U.S. Unemployment Drops to 32-Month Low

Employers added 120,000 jobs in the U.S. in November, pushing the unemployment rate to 8.6%—the lowest since March 2009—from 9% in October, the Dept. of Labor reports. But it says that about half the improvement in the jobless rate came from discouraged workers giving up their search for work.

Private companies hired 140,000 workers last month. The increase was partially offset by drop in government employment. The Labor Dept. also revised upward its estimates for job gains in September and October to include an additional 72,000 people hired.
______________________________

Of note:

PRIVATE companies hired 140K. That's great news. No "jobs bill" needed. No "pet projects", no changes to the tax code, just ebb and flow. Meanwhile, the government is laying people off. But I thought this Administration was trying to KEEP jobs?

All jabs aside, this is good news. I'm sure, somehow, BHO will take all the credit for it... but it's good news for the US nonetheless.

The jobs bill and the growing of the Federal Government is not meant to boost the economy or to bring this country out of its economic mess, but it is predicated to Control more of the resources and economy to fashion it in their own image. Why not get the F out of the way and stop sucking up resources so that the good people of the United States can pull up their boot straps to get to work inventing things and starting new/reinventing/growing their businesses.

AZhitman wrote:Employers added 120,000 jobs in the U.S. in November, pushing the unemployment rate to 8.6%—the lowest since March 2009—from 9% in October, the Dept. of Labor reports. But it says that about half the improvement in the jobless rate came from discouraged workers giving up their search for work.

Maybe my problem is that it is Monday morning and my coffee hasn't kicked in, but what? So the unemployment rate is a measure of people actively collecting unemployment, rather than an estimate of people who are actually "unemployed"? (Note: I pretty much knew that) And that rate dropped because some people gave up actively searching for employment (and not searching removes your ability to collect unemployment)? So that would mean that we now have more people NOT collecting unemployment and NOT searching for a job? This would be good how?

Please someone get the man his coffee, for the love of humanity!
j.k.

AppleBonker wrote:So the unemployment rate is a measure of people actively collecting unemployment, rather than an estimate of people who are actually "unemployed"? (Note: I pretty much knew that)

No sir.

the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Dude, numbers have been skewed since the beginning of time, both ways. Unemployement numbers also count people who dont WANT a job. People living off savings who dont have an income. These people are also considered to be in poverty, because of their lack of income, Rolz and mansion be damned, no income and your impoverish. Add that to the lag in reporting, and no one ever really knows what the hell is going on.

Actually, Stebo, if I recall, we only went away from the U6 measurement (what the rest of the world uses) under Clinton. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

More on U6:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemp ... ate_u6.jsp

Some nifty graphs on that page; I especially like the month-by-month numbers below the timeline.

Looking at the U6 numbers on that link, you can see that, yes, we haven't had unemployment numbers this low since March of 2009. On the other hand, we had unemployment numbers almost this low in March of 2011, before they jumped back up over the summer.

Though the summer jump might have something to do with the way U6 is measured and how it relates to part-time summer workers.

My point is, it's more a regional crisis than a widespread one. Lots of pockets of 25% unemployment, surrounded by large metropolitan areas with 7% unemployment.

Guess which group is more interested in hearing about "what Government can do for me"?

Don't you think this is kinda tokenistic?

These numbers include seasonal retail workers, employed part-time as "new jobs". They will be laid off or will quit to go back to school in January. Those same people are most likely working part-time and with a wage that cannot be considered a living wage.

We are a long way from the 5% unemployment that we should be at. Using this as evidence that we don't need to put a focus on any feasible method for stimulating job creation is misguided, IMHO.

Almost as misguided as the current Administration touting Census workers as "positive strides in jobs creation".

I absolutely don't think we need to *ignore* opportunities to stimulate job creation. I just think government fails miserably at it. How about incentives to hire workers? How about alleviating some of the artificial constraints through deregulation? How about easing up on (*gasp*) taxation? How about making it a little harder to outsource (by making it more attractive for local businesses to supply things we need)? How about telling the tiny minority of enviro-whackos in Nebraska to piss up a rope so that we can build a pipeline from Canada to Texas and refine some oil? How about (*gasp*) calling a spade a spade and letting people who WANT to work have some of the jobs they're currently locked out of because they won't play ball with a union? How about letting entrepreneurs import some specialty cars from overseas?

There's a TON of opportunities to build businesses.

It's a lot easier to let water flow downhill if you remove the dam. Trying to push the water OVER the dam is dumb. Remove the barriers to productivity and watch us recover.

Leave people alone. We're resilient. We're creative. We will FIND a way if people will just leave us the heck alone.

So support the extension and expansion of the payroll tax cut. The current GOP line in the sand regarding taxation on those making over $1MM a year is a load of hooey. Those people aren't "job creators". They aren't even entrepreneurs. They, for the most part, don't even own companies. They work for companies. They are lawyers, surgeons, corporate executives, stock brokers, real estate agents, and financial services managers. Any business owner worth his salt would just cap his own pay at $999,999 and put the rest in a tax shelter for his retirement or reinvest it back into the company. The facts just aren't there (and never were) to support the notion that increasing personal income tax kills jobs in any way pertinent to management of the national economy.

And if they are implying we should build a pipeline right through the center of our country without spending time assessing the pros and cons of that, especially since a STATE is begging to have it scrutinized and/or blocked then that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. I'd think conservatives, of all people would appreciate that, considering it's their position on just about everything else. Short-term versus long-term.

Deregulate industries? I can only speak from personal experience, but I've spent my entire career working in regulated environments, and I can tell you for certain that those regulations and their impacts on companies are deliberately demonized by the companies I've worked for, who, without regulation, would be free to get away with everything they could get away with. We're talking contaminated food, IV drugs with toxic metals in them, toys covered in lead paint, dumping toxic waste in public water supplies. These examples I'm citing aren't some media hype -- they are things I have personally witnessed. And I know that other companies would (and do) follow suit. And, with enough money, things get hushed up. Lawsuits are settled before word spreads. Consumers never get the full story so never choose to spend their money with a different company. And even if they do, all the corporations do the same thing and cut the same corners so there are no businesses left to buy from. It's what happens when a company is an entity bound by law to create profits for its shareholders by any legal means necessary. If you take away the law, it's just by any means necessary.

Yes, I'm a free market guy. But regulations help keep the market free by ensuring that all companies compete on even footing and a fully-burdened cost (including economic impact) is assessed. You think Massey Energy had to pay extra in taxes when West Virginia had to rebuild their highways to accomodate the additional weight of the coal transport trucks? Nope. That was felt by the taxpayers of the state. So would you, as a taxpayer, like to pay your money so a corporation can distribute its goods in a manner that reduces its costs and increases its profits (while that company pays little to no taxes itself)? Unless you are an executive, you are unlikely to own enