Friday’s ‘official’ jobs figures from the Federal government state that the U.S. unemployment rate held steady at 9.5% in the month of July. However, American had a net job loss of some 131,000 jobs in July. And that is just an estimate! The program used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) ‘assumes’ that a certain number of jobs are created each month by small businesses which cannot be easily accounted for.
On Thursday, we got the bad news that initial jobless claims for the previous week ending on July 29th, 2010, was 479,000, up 19,000 from the previous week and far more that what ‘economists expected’. We also learned last week that there were sharp increases in the long-term unemployment numbers, especially in those out of work for six months or longer, as well as some 1.4 million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits.
When we read the BLS report in more detail, the picture gets even bleaker. While some sectors gained jobs, claiming an increase in private sectors jobs of 71,000, much of this is due to the auto industry not having their annual seasonal lay-offs for model-change-over. This accounts for approximately 21,000 jobs.
Moreover, I really love how the BLS defines ‘employment changed little’ as it tells of how professional businesses services LOST 13,000 jobs, Financial services LOST 17,000 jobs and the all-important construction sector LOST 11,000 jobs. Even government lost 202,000 jobs, blaming 143,000 of those on the temporary Census workers. At the bottom of the report comes another news flash, a revised job loss for June of 221,000 jobs, up from the previously reported loss of 125,000 jobs.
But the real ‘meat & potatoes’ is on another BLS webpage. Here we see what is really going on. That the percentage of the U.S. population that is employed has declined from 58.5% in June to 58.4% in July. In July, 2009, the percentage of employed Americans was 59.3%. Yet, the unemployed rate remains at 9.5%. Why?
The BLS estimates that fewer Americans are unemployed because fewer Americans ‘want a job’. Huh? This is where we get into the fuzzy math of Obama’s voodoo economics. According to the BLS, the number of civilians in the labor force dropped in July from 153.741 million to 153.560 million. At the same time, the number of ‘non-institutional’ civilians INCREASED from 237.690 million to 237.890 million.
The answer to this bizarre statistical trend from the BLS is that fewer Americans want to work. The number of Americans who don’t want a job declined from a ‘seasonally adjusted’ number of 5.895 million in June to 5.886 million in July. The non-adjusted numbers for those two months were 6.143 million in June and 5.978 million in July.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I find it very hard to believe that fewer Americans want a job this month than last month. Especially given the fact that our population is growing and the percentage of employed Americans is declining. True, some people just have plain given up, so discouraged and depressed that they stopped looking. Perhaps some have decided that since Obama has extended their unemployment benefits, and it’s the middle of summer, to just relax and catch some rays or maybe, fish.
But I suspect that the real reason the unemployment rate remains unchanged, let alone at the level of 9.5%, is purely political. The U-6 number, which takes into account a broader definition of unemployed, stands at 16.8%. But with elections coming up in less than 90 days, Obama and the Democrats want the official unemployment rate to be in the single digits. So despite every rational calculation that the actual unemployment rate, the U-3, is probably closer to 10.5% if not higher. Largely due to other data that shows small business, which usually accounts for most job creation, is not expanding or growing at all.











August 8th, 2010 at 7:48 am
There was some talk on cnbc last week that unempoyement could rise to 10% in 2011 cementing the view that this is a jobless recovery, however in Barrons temp agencies are now reporting brisk temp hiring that should translate into full time job creation in the not too distant future. Ultimately we need manufacturing jobs, not more government or service sector jobs if we want to create wealth and real growth in the economy. We as a nation will have to make things again. In the meantime the stimulus focus will be on subsistance make work jobs as a kind of enhanced unemployment. Corporate america is sitting on a mountain of cash but a molehill of ideas to invest or deploy it. so inertia reigns.
August 8th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Andy, nice piece, as always. I have a question for you that is a little analogous to brian’s.
I’ve long thought that an important indicator for investing decisions is the amount of hours people work per week. My rationale is that when employers are working their way out of a downturn, they first ask people to work overtime, then they hire temps, then they pick up additional workers. That’s why unemployment rate is a lagging indicator.
Do you think that this is accurate?
August 8th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Brian;
“Corporate america is sitting on a mountain of cash but a molehill of ideas to invest or deploy it. so inertia reigns.”
