« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Word on the Tweet: November unemployment 10.4%. [UPDATED]

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 3rd, 2009 at 08:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

UPDATE: Word on the Tweet was wrong. Went down .2% instead of up .2%. My sarcastic reaction to the folks responsible for this amazing long-term trend in the American economic situation remains unchanged.

If true: wonderful. Simply wonderful. And at precisely what unemployment rate do we have to reach before the current ruling party starts to admit that they’ve been mucking up economic policy since January 2007? 11%? 12%? 15%? 36.567%? Things are starting to get a little stretched out here.

Via Hot Air.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bk

    It’s time to start digging up quotes from when Obama when porkulus passed.

  • redneck_hippie
  • EagleWatcher

    I didn’t miss it by much. I was more accurate than the Oba Mao administration.

  • Cheryl

    for Christmas help.

  • ericstenner

    They had a summit today. So help is on the way. And I heard talk of more stimulus too. So we can all relax.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    NOT SO!

    It was all Boooooossssshhh’s fault. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Co. are just cleaning up the mess from the previous Congress…..oh, wait….
    administration.

  • michigan

    if the numbers go to the stratosphere he will just use the self created occasion to claim dangerous crisis and impose draconian despotic controls by executive order. It’s the direction they want it to go.

  • swami7774

    That’s The One’s m.o.
    Also, let’s not be too happy about a rising unemployment rate. Doesn’t look good.

  • malbis

    Last month, with “official” unemployment at 10.1%, the “real” unemployment rate — computed the way it used to be computed, before the change in 1993 under Bill Clinton to lower the figure — was 17.5%. At that rate, it should be close to 18% true unemployment for October.

    From the 1940 feature film Ghost Breakers, starring the late, great, Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard:

    Scientist: “It?s worse than horrible, because a Zombie has no will of his own. You see them some times, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”

    Bob Hope: “You mean, like Democrats?”

  • IJB

    And with each passing day, it gets harder and harder to sell that one.

    The electorate are always in “What have you done for me lately?!” mode. Trying to reply to that impulse with a “It was all the last guy’s fault!!” response doesn’t answer the question, and causes the electorate to get cranky and puts them in the mood to slide their kicking boots on…

  • martellus

    the 8 is all Bush while BO only is responsible for 2.4 soon to be 2.6, 2.8, 3.4, 9.6. Except then they just take everything above 2.5 and add that to Bush and divide it by Reagan and add Nixon and square Eisenhower and multiply Hoover.

    Simple

  • malbis

    …and then brace for February’s report, when retailers and other companies start another round of closings, reductions and layoffs because of disappointing Christmas sales.

    We should officially hit 11% by January — and there’s a possibility that we may hit it in December. Expect to be edging toward official 12% by Feb or March. We are not going to stay steady around 10% throughout next year. 70% of the economy depends on consumer sales, and with real unemployment above 17% nationally, the government can only support things for a limited time.

    If the official unemployment figure for November isn’t about 10.5%, it’ll only be because more people have been removed to Limbo because their unemployment ran out and they are no longer officially counted. And then the U6 true rate will be up close to 18% unemployed since they are counted there.

    Somebody really ought to bring this up on the floor during the Senate debate. Filibuster for the unemployed, anyone?

    From the 1940 feature film Ghost Breakers, starring the late, great, Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard:

    Scientist: “It?s worse than horrible, because a Zombie has no will of his own. You see them some times, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”

    Bob Hope: “You mean, like Democrats?”

  • vamoose

    The people finding work aren’t making what the used to.

  • ex_scientia_vires

    The utter gall of this man makes my hair hurt. The Messiah actually blamed small business owners for laying off and not hiring more employees in order to cut costs and maximize their profits. If this genius had ever done any work in the private sector, he might realize that, for most small businesses, “profits” equals “the only source of income for the owner.”

    Small business owners generally LOVE to hire people: it means that they have more business than they can handle on their own. In my experience, enterpreneurs only let their employees go as a last resort, when it is the only thing they can do to keep the business solvent.

    With his ill-conceived remarks today, this incompetent boob of a President confirmed that he has absolutely NO idea how real small businesses operate, and thus has NO idea how the nation’s economic engine operates.

    Either that, or he just wants this disastrous economy to continue for a little while longer…So he can get around to fixing it just before, say, November 2012?

