October 2, 2009

The Employment Situation Report (100209)

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:45 am

Well, the prediction as of Wednesday was for 180,000 seasonally adjusted jobs lost, and the result was 263,000.

The unemployment rate went to 9.8%.

If this is a “recovery,” what’s a “boom”? Breaking even? More to come.


UPDATE: Actually, not that it’s particularly impressive, but there was an improvement over last year in the not seasonally adjusted figures:


That’s the first year-over-year improvement since October 2007. But we’re heading into a period where last year’s comparables are terribly skewed by the impact of the full force of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, the further meltdown in confidence caused by the TARP bailout/sellout, and the intensely negative job-market reaction to Barack Obama’s election.

So of course the next few months on the ground are going to look better than last year. That shouldn’t impress anyone.

This is probably as good a time as any to update the POR Economy job losses vs. the supposedly recessionary previous seven months:


As a reminder, the supposedly recessionary months of December 2007 through June 2008:

  • Were marked by average job monthly job losses of 97,000, including December 2007, which shows +120.000.
  • Showed combined growth of an annualized +0.8% after the comprehensive revision of Gross Domestic Product (-0.7% in the first quarter of 2008, +1.5% in the second). Also, December, the month when the recession allegedly began, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), was the last month of a quarter where revised economic growth was an annualized 2.1%.
  • Were characterized, as the pinheads at the NBER themselves said, as a period where “estimated monthly real GDP reached one peak in January 2008 and another, higher peak in June 2008.” Yet it was supposedly a recessionary period. Give me a break.

In the 15 months of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, which is now the POR Recession/”Repression” As Normal People Define It, seasonally adjusted job losses have totaled over 6.4 million, averaging 427,000 monthly.



  1. I don’t know if the country can take anymore of this recovery.

    Comment by Joe C. — October 2, 2009 @ 9:21 am

  2. Talk about pulling your punches there Tom. In addition to the continuing poor job performance is the masking of how bad this really is.

    On a Seasonally Adjusted basis according to the Employment Summary Report:

    Civilian Labor Force DROPPED by a whopping 574,000 people in one month. The 9.8% stat is skewed to the downside, we are actually well over 10% for unemployment.

    If we look at table A1, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm As of September we seeing the following important numbers that reflect the real unemployment rate.

    5,922,000 Persons who currently want a job (broken out from the NOT in Labor Force #)
    15,142,000 Unemployed (for less than 12 months)
    21,064,000 Total Seeking Employment
    154,006,000 Civilian labor force

    13.67% Actual Unemployment Which by the way is in line with my earlier estimates (actually over my estimates), had the stats been realistically reported.

    Even this rate is understated since those who are forcibly working part time jobs actually want full time jobs are counted as employed, NOT unemployment or under employed. This reason I bring this up is the incredible ramp up of part time workers in the last year to the tune of almost 5 million positions.

    785,000 people lost their jobs just LAST month. This was a blood bath in terms of the employment #.

    The really big news here is the Not In Labor Force #. A whopping 807,000 dropped off the unemployment rolls into long term intractable unemployment. Remember, to be counted on the unemployment statistic you must unemployed for LESS than a year. This is not simply terrible, it’s earth shattering as it says structural unemployment is accelerating cutting out the legs from any possible short term recovery. This is why SS and Medicare are floundering in the cash flow area, all these people are no longer contributing to the funds via the payroll taxes they used to pay when they were employed.

    Tom, we are more than halfway to the height of Depression era unemployment #s (24.9%).

    Comment by dscott — October 2, 2009 @ 10:57 am

  3. Just to underline the seriousness of the situation:

    DiLorenzo: Unemployment During Great Depression May Have Been Overstated by 5 Percent


    Fed official Dennis Lockhart recently stated that if people who have simply given up on finding a job (“discouraged workers” in governmentspeak) are counted, the actual unemployment rate is more like 16 percent. That would be comparable to the unemployment rate in Depression years 1931 (15.9%), 1936 (16.9%), 1937 (14.3%), and 1940 (14.6%).

    Government miscalculated the unemployment rate during the Depression years by counting many government make-work employees as unemployed. As a result, economists think the unemployment rate might have been exaggerated by as much as 5 percentage points. That would make the 1940 Depression unemployment rate almost exactly what it is today, without counting the “discouraged workers.”

    Comment by dscott — October 2, 2009 @ 11:05 am

  4. Just to let you guys know how whopping that 785,000 reduction in employment is, it’s a record. Not since 1948 per the BLS data has the economy EVER lost that many jobs. NOT EVER.


    (change the date to the earliest year possible, 1948)

    Comment by dscott — October 2, 2009 @ 11:13 am

  5. #2, #3, #4 dscott:

    “Pulling punches” = “pressed for time.”

    I’m inherently and perhaps overly suspicious of the part-time/disengaged stuff, because the left has used similar numbers in the past (1980s, 2001) to try to make the situation look worse than it really was. In normal times, even past recessions when help wanted signs were still all over, the concept of a “discouraged worker” really meant “worker who is being overly picky and won’t work until he gets his way, if ever.” Given how bad things are now, the concept of a discouraged worker may be more valid, because there is a real, serious contraction going on that the administration seems fundamentally disinterested in solving in ways that would work.

    I also think that A table individual monthly aren’t determined to the same level of precision as the B numbers try (emphasis try) to achieve. That said, looking at quarterly and annual A table changes is probably a good idea.

    So, for example, the reduction in the civilian labor force of 1.65 million in the past three months is very ominous. A lot of people are retiring early or just giving up for now.

    Thanks much for the supplements.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 2, 2009 @ 11:36 am

  6. You know how I love charts:


    Once again, the unemployment rate would have risen by a much larger amount if the civilian labor force hadn’t lost 570,000 people since last month. As we mentioned in previous posts, the labor force normally increases by ~ 150,000/month, so that’s a huge, very unusual, decrease. In fact, had the labor force size simply remained the same, the unemployment rate would have jumped to 10.2%

    Others are in agreement that the stats are not reflecting reality.

    Comment by dscott — October 2, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

  7. [...] withers, while our commander-in-chief dithers), the health care tug of war, and of course, the ongoing job-killing, deficit-exploding POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy, which the nation has endured since the summer [...]

    Pingback by Pajamas Media » Honey, They Gave Away the Internet — October 9, 2009 @ 3:12 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.