Unemployment rate decreases to 8.6%

From


Unemployment Slips to 8.6% as Private Sector Adds Jobs


By JOSH MITCHELL And JEFFREY SPARSHOTT

WASHINGTON—The U.S. labor market strengthened in November as private employers continued to add jobs at a healthy pace, while the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since March 2009.

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 120,000 last month, the U.S. Labor Department reported Friday in its monthly survey of employers. Private companies added 140,000 jobs, while the public sector—federal, state and local governments—lost 20,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, fell to 8.6% in November from 9.0% the previous month. The rate hadn’t been below 9% since March, when it was 8.8%. The rate is now lower than at any point since March 2009, when it was 8.6% as well.

More at the link. Also see Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop?

18 Comments

  1. Looks like a BO Labor Dept. Blue Smoke and mirrors to get the artificial number of 8.6%

    America Needs More Job Creation

    After months upon months of unemployment stuck at or above 9 percent, the American people may finally see a sliver of relief in today’s jobs report from the Department of Labor. The report suggests the month of November saw 120,000 net new jobs created and the unemployment rate drop to 8.6 percent–driven in part by the 315,000 people who have given up looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed. That news is cold comfort to the 13.3 million Americans who are still out of work and the 402,000 workers who filed for unemployment last week.

    The question is whether this improvement is real and enduring or a fluke. The economy is growing, but there’s little evidence of the real strength the report suggests, and there’s a lot in the report to suggest something’s amiss with the numbers–something likely to be corrected in the next report. For example, is it likely the labor market strengthened as much as the job number suggests at the same time so many people abandoned the workforce? And this is only one of the anomalies in the report.

    More here:
    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/02/morning-bell-america-needs-more-job-creation/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

  2. Obama and his Labor Department can “adjust” these figures all they want, and as Yorkshire’s pointed out, simply not counting 315k that “have given up looking” doesn’t mean that they’re NOT UNEMPLOYED. (by the way, Clinton started this farce “new formula” for counting the unemployed by dropping them from the rolls when their UI expired) But there’s one positive out of this joke of a report—that those who have fallen off these phony counting tactics, HAVE NOT LOST THEIR VOTING RIGHTS.

  3. I wonder if the 315,000 people who have given up looking for work are counted as real people? I guess if you are employed or active unemployed you’re real person, but if you give up looking, you’re a nobody or non-entity.

  4. Can’t you tell that a drop to 8.6% unemployment is bad news for wingnuts, as Yorkshire and Brokenwheel so well indicate? And the increase of GDP growth to 2.1%, that’s bad news too? So is the rebound of the stock market since 2009 – terrible news? More bad is our final troops withdrawing from Iraq – just awful? And jobs created, now more than double the number created by Bush et al in his eight years – sad, sad news?

    And now we have tax cuts for the middle and poor, as part of the American Jobs Act, you know, the SS withholding tax cuts on employees and employers, which are about to expire because the Repubs are opposed to renewing it, and thus will let these taxes increase in January, all because they wish to protect the rich from being charged a surtax in order to pay for it. So its protect the rich, tax the middle and poor, which is the GOP mantra, again. Here I thought the Repubs were in favor of tax cuts. Not this time! Pathetic!

    These are just more examples of how the Republicans are more interested in defeating this President Obama whom they hate, then they are of taking steps to encourage the growth of our jobs and our economy.

    I note that Mr. Editor here claims that President Obama will be defeated based on his record. Considering the circumstances since he took office, his record is amazingly good. The poor record belongs to the Senate and House Republicans, who have obstructed progress on our economy since January 2009, which will be underlined in the upcoming campaign for the 2012 elections, as President Obama’s creditable record will be emphasized.

  5. WW wrote:

    The poor record belongs to the Senate and House Republicans, who have obstructed progress on our economy since January 2009, which will be underlined in the upcoming campaign for the 2012 elections, as President Obama’s creditable record will be emphasized.

    So, if the economy is starting to recover, and, as you have claimed, nothing got done in Washington due to the Republicans obstructing progress, wouldn’t that mean the economy has recovered due to the policy that someone here once advocated of doing nothing and letting the economy fix itself?

  6. Mr. Editor, if you think nothing has been done to rescue this economy and encourage job creation and growth, then you are not paying attention. Pay attention to the now started campaign, then you will learn what you have been ignoring to date.