    Nahhhhh, couldn’t be.

  • Flagstaff

    The only way to turn our economy around now is to restore confidence on the part of business.

    That requires expectations of a sound dollar, prospects of keeping more of business profits (once profit is possible again), and expectations of a solvent country.

    To do that necessitates both lower tax rates and much lower Gubmint spending. There is NO other way. If Obama doesn’t get that, we are doomed until he’s gone.

  • IJB

    Obama can say whatever he wants (and will) – but he’ll only be hurting himself if he continues the “Blame Bush” mantra from here on in, in either foreign policy or the economy: that line is only selling with the loony left, and they make up no more than 30% of the voting public.

  • aesthete

    The 8 is all Reagan, and anything above that is Bush. High Priest of the Economy Krugman has decreed it, and thus it is so! Also, deregulation bad!

  • The_Gadfly

    I finally landed a new job. My new job is as contractor to do IT support for a government agency. So when the numbers for December come out, I will be counted as a private employee. But should I?

    And then I started thinking about my last job. It started off as why I considered a solid private sector job, field support for a raft of customers including banks, lawyers, schools, and such. But in 2000 it was acquired by a company that primarily performed government contracting work. It was supposed to reduce their cost for doing business since they would no longer have to pay the profit to the private company while providing a synergistic boost to the IT company. A couple years later, having profitably weathered the worst downturn in the IT industry that division was disbanded because it didn’t fit the company model. I still thought of myself as privately employed because I was doing the same type of work, but was that really true?

    I think the answer for the new job is clearly not. The work will be direct support to a government agency. In fact in the past it would have been a direct government job. And I’m starting to lean that way for the old job after the IT division was disbanded. Which means we may need some new concepts, definitions, and numbers to analyze what is really happening with the economy.

  • bk

     

  • bk

    We’ll keep hearing that “he’s not on the ballot” from the same peopel who act like Bush is on the ballot.

    There are 25% or so of people who will back Obama no matter what he does and the same who will oppose him no matter what he does. It’s hard to see how in 2010 the middle 50% will be swayed by whining about Bush. We already saw from last month’s election that there has been a huge shift in those folks from Democrat to Republican.

  • RedBeard

    The One says he has personally, through his infinite and all-knowing wisdom, saved or created 100 MEGABAJILLION jobs.

    Relax, people. All is well.

  • Hoosier Economist

    seem to be cheering for the unemployment rate to rise. You also seem to be overlooking the fact that initial jobless claims have dropped for the past four weeks beginning the week of 10/31. When you have that sort of trend, unemployment can’t help but follow that pattern. If initial jobless claims continue to decline, unemployment will follow. If they rise again, unemployment will also rise.

    Look, I don’t like the public-sector solutions coming out of this government either, but I refuse to openly root for economic failure just to run legislators and/or a president out of office.

  • mschmitt

    … because weakening the economy meant weakening Bush. Of course we’re beating our chest about this now — we’ve been saying for over a year that this bailouts and stimulus nonsense would make things worse. And they are. We’re not having to pick and poke through data to fit our narrative like the lefties do — it’s right there in your face. Massive increase of government spending does not lead to jobs growth. See?

  • RedBeard

    Golly, I thought, with his massive resume in management and administration, that he would be as much of a genius about business as he is about commanding troops.

    I’ve owned my own business for 32 years, and can honestly state that there is NO greater enemy we have ever faced than this current gang of vicious, anti-business, un-American leftist thugs in the White House and Congress.

    But yeah, I’ll run right out and hire a dozen new people, even though I have nothing for them to do. Then I’ll go broke. Will that make The One happy?

  • Streiff

    1. Jobless claims are down because we’re at the point where the next step for businesses is simply to shut their doors.

    2. Unemployment will inevitably drop as more and more people are statistically removed from the denominator by declaring them “detached from the labor force.”

    3. The only sector showing any growth are jobs funded by tax dollars. Do you think that means anything in the macroeconomic sense?

  • penguin2

    Public or private, at least for our own, we want everyone employed. Perfectly good use of our tax dollars. :)

    But as you said, the number employed directly or even indirectly related to government’s existence, that is a serious concern; it gives the true picture of how the economy is doing.

