The Real Jobs Number for June is 220,000

[Powdered Toast Man]

That is the difference between last June and this June. We shed almost 200k jobs last June. This year we gained 18K.

THAT. IS. THE. STORY.

Of course you will not read that in the news. You will not see that tonight on TV.

You will only see how we "only" created 18,000 new jobs this year.

How do I know? I took the 30 seconds to google "US Job Creation Chart" and it took me to this little website http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So hard... I know...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. except,

June traditionally has strong increases, part of which is seasonal, part of which is corporate investment in new positions. The fact that the numbers are so anemic (and it is simply a mistake to call them anything else) means one of three things:

a) The economy is hitting a second recession, if not a depression.

b) Corporations are deliberately holding back, trying to fuck over the president.

c) the fiscal policies of this administration are counter productive, causing more long term damage, rather than seeking solutions to the structural problems created in years past.

It is probably a bit of all three.

[TomClash]

5. It's not b

They don't give a shit about Obama. They only want larger quarterly earnings. Anything else is irrelevant.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. I think you are right. Plus

there are hundreds of thousands of college grads looking for work. Companies, if they were hiring, would be doing it now. They are not. That means that people who have not yet entered the market are out of luck. And looking at how our government skews the numbers (ignoring the long term unemployed, for example), that also means that the unemployment number is artificially low, because someone who has never worked is not counted as newly unemployed. They are simply not counted at all.

[TomClash]

15. I agree

College grads are often not counted and so are the long-term unemployed who are no longer eligible to collect. The numbers are always skewed downward.

[Powdered Toast Man]

8. No Except.

You can't argue with that number. It's a +220K swing from a year ago.

[Javaman]

2. It's still only a 18K net. nt

[Javaman]

3. dupe. nt

[Dawgs]

4. You're kidding, right?

That is some amazing spin.

[Powdered Toast Man]

10. Spin?

No spin. Just the truth. We lost 200K jobs last June. We gained 18K this June. We also saw the same sharp decline last year for the summer.

[FBaggins]

17. Yes, spin. The epitome of spin in fact.

On what basis would you compare current data to what happened a year ago and exclude other comparisons?

Imagine that both 6/2010 and 6/2011 had identical 100k figures. But June 2010 had followed a long string of negative figures slowly climbing into the positive range while June 2011 follower several months of much higher figures on a declining trend. What would you think of a claim that things were unchanged over the last year since both showed 100k?

You would think that the author was spinning wildly.

Which is what you're doing here.

[Powdered Toast Man]

30. Look at the trend from year to year.

I didn't "Just" look at June. I looked at the trend. Next month we can expect similar numbers. It's no spin. It's fact. If you choose to "see" it differently... fine. It doesn't erase the FACT that this June we are +220K jobs over last June.

[FBaggins]

56. Once again... there is no such thing as a "trend from year to year"

when you're talking about employment. Nobody pays any attention to YOY figures when the figures are already seasonally adjusted and the current trend is what matter.

I didn't "Just" look at June. I looked at the trend.

No you didn't. Last June followed almost a year of improvement in this series. Things are currently headed in the wrong direction. That't the trend.

It's no spin.

Perhaps you don't understand what the word means? "Spin" is when you take bad news and try to make it seems as if it isn't so bad, or good news and try to portray it as worse than reality.

Here's reality (emphasis mine):

Economists are sifting through today’s June jobs report in the hopes of finding some bright spot: there aren’t any. The June employment number is being described as “horrible,” seriously ugly,” and from one colorful strategist: “Ewwwwww that smell…”

“Everything about that report stinks,” writes David Zervos, the managing director of global fixed income strategy at Jefferies & Co. “he ‘risk on’ crowd will have to lick some wounds here so it could get a little messy on a Friday in July. There is no way to spin anything positive out of what was just released, except that we can look forward to a lower base for the next report. ”

http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2011/07/08/diving-down-into-the-jobs-report-ugly-ugly-ugly/?mod=google_news_blog

You've also ignored the fact that the only reason that June 2010 was so low was because the temporary Census jobs went away. What's the excuse this month?

