Unemployment Rises to 6.2%

[pinqy]

And we have a 59% employment to population ratio, the same as the prior month - which is incredibly low.

It seemed to be fine in the 1950's, 1960's and early '70's when it was lower.

 

[GHook93]

LMAO.. Who's at the switch?
Global warming is to blame.. I mean winter...

-Geaux


WRAPUP 2-U.S. job growth cools, unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent


* Unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent from 6.1 percent

* Average hourly earnings up 1 cent, workweek steady

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - U.S. job growth slowed more than expected in July and an unexpected rise in the unemployment rate pointed to some slack in the labor market that could give the Federal Reserve room to keep interest rates low for a while.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 209,000 last month after surging by 298,000 in June, the Labor Department said on Friday.

WRAPUP 2-U.S. job growth cools, unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent | Reuters

I don't believe the bullshit unemployment rate. When the numbers are horrendous (around the 100K), it goes down because people supposedly left the job market. However, on the reverse side when numbers are decent over 200K, the UE rate goes up because these longterm unemployed are now looking!

It sounds like something Enron would do. It's called cooking the books!

Yes there are certain people the should be out of the calculation: LEGIT retirees (not forced retirees that need to work, but can't find a job), house-wives, the PERMANENTLY disabled and possibly young college students that choose not to work while in school. That is it. If you are longtime unemployed you shouldn't be eliminated from the calculations!

 

[boedicca]

And we have a 59% employment to population ratio, the same as the prior month - which is incredibly low.

Add to that the fact that a lot of job creation is in low paying part time jobs, and we have dismal employment picture...especially for the lower and middle classes.

so you're saying trickle down doesn't work

We don't have trickle down/supply side economics at work.

What we have is the Fed printing money (QE) and making it available for virtually free (ZIRP) to Big Bankster Government Cronies, who then use that debt to buy government bonds at 2.5%+ (and make big donations to DC pols)..or buy financial assets on margin.

It is not being loaned to Main Street businesses so that they can expand and create jobs.

 

[pinqy]

The civilian population increased by 209K, and jobs increased by 209K....a sign of an anemic economy which can barely create enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

Apples and Oranges....You can't directly compare jobs increases to the Labor Force statistics....different surveys, time periods, definitions.

The Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population increased 209,000
Total Employment, from the Current Population Survey, increased 131,000: Enough to keep the employment-population ratio the same (surely you don't think the increase in jobs should equal the increase in population???)

Unemployment increased 197,000, with 141,000 being from people re-entering the Labor Force, 23,000 from new entrants, 8,000 people who quit. Oh, and 3,000 fewer people who were unemployed because they were fired or finished a temp job.

It's always apples and oranges yet I never see you O supporters say that when people bring up Bush years.

I'm not an O supporter and show me anytime a comparison came up between the CES and CPS numbers in the Bush years.

But Boedicca's bigger point is something you can't spin. Which is that this is a sign the outlook for growth is going to be worse than "experts" had predicted.

That's an opinion, and a weak opinion. The trend has been growth....it's still some up and down, but the general direction has been up.

While 209,000 is lower than hoped for, it's not a bad gain and it wasn't in lower paying jobs as average wages went up and there was more of an increase in full time jobs than part time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And we have a 59% employment to population ratio, the same as the prior month - which is incredibly low.

It seemed to be fine in the 1950's, 1960's and early '70's when it was lower.

back then it only took 1 person to support a family....

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

LMAO.. Who's at the switch?
Global warming is to blame.. I mean winter...

-Geaux


WRAPUP 2-U.S. job growth cools, unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent


* Unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent from 6.1 percent

* Average hourly earnings up 1 cent, workweek steady

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - U.S. job growth slowed more than expected in July and an unexpected rise in the unemployment rate pointed to some slack in the labor market that could give the Federal Reserve room to keep interest rates low for a while.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 209,000 last month after surging by 298,000 in June, the Labor Department said on Friday.

WRAPUP 2-U.S. job growth cools, unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent | Reuters

Nonfarm payrolls increased 209,000 last month after surging by 298,000 in June, the Labor Department said on Friday.

Data for May and June were revised to show a total of 15,000 more jobs created than previously reported, showing underlying momentum.

July marked the sixth straight month that employment has expanded by more than 200,000 jobs, a stretch last seen in 1997. The one tenth of a percentage point increase in the unemployment rate to 6.2 percent came as more people entered the labor market, a sign of confidence in the job market.

are you really trying to spin this as bad news?

Yes, of course it is. That's what it does.

 

[boedicca]

If we had had a real recovery, the job creation would be double that.

Just sayin'.

 

[EconChick]

LOL that the Unemployment Rate going UPPPPPPPPPP is not bad news. Only in the liberal Bizzarro World is that good news.

 

[ogibillm]

LOL that the Unemployment Rate going UPPPPPPPPPP is not bad news. Only in the liberal Bizzarro World is that good news.

under these circumstances it is good news.

 

[EconChick]

If we had had a real recovery, the job creation would be double that.