  • Ausonius

    Knowing the duplicity present in this administration, why should we assume that the numbers have not been tinkered with?

    I know that some will argue that if such occurred, why would they not lower it to 8% and claim great success? To which the response is that there are limits to fraud.

    On the other hand, temporary Christmas employment might have pushed things upward, along with expanding the leeching, non-productive FedGov bureaucracy.

    I can agree that this seems like looking for a leaden cloud in a clearing sky, but given all the lies from BIG BRObama and Company, I am skeptical.

  • Hoosier Economist

    1. CONTINUING jobless claims rise because businesses shut their doors. INITIAL jobless claims drop because fewer people walk into the offices looking for benefits.

    2. There are TWO unemployment measures…U6 fell 3 points to 17.2%, while U3 fell to 10.0%. Your numbers are incorrect.

    3. Improvement in November payroll numbers was due both to a less negative goods-producing sector and a gain in jobs in the service-providing sector. Exactly which government job was responsible for the increase in durable goods production and service sector jobs?

  • Hoosier Economist

    contrary to your ideological and political aspirations, he is automatically a “Lib”?

    I don’t recall saying ANYTHING about Bush. I’m just refuting the misinformation on this thread. You’re jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions because the data frustrates you.

  • mschmitt

    I honestly didn’t think you were still denying it. Apologies.

  • Hoosier Economist

    This is a whole new level of paranoia even the Lefty Loosies aren’t known for short of the 9/11 “truthers”.

  • Hoosier Economist

    (…where most of the country happens to be, BTW…)

    Good God…does EVERYONE have to agree with EVERYTHING the Right thinks…ALL THE TIME?

    I am interpreting data released from the Department of Labor. I’m sorry you don’t agree with my analysis, but the snap reaction to call someone a “Lib” is a little boresome.

  • Richard Mullins

    The 100 MegaBaJillion Jobs was snarky on RedBeard’s part.

  • judgew7

    apparently are now working for the BLS….

    The UNADJUSTED U6 unemployment actually went UP. The seasonal adjustment to the publicly released U3 number is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

  • mschmitt

    … that I’d already considered that possibility and discounted it? Sheesh, I apologized. ;)

    Anyway, it’s pretty clear that your aim here is to be an apologist for Keynesian economics (am I wrong to assume that, also?). That’s simply not middle ground for an educated economist (as your name indicates).

  • judgew7

    Try the link for a pic:

    http://i50.tinypic.com/2z4juyf.png

  • blooch

    What about Cash for Clunkers? I know we haven’t been offocially taxed for that yet, but I hear from Jim Kramer that it’s a raging success…maybe it has just reduced inventories of durable goods.

  • RedBeard
  • mschmitt

    All of you complaining about “depressions” and “weakening the country” are just haters.

  • Richard Mullins
  • Scope

    adjusted numbers to make it appear that unemployment is not as high as it really is. That 10.2 number only includes those collecting unemployment, and those new people who have just signed up. It does not include those that have taken part time jobs and are underemployd, those that have exhausted their unemployment benefits, but are still looking for jobs, and of course those that have all but given up. I love when you “economists” like to brag because the unemployment numbers are down, but, fail to acknowledge that the monthly numbers are still higher than they have been in many many years, probably since Carter. Sorry, your glass is half full, rosy glasses don’t apply here.

  • mom2oneson
  • http://applescorneroftheorchard.blogspot.com/ Pomme
  • bk

    I’m sure all the quotes today from the administration are that we’re turning the corner, this is the beginning of the end of the recession, etc.

    Will the GOP throw all those quotes in their faces when the inevitable introduction of Porkulus II occurs?

  • RedBeard

    ;-)

  • ceili_dancer

    The most retailer’s fiscal calendar starts in Feb. after all thereturns from christmas and the other Holidays. Most retailers won’t close a store during that period unless they had some major issues, i.e. huge shrinkage, cash outlaays for physical facilities, or something to turn the store into a money pit. The seasonal workers will usually work until the 2nd week of Jan., at least at the company I used to wok for. I tried to stretch it out as long as I could with my payroll dollars. They were usually part timers, but for my former company we defined less than 37.5 as part time. Long story short look to the end of Jan. for jobless claims to get a good glimpse of the futrue unemployment numbers.