Heck... why don't you compare the current figure to May of 2010 when there was a gain of 400k?

The reason is obvious. It's because there's no substance to your position. It's spin. There is no "there" there.

[Powdered Toast Man]

59. There is now.

First time for everything. If you look at the chart you see a pattern. It's there. Sorry, it exists now, and you cannot ignore it just because it didn't use to be there.

There's nuclear waste floating in the sky in Japan where there didn't use to be. Just cuz it didn't use to be there doesn't mean they can ignore it now.

[FBaggins]

64. Lol! And that's how you know it's spin.

If you look at the chart you see a pattern. It's there.

Not if you have the experience to actually understand what you're looking at. Sorry.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Powdered Toast Man]

63. Oh... the Census jobs

Yes, those jobs went away, but we also lost some 40K government jobs this june. I'm not sure how many we lost last June from the census workers... Had we not lost those government jobs this year the numbers would look like we gained over May.

There are lots of ways to play with numbers.

I just did simple addition.

[FBaggins]

86. You've got to be kidding.

Yes, those jobs went away, but we also lost some 40K government jobs this june.

You're really willing to pretend that means something good???

Let's ignore the ridiculous spin re: tens of thousands vs. hundreds of thousands. The people who took the census jobs in March knew that the jobs would be gone a few months later. That's why the correct way to look at the trend it to back out those census jobs from both the hiring and firing months since they don't tell us anything about the economy at the time.

The 40k government jobs lost in this report are much more serious. They're teachers and civil servants getting slashed after years/decades of service. You can't back those numbers out.

[Powdered Toast Man]

89. n/t

[daa]

95. Spin no its BS there are less people working now than in 2000

[Fumesucker]

6. That's the fewest jobs added in nine months..

You might want to try and sweeten up that lemonade a bit, it's awfully bitter.

[Powdered Toast Man]

12. Did we lose 200K jobs?

You compare it to last year at the same time. It's really not that difficult. A 220K turnaround from the numbers the previous year. It's not rocket science.

[FBaggins]

23. No. You don't "compare it to last year at the same time".

These are already seasonally adjusted numbers, so you can compare any month to any other month.

The asolute figure and the trend are what matters. YOY comparisons are irrelevant.

[Powdered Toast Man]

25. Right... cuz we live quarterly.

The are not irrelevant. You look at last years TREND and look at this years TREND and they are very similar. The difference is that THIS year we are +220K

[FBaggins]

58. You obviously did NOT look at the two years.

They are not, in fact, similar.

The are not irrelevant.

Then please show me an actual economist who uses that comparison. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

[Newest Reality]

7. Let's be sure to ignore

how many jobs we need to create each month just to keep-up with new entries into the market.

A drop in an empty bucket is kind of close to full?

[scribble]

19. We need about 170,000 jobs every month ...

just to stay even with new people entering the job market each month.

Creating 18,000 jobs in one month isn't a victory. It means we slipped backwards by 152,000 jobs.


sc

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. You're right! And here's more great news!

The unemployment rate, meanwhile, ticked up to 9.2 from 9.1% in the previous month and this year’s low of 8.8% in March. Many thousands of people in June dropped out of the labor force, some presumably because of the discouraging outlook.

Friday’s jobs report was remarkable in that there was nothing positive in it. Manufacturing, instead of bouncing back up as many had expected, added a meager 6,000 jobs. Hiring in construction remained dismal. The once-fast-growing temporary-help industry shed jobs for the third month in a row. And budget-strapped government offices eliminated an additional 39,000 jobs from their payrolls. Services remained weak.

Even for those with jobs in June, there was bad news. The average weekly work hours declined by 0.1 to 34.3. And the average hourly earnings for all private-sector employees dropped by one cent to $22.99.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/07/dismal-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-rising-to-92.html

We should be celebrating, not moaning! Obama's reelection is in the bag!!! :thumbsup:

[KG]

31. word.

