanted to explore when elected.
Maybe I'm paranoid about the debt but I can see no end to the problem and only a true fiscal cliff in a few years that we will not be able to back away from.
As to the vetting point, whose responsibility is it to vet a candidate for any Federal Office? Is it the secret service, the party or the biased media? Who would tell the candidate that they should take a hike? At what point that should it disqualify a candidate from running for office? Is is a party decision or a moral decision the candidate make?
Vetting is up to us, Lou. Not so much with details like the candidates' high school transcripts, but with regards to getting to the essence of these people's policy positions, that's on us.
DeleteOutside of policy, I don't know what qualifies as a campaign promise, so that's what I focus on when I evaluate a candidate.
For example, there's a lot of folks who say Obama is liar because he didn't provide "Hope and Change". To me that seems silly.
"Hope and Change" was a campaign slogan, not a policy position. Surely, as an electorate, we're smart enough to know the difference between the two.
While voters may be disappointed that Obama didn't live up to the lofty & ambiguous ideals of his slogan, "Hope and Change", is that a broken campaign promise? Does that really make him a liar?
I don't think so. A disappointment, maybe, but not a liar.
Calling Obama a liar in this context is like calling Eisenhower a liar because everyone didn't "Like Ike" after his election.
But a position of actual policy - like promising a plan to create 12 million new jobs - requires scrutiny and questioning, if not from the media, then from us. We have to do the vetting or we have to demand that our proxies, the media, do.
Otherwise it will always be a bunch of empty promises of unicorns and rainbows.
How can anyone promise anything as president when the actual laws required to implement the promise generally comes from congress. As you can see from Obama's track record on 500 campaign promises you can see a uncooperative congress can dramatically affect the results. 38% completion rate with 15% compromise. Obama promised with the stimulus it would push the UE below 8%. Didn't happen did it. Less people are working today tan 4 years ago. Is he a liar? No, poor judgement is spending 800 Billion dollars plus the respent TARP dollars. Imagine it they would have spent all of the money on infrastructure instead of the pork projects and bailing out the states. Would things be better today. O thinks so as he wants a mini stimulus for what, infrastructure projects.
DeleteLiar, no life in the big city. Romney's promises, ideas will fare much the same should he be elected. Can repeal Dodd, Frank, the PPACA? No but he can issue an executive order as Obama has to honor his promise. The only thing is that the day he leaves office his executive orders are as good as TP. The law still stands and can be fully implemented by the next POTUS.
When I refer to vetting, is the candidate who they have portrayed them self to be?
Must go as I'm setting a batch of Rose' for wine. Grapes are crushed and I need to pull the skins and set it for fermentation.
Have a happy weekend.
You too, Lou. Time to open up a bottle of Hess cab ... yummy.
Delete:-)
2008? 2009?
Delete