Obamunism! Unemployment at 9.2%

From CNBC:

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists’ expectations for a 90,000 rise.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May…(emphasis added)

So, if the BLS hadn’t removed as many workers from the labor force this past month, it would have shot up even higher.  I do believe the data is being manipulated – not to the point of outright lie, but to the point of getting the rosiest data possible.  After all, the number of people who leave the labor force every money is really not known – experts estimate and there are probably several sets of estimates.  My bet is that among the various estimates the BLS is pulling out those that make it look best.  Imagine how it would look otherwise – I think that unemployment would be closer to 12% right now.

Aside from that, no matter how you slice it the economy isn’t recovering.  In fact, a strong case can be made that we’re already back in to recession it just hasn’t shown in the data.  But even if we are not and will not fall in to official recession, the economy simply is not doing well.  In order to get unemployment just down to 8% by November of 2012 will take a net gain of a couple hundred thousand jobs per month between now and then…anyone out there see that happening?

In other news, a top Obama adviser is asserting that people won’t care about unemployment in 2012…

UPDATE:  From Mish – “unmitigated disaster“.

UPDATE IIMore from Mish –

…Digging deeper into the Household Survey, we see some more interesting data. In the last year, the civilian population rose by 1,799,000. Yet the labor force dropped by 263,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,063,000.

Last month the labor force rose by 272,000. This month the labor force fell by 272,000. How’s that for symmetry?…

Symmetry?  More like bull.

37 thoughts on “Obamunism! Unemployment at 9.2%

  1. Cluster July 8, 2011 / 1:10 pm

    Was this “unexpected”?

    • retiredspook89 July 8, 2011 / 1:41 pm


      Most economists predicted an anemic 80,000 increase in non-farm payroll. The actual 18,000 (that will most likely be adjusted downward in coming months) only missed the mark by 344%.

      • Mark Noonan July 8, 2011 / 1:52 pm


        What I’m wondering is where they are getting their predictions from? I realize that Las Vegas is one of the worst-hit areas so things will always look worse here than elsewhere…but, even so, I’m not seeing any indication that we’re about to turn around and start growing. I work for a gigantic bank…and at one of our recent meetings is was only half-jokingly advised that if you have any vacation time, better use it right away…none of us expect to be employed a year from now (though, with a bit of luck, that might come out); I’m only thinking 50/50 that I’ll be employed by Christmas. Businesses continue to close, foreclosures continue to mount, personal bankruptcy attorneys continue to do land office business.

  2. carltonpryor July 8, 2011 / 1:54 pm

    The economy will not be an issue in the 2012 elections in the US as the unemployment rate will below 7% by then. Those, next fall, who continue to drumbeat about employment will be seen for what they truly are by the well informed among the American electorate. I would point anyone interested to the first four years of the Reagan administration or the first six years of the FDR tenure for comparison.

    I would ask among the conservatives here, “How many of you are unemployed?”

    • Mark Noonan July 8, 2011 / 2:07 pm


      So far I am not…but the place I work for has lost about 2/3 of its employees over the past couple years…and as I noted to Spook above, the rest of us figure we’ll be gone before too long.

      And just to let you know – for unemployment to drop to 7% by November of 2012 we’ll need about 250,000 net jobs gained per month for the next 16 months. Ain’t gonna happen – even if the economy does get a lot better.

    • retiredspook89 July 8, 2011 / 2:08 pm

      That’s interesting. Why, in your opinion, will be the impetus for unemployment getting below 7% in the next 16 months?

      • retiredspook89 July 8, 2011 / 2:09 pm

        Sorry, that would have been what, not why.

      • tiredoflibbs July 8, 2011 / 8:43 pm

        Simply for the reason that many will have fallen off of the unemployment rolls where they will not be counted.

        More of that creative math by the White House.

        Don’t let this forker skew the argument with baseless crystal ball predictions.

    • neocon1 July 8, 2011 / 3:44 pm


      the return of the FULL FORKER including the LOON pryor.
      TROLLS R us……..slow day at the fork richard?

      • retiredspook89 July 8, 2011 / 7:15 pm

        My guess is that this is someone using Carlton’s name. Carlton, while I don’t agree with his politics, is a reasonably intelligent guy. I don’t see him making a ridiculous statement like this and then not coming back to defend it with some sort of data. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if most of the deluge of Lefty comments in the last few days were all the same person.

  3. GreenMountainBoy July 8, 2011 / 2:28 pm

    2.2% percent drop in 16 months with bams economic program? Please don’t make me laugh. Tax,tax,tax,tax,barrow,barrow,barrow…you get the picture, does not create jobs.

    • thomas July 8, 2011 / 2:34 pm


      which one of your taxes to the federal government have gone up since 2009? I am just curious to know.

      Also, do you think that having a balanced budget is a necessity for a government in a time of economic difficulty? In other words, do you doubt that our nation can borrow from the bond markets at a cheap rate?

      • neocon1 July 8, 2011 / 3:47 pm


        do your own research troll

        SS tax has gone up two years in a row on us retirees.

      • thomas July 8, 2011 / 3:50 pm

        SS tax? what are you blabbering about dork?

        payroll tax has gone down for us working folk.

        I know you’re retired and mooching off my Tax dollars and all, but do try and keep up.

      • neocon1 July 8, 2011 / 4:06 pm


        No troll I am collecting back from 50+ years of what was taken by the point of a gun and promised to be returned to me at a certain age.

        TWO cost of living allowances have been cut from SS which amounts to a TAX
        and medicare was CUT by 500 BILLION because of so called health care bill 0chompy and the HAG rammed down Americas throat at midnight Christmas eve.

        as usual you are to Fn stupid to know what isnt written for you on your media matter memos.

      • neocon1 July 8, 2011 / 4:13 pm


        He is either stupid or a liar, and in either case nothing but a mindless drone

        My vote ALL THREE!

      • Amazona July 8, 2011 / 4:20 pm

        neo, have you ever calculated what your retirement fund would look like if you had been able to invest, for yourself, the same amount taken from you by Uncle Sam to put into the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security?

        Remember, to the RRL, all money you ever earned in your whole life was really the property of the government, and they just decided how much of it to let you keep. This is why a dupe like tommy-boy can claim that getting back some of that SS money confiscated from you is really “mooching”. You’ll never get the difference between what you could have earned on that money and the pitiful return Uncle Sam managed to get on it.

        And also remember that he thinks payroll ‘taxes’ are really ‘taxes’ when in fact they are merely an administrative tool for collecting the taxes the feds plan to take from him. “Payroll taxes” are nothing but a guesstimate about how much money he will owe at the end of the year, divided by the number of weeks worked, and a means of taking it from him a little at a time, to soften the blow of having to write a check in one lump sum, as we self-employed people do. It works, on the economically illiterate and profoundly stupid, who just look at their net and if the net is a tad bit bigger think they cot a “tax cut”.

      • tiredoflibbs July 8, 2011 / 8:47 pm

        Here goes tommy-boy again with his regurgitations of “there have been no tax increases since obAMATEUR has taken office”.

        He thinks only income taxes matter and not the dozens he has raised since taking office PLUS the ones that increased under the passing of obamacare.

        More mindless liberal talking points that have been spun and parsed for the dumbed down drones to blindly swallow without question…. and tommy-boy is at the front of the line regurgitating the same nonsense.

        Tommy-boy you have been proven wrong time and again in other posts where you simply disappeared… only to pop up again asking and posting the same stupid lies.


    • Amazona July 8, 2011 / 4:09 pm

      Poor sad deluded tommy-boy. Do you think he is smart enough to realize that ‘payroll taxes’ are just a way to collect taxes as income is earned, instead of waiting till the end of the year? Do you think he is capable of understanding that the amount he has to hand over to the government is not being reduced, just the amount in his paycheck, and that his actual tax bill will be unchanged?

      Who cares? He is either stupid or a liar, and in either case nothing but a mindless drone.