[n2doc]

11. No, this is the important number: 58.2%

By late 2010 and early this year, the situation was improving again — only to slide back again in recent months, this time because of gas prices, Europe (again) and general post-crisis uncertainty (again). The share of adults with jobs, 58.2 percent, is now tied with its low point since this recession began. It has not been lower since 1983. “This is a big bucket of very cold water,” Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics wrote to clients this morning.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/overly-optimistic-once-again/

You Icon defenders live in a different world, don't you?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. ouch, that graph hurts something fierce.

But those blindly clapping for the president will find a way of discounting such facts.

[Blecht]

16. Yes, this is the story

Very informative graph.

[Powdered Toast Man]

20. "Icon Defenders" ???? WTF

Where the hell am I?

[n2doc]

33. Only you know that

But that is my term for those who defend Obama against everything in spite of evidence and logic. He can do no wrong, and can never be blamed for anything, in their eyes. If something is bad, well, he didn't have any power whatsoever to do anything about it. And if things go well, then he is personally responsible for making it happen. Kind of the same as the Bushbots from 01-08.

Obama is a man, not an Icon. I will not treat him as a God, either.

[Powdered Toast Man]

40. I have a word too.

But it's against the rules to use it... You know... for those who try to blame Obama for everything. What's the word?

[galileoreloaded]

69. The seventh circle? n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

18. And MORE great news! We've set records!

More Records: Average Duration Of Unemployment; People Not In Labor Force Who Want A Job Now Both At All Time High





http://www.zerohedge.com/article/more-records-average-duration-unemployment-people-not-labor-force-who-want-job-now-both-all-

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 25 Year Low: 64.1%



http://www.zerohedge.com/article/labor-force-participation-rate-drops-fresh-25-year-low-641

I hope that I made them big enough so that every one can celebrate the really great news!!! :party:

[Powdered Toast Man]

24. And I imagine it's all Obama's fault... right? The "Icon"? n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

26. I didn't say that - but I do notice that you're not telling us why this is really great news. nt

[Powdered Toast Man]

35. The "Great News" is we didn't hold the trend of last year.

We didn't LOSE 200K jobs in June. The "Great News" is that the overall recovery is still going on. Is it as much as we need? NO. Is it improving? Absolutely. A 220K turnaround is nothing to sneeze at.

[Pale Blue Dot]

37. So you're going to continue to assert this,

despite all of the direct, factual, indisputable evidence in this thread?

I wish I lived in your world! :-)

[Powdered Toast Man]

41. And you are still pretending that a 220K is not a big deal.

I'm glad I DON'T live in your world.

[FBaggins]

60. Were you even around last year?

Did we lay off 400k census workers this June to drive an otherwise strong number into the toilet?

Reality matters. You should try it some time.

[Powdered Toast Man]

65. Fair enough... however...

We still lost roughly 20K jobs in July, August and September. We'll see what happens. Honestly I didn't think about the census workers. We'll see what happens the rest of the summer. However, that's no reason to be insulting.

[FBaggins]

73. So now you're willing to look at a couple other months?

Then why ignore May 2010? Because it makes this month look MUCH worse?

I'll tell you how to look at the trend. If you adjust out for factors that aren't caught by seasonal adjustments (principly, but not entirely, the census jobs), you should see one long steady improvement from not long after the president took office until about February of this year. Since then things have been weakening... and the last couple months have been VERY weak (particularly if you understand how to look at the internals - like temporary jobs).

It could be a temporary weakness rather than a looming recession... but there is no way to spin it as positive news. Sorry.

[Powdered Toast Man]

82. Actually, no... just an honest oversight.

May was obviously inflated, just as June was to the census. Had I realized that when I made my post... I probably wouldn't have. Still, looking at the past this should not have been unexpected. I am assuming had we not had the census last may would not have seen the jump it had.

Actually if you subtract the 400K workers you get a number roughly the same as this May... which still doesn't quite explain June, except we did lose an extra 40K other government jobs this year.

Huh.

Well... now I'm pissed.

If you account for the census it would pretty much look the same.

But I have to keep my positive outlook... so I'll just compare 2009 to 2011 in my head and be happy about that.

Fucking Republicans.