  7. Wagonwheel says:
    December 2, 2011 at 13:45 (Edit)

    Can’t you tell that a drop to 8.6% unemployment is bad news for wingnuts, as Yorkshire and Brokenwheel so well indicate? And the increase of GDP growth to 2.1%, that’s bad news too? So is the rebound of the stock market since 2009 – terrible news? More bad is our final troops withdrawing from Iraq – just awful? And jobs created, now more than double the number created by Bush et al in his eight years – sad, sad news?

    On anotherpost you said Wall Street is rigged. If you’re able to see that and cited after hours trading was a cause. I’ll take that just on its face. But on this unemployment report, it is also rigged. If you do not have a JOB, you are either totally disabled, retired, or unemployed. To cherry pick out only those numbers that are doing one thing or another, is disingenuous.

    Webster, from his best seller defines as such:

    un·em·ploy·ment
    noun \-ˈplȯi-mənt\
    Definition of UNEMPLOYMENT

    1: the state of being unemployed : involuntary idleness of workers; also: the rate of such unemployment

    But not to worry, the numbers will be rigged by July to say 4.5% but the economy will be the same as today.

  8. Mr Wheel wrote:

    Mr. Editor, if you think nothing has been done to rescue this economy and encourage job creation and growth, then you are not paying attention. Pay attention to the now started campaign, then you will learn what you have been ignoring to date.

    Well, let’s see, we had a huge stimulus plan, which was supposed to hold unemployment to a maximum of 8%, and we were told that it would go to 9% if we did nothing. We passed it, and unemployment went to 10.1%.

    In 2010, the voters replaced the Democratic majority in the House with Republican leadership, and lessened the Democrats’ advantage in the Senate, and you have been complaining about a dysfunctional Congress. The first stimulus was done, and President Obama asked for a second stimulus, which he has not gotten, and now unemployment is showing a statistical decline.

    Now, if government action does control the economy, the results would seem to indicate that doing nothing — remember that you’ve called it a do-nothing Congress — has had some positive effect, while the big stimulus plan had a negative one. If, on the other hand, government action does not control the economy, then the Republicans blocking President Obama’s plans in the current Congress means that what they have accomplished is to keep spending down, while the huge stimulus plan passed by the eleventy-first Congress did nothing, but ran up nearly a trillion dollars in additional debt, all for nothing.

    In other words, heads I win, tails you lose. :)

  9. Can’t you tell that a drop to 8.6% unemployment is bad news for wingnuts, as Yorkshire and Brokenwheel so well indicate?

    If you can’t tell that this is a bogus number manipulated by the Labor Dept, then there’s no use wasting much more time arguing with some one who’s decided that they can consciously live with a lie, leaving credibility and ethics as thin as the insinuation that Conservatives would cheer a higher unemployment number for the sake of political gain over the well being of this nation. Too bad that common sense and just a smidgeon of integrity doesn’t allow this commenter to represent an honest comprehension of the facts.

  10. Correction: I should have said “most Conservatives” instead of using the term in its entirety. It is understood that there are extremes on both sides of the political spectrum that are willing to throw out integrity for the sake of their ideology, as the aforementioned above appears to be committed to. I might also add that if real unemployment numbers had actually been reduced—giving an American the opportunity to provide and contribute to this society—I would be the first one to delight in the accomplishment, with no regards to political affiliation. The welfare of this nation is too critical.

  11. Broken Wheel, you are going to have to supply evidence that the unemployment number, 8.6%, is some manipulation by the Labor Department, otherwise stifle yourself. Let us wait and see if this is a trend toward lower unemployment which, if true, is some good news that Republicans don’t want to see at this point in time. All they care about is defeating this man they hate, named Barack Obama – that is the reality I see!

  12. Mr Wheel wondered why CSPT had become toxic:

    Broken Wheel, you are going to have to supply evidence that the unemployment number, 8.6%, is some manipulation by the Labor Department, otherwise stifle yourself.

    Uh huh. Perhaps the Broken Wheel might have been slightly less agitative as well.

    As for the evidence, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the adult population grew from 238,715,000 to 240,441,000 between November 2010 and November 2011 (a 0.7% increase), the labor force decreased from 153,950,000 to 153,883,000, (0.1%) and the “participation rate,” the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population which is either looking for work or working decreased from 64.5% to 64.0%. The number or employed people grew from 138,909,000 to 140,580, a 1.2% increase, but if the participation rate had remained at 64.5%, unemployment would actually be 9.4%. The problem is that 1,201,000 people who ought to be in the labor force, if we had retained the same participation rate, have quit even looking for work.

    Maybe they were too busy squatting in Occupy camps to bother to look for work?

  13. And lest you think it is only your poor editor who has noticed those numbers, this is from MSN Money:

    Take Friday’s big drop in the unemployment rate to 8.6% from 9%, the lowest level since March 2009. The problem is, the number of actual new jobs added in November (120,000) came in under expectations. So the real reason for the drop was that a huge number of people (316,000 to be exact) left the workforce out of frustration and lack of opportunity. Not exactly good news.

    The 316,000 people the author noted as having dropped out of the labor force was the one month drop between October and November.

  14. Daniel Horowitz pointed out, on Red State, some of the underlying numbers in the unemployment report:

    In January 2009, when President Obama took office, the civilian labor force was 154,185,000. It was 153,883,000 in November, a reduction in the size of the labor force of 302,000. However, the working age population increased from 234,739,000 to 240,441,000, an increase of 5,702,000, or 2.4%. The participation rate when Mr Obama took office was 65.7%, and it’s down to 64.0% in the November report. If the participation rate had remained the same, today’s workforce should be not 153,883,000, but 157,970,000. With 140,580,000 people employed, if the participation rate had remained the same, the “official” unemployment rate would be 11.0%.

    And while we had a 1.2% increase in the number of jobs from a month ago, with 142,201,000 jobs when Mr Obama became President, we have lost 1,621,000 jobs since he was inaugurated.

    Hat tip to Chuck Serio for the Red State article.

  15. “And while we had a 1.2% increase in the number of jobs from a month ago, with 142,201,000 jobs when Mr Obama became President, we have lost 1,621,000 jobs since he was inaugurated.”

    “since his inauguration”, right, but Mr. Editor, let’s take an honest look at this meaningless statistic: Those on the right continue to refuse to acknowledge that President Obama inherited an economy in utter turmoil when he was “inaugurated”! Unemployment was over 10%. And let us not forget also, that so far in President Obama’s term, in spite of these early job losses, triple the number of jobs have been created compared to the eight years of the Cheney/Bush administration.

  16. WW wrote:

    Those on the right continue to refuse to acknowledge that President Obama inherited an economy in utter turmoil when he was “inaugurated”! Unemployment was over 10%. And let us not forget also, that so far in President Obama’s term, in spite of these early job losses, triple the number of jobs have been created compared to the eight years of the Cheney/Bush administration.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States had 142,099,000 jobs at the end of January 2009. And according to BLS, again, in November 2011 the US had 140,580,000 jobs. Now, if I’ve done the math right, that means a net loss of 1,519,000 jobs.

    But, perhaps you are saying that while jobs have been lost since President Obama has taken office, there were more jobs lost during President Bush’s eight years. If that was what you meant to say, you would have been wrong. There were 137,778,000 jobs in the United States in January of 2001, when President Bush took office, and while he, too, inherited a declining economy, and the nation suffered the September 11 attacks, by June of 2003 the total jobs number was restored (that would be comparable to June of 2011 under President Obama, where we had 139,334,000 jobs, a net loss of 2,732,000 jobs) and topped out at 146,584,000 in November of 2007. In November of 2003, the comparable point for President Bush, the United States had 138,424,000 jobs, a net increase of 646,000 jobs; that’s rather better than President Obama’s net loss of over a million and a half jobs.

    Or, perhaps you meant that, once we discount the job losses, that more new jobs have been created under President Obama since that point. Taking the lowest total job numbers during his Presidency, 137,960,000 in December of 2009, with 140,580 now we are looking at an increase of 2,620,000 jobs. But, when you compare it to the total jobs increase under President Bush, from January 2001 through January 2009, the difference is an increase of 4,321,000 jobs, more than even the rosiest job creation scenario under President Obama.

    In other words, regardless of how we look at it, the numbers do not support your claim. You are simply wrong.

Comments are closed.