How is that Obama promise of unemployment remaining below 8% if we passed the $2 Trillion Stimulus ?

[Nicolos_Darvas]

You dumb asses that voted for him thought it would work, yet you didn't read your history books in that the same shit was tried and failed in the 1930's and the Japan 1990's.

The question is now -- Will you learn from history this time ?


Inquiring minds want to know - Where are all the jobs Obama promised with all this spending which would keep the unemployment below 8% ?

Just as I said earlier - Government spending does not create or improve and economy as has already been proven during the 1930's and the Japan 1990's.

Look for unemployment rates to hit 12% before this is all over.

WASHINGTON – Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_economy

[ZZ CREAM]

You're right again Nic, we do have to pay for the excesses and frauds of the last 8 years!

[Joe Contrarian]

Where's the "stimulus", ZZ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unemployment creeps up to 9.5%

posted at 10:11 am on July 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

The nation’s unemployment woes continued in June as the rate moved up a tenth of a percentage point to 9.5%. The US lost jobs across all sectors, with the exception of public employment in government, education, and health industries. Long-term unemployment increased to 30% of the total:

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in June (-467,000), and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Job losses were widespread across the major industry sectors, with large declines occurring in manufacturing, professional and business services, and construction. …

In June, unemployment rates for the major worker groups–adult men (10.0 percent), adult women (7.6 percent), teenagers (24.0 percent), whites (8.7 percent), blacks (14.7 percent), and Hispanics (12.2 percent)–showed little change. The unemployment rate for Asians was 8.2 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

Other than government jobs, the situation continues to look bleak:

Employment in manufacturing fell by 136,000 over the month and has declined by 1.9 million during the recession. Within the durable goods industry, motor vehicles and parts (-27,000), fabricated metal products (-18,000), computer and electronic products (-16,000), and machinery (-14,000) continued to lose jobs in June. Since the recession began, employment in motor vehicles and parts has declined by 335,000, or about one-third.

In June, employment in construction fell by 79,000, with losses spread throughout the industry. Since the start of the recession, construction employment has fallen by 1.3 million. Mining employment fell by 8,000 in June, about in line with the average monthly decline since its recent peak in October 2008.

Employment in the professional and business services industry declined by 118,000 in June. This industry has shed 1.5 million jobs since an employment peak in December 2007. Within this sector, employment in temporary help services fell by 38,000 in June; this industry has lost 848,000 jobs since the start of the recession.

Clearly, the nation is heading in the wrong direction. There isn’t a single sign of job recovery in this latest report despite four months of Porkulus spending. Not one single sector except for government shows job growth, or even a hint of it.

Three months ago, Obama bragged that his stimulus had begun to create a “rush” to hire construction workers. Since then, the construction industry has lost over 120,000 jobs, and this month’s report shows that trend accelerating at a season when construction should normally be hiring.

Porkulus has utterly failed, as has the Obama administration’s fiscal policies. Businesses have conserved capital in the face of massive new taxes and costs associated with Obama’s stated fiscal policies, such as cap-and-trade, foreign-income taxation, and the higher interest rates that will spring from the massive deficits Obama plans to create. The capital necessary for growth won’t appear in the market under these conditions, as we have clearly seen. When will the media begin to hold this administration responsible for Obama’s economy-killing agenda?

[mr merlin]

Originally Posted by ZZ CREAM

You're right again Nic, we do have to pay for the excesses and frauds of the last 8 years!

Excesses? You mean like a trillion or two in spending with no way to pay for it? After failing to turn the economy around, obama now needs a new challenge with health care.

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Originally Posted by ZZ CREAM

You're right again Nic !

I am always right as a matter of fact !!!

What is your boy going to do now ?

[MannyLovitto]

Once again, the enthusiasm of Nic D has produced a Topic line with incredibly mangled syntax so I'm not really sure what is being asked.

At least Nic himself is spewing some much needed tension onto his keyboard.

Just make sure and wipe it off so that the keys don't get stuck on a certain letttttttttttttttttt--er

[brucefan]

The truly scary part is in the warped mind of the radicals, the answer to this is that the crapulis spending bills were not enough.

WE NEED TO PRINT MORE !