[FBaggins]

88. Well... at least you're moving back toward option #1

Welcome back to reality. :)

The good news is that this current trend, while it cannot be spun as good news, does not necessarily mean that all is lost or the economy is headed back down hard. Recoveries often see temporary weakness and then resume their strength.

[n2doc]

32. No. But he is the President

Would you say he has no fault in this? In any case, I'm not the one saying things are great, the OP is. I'm just pointing out that they aren't so great.

[Powdered Toast Man]

36. Fault? No... He is not at fault.

He's not the one who trashed this economy in the first place. And you can not ignore the FACT that a 220K turnaround is not a big deal.

[jtuck004]

71. FDR didn't trash the economy in the first place either, but he took

responsibility for making it better instead of trying to point fingers at everyone else.

The head of the BLS testified in front of Congress that we need about 225,000 net new jobs every month to take care of growth in the population, people entering the work force, people going back to work.

225,000 - 18000 leaves us short about 207,000 jobs in June. That's 207,000 people who graduated school with student loan debt they can't pay, fathers and mothers who can't get a job so they can help pay the bills that come whether there is a job or not, 55 year old workers whose next check may be from Social Security in 7 years (if they can live that long), the largest pool of workers who are so disheartened at the rejection and lack of jobs that they can't hardly bring themselves to keep sending out resumes for jobs that don't exist - in other words tens of thousands of people who won't be able to contribute to the economy for yet another month, who may lose their home, or are watching their children play in the corner of the homeless shelter.

When I read the reports of Joe Biden saying "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession" I was astounded, but I never really thought he was making a statement about the inability of the administration to implement policies that would make a significant impact. Or even stand and fight for them, for cryin' out loud.

This morning, despite 30 something years of evidence that tax cuts don't create jobs the current president stands at a pedestal and trumpets the jobs that were created because of the payroll tax break (which just shifts the debt elsewhere, btw). It I hadn't known it was Obama I might have thought it was the "Orange Man" from the House of Representatives talking.

I do take note that we are not in the same shape as last year. But vacuous spin doesn't feed the hungry child, doesn't keep a family from foreclosure, will not povide the demand that drives this economy.

My next vote goes for Democratic policies, policies that create demand from the bottom, not those that enrich the bankers that brought us the Great Ponzi Scheme. Now I just have to find people who haven't forgotten what those policies did for us...

[Powdered Toast Man]

76. Simply Put

June 2009... -500K jobs
June 2010... -200K jobs
June 2011... +18k jobs

No funny math. Just numbers.

Look at the link. Check the numbers since Obama took office. This is the third straight summer with that trend. Jobs take a dive in May/June, then recover in the fall.

The difference is that now we are still actually gaining jobs; not losing them.

It's not spin. it's a fact.

[FBaggins]

79. So you even know what "seasonally adjusted" means???

Obviouslt not.

[jtuck004]

83. I'm sure that will come as great comfort to hungry kids and homeless families. n/t

[Ignis]

94. Well said.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Thank you for these charts. I've bookmarked this thread, even

while knowing about zerohedge, just so I can examine them in further detail over the weekend.

Having come of age during Carter's presidency, this situation is starting to remind me of 'stagflation' (high unemployment and moderate to high inflation simultaneously). We're not quite there on the inflation side, but these dead-cat-bounces in U2 are giving us the unemployment side.

[Romulox]

21. "new math"

You may mean the DELTA is 220,000...

[fascisthunter]

22. lol

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Not to mention that the unemployment rate ROSE to 9.2%! Yay!!

[Powdered Toast Man]

39. Of course it did.

More people are entering the job market, and there still aren't enough jobs being created.

[FBaggins]

84. Wrong again.

Hundreds of thousands left the labor force.

Normally in a recovery, you have to deal with short-term blips upward in the unemployment rate as discouraged individuals re-enter the labor force because they see that jobs are starting to come back. That happened many months ago.

This report showed the number of people NOT in the labor force increased by 450k. This is why the U6 unemployment rate (what some call the "real" unemployment rate) jumped by a full four tenths of a percent.

Compare that to last June if you like.

