Just remember, as the administration always stresses, “it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report”. So, don’t be concerned that yet another jobs report underperforms
(Business Week) Payrolls climbed less than projected in September, indicating the U.S. economy had little momentum leading up to the federal government shutdown. The jobless rate fell to an almost four-year low.
The addition of 148,000 workers followed a revised 193,000 rise in August that was larger than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 93 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 180,000 advance. Unemployment fell to 7.2 percent, the lowest level since November 2008. The report, delayed by the 16-day shutdown that ended Oct. 17, was originally slated for Oct. 4.
Surprisingly, the August report was revised up. More often, they are revised down. July’s report was “revised” for a second time, down from the original 169K to 89K. The participation rate is still just 63.2%, which matches the lowest back during the Carter administration in 1978.
What does the jobs breakdown look like? 22K came from Government hiring
(CNBC) The bulk of the jobs came from professional and business services, which added 32,000 positions, while there were 20,000 more temporary jobs. Transportation and warehousing rose by 23,000, and there were 20,000 additional construction positions.
So, mostly low paying jobs. Remember when Democrats and the media used to assail George Bush, claiming that these were all “bad jobs”? Ed Morrissey notes that the report is slightly worse than treading water. We should expect an Obama speech proclaiming that he’s mad about this, and will get someone right on it.
[…] September Jobs Report Once Again Fails To Meet Expectations » Pirate’s Cove Share This:ShareLike this:Like Loading… This entry was posted in News, Opinion, politics and tagged Economy, Federal Reserve, Jobs, Labor by The Americanist. Bookmark the permalink. […]
[…] have something to do with the number of people that dropped out of the labor force. Oh, and the revision to the July number was just dismal.July’s report was “revised†for a second time, down from the original 169K to 89K. The […]
Certainly you are not surprised? It’s pretty simple arithmetic. There is not enough demand in the economy. Then we roll back the payroll tax hiatus (raising taxes on the working classes), reduce gov’t spending (sequester, remember?) and expect the economy to recover?? And this jobs report doesn’t include the effects of the gov’t shutdown, so things will likely get worse.
This is exactly how you kill a weak economic recovery. The Republicans hope to ride this to victory in 2014 and 2016 so they can get back to rewarding their true constituents – the rich.
Agreed. Liberals are intent on reducing the demand by regulation. Certainly the impact of ObamaCare has to be factored in as well. Most importantly, the idea that adding money into the economy as you often advocate is a complete failure. (And always has been.)
No, I don’t remember and unless you live in a fantasy world, you don’t either. Sequestration did not reduce government spending, it reduced the rate of growth of government spending. W
Oops!
Hit the wrong button!
No, I don’t remember and unless you live in a fantasy world, you don’t either. Sequestration did not reduce government spending, it reduced the rate of growth of government spending. We are spending more each year.
I agree. Obama and liberals have killed any economic recovery.
Perfect points GC.
Sequestration was a democrat & Republican plan. Both parties agreed to it. Obama signed it.
Gov’t spending does not drive an economy. If that were true, then would it not be best to have everyone working for the gov’t? That way, the govt can pay their salaries and then tax them for it back, and rinse and repeat till no one has money left. People get raises and more people are added to the workforce, yet the intake of money is nill. So, your argument is invalid and ludicrous.
There hasn’t been a demand on the economy because Socialists have intended it as such.
Why do you think pulling more money away from people is good? I’m tired of my taxes going up and I’m at the bottom of the middle class. My taxes have gone up each year since O’s been in charge. It sucks because my salary has not increased yet the cost of living and taxes keep going up.
And thanks for burning my food!!!
Do you think the sequestration cuts are good? I think they have hurt the recovery.
Gov’t does not drive a healthy economy. When the housing bubble collapsed we lost trillions of economic demand – folks didn’t and don’t have money to spend. During a severe recession, the gov’t can borrow money at low interest rates and support those whom have been failed by capitalism. Our gov’t failed us during this recession – and in the run up to the recession.
You local and state taxes may have increased but not your federal taxes.