  • ceili_dancer

    The strongly approve/disapprove was -12.

  • Streiff

    1. That isn’t the point. New jobless claims fell because businesses are at the point where further layoffs will mean they close. I think most of us understand the difference between CONTINUING and INITIAL>.

    2. Actually no. The number of people counted as “detached from the labor force” continued to increase. My number is correct.

    3. Simply not true from the BLS.

    Job losses in the construction, manufacturing, and information industries were offset by job gains in temporary help services and healthcare.

    Manufacturing employment fell by 41,000 in November. The average monthly decline for the past 5 months (-46,000) was much lower than the average monthly job loss for the first half of this year (-171,000). About 2.1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since December 2007; the majority of this decline has occurred in durable goods manufacturing (-1.6 million).

    Since there was no increase in manufacturing employment any increase in durable goods production would have to be accomplished by overtime on the part of the existing workforce… or leprechauns since you seem more acquainted with the fantasy world than I am. If you can’t figure out how the government is involved in healthcare or service employment, I suggest you spend some time familiarizing yourself with BLS definitions rather that simply fibbing to win an argument.

  • 1stRichard

    Do construction jobs paid by the government create wealth? Do teachers create wealth? Is wealth goods or services? These are important questions because real jobs create wealth and wealth creates jobs. Some call this evil capitalism, some call this common sense and some call this natural law but is all the same, this how we create wealth. In the simplest forum we own land, dig up something and sell it. On the other side we have the great destroyer of wealth, government. Big government can not create wealth however it was supposed to provide services that are proper and necessary for the creation of wealth, our liberty.

    Proper and necessary, skip over the details of regulation as we all know this would take several books to cover and take a glance at the general cost. The federal government is some 12 trillion in debt, 106 trillion in unfunded liabilities, if they pass healthcare that is about 7 trillion, and add in cap and tax that is said to be another 145 trillion. Next add in the trillions to states and local governments, all the regulation and you will find a new definition of absurdity, who is going to pay a bill that is over?

    $200,000,000,000,000.00

    ?, yes that is right our jobs, the jobs that create wealth. I have to wonder if the jobs saved or created destroy our wealth, as in government jobs, or are they real jobs that create wealth. And how long are real jobs going to last if they have to pay the bill.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Ausonius

    I know this from personal experience, when a friend was on George Bush’s Vice-Presidential staff in the 1980′s. The bureaucracy in general was no friend of Reagan’s and did their best to slow things down, or not effect policy.

    Recall that e.g. Paul Volker was working behind the scenes to sabotage Reagan’s economic program. Nixon in the non-Watergate years of his presdency openly complained that the bureaucrats would not carry out policy. There are all kinds of examples where the bureaucrats have their own agenda, and it is usually NOT conservative!

    Paranoia? I think you need to read some basic History about this from the last 60 years.

  • farstar99

    And we should be pointing out that this supposed “increase” is exactly in keeping with the holiday hiring season from the last five years.

    Besides, real unemployment is actually much higher, on the order of 26 percent.

  • Scope

    n/t

  • Spartan4Life

    He is the SLiC(Seminar leader in chief).

    The “jobs”(pork)summit would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad to see what has happened to our country.

  • Achance

    The only things that states can accurately measure is first time applicants for UI and those who are continuing to receive UI. Once a person loses their UI entitlement states no longer have any way to track them accurately and mischief has been done with the number, though usually it is Democrats trying to make a Republican look worse.

    The states have no incentive to make unemployment look better than it is; they get UI money for unemployed people and there are also grants to seek out and assist disaffected or displaced workers. I think there is lots of spin concerning the under-employed and disaffected workers, but it is hard to cook the books on the number actually applying for or drawing UI.

  • Flagstaff

    Representative Stupid Woman was on TV this afternoon, talking about the new, ‘only 11,000′ jobs lost report. She was determined to mention that in Bush’s final month, the jobs lost were much, much higher. She failed to mention that since Bush’s fnal month, MILLIONS of jobs have been lost under Obama, and that Bush’s final month was January.

    BTW, that 11,000 number will be revised upwards, and it is already seasonally adjusted, so it benefits from an abnormal jobs number that occured last November. And it was primarily gubmint jobs, so they aren’t productive, they only keep people off the streets.