[Joe Contrarian]

A Miserable Failure

Share Post Print
July 2, 2009 Posted by John at 10:21 PM

That's the Obama administration's "stimulus" plan, which mainly stimulated Democratic constituencies with great gobs of pork. The web site Innocent Bystanders has done a service by plotting the actual unemployment rate against the Obama administration's prediction of what would happen with and without the "stimulus." Here is the latest, updated through June; click to enlarge:



The administration's forecast provides a benchmark against which we can judge the success or failure of the $700 billion porkapalooza. The result is obvious: it was a failure. The best thing Congress could do is to cancel the rest of the program--the large majority that remains unspent--and let the economy recover without being hampered by government-imposed inefficiencies.

[Joe Contrarian]

[Joe Contrarian]

Economy in Numbers

The Real Unemployment Rate Hits a 68-Year High

Comparing the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “U-3” and “U-6” rates.

By John Miller

Although you have to dig into the statistics to know it, unemployment in the United States is now worse than at any time since the end of the Great Depression.

From December 2007, when the recession began, to May of this year, 6.0 million U.S. workers lost their jobs. The big three U.S. automakers are closing plants and letting white-collar workers go too. Chrysler, the worst off of the three, will lay off one-quarter of its workforce even if it survives.

Heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar and giant banking conglomerate Citigroup have both laid off thousands of workers. Alcoa, the aluminum maker, has let workers go. Computer maker Dell and express shipper DHL have both canned many of their workers. Circuit City, the leading electronics retailer, went out of business, costing its 40,000 workers their jobs. Lawyers in large national firms are getting the ax. Even on Sesame Street, workers are losing their jobs.

Source: Table A-1, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Labor Department, www.bls.gov.

The official unemployment rate hit 9.4% in May—already as high as the peak unemployment rates in all but the 1982 recession, the worst since World War II. And topping the 1982 recession’s peak rate of 10.8% is now distinctly possible. The current downturn has pushed up unemployment rates by more than any previous postwar recession (see Table 1).

Calculating the Real Unemployment Rate

The BLS calculates the official unemployment rate, U-3, as the number of unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force consists of employed workers plus the officially unemployed, those without jobs who are available to work and have looked for a job in the last 4 weeks. Applying the data found in Table 2 yields an official unemployment rate of 9.1%, or a seasonally adjusted rate 9.4% for April 2009.

The comprehensive U-6 unemployment rate adjusts the official rate by adding marginally attached workers and workers forced to work part time for economic reasons to the officially unemployed. To find the U-6 rate the BLS takes that higher unemployment count and divides it by the official civilian labor force plus the number of marginally attached workers. (No adjustment is necessary for forced part-time workers since they are already counted in the official labor force as employed workers.)

Accounting for the large number of marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons raises the count of unemployed to 24.0 million workers for May 2009. Those numbers push up the U-6 unemployment rate to 15.9% or a seasonally adjusted rate of 16.4%.

Some groups of workers are already facing official unemployment rates in the double digits. As of May, unemployment rates for black, Hispanic, and teenage workers were already 14.9%, 12.7% and 22.7%, respectively. Workers without a high-school diploma confronted a 15.5% unemployment rate, while the unemployment rate for workers with just a high-school degree was 10.0%. Nearly one in five (19.2%) construction workers were unemployed. In Michigan, the hardest hit state, unemployment was at 12.9% in April. Unemployment rates in seven other states were at double-digit levels as well.

As bad as they are, these figures dramatically understate the true extent of unemployment.

First, they exclude anyone without a job who is ready to work but has not actively looked for a job in the previous four weeks. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies such workers as “marginally attached to the labor force” so long as they have looked for work within the last year. Marginally attached workers include so-called discouraged workers who have given up looking for job-related reasons, plus others who have given up for reasons such as school and family responsibilities, ill health, or transportation problems.

Second, the official unemployment rate leaves out part-time workers looking for full-time work: part-time workers are “employed” even if they work as little as one hour a week. The vast majority of people working part time involuntarily have had their hours cut due to slack or unfavorable business conditions. The rest are working part time because they could only find part-time work.

To its credit, the BLS has developed alternative unemployment measures that go a long way toward correcting the shortcomings of the official rate.