  4. Cluster July 8, 2011 / 3:50 pm

    The economy will not be an issue in the 2012 elections in the US as the unemployment rate will below 7% by then. – carltonpryor

    Ironically, I was just thinking of our resident liberal economist the other day, wondering where he had slinked off to, and loe and behold, here he is, making one hell of a prediction. I actually think the Detroit Lions have a better chance of winning the super bowl next year.

    Carlton, as spook asked earlier, please tell us what market dynamics will unfold to have unemployment drop by that much in just over a year?

    Here’s a little interesting nugget, at this time in his presidency, Reagan had managed to lower unemployment by 3 points, from 10.2% to 7%, yet Barry’s policies have managed to increase unemployment, so something magic must be ready to happen, if one were to believe carlton.

    • neocon1 July 8, 2011 / 4:09 pm


      carltonpryor = “DEMON ECONOMIST”
      should tell you everything you would to know about this Fn loon fool.

      • Amazona July 8, 2011 / 4:24 pm

        Is the is the self-proclaimed “economist” quoted by our part-time lesbian half-black forker?

        Too funny. Never right about a single thing, but too narcissistic to simply go away. What a great illustration of Thomas Sowell’s definition of an “intellectual”—one whose sole product is ideas, which do not even have to be right.

        (P.S.—-Thomas Sowell—-a REAL economist.)

      • Amazona July 8, 2011 / 4:25 pm

        Is this the self-proclaimed “economist” quoted by our part-time lesbian half-black forker?

        Too funny. Never right about a single thing, but too narcissistic to simply go away. What a great illustration of Thomas Sowell’s definition of an “intellectual”—one whose sole product is ideas, which do not even have to be right.

        (P.S.—-Thomas Sowell—-a REAL economist.)

    • Majordomo Pain July 9, 2011 / 1:09 pm


      President Obama was elected in 2008 and took office in 2009 he has been in office two years and five months the June 2011 unemployment number is 9.2% up from 7.8% in January 2011.

      President Reagan was elected in 1980 and took office in 1981 and in June 1983 the US unemployment rate stood at 10.1% up from 7.5% in January 1981. The source of these numbers is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      By the month preceeding the 1984 Presidential election unemployment in the US stood at 7.4% a decrease of 2.8% in 15 months. A similar decline in this rate currently would have US unemployment at 6.4% fully within the realm of capitalist economic possibility.

      President Obama’s policies have not increased unemployment in real terms as the zenith of unemployment in the latest recession was 10.1% in October 2009 and that figure has not been senn since. Even in the Reagan recovery there were 10 consecutive months of +10% unemployment. The factors that make this employment situation “worse” is the difference this time is that the majority of those losing their jobs in the past Obama Recession were white professional men and women vice people of color as in the Recession of the Reagan presidency.

      • tiredoflibbs July 9, 2011 / 11:04 pm

        Ahhhh… PAIN the bubble computer from the forker.

        You see there is a difference in Reagan’s unemployment figures and obAMATEUR’s. Reagan’s policies created real jobs while obAMATEUR’s “job creation” for the most part was a clever manipulation in numbers or voodoo math.

        If you ignore parts of an unemployed population and remove then completely from the calculations, then unemployment will APPEAR to go down.

        An analog computer would be able to show this. Certainly, a bubble headed “computer” can understand this as well. The problem is that it has been programmed to ignore everything that goes against the dumbed down talking points that which it is programmed.

        Go back to the fork where you can post to your heart’s content without being challenged.

        Last I checked, you have not been getting any meaningful responses or interest since you took porn off line, which is hysterical since it is supposed to be a “news site”.


    • carltonpryor July 9, 2011 / 1:18 pm

      “Here’s a little interesting nugget, at this time in his presidency, Reagan had managed to lower unemployment by 3 points, from 10.2% to 7%, yet Barry’s policies have managed to increase unemployment, so something magic must be ready to happen, if one were to believe carlton.”

      Not so interesting since it is innaccurate. I feel market forces in a downward trend late this summer will convince corporations to hire into a headwind and spur the economy in the manner that it should be, by way of the private sector, by putting more money in the hands of workers and thereby increasing spending on things other than financial derivatives and mortgages.

      Something also curious may be the boom in rental property now that the housing market has settled to a norm. Houses are buildings that should be purchased only by those with the economic means to maintain a 15, 20 or 30 year mortgage. That number since it is shriking to pre WW2 lows demands that rental properties become a focus for investment. This too will spur a deeper recovery in the near long term.

  5. GreenMountainBoy July 8, 2011 / 3:59 pm

    Does posting a link now have to be approved by the moderator?

    • Mark Noonan July 8, 2011 / 5:07 pm

      Shouldn’t have to be…though maybe the multiple links triggered some sort of spam block.

      • Amazona July 8, 2011 / 5:13 pm

        And I don’t know why my post repeated itself…..

  6. james July 8, 2011 / 5:51 pm

    obama should lose his job. obama is the worst president in american history. Which president presided over the longest period of consecutive months of job growth. Answer- President George W. Bush.

  7. carltonpryor July 9, 2011 / 1:23 pm

    Amazona I was right about the unemployment rate only briefly going above 10% in this recession, a return to $90 bbl oil and the push beyond $1500 per ouunce for gold. However, only those who have a need to be “right” play this game. Economics is a matter of using the proper tools for the job rather than being able to brag about being right. this is the difference between you and I. You simply hate all things liberal yet you know your one voice has little if any power. I want my economy to run smoothly within the parameters of infation that allows for favorable business climates and i have the ability to manipulate interest rates.

    The debt crisis in Greece is far more serious a matter for Americans than US unemployment. Could you offer an idea of why that is true?

    • tiredoflibbs July 9, 2011 / 1:47 pm

      Actually, carlton, unemployment is much higher (and also higher than your 10% crystal ball prediction) since the White House and the Bureau of Labor simply quit counting individuals who have given up looking for a job.

      If you regularly dismiss people from your equation, of course the unemployment rate will drop without doing anything policy-wise.

      But keep repeating the lies and spin if it makes you feel better…. but in REALITY it is still lying.

      • neocon1 July 9, 2011 / 2:01 pm


        it is what the left and their flying monkey forkers do, LIE

    • retiredspook89 July 9, 2011 / 3:15 pm

      The debt crisis in Greece is far more serious a matter for Americans than US unemployment. Could you offer an idea of why that is true?

      I’m guessing it’s because European banks are heavily invested in Greek debt and many U.S. based MM mutual funds and bank-based MM accounts are invested in European bank debt. I suggested a couple weeks ago that anyone with a significant amount of money in MM funds check to see how much exposure their fund/s has to European bank debt.

    • Amazona July 9, 2011 / 8:40 pm

      It’s not about “BRAGGING” about being right, it’s about BEING right. And anyone who has made even a few economic predictions is likely to have been right at least once. As is said, “Even a blind pig finds an acorn—sometimes”.

      Your list of your accomplishments is not impressive. Anyone who has paid attention to the administration efforts to limit petroleum exploration and extraction could have (and did) expect oil prices to rise. Duh. And as the recession is not only not over but appears to be deepening, it is pretty premature to claim the unemployment rate has gone above 10% “only briefly” in “this recession”.

      To quote Curly in “City Slickers”—-“The day ain’t over”.

      Interesting that you dismiss my quite objective political opinions as mere “hate” and the indulge in the silliness of claiming that you somehow not only know that i am driven by this arbitrarily ascribed emotion but that it encompasses “all things liberal”.

      Really? What is “liberal”? Are you using the word in its traditional and historical sense or in the more recent political incarnation? Can you define “liberal” in its current political meaning? What IS “liberal” to you? And why do you feel qualified to first decide how I define “liberal” and then claim that my opinion of it is mere emotion?

      In other words, you have made a vague comment which is supposed, I guess, to be insulting but which is really meaningless as it uses an undefined term and a wholly imaginary assigned view of it.

      I can understand why it is so tempting to snidely dismiss valid and objective disagreements with a well-understood political model as mere negative emotion. It has to be a lot easier than actually explaining and defending an attachment to this model. It’s an interesting but overused tactic, and quite transparent.

      I hope your economic evaluations are at least a tad bit more precise than your efforts to dismiss legitimate political disagreement by simply acting supercilious and condescending.

Comments are closed.