[TomClash]

28. This is Orwellian

You are basically arguing that we are supposed to be grateful that we didn't lose jobs. NBER pegged June 2009 as the end of the recession. We are supposedly in the second year of a "recovery" and we are barely creating any net increase in jobs. The fact that we lost 220,000 jobs a year ago and didn't lose another 220,000 more this month is not much consolation to the vast pool of unemployed.

[Powdered Toast Man]

38. So... The Good truly is the enemy of the Perfect. n/t

[TomClash]

50. Creating 18,000 jobs in a month is not good

It's treading water and that's being generous.

[Powdered Toast Man]

66. I never said it was good.

I just said it wasn't as bad as last year. Yeah... I know... That doesn't sound encouraging. Saying things could be a lot worse... sucks. But, all things considered, the economy could be a lot worse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Let me make sure I understand this.

The difference between the new jobs this month and the new jobs in the same month last year, ignoring everything that happened in the eleven months in between, is a good measure of job creation?

Just so you know, June last year is when all the census folks had to find new jobs.

[MrTriumph]

42. And the administration says China is not a currency manipulator (!).

x

[DrDan]

43. oh brother - the jobs number is comparing last month to the prior month

not a year ago.

[Powdered Toast Man]

44. Sure... if you can only think monthly.

Click the link. Look at the trend. You'll see a SHARP drop last summer too. The difference is that this year we are creating jobs where last year we were bloodletting them.

[Powdered Toast Man]

45. And this is a problem that can be fixed in a month.

So you can't say that it's only the month to month that matters. It doesn't work that way.

[DrDan]

48. but a monthly number is just that - a comparison from last month to the previous month

you can't just change the rules as to how this is calculated

[Powdered Toast Man]

57. I didn't change anything.

And obviously, I meant to say this "isn't" a problem you can fix in a month.

If you want to look at a snapshot go right ahead. I prefer to look at the overall picture. This is a process. It takes time. You cannot disregard the trend. This isn't some random stock you can just sell off. You're stuck with it, so trends matter.

[DrDan]

67. of course it takes time - but why not pick June 2 years ago? makes as much sense

If you want to measure monthly growth - look how many jobs were added in a month. That would mean how many were at the beginning of the month, and how many at the end. That is monthly growth. I did not establish this measure, but it is one recognized as a measure of the economy. So calculating it must be consistent - not just a way to make the numbers look positive.

[Powdered Toast Man]

74. June 09 we lost 500,000 jobs

It's in the link I provided.

[DrDan]

77. then lets make the real job number 520K - sounds even better

[former9thward]

46. You win the spin award for today. There is a job at the WH for you.

[Powdered Toast Man]

47. You can't argue the numbers.

Look at the chart. Look at the trend. There's no spin. The FACT is that last year we lost almost 200K jobs in june and this year we added 18K.

That's not spin. That's just what happened.

If you look at last year's patter to this year's... they are very similar. There was a sharp drop last summer too. The difference is that this year we are still creating jobs rather than losing them.

[former9thward]

52. I guess the unemployment number is just made up then.

It is going up. Maybe you want to go back to the 1930s and compare those numbers with today's. Then you can spin that today's numbers are really great compared to those!

[Powdered Toast Man]

53. It went up last year too...

More people enter the job market in the summer... kids on summer vacation. I didn't spin the numbers. I just read all of them. Perhaps you could do the same.

[former9thward]

75. You said "look at the trend". The trend is up for unemployment.

You are picking and choosing where you look at numbers. That is called spinning. BTW the Labor Department adjusts for teenagers coming into the labor pool in the summer so that does not affect the overall number at all. The fact is that 200,000 or so jobs need to be created every month just to break even because of the growth in the labor force. 18,000 just won't do it no matter what you compare it too. Even Obama knows that.

[Powdered Toast Man]

78. That's because people who had given up looking are re-entering the market.

It's also because school is out now and a lot more kids are looking for summer jobs, which is party why their unemployment numbers are so high; that and because adults are forced to take jobs that teens normally would.

[former9thward]

81. No you are wrong.

Your posts show how little you know about unemployment numbers. Every year the Labor Department adjusts for students coming into the labor pool looking for summer employment. Those numbers do not change the overall unemployment number one bit.

