Image 01 Image 03

Bad unemployment

Bad unemployment

The rate rose to 8.2%, but the real story via IBD, Core 25-54 Employment Rates Still Near Historic Lows:

The unemployment rate rose slightly to 8.2% in May, holding above 8% for the 40th straight month, the Labor Department reported Friday. But actual employment rates of core working age Americans suggests the true jobs situation is even worse.

From mid-1987 until the Great Recession, the employment-to-population ratio of 25-54-year-olds usually ranged from 78.5% to 80%. It never fell below 78.2% even during the 1990-1991 and 2001 slumps.

But now, nearly three years after the recession ended in June 2009, that ratio stands at just 75.7%.

Via Bloomberg, it really was a terrible report all around:

Payrolls climbed by 69,000 last month, less than the most- pessimistic forecast in a Bloomberg News survey, after a revised 77,000 gain in April that was smaller than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate called for a 150,000 May advance. The jobless rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent, while hours worked declined.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The economy can’t get much better under Obama.

He’s put so many things in place that tend to hold it down, and investment in the U.S. is at record lows. Until that is reversed, things won’t change much.

They “revise” these numbers every time. You must wait until they do to get a real picture.

Or not. I suspect you already have the real picture.

If they’re willing to report these numbers, how bad do you think the numbers REALLY are?

I think the election effectively ended this week.

I am beginning to reassess my prediction that Obama will lose by at least the same margin he won by in 2008. Might be too conservative. I think this thing could has a real chance of moving into landslide 35-40 state territory.

Either way Obama is done. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

Axelrod criticized Romney’s jobs record with a new attack ad and Ace of Spades was quick to note that the state unemployment under Romney was 4.7% and pointed to the participation drop out rate which would bring Obama’s number to 11% …
Twitchy them documented Ace of Spades goes bizarro on twitter over Axelrods insinuation that 4.7% was worse than Obama’s 11% .

I noted on the Tip Line several days ago that the drop out rate was even worse..
University of Maryland economist Peter Morici said if the same percentage of adults were still participating in the labor force as there were in 2008 unemployment would be 10.7 percent.

“Adding adults on the sidelines, who say they would re-enter the labor market if conditions improved, and part-time workers, who would prefer full-time positions, the unemployment rate becomes 14.5 percent,” Morici said. “Factoring in college graduates in low-skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks … unemployment is much higher still.”

So, with Obama cranking up his job killing economic policies knob and breaking it off by manipulation of key indicators he makes himself look better.

I’m waiting for the NBC banner: OBAMA ECONOMY GETS AN “A”–91.8% EMPLOYMENT!

TrooperJohnSmith | June 1, 2012 at 10:34 am

Before the weekend is over Teh Chosen Won will be blaming the bad numbers on the fact that George W. Bush was in the White House this week. And MSBCCCP will lead their news with it!

alan markus | June 1, 2012 at 10:54 am

Since Social Security retirement age is 65+, I’d like to see a chart through that age group. Anyone that I have ever know who became long-term unemployed was at least 55 years old at the time.

LukeHandCool | June 1, 2012 at 11:09 am

So I go to my Yahoo email account to see how they treat this. It’s often “interesting” to see if they even acknowledge big news when it hurts Obama and/or Democrats.

They don’t. They don’t treat it. They ignore the news. They ignore this, as Al Gore would say, inconvenient truth.

What’s the top headline?

“Wealthy Americans avoided paying taxes”

“A report shows that 20,752 households that earned more than $200,000 in paid no income taxes.”

Can you believe that?

I mean … can you believe that?

What liberal media?

I mean … hey liberal media … What??!!

    jdkchem in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    I read the article and the number who paid no taxes was less than half a percent of those earning >/=$200k. Deeper in the article they mention 56 million earners who paid no income taxes. Funny how nobody seems upset at that number.

Meanwhile ,back in the beltway employment is up! They’re hiring in the spin sector to convince us down is up! They’re hiring in the cheat’n’ fraud sector to make sure all dems ,dead or alive ,turn out!

This obama “recession” isn’t really a recession in the traditional sense. It isn’t cyclical, it’s a structural, permanent contraction caused by the massive barriers to wealth creation put in place by obama, through regulation, debt spending, and taxation.

I’m seeing that “less than the most-pessimistic forecast” is the new “unexpectedly”

    Ragspierre in reply to quiznilo. | June 1, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    “It isn’t cyclical, it’s a structural, permanent contraction caused by the massive barriers to wealth creation put in place by obama, through regulation, debt spending, and taxation.”

    Yep. The Obamic Decline. Fundamental transformation by design.

[…] bad as the jobs report and the unemployment rate rise is new news from the first black president. Yes, we’re talking Bill […]

[…] chart below (from Legal Insurrection) tells the […]

So let me see if my math is right……Obummer’s numbers say we are at 8.2% unemployed….this chart/article says that we are 75.7% employment….hmmm…100-75.7 != 8.2% …..did I miss something/someone/the memo?

Not quite “near historic lows”, as the chart shown only goes back to 1980. I will say “lowest in a quarter century”. My chart goes back to 1948, and the age 25-54 employment population ratio was below 75% for the entire period 1948-1980.

alan markus asked about older workers, and, interestingly enough, the 55+ employment population raio at 37.9% is near a historic (since 1948) high. There hasn’t been this large a percentage of 55+ employed since 1970.

Have I got some graphs for you!

The issue, of course, is that a lot of women ages 25 – 54 weren’t working from 1948 – 1990. In my blog post, I look at the combined ratio from 1948 to April 2012, but in the comments you’ll see I talk about it by male/female breakout.

The labor participation rate for men in that age group has dropped from 97% in 1948 to 89% in 2012…it’s mainly been a slide downward for the whole period. Women’s participation rate grew from 35% in 1948 to 74% in 2012 (women’s participation rate peaked at 77% in 1999/2000 — there was a long ramp up).

But back to the combined –the overall participation rate for these peak earning ages has not been this low since 1985.

jimzinsocal | June 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Today will mark a real turning point for many voters. Many have been in a wait and see mode blindly hoping for a turnaround. And dont misunderstand…most of us like to entertain a half full bottle mindset. But when ynemployment again goes in the wrong direction? Time to change direction in DC as well.
What we need is a 180 turnaround on policy around the private sector. Keep the anti business mindset in the college classrooms. This is real world stuff…real world survival. Bring back the climate that treats private sector business as friends. They arent the enemy.
The enemy is unclear tax policy. The enemy is the Obamacare financial cloud hanging over every business and university. The enemy is a sophomoric anti business climate.
Time for Obama’s failed economic policy to go.

Except that the 69,000 is way over stated because the previous month’s revisions have not been factored in to adjust the figure.

Seasonally adjusted, only 22,000 more people (June’s 69K minus April’s and March’s 38K and 9K downward adjustments) were estimated to be working in May than were estimated to be working in April.

Once again the MSM has failed in it’s obligation to report the facts accurately and continues to give political cover to an incompetent administration.

[…] the awful job numbers (which are probably much, much, worse than reported) and a collapsing stock market, I bet many feel […]