We have two significant economic problems – long term unemployment and the increasing income/ wealth inequality.
Taxes are not killing the middle class, income inequality is. The rich are getting richer – much richer – and the middle class is treading water – barely.
You can’t be more wrong or hypocritical.
You claim that you believe the gov’t should spend us in to debt after the gov’t has put us in to a recession. And when the gov’t did that, you then claim the gov’t has failed us. eh?
The Socialists in power did what you said they should have done. They created this long term recession and long term unemployment problem and then they raised taxes, did not cut spending, and yet you say they failed?
Again, how does doubling our debt with greater spending to cronies and unwanted programs help a repressed economy? When you penalize companies for hiring, then you can predict that employment will go down.
I just told you what was killing me. How does taking MORE money from people who make more than me via taxation and FINES, allow me to pay the taxes that I am forced to pay?
How is it legal to steal from others?
How is someone making more than me create inequality? How does a customer, paying my employer for services he deems worthy of paying for, and that employer now having net cash to pay for my salary create an inequality? That net cash he grows pays my salary. Over time, my employer will spread that cash around with more hiring or more spending either personally or in his business.
If you Socialists confiscated all of Bill Gates wealth do you think we would have the technological revolutions we’ve had over the last 4 decades? Do you think he would have been as generous to charities?
Your blindness to the evils, the illegalities, the immoralities of Socialism is telling. Hopefully, your stay on TPC here will allow you to learn how evil your views are.
Government cannot drive any economy because government does not produce anything. Government does not make any tangible products nor sell any tangible products. Therefore they cannot add to the economy, they can only slow the economy down.
Yet it was the government that caused the housing bubble and the collapse.
So why should anyone believe the people that caused the problem are able to fix the problem?
And just who is the government borrowing the money from and who pays the money the government owes back?
There used to be a work ethos in this country of when things got tough people worked harder. Now you and others think the ethos should be “the government will protect you from your own choices.”
And by the way, during the shutdown, wasn’t the government preventing people from working?
Your federal income taxes may not have increased, but other taxes and fees from the federal government have increased. It doesn’t matter whether it is a tax or a fee, it still comes out of ones pocket.
Added regulations add costs to the end user as well. Last year we added $216 – $440 BILLION dollar in regulations and 86 million of paperwork hours in complying with those regulations.
Come’on Jeffery….. who pays for those costs and paperwork?
Those costs get passed to the consumer of everything from food to power to clothing and yet those regulations don’t give anything back into the economy.
If you want to talk about costs, look at unfunded or under funded federal mandates. They too have risen in costs. So states and municipalities have to raise taxes because the federal government is demanding the states pay for things.
Where do you think that money comes from? The money tree in someone’s back yard? The pot o’ gold at the end of the Obama rainbow?
And time and time again business leaders are screaming the reason they can’t or won’t hire is increased regulations or uncertainty in regulations. It is clear that not only can the government not fix the un-employment problem, it is making the problem worse.
Bull. Please tell me how the amount of money my neighbor makes affects me?
Please tell me what amount of money is acceptable for someone to make without the government reaching in an taking it from them and distributing it to other people?
Please tell me why people who work hard and are industrious need to be forced at the point of the government sword to support those who do not work as hard or as industriously?
I am sure you are aware of this, but I will say it just to make the point…… if you took all of the wealth from the richest 5% of the people in the country, it would pay the government for 5 days. That’s it. Five days.
There would be no return on that money in terms of economic growth so all you would have done is to make other people poor.
Great plan you liberals have.
You seem to have some problem with people making money. Yet you work and have a company don’t you? Do you work for free? Do you pay all of your employees – even the janitor – the same as you pay yourself?
Are you donating money to the government? There is a line on all tax returns for that, you know.
So why do people like you constantly demand others be forced to do what you will not do willingly?
Liberals such as yourself hate people that are successful and instead of lifting people up, want to bring the rest of the people down.
On income inequality: Each year (except for the great recession) worker productivity and GDP increase, yet the incomes of the working classes remain stagnant while the incomes of the rich increase. We are not sharing in the nation’s good fortune. You may claim that that’s the way it goes, but the nation cannot prosper under these continued conditions.
The rich and their supporters insist this is a natural phenomenon of the free market but I’m here to tell you it’s because of human-generated atmospheric CO2! (actually that’s a self-deprecating joke). But this growing inequality is not because the members of the working classes won’t or don’t work hard, it’s that we as a nation have made policy decisions that reward the top 5% and punish the bottom 95%.
We reward corporations that manufacture overseas using low paid workers. We punish labor unions. We reward “unearned” income but heavily tax wages. Our minimum wage has been left behind (a recent study showed McDonald’s workers rely on gov’t subsidies, e.g., food stamps and Medicaid to get by). Because of immigration limits and gov’t supported licensing groups, professionals (e.g., doctors, lawyers, MBAs, architects, scientists) face little competition for their services but construction workers and factory workers face competition because of a system that encourages illegal immigration. Our patent system rewards drug companies, insurers, investors and attorneys to the tune of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars a year in above-market costs for drugs (paid for by the masses). Gov’t contracts, e.g., defense, transfer tax monies to the rich. When we cut taxes on the rich, the gap has to be made up somehow, either reduced functions or tax increases (sometimes surreptitiously) on the working classes. When federal spending is cut, why do municipalities and states raise taxes? Why do they lay off police, firefighters and teachers? Because some of their funding was federal. And state and local taxes are almost always regressive.
We have been bludgeoning the working classes for several decades now (since 1981). Now the conventional wisdom in DC is that the only way to save our great nation is to cut the Social Security and Medicare benefits to the working classes so that we never have to ask the rich for more taxes.
HO-OH-LY SH-IT!!!!!
Really? You took it all the way there? OMG, you are a real fruitcake wacko.
You are really going to blame some idea of income inequality on CO2?
Ok, I’ve had enough of your blather.
Wow Jeffery, where to begin?
It is clear that you have a case of income envy. As noted in the my previous post, taxing the “rich” won’t solve the problem you describe.
But let’s deal with some of your other statements:
We don’t reward companies that use oversea labor and of course what people like you never question is “why is oversea labor cheaper?”
Secondly, “pound unions?” I appreciate the laugh. Unions keep people from entering the marketplace, and actually end up paying union workers less than non-union workers.
Minimum wage: The minimum wage was never designed or implemented to cover expenses that you want covered. Minimum wage jobs were always “market entrance” jobs. But let’s assume that you raise the minimum wage. Studies have shown that when that happens, there is a slight uptick in unemployment and an increase in cost of goods within the industry. Generally speaking, raising the minimum wage actually hurt the low income worker which should bother you.
(But it doesn’t, so there is your hypocrisy again.)
We’ve discussed previously how your claim on the patent system is wrong and not only that, you claim to have benefited from that very system when you did not need to. I continue to ask why you demand others do at the point of the government sword what you will not do voluntarily?
“Government contracts”…. it is here that your ignorance really shows. You do realize that companies – even those in military – employ people, right? People in the middle class type people. You do realize that, right? And when those publicly held companies make a profit, the dividends go to pay people’s pensions, 401K plans, investment, etc. You probably never have been awarded a government contract and don’t understand that in many cases, the contract restricts wages to employees that are often below the market value for the same job. Further regulations actually harm the workers more, but that doesn’t matter to you either.
Because they are paying for unfunded or underfunded mandates from the Federal government. Tell us all Jeffery, why the feds should dictate something and then not pay for it?
Some? Try most. But that is the problem isn’t it? The Fed mandated hiring of fireman, police, teachers, etc, paid a couple years of salaries, and then left the local governments with not only the worker, but also the pension and benefits.
Please tell us why the federal government should mandate who local governments hire?
Please tell us all why those decisions could not be made at the local level instead of creating more layers of bureaucracy with no benefits to anyone?
You love big government because it is inefficient, enslaves people, and it fits your personnel actions of being hypocritical at every turn.