[MadHound]

49. Well, if you're wanting to get into the technacalities of the matter

Then don't forget to take into consideration that the economy needs to create 125,000-150,000 jobs each and every month to keep up with the growth in our labor force.

Oh, and while you're at it, go to the BLS stat page and check out the better measure of unemployment in this country, the U6 number.

I'll let you do the rest of the dismal math from there.

Nice attempt to spin these numbers, but a failure nonetheless.

[Powdered Toast Man]

54. I didn't spin anything.

And I didn't say we created enough jobs.

I simply stated a fact.

We had a net turnaround of 220K jobs from a year ago.

That's not spin. That's not some funny math.

When you go from losing 200K jobs to gaining 18K jobs... It's pretty simple math.

[MadHound]

61. But again, we did not gain 18,000 jobs

Over the past year, as I said earlier, we needed to create approximately 15 million jobs to keep up with the growth in the labor force. We came nowhere near that number, which means that there is a net job loss, as is reflected in both the U3 and U6 numbers.

That's reality. Deal with it.

[Imajika]

51. That's a nice try at damage control...

In fact that is exactly what the Obama team will probably say. It's what any administration would say in the face of such grim numbers.

But no, there is no sugarcoating this pig of a report.

These job numbers are atrocious. Technically we are in a mild recovery by most standards, but the economy just can't seem to add jobs. Very often a deep recession is followed by a sharp period of growth and jobs - a V shaped recovery. What we seem to have experienced is a deep recession followed by only the most mild of recoveries, one largely devoid of new hiring.

The reason this news is so bad for the President is because "it could have been worse" won't cut it as a campaign message. By this time next year this economy better be creating 200,000+ jobs a month (which is still not that great considering what we need to really put people back to work) or some batshit crazy right wing Republican could seriously have a shot at winning in November 2012.

There is absolutely no way to make this report look like progress. It is bad no matter how you look at it.

[Powdered Toast Man]

55. We didn't lose jobs.

A year ago we lost 200K jobs.

With everything the republicans have thrown at this country to fuck it up even worse, we still didn't lose jobs.

It's a fact. We didn't lose jobs. Despite everything they've done this country is still creating jobs. Not enough albeit, but we are still creating jobs.

That is progress. No matter how you look at it.

[Broderick]

62. you can't put lipstick on a pig

These job numbers are atrocious at best.

[Powdered Toast Man]

91. No! that's not how it goes.

You can put a lipstick on a pig, but you can't make her vice president.

[Broderick]

92. hehe

I hear ya!

[xphile]

68. Odd because the jobs numbers are done month to month so saying that

we've actually had an increase of 220,000 jobs would be misleading to put the very best spin on such abuse of numbers.

[Powdered Toast Man]

72. Amazing.

I didn't write that. If that's what you took from it, then that's on your poor comprehension skills.

I'm done.

I prefer to keep a positive outlook. It's obvious DU is no longer a place for that.

[xphile]

93. It's not about poor comprehension skills. The numbers are month to month. You using year to year

is disingenuous to say the least.

There's keeping a positive outlook and then there's sticking your head in the sand. You seem to be doing the latter rather than the former.

And there's not a damn thing positive about the tone of your posts.

While some can say the same about mine, I don't claim to be Ms. Positive outlook.

[Brickbat]

80. Losing a dollar and finding a quarter is not a "net turnaround" of $1.25.

Jayzus H.

[Powdered Toast Man]

85. Sure it is... technically. n/t

[Brickbat]

87. How about you walk me through that, then.

"Technically."

[Powdered Toast Man]

90. Not that it matters....

But your analogy doesn't quite fit the scenario. More accurately you "had" a dollar, lost it, and then found $1.25. Or for an even "rosier" scenario, you had $500 dollars, lost it all, and then some... and then got $501.25

However none of that matters at this point as I have already conceded I was mistaken due to my consideration of the Census jobs that were created in May last year... which accounts for the spike in job creation then, as well as the loss in June.

It's all good.