Employment ducks Superstorm Sandy's punch

Comments (44)
IamBAD1 wrote:

So….more people have moved from searching for a job to working full time in the tax free zone of the “gray market”.

Dec 07, 2012 8:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
olepcola wrote:

So the economy is getting better and fewer people are looking for work. Isn’t that what happens when you get a job, you stop looking for work. 10,000 people reach retirement age each day, so they too stop looking. The rate is 7.7 and I feel good.

Dec 07, 2012 9:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlexZ83 wrote:

Well, a lot of us Romney-droids claimed the job numbers for September and October were inaccurate (rigged in President’s favor), and the Obama-bots screamed back at us crying like little babies. Turns out we were right after all, ha? Welcome to the new and improved US economy, where in the next four years more and more people forget what work really looked like.

Dec 07, 2012 9:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Give it 30 minutes, and all the wing-nuts will be here talking about the “real” jobless rate…

If people don’t want a job, for whatever reason, they are not unemployed. Most countries emphasise that by referring to ‘job seekers’ rather than ‘unemployed’ for that precise reason.

Whichever way you try to spin it, unemployment has fallen, but Republicans will hate that.

Dec 07, 2012 9:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
byrond2 wrote:

Heh the holiday firing begins in one month but the gov reports will use seasonally adjusted numbers that say jobs were created. All while at least a million will get fired and while the unemployed continue to give up looking and while pay stays super low. Yay the taste of freedom.

Dec 07, 2012 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

But the drop was because people gave up the search for work, which does not bode well for the economy.

This should have been the headline. No right or left to it just the truth-it is worse! Do not believe me…look out your window and not at your computer screen. And yes the actualy unemployment rate is 14.4% and that does not count another 8% not reported at all. Just hate the truth don’t you Abulafiah.

Dec 07, 2012 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

the US is already in a recession per the ECRI we just have to wait 6-12 months before its “official”. business is slowing down you can see it all around you. in particular some recent small business surveys from gallup and others are saying their pace of hiring is going to remain tepid due to economic conditions deteriorating. the only thing new here is the pumping of some kind of economic recovery which isn’t what the data suggests. shame on businesses if they stuffed their channels waiting for the masses of customers that won’t show up.

Dec 07, 2012 9:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

I always get a laugh out of Republicans. When the unemployment rate is high they accept the figures and use them for propaganda to blame President Obama, when the rate is low, they say the rate is bogus and means nothing. I really don’t care about the rate, it means very little for a specific location and if you are unemployed, it can be 1/2% and you will still be starving. But I know for a fact people are working somewhere based on new car sales, new home sales, packed stores, and a huge increase in tax money in my state in the past year resulting in a big and growing budget surplus. The State budget surplus is over a billion dollars now. That money is coming from INCOME, CORPORATE TAXES, and RETAIL SALES.
An increase of over 20% in income for a state, now that is a big deal.
Great job President Obama.
Think of what President Obama could have done if the Republicans had not blocked almost everything he tried to do to help our country.

Dec 07, 2012 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

sept and oct job numbers revised down 49kk. another 520k people dropped out of the labor force hence the decrease in unemployment rate. 99k of the 146k jobs created were in low paying areas. this report is just more of the same we’ve seen recently. nothing to see here.

Dec 07, 2012 9:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
dicesaro1 wrote:

what part of “350,000 people dropped out of the workforce” do you not understand?

Dec 07, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
jabberwolf wrote:

@Abulafiah and @Americanguy
The reasoning behind calling this a BS report is not because of propaganda but because of apt diference between the U-6 rate and this official unemployment rate. Yes the U-6 will always been higher but represents underemployment. And during the Bush presidency (up until 2008) the difference between the 2 was not as great. Today is is far greater. Today: 14.4- 7.7 = 6.7 difference. In 2007~ 8.1-4.8 = 3.6
The difference means that there are MANY more people under employed or have stopped looking for work. So the “official” unployment rate isnt a fair comparison anymore.