The broadest alternative measure, called “U-6,” counts as unemployed “marginally attached workers” as well as those employed “part time for economic reasons.”

When those adjustments are taken into account for May 2009, the unemployment rate soars to 16.4%. That is the highest rate since the BLS began calculating the U-6 rate in 1994. While not exactly comparable, it is also higher than the BLS’s earlier and yet broader adjusted unemployment rate called the U-7. The BLS began calculating the U-7 rate in 1976 but discontinued it in 1994 in favor of the U-6 rate. In the 1982 recession the U-7 reached 15.3%, its highest level. In fact, no bout of unemployment since the last year of the Great Depression in 1941 would have produced an adjusted unemployment rate as high as today’s.


Why is the real unemployment rate so much higher than the official, or U-3, rate? First, forced part-time work has reached its highest level ever, going all the way back to 1956 and including the 1982 recession. In May 2009, 8.8 million workers were forced to work part time for economic reasons.

Forced part-timers are concentrated in retail, food services, and construction; about a quarter of them are young workers between 16 and 24. The number of discouraged workers is high today as well. In May, the BLS counted 2.2 million “marginally attached” workers. That matches the highest number since 1994, when the agency introduced this measure.

With the economy in the throes of a catastrophic downturn, unemployment, no matter how it’s measured, will rise dramatically and impose yet more devastating costs on society and on those without a job or unable to find full-time work.

John Miller teaches economics at Wheaton College and is a member of the Dollars & Sense collective.

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, “The Unemployment Rate and Beyond: Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization,” Issues in Labor Statistics, June 2008; John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen, “BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1995.

[Scott L]

Originally Posted by Joe Contrarian

Why isn't Carter in that picture?

[Scott L]

Oh sorry, should have realized he folded.

[SlipperyPete]

That must be the side game in the loser's lounge for players who busted out from the tournament

[Joe Contrarian]

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Obama Disaster Update: 473,000 Jobs Lost In June

The Obama disaster continues...
US Economy Continues to Hemorrhage Jobs

Bureau of Labor Statistics- via Sweetness and Light

The US economy lost 598,000 jobs in January.
The US economy lost 706,000 jobs in February.
The US economy lost 742,000 jobs in March.
The US economy lost 545,000 jobs in April.
The US economy lost 485,000 jobs in May.

(May's numbers were adjusted after it was initially reported that 345,000 jobs were lost.)

And, in June the US lost another 473,000 jobs.
Reuters reported:

U.S. private sector job cuts fell in June to their lowest in eight months, but they still came in more than expected and the economy may be on track to lose another one million workers by year-end.

Private employers cut 473,000 jobs in June, down from 485,000 in May, according to a report by ADP Employer Services published on Wednesday. Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected 393,000 private-sector job cuts in June.

Though June's loss was the smallest ADP had reported since October 2008, the surprisingly large number of cuts dealt a setback to those expecting the U.S. economy to recover soon.

But don't worry... The state-run media says the Obama economy is roaring back.

[SlipperyPete]

So when Bush took over the unemployment was at 4.25 percent, when he left it was about 8, according to the chart. Obama has ways to go yet to match that

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted by Joe Contrarian

You know what they are laughing about?

They are like "Oh man, we fucked things up"

[Scott L]

Dwight: "Hey guys, did you see Pete trying to use those routines in field at the "How To Pick Up Girls" Seminar?

Laughter all around the table

[SlipperyPete]

High risk, high reward, son!!!!

The only thing a PUA doesnt want is a 30 minute set going nowhere

[mr merlin]

Originally Posted by SlipperyPete

So when Bush took over the unemployment was at 4.25 percent, when he left it was about 8, according to the chart. Obama has ways to go yet to match that

Yea, about another 3-4 months worth. The fact that unemployment is way higher than it ever was under bush means very little. Bush sucked, and obama is great!

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Originally Posted by SlipperyPete

So when Bush took over the unemployment was at 4.25 percent, when he left it was about 8, according to the chart. Obama has ways to go yet to match that

This is the OBama economy now. It should be fun watching all you socialists that voted for him defend him now. How were the numbers on election night when euphoria and optimism gripped the country. Unemployment rate at about 6.1% as I recall

[brucefan]

Obama advisor: More Stimulus...