Skip to comments.'Disappointing' jobs report comes in below expectations -- again
Posted on 07/06/2012 9:35:38 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Is that anything like ‘unexpected’?
unexpected - now all drink!
Hang in there, Sane America!
November is our next best Hope for Change.
same piece out there also titled as.. US employers add 80,000 jobs as economy struggles
bbc news has it - US unemployment rate unchanged
US jobs data triggers share price slip
US shares have fallen after official data showed firms had created only 80,000 new jobs in June, leaving the jobless rate unchanged at 8.2%.
Job creation remains below the 100,000 judged necessary by the Federal Reserve for a stable job market, according to the US Labor Department.
Shares slipped after the news, with the opening Dow Jones index falling 1%.
President Barack Obama said the rise in employment was “a step in the right direction”.
Campaigning in the swing state of Ohio on Friday, President Obama acknowledged that “it’s still tough out there” for ordinary Americans.
Amen to that!
'STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION' ?
he drinks like a EUroweinie.
Bush = expected. 5% = worst economy since dinosuars.
Obama = unexpected. Give him more time can’tcha?
I read an interesting article yesterday that explained why the Obama administration has been able to issue hyped up job reports every month this year, only to lower the numbers just before the next jobs report is due out.
In the first six months of the year, the labor dept issues a guesstimate of how many jobs are created by new companies and start ups that are not yet on the labor dept books. This method of reporting allows the government to look good , but the numbers must be made more realistic before the following report to prevent the numbers from becoming too out of whack, creating a negative job report for July, when only the real numbers can be reported.
Obama knows this and there were warnings all over the net, yesterday, not to expect too much of the June figures for this reason.
It is amazing that 100,000 new jobs are needed for a stable job market, but 80,000 jobs results in the unemployment rate remaining unchanged.
What surprises me is that this is unexpected. I expected it. With the country in charge of the socialists, what else could anyone expect?
What a pussy, fagot, girly man.
The number that’s missing relates to how many people left the workforce - those no longer looking for jobs. It’s in the millions since Obama was elected.
What’s the revision on the last report?
I agree. While U3 remained unchanged, interestingly U6 went up. IOW, the only reason it went unchanged is because some job seekers settled for part time jobs that don't begin to satisfy their needs, and some just stopped looking for jobs.
If Obama could discourage the entire group of unemployed so badly by November that they stopped looking altogether, then he could drop the unemployment rate to 0%. Even if ZERO jobs were created.
The news media is running out of (even distant) synonyms.
Guess that”magic negro” isn’t quite so magic!!
Sluggish job growth isn’t caused by gridlock in the current congress. It’s caused by the insane hyper-activism of the previous congress lead by Pelosi & Reid. Sluggish job growth is the result of the Obamacare law, crazy regulatory policy like CO2 regulation, and even crazier attempted regulatory policy such as the insane Waxman/Markey Cap & Trade bill. Obamacare and the administration’s irrational, loony regulatory policies (often based on junk science) have seriously damaged the confidence of business people and caused them to reduce hiring and expansion plans.
Help me out here, maybe I am just really dense. If the average new unemployment claims are 380K and the new jobs is 80K, isn’t that a net loss of 300K jobs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.