Just sayin'.

Exactly. Especially for the $17,000,000,000 of money thrown at the problems.

 

[pinqy]

LMAO.. Who's at the switch?
Global warming is to blame.. I mean winter...

-Geaux


WRAPUP 2-U.S. job growth cools, unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent


* Unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent from 6.1 percent

* Average hourly earnings up 1 cent, workweek steady

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - U.S. job growth slowed more than expected in July and an unexpected rise in the unemployment rate pointed to some slack in the labor market that could give the Federal Reserve room to keep interest rates low for a while.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 209,000 last month after surging by 298,000 in June, the Labor Department said on Friday.

WRAPUP 2-U.S. job growth cools, unemployment rate rises to 6.2 percent | Reuters

I don't believe the bullshit unemployment rate. When the numbers are horrendous (around the 100K), it goes down because people supposedly left the job market. However, on the reverse side when numbers are decent over 200K, the UE rate goes up because these longterm unemployed are now looking!

Huh? There's no relation. You're comparing numbers that can't be compared and have no relationship with each other.

Yes there are certain people the should be out of the calculation: LEGIT retirees (not forced retirees that need to work, but can't find a job),

If they're trying to find a job, they'd be Unmeployed. If they're not trying to find a job, you can't say they "can't" find a job...they're not looking for one.

house-wives, the PERMANENTLY disabled and possibly young college students that choose not to work while in school. That is it.

Why college students and not high school students? Why not trust-fund people, lottery winners, etc?

If you are longtime unemployed you shouldn't be eliminated from the calculations!

And they're not....there's no time limit. It doesn't matter how long you've been out of work: if you want a job, if you can accept a job, and if you're trying to get one, then you're unemployed.

 

[EconChick]

LOL that the Unemployment Rate going UPPPPPPPPPP is not bad news. Only in the liberal Bizzarro World is that good news.

under these circumstances it is good news.

No it's not. The slimey twisting of unemployment numbers is coming back to haunt you peeps.

 

[boedicca]

The Orwellian transformation of the Progs is pretty much complete.

 

[EconChick]

LMAO.. Who's at the switch?
Global warming is to blame.. I mean winter...

If you are longtime unemployed you shouldn't be eliminated from the calculations!

And they're not....there's no time limit. It doesn't matter how long you've been out of work: if you want a job, if you can accept a job, and if you're trying to get one, then you're unemployed.

You're being totally disingenuous and you know it. You can play word games but middle America knows the job situation sucks.

 

[pinqy]

And we have a 59% employment to population ratio, the same as the prior month - which is incredibly low.

It seemed to be fine in the 1950's, 1960's and early '70's when it was lower.

back then it only took 1 person to support a family....

There's been a trend of going back to one earner, because in many cases 2 workers are worse off. If the cost of transportation, child care, work clothes, lunches out, and increased cost of food at home due to reliance on pre-made food and less cooking time is higher than the income from the secondary earner, then the family would be better off with one earner. My family was like that briefly: my wife's salary was pretty much nullified by all the associated costs.

 

[SteadyMercury]

If your brain can't think in a complex way, than you're never going to understand how the economy works.

Instead of thinking in third grade math ( 2+2=4) you'll have to think in a little more complex math (like 4 + (5x4) -2+7(x)+2).

Hah hah that is pretty funny, I've not seen many people use junior high algebra to demonstrate "complex" math.

EconChick you are nothing more than a partisan hack, you make so much effort talking up how people need to think but demonstrate over and over you worldview is nothing more than chasing ideological preconceptions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not "bad" news at all, but it does show the economy is not as robust as we would like.

 

[EconChick]

If your brain can't think in a complex way, than you're never going to understand how the economy works.

Instead of thinking in third grade math ( 2+2=4) you'll have to think in a little more complex math (like 4 + (5x4) -2+7(x)+2).

Hah hah that is pretty funny, I've not seen many people use junior high algebra to demonstrate "complex" math.

EconChick you are nothing more than a partisan hack, you make so much effort talking up how people need to think but demonstrate over and over you worldview is nothing more than chasing ideological preconceptions.

For most of the liberal posters here on the economy, algebra IS obviously too complex.

Great, as usual, I have a post about substance and you libs have to make it personal. Thanks for being predictable.

I won't bother explaining what you are. We all know already.

 

[pinqy]

You're being totally disingenuous and you know it. You can play word games but middle America knows the job situation sucks.

I know no such thing and I'm not playing word games. Are you claiming there is a time limit and long term unemployed are excluded from the labor force calculations?

Unemployed is defined as
All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.


So complaining about "long-term unemployed" is a false concern. So what "word games" do you think I'm playing?

The job situation is a hell of a lot better than it was in the last 6 years.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It is not "bad" news at all, but it does show the economy is not as robust as we would like.

Yep.

Even the better GDP number in 2nd quarter must be looked at in perspective of the whole of the first six months, anemic at best and not what we'd look for as a solid recovery.

Housing recover, which is a huge driver or both employment and consumer expenditures, has also seemed to have run out of steam.