Dec 07, 2012 10:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
jabberwolf wrote:

@Americanguy The congress DIDNT block Obama in the first 2 years. Deocrats had control of both houses. Had the next Congress not blocked Obama we would have been in aother recession by now with even more debt. The part that most idiots dont get is that money moves. People move investments to anywhere they can get a better return. Simply raising taxes DOES NOT WORK because investors move their money elsewhere. Its embarrassing for you to use that title “americanguy” because many more Americans are not as gullible and naive as you.

Dec 07, 2012 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

No impact from Sandy…this was the excuse they had waiting in the wings. 7.7% but how many have just given up? Sept & Oct new jobs created revised down..anyone suprised by this…and the job cuts coming will be due to seasonal layoffs and has nothing to do with companies not wanting to slash their labor costs in a stagnant and worsening economy….

Dec 07, 2012 10:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Abulafiah
7.7% How anout all those who have dropped off the list and they have given up. Loving how this is being spun by the MSM.

Amricanguy
Just wait…just wait…6 months we will see how you feel

Dec 07, 2012 10:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@Abulafiah Perhaps you should try reading the article..?

Second paragraph: “At the same time, the jobless rate fell to a near four-year low, but that was largely because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work.”

Note the words “gave up the hunt for work.” That’s a sharp contrast from your “people don’t want a job.” But of course, you’re one of those people who believe half a million people “retired, went back to school (in November?) or became stay at home parents” all in one month…

Dec 07, 2012 10:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Righties/Obama haters just cant stand any economic news that is even slightly positive, like this report. It not great, but not bad either.

@Jabberwolf, if Congress was not a block for Obama’s first two years, please explain why there were a record number of filibusters during that session? Also it does not matter what is used for the ‘official’, it is all numbers, just look at them, it is very transparent.

@alex, I do not see how this is ‘proof’ that the numbers in Oct and Nov where ‘fudged’? There is always adjustments in data from mos before, as new data comes in.

Dec 07, 2012 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
DBAW wrote:

Dean Baker with the truth of the matter:
“The unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent in November, its lowest level since December of 2008. However, the immediate cause was a drop of 350,000 in the size of the labor market as reported employment actually fell by 122,000.”

Dec 07, 2012 11:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@jabberwolf

Underemployed is not unemployed. People not looking for a job is not unemployed. The only reason you like U-6 is because the number is higher, and you can’t bring yourself to admit the truth – unemployment is falling.

BTW… another truth you can’t bring yourself to admit: Obama did not have a super-majority for two years, so your guys could block recovery through filibusters.

Dec 07, 2012 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Crash866 wrote:
“How anout all those who have dropped off the list and they have given up.”

Can you prove that, or are you just saying it because Fox says it?

Prove to me that they haven’t dropped of the list because they have become sole-traders, or they have started a business, or their partners have got a job so they are staying at home to look after the kids, or they have gone to university, or they have moved abroad, or any of the thousands of other reasons they could have other than the ‘they have given up’ that you assume is the one and only possible reason.

Dec 07, 2012 11:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

bates148 wrote:
“@Abulafiah Perhaps you should try reading the article..?”

Perhaps you should learn to distinguish fact from opinion?

Dec 07, 2012 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Kneel to and worship the media created Hurricane Sandy god.
All things good and bad come from Sandy.
From then until the end of time, Sandy is responsible for everything that will happen in the USA.
Let’s all go worship Sandy now.

Dec 07, 2012 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@Abulafiah You write: “Can you prove that, or are you just saying it because Fox says it? Prove to me that they haven’t dropped of the list because they have become sole-traders, or they have started a business, or their partners have got a job so they are staying at home to look after the kids, or they have gone to university, or they have moved abroad, or any of the thousands of other reasons they could have other than the ‘they have given up’ that you assume is the one and only possible reason.”

Once again I ask you to read the article. And again, second paragraph reads: “At the same time, the jobless rate fell to a near four-year low, but that was largely because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work.”

People are saying it because it’s the truth. Face reality buddy. Turn off MSNBC or wherever you get your news (clearly you don’t read stuff on here). You’re making yourself look like a fool.

Dec 07, 2012 11:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Hilarious!!! So the excuse you had waiting in the wings is now spin into a positive story. How about the Sept & Oct numbers being revised down? How about the all those who have dropped off the list and can’t find or have either quit looking for work…

Dec 07, 2012 11:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
234aim889 wrote:

Considering where the Gov. gets its money from to fund public jobs, the following is the most important line in the article…

Private sector job growth did slow in November to 147,000 from 189,000 in October, but economists were heartened it did not drop off more in light of the storm.

Think you’re reading good news? Just wait.

Dec 07, 2012 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
URNSO wrote:

The goverment sector reported 49,000 jobs in September and October that did not exist.

For the October jobs report the government revised the jobs figures to show that 84,000 more jobs were added than previously estimated.

Dec 07, 2012 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
calendarcal wrote:

I’d like you to forget something for one moment… Partisan LEFT or Partisan RIGHT politics… just one moment please. Then consider, “Do you believe this number… or you’re lying eyes?” I live in an area with about 8.5% unemployment… every six months I see more and more people laid off, less houses going up, more Welfare and EBT cards (right or wrong, we don’t want people to starve for heavens sake), and we’re also told the “Unemployment Rate” has fallen.

I no longer think this number measures anything useful.

The number is probably correct 7.7%… it simply does not measure anything directly. Great. Why do we report this and harp on it so much… Politics.

While your fellow citizens sit at home we argue.

Pathetic.

Dec 07, 2012 12:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Abulafiah

Can you prove that, or are you just saying it because Fox says it?

How is this???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021298462

http://www.lex18.com/news/unemmployment-rate-drops-more-people-stop-looking-for-work/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/07/us_jobs_report_nov_2012/print.html
Thanks to the labor pool shrinkage in November as some people stopped looking for work and others actually finding jobs, the unemployment rate in November ticked down two-tenths of a point to 7.7 percent.

KATHY JONES, FIXED-INCOME STRATEGIST, CHARLES SCHWAB, NEW YORK

The data is even more muddled than we thought because the BLS is telling us that superstorm Sandy did not impact the numbers. The downward revision to the previous month’s payroll growth almost offsets the higher than expected number this month. And the decline in the unemployment rate, which is a good sign, may be tied to a decline in the labor force participation rate. You have good news here and bad news so I would not call it a particularly strong report.”

PETER HOOPER, GLOBAL CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEUTSCHE BANK, NEW YORK

“The headline payroll number suggests hurricane Sandy had less effect than might have been feared. The unemployment rate coming down is good news on the surface, but it reflects a decline in labor force participation. The key is that the employment to population ratio has not really come down in this recovery. Some of this reflects discouraged workers and part of it is that baby boomers are starting to reach retirement age. Other measures showing people working part-time when they would like to work full-time are quite elevated. The payroll numbers look okay, about in line with numbers we’ve had for the last year, but it’s still a market that is soft underneath.”

Dec 07, 2012 12:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
URNSO wrote:

@Abulafiah

Republicans could make the case the unemployment did not start coming down until after the elections for 2010. In other words, as soon as we had a Congress that could block Obama’s “jobs plan” the unemployment rate started to decline. Is there really an Obama policy that we can say resulted in the lowering of the unemployment rate?

Dec 07, 2012 12:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dee2Dee wrote:

People on the left are delusional if they think this job rate isn’t skewed. 2 things I don’t think should be in the employment/jobs numbers… those who gave up looking for work and seasonal jobs. Those who gave up looking for work are still unemployed and should be considered so. However, the labor department admits those who gave up are no longer considered unemployed… so they remove those numbers from the unemployment rate. Obviously when you discount those who gave up… the rates will look better. Then with seasonal jobs… I worked a few of those in a good economy when I was younger, and most of every seasonal worker I worked with was laid off after the season was over. The last job I worked that was seasonal, they even let go some of their normal employees. I only had one job offer me full time employment but I had already accepted another job. In a good economy its a crap shoot if they’ll turn the position permanent. They shouldn’t consider temporary jobs in the jobs report until the season is over and they see which jobs are permanent. This job/employment number is so skewed. in a few short weeks over 50,000 people became unemployed (that we know of. We had the massive layoffs announcement from Hostess and Citibank. And because of Sandy victims who are still homeless and unemployed.) I’m sure there are more layoffs that haven’t been covered so heavily by the media. So the employment rate shouldn’t be as good as it is, and if they didn’t consider temporary jobs till they become permanent, the employment numbers wouldn’t be as good. Simple fact whether you want to delude yourself or not.

Dec 07, 2012 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
URNSO wrote:

Abulafiah

Admit it, the unemployment rate did not stop rising until the Tea Party House was elected.

When we went to the poles in 2009 the unemployment rate was peeked at 10%.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Dec 07, 2012 12:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeyLikesIt wrote:

The liberals will continue to plug their ears and shut their eyes and chant “NAH NAH, I CAN’T HEARE YOU!!” when faced with the harsh reality of our economy.

How I long for the bad old days when Nancy Pelosi was screaming at Bush “Where are the jobs?!?!”. Of course unemployment was below 5% then….

Dec 07, 2012 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
URNSO wrote:

Abulafiah

The jobs report includes the number of jobs created and the adjustments to the size of the labor force. Both of these numbers affect the unemployment rate. However, when someones’ unemployment benifits run out and they are still looking for a job, they are removed from the labor force becuase the government does not track the unemployed after they stop collecting unemployment check.

Most of the people that have been removed from the labor force would like to have a job. We just don’t have an economy to support enough jobs.

Dec 07, 2012 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mountainrose wrote:

The labor force participation rate fell by 20 basis points or 350,000 people to go with another downward revision for October – 33,000 and September’s growth -16,000. You might think the labor dept might eventually get these numbers right . Anyhow this means less tax dollars going forward in this recovery

Dec 07, 2012 12:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Abulafiah
Did you read all the posts in reply to your comment about my comment…

I wrote
“How anout all those who have dropped off the list and they have given up.”

Your reply..
“Can you prove that, or are you just saying it because Fox says it?”

and then all the comments pointing out the facts…

Dec 07, 2012 1:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StopObama wrote:

How does this Labor Department actually determine that “Hundred of Thousands of unemployed people just GAVE UP LOOKING”?? What unemployed person in their right mind would ever admit to a state or federal labor Department official that they are not looking for work and risk losing their unemployment check and any other benefit? Looking for work is the primary requirement. The answer is, NO ONE WOULD RISK THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dec 07, 2012 2:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
YoungTurkArmy wrote:

And if things aren’t bad enough, imagine what that rate will be once the House engineers the next recession. And Republicans post over and over that we “need” this to fix everything. In the words of the old joke about Tonto and the Lone Ranger, “What you mean ‘we,’ white man?”

Dec 07, 2012 2:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

StopObama
So you are saying this is not a reality

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021298462

http://www.lex18.com/news/unemmployment-rate-drops-more-people-stop-looking-for-work/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/07/us_jobs_report_nov_2012/print.html
Thanks to the labor pool shrinkage in November as some people stopped looking for work and others actually finding jobs, the unemployment rate in November ticked down two-tenths of a point to 7.7 percent.

KATHY JONES, FIXED-INCOME STRATEGIST, CHARLES SCHWAB, NEW YORK

The data is even more muddled than we thought because the BLS is telling us that superstorm Sandy did not impact the numbers. The downward revision to the previous month’s payroll growth almost offsets the higher than expected number this month. And the decline in the unemployment rate, which is a good sign, may be tied to a decline in the labor force participation rate. You have good news here and bad news so I would not call it a particularly strong report.”

PETER HOOPER, GLOBAL CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEUTSCHE BANK, NEW YORK

“The headline payroll number suggests hurricane Sandy had less effect than might have been feared. The unemployment rate coming down is good news on the surface, but it reflects a decline in labor force participation. The key is that the employment to population ratio has not really come down in this recovery. Some of this reflects discouraged workers and part of it is that baby boomers are starting to reach retirement age. Other measures showing people working part-time when they would like to work full-time are quite elevated. The payroll numbers look okay, about in line with numbers we’ve had for the last year, but it’s still a market that is soft underneath.”

Dec 07, 2012 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

YoungTurkArmy
Nice…bring race into it…just like a progessive liberal

Dec 07, 2012 2:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

StopObama
I could be wrong but I think it’s those who were receving benefits that have run out.

when someones’ unemployment benifits run out and they are still looking for a job, they are removed from the labor force becuase the government does not track the unemployed after they stop collecting unemployment check.

Dec 07, 2012 3:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Stopobama, as with most things this is easy to figure out with a bit of research, but here is your answer….a person counts as lookimg for work if they are receiving unemployment benefits. There is no excuse for ignorance nowadays if one is willing to look things up instead of just posting nonsense.

Dec 07, 2012 3:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

USAPragmatist
Thank you…

Dec 07, 2012 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@Crash866

First, you (and the other wing-nuts) are totally missing the point. Nobody is saying that people aren’t dropping out of the unemployment figure. What is being challenged is the wing-nut assumption – because that is all it is – that they have ‘just given up’. There are no end of reasons for people to stop looking for work, so I asked you to prove that hey had ‘just given up’. You have failed to prove that, which in itself proves my point.

Second, you (and UNSRO, and apparently most of the right-wing) are also factually wrong. The figures do not come from counting the number of people claiming benefit, so people do not ‘drop off’ when there benefit runs out. The figures come from the monthly Current Population Survey, and have done since 1940. Five minutes of research would have told you that.

Dec 08, 2012 3:01am EST  --  Report as abuse

Labor force participation is at 63.6%, just 0.1% above the all-time low. Millions of Americans have either given up or decided to take advantage of Obama’s 2-year unemployment check handout/easy SS disability adjudication process – it’s government funded lifetime checks, all it costs you is your soul. I don’t fault the people who’ve been forced to go this route – Obama’s anti-business policies and rhetoric have crushed the private-sector job market. When the full impact of ObamaKare impacts businesses in 2014, millions more will be unemployed or shifted to part-time positions in order to keep these businesses afloat. And why should we expect anything better out of Obama? He has never run so much as a lemonade stand in his entire life, merely shifting from academia to government, drawing a salary from the sectors of our economy that are rarely if ever impacted by reality.

Soak it all in, America, this is what the 51% of America that wants a free ride voted for. High taxes, massive (crushing) debt, high unemployment, low wages, anemic growth, plummeting household incomes, diminished purchasing power (inflation)…. But at least we’ll have that wonderful full-service Federal Government to meet your every need, cradle-to-grave a la Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela.

Dec 09, 2012 8:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

jeffinSflorida wrote:
“Obama’s anti-business policies and rhetoric have crushed the private-sector job market.”

Can you use Google?

“Fortune magazine released its ranking of the 500 biggest US corporations Monday, which showed that they received a record-breaking $824 billion in combined profits in 2011″

“Apple’s $46 billion sales set new tech record”

“investors look for companies to report their fattest earnings in history, says Standard & Poor’s.”

“Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter”

“these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011—up 75 percent from 2010″

“After-tax corporate profits rose 8.5% last year to $1.58 trillion on a seasonally adjusted annual basis. As the charts above show, this was a record both in nominal terms and relative to GDP; in fact, corporate profits have been breaking both these records since the fourth quarter of 2009.”

“Caterpillar Inc. (NYSE: CAT) deliver record quarterly profit per share of $2.37 in the first quarter of 2012″

Yep. Those anti-business record breaking profits are really crushing the private sector. I am sure they would much prefer another business – friendly Republican recession.

Dec 09, 2012 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.