The number of jobs increased an anemic 114,000 (with the numbers for both July and August revised upwards). The labor force participation rate barely ticked up, from 63.5 percent to 63.6. That’s still a dismal number. Long-term unemployment (over 27 weeks) edged up to 40.1 percent of the unemployed.
This year has seen an average job growth of 143,000 per month. In 2011 it was 153,000. But the number that will be in the headlines is 7.8 percent.
That’s the unemployment rate for September, down fully three-tenths of a percent from August and the first time it has been under 8 percent since Obama took office in January 2009, when it was 7.6 percent; 7.8 percent is also, presumably coincidentally, the unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984 (although the rate was falling fast that year), the highest unemployment rate at which a president was re-elected since FDR. It’s also the biggest monthly decline since January 2011, although economists (who had been predicting job growth of 118,000, pretty close to the actual number) had been predicting no change at all.
The White House is happy this morning.
Would someone please explain how 114,000 new jobs dropped the unemployment rate by .3% when it takes 125,000 new jobs to stay even.
It was a very odd the feeling I had yesterday: not Pollyannish, but certainly knocked out of my deep political despair. Well, at least for one day, I knew how some of my Commentary friends have felt with their optimism. Now back to the old doom and gloom scenario. Get used to it. It's crowing time for the Ds, their media allies, and a declining Romney campaign. What can Mitt do? Go into some statistical analysis about these numbers? Only one will stand out: 7.8!
there you go again………….for the umpteenth time! First of all, it is only a number and I truly doubt that numbers move the needle at all. Remember the last month? it was a bad number but it did not dent Obama's momentum after the conventions. I think the same will be here- if Romney is in the ascendant, this number will not change it- in the face of high gasd prices, ballooning deficits, anemic growth, low new job numbers., etc…..and, lastly, the public today-especially the independents- are much more sophisticated and look at numbers and statistics as they should be looking – with great cynicism. Imagine, just in time for the election runup- a drop in the unemployed ! what a coincidence !! (guffaw…)
I agree with nvkma: how the disconnect? Something is not quite right. Jack Welch agrees.
The 114000 number is from the establishment survey. The unemployment rate comes from the household survey which supposedly went up by 873,000. I think that number is wrong personally, just a statistical blip. We shall see in the November jobs report.
I'll get a lot of grief on this, but in needs to be said. These government statistical agencies are beyond reproach. In this case, the BLS is staffed with first-rate statisticians who do some very complicated, though not easily explained, analysis. If, as some conservatives are accusing them this morning, they cooked the numbers in order to benefit Obama, that would be one of the greatest scandals EVER in American government. Instead of ridiculously false accusations, we should be looking beyond the 7.8 number and try to explain the contradictions. That's the challenge for Romney and Ryan.
I don't think anyone is accusing the BLS of cooking the numbers. What I think frustrates many of us is that we know those numbers don't add up, and that we know the media would be happy to explain why they don't add up if President Republican were seeking re-election. Instead, I suspect we'll be told we've turned a corner, etc., which most of us don't think is true. n(Enter Pollyanna, stage right): By this point however, we've seen that people are able to figure out much of the truth. I suspect many voters will look past the 7.8% for the numbers Mr. Gordon highlights above. After months and months of bad jobs reports, Americans are more educated about what to look for in them, so I am not totally convinced that the Democrats will be able to spin this too much.
Well, Mike maybe so. Given how well Romney was able to focus crisply and convincingly upon Obama's disasters, I guess I should be a little less discouraged. Let's hope he's up to this new challenge.
I want to acknowledge that, contrary to what I said above, many people did in fact question the integrity of the numbers. That puts your comment in a different light. I should have done a little reading before posting… nI still think Romney can (and is) responding well to it. I hope it continues.
there you go again….for the umpteenth, umpteenth time ! the labor statisitcs statisticians "beyond reproach" ? You must be either a fool or a simpleton!
Michael, maybe I am a simpleton and a fool, but I'm also very hesitant to make accusations based upon rumor or emotion, particularly about a topic I know something about. My pessimism may deserve your impatience and frustration, but people who you don't know, and who represent institutions that have always had sterling reputations, do not deserve the accusations that you are so quick to throw at them. It doesn't help our cause or an understanding of the issues and how to rise to the present challenge: defeating Obama and the Democrats. By the way, I do not work for any government agency.
around- ok, I'll take my rude words back and repent- as this is the season of repentance but , in conjunction with many people(,even MSNBC!), I aks the same question: how can you add 114,000 jobs, a paltry number, and the employment percentage goes donw by THAT much? it just doesn't make any sense! this is the same doubt that has accompanied al lthose poll numbers- something doesn't add up, whether in the polls that showed Obama ahead by large numbers, or this job report that defies logic. You are at liberty to explain and answer this puzzle!
To be brief. There was a large number of people who started working, but as PART-TIMERS because they were unable to find full-time work(a fact noted in today's report). Along with the entire labor force decline over the Obama years(with a very slight uptick last month), this caused a decline in the percentage of unemployed. This is not good and something which Romney and others should point out which, after Wednesday's bravura's debate performance, I'm confident he will. They should cut an add emphasizing this. It's a good way to counter the decline to 7.8 which worried me this morning.
Obama 2012: We're back to where we started in terms of jobs