Aww bullsht Brian…as usual.
No one wants to free up any cash because they’re afraid of the impending taxational mugging coming up. If you were a small business grossing 251 frand a year and you thought the Bush cuts were going to expire and healthcare costs were going to rise you’d probably sit on your little stash and wait to see what happens also. Theres planty of ideas for investment floating around but the banks, even with record low rates are still skiddish and so are those with private revenues.
I’ll bet the private sectors got a hell of a lot more better investment ideas than Obama… thats for damn sure
August 8th, 2010 at 10:32 am
the bush taxcuts don’t help small business, just people who own stocks and a couple of percent lower general income taxes for people who are in the top tax brackets? Thats it. I have no idea what 251 frand a year is, but if you look at the indexing of tax brackets the bush tax cuts simple help those at the top end a little bit. we are still paying heavily for the bush programs and wars in so many ways. If they want a fair tax cut then lower the payroll tax rates on the people across the board, not just the high earners and holders of capital.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:19 am
brian.
Theres a huge concensus among the small business community (I own one) that I’m right and you’re wrong. Besides, history has already shown that Bushs tax incentives got us out of 911 at breakneck speed and the years to follow enjoyed consistent low unemployment. But God forbid the facts ever influence your yap
If I gross 250 grand a year that doesnt mean my personal take is that much. But, thats how I’ll be taxed. Even though I dish out 60% of my gross to pay 6 other people along with my overheads.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:31 am
@ Arriba & Brian
Companies having problems such as slow sales growth will refrain from hiring and do tend to ask their employees to work overtime. In fact, when you read the BLS report, they do indicate an 0.1 hour increase in the average work week.
But what we have here goes way beyond that. To quote Ben Bernanke, we have “unusual uncertainty”. All of this talk about merely extending the Bush tax cuts for one year, or 2 or 3, does not help matters. It just delays the inevitable.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Obama’s health insurance mandates are having a direct impact on small businesses and their hiring. Here again, the “unusual uncertainty” stems from the fact that we still do not know all of the regulatory ramifications the new law will impose upon us. Much the same as we will not know the full impact of Obama’s financial reform act, which some say regulators may take two years or more to finalize the details.
So, meanwhile, we have businesses that are stuck in the fog of the unknown. This is the problem whenever the government decides to unleash some major reform bill. These 2,500 page monsters will wind up adding 10,000 pages or more of new regulations, tax codes, and U.S. Federal laws. Who can plan for that?
August 8th, 2010 at 11:43 am
” Here again, the “unusual uncertainty” stems from the fact that we still do not know all of the regulatory ramifications the new law will impose upon us. ‘
Thats alright, Nancy said it’ll be alright, pass it, we’ll read it later.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:44 am
This is why Max Keiser, whom I interviewed a couple months ago, had the best idea for reforming Wall Street. You just tweak the margin rates on investors to end the crazy speculators and restore moral hazard to the system. We didn’t even need Congress to do anything, the existing regulators and Fed could have done that.
Much the same with health care, had we just gotten the states to agree to allow citizens to buy insurance from any other state, it would have had a direct impact on lowering costs. Meanwhile, the existing Medicare-Medicaid apparatus could have tweaked costs on what they pay for services to doctors.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:47 am
@ Micky
Did you see what Dennis Miller now calls Nancy Pelosi on Bill O’Reilly?
Grandma Goo-Goo!
August 8th, 2010 at 11:51 am
@ Micky
Yes Micky, small businesses, and I mean family companies that earn $25,000 to $50,000 a year, had HUGE benefits from the Bush tax cuts. These one-person enterprises people run from their kitchen tables and spare bedrooms are the real engine of prosperity.
The Moonbats keep forgetting that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. That whole Dot-Com bubble thing that Algore claims he invented.
August 8th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
@ Andy.
Yeah, I watched that segment. The spin “goo goo” was a play off Lady Ga Ga.
Too bad Ga Ga is a helluva a lot better businesss woman than Pelosi could ever be.
Looks better naked also…
I’m only assuming.
I just realized that I’ve never listened to any of Ga Gas songs in their entirety yet I’ve heard almost evey word utterd by Queen Moonbat.
I need some quiet time
August 8th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@ Micky
Yeah, I agree. Take two dark chocolate squares and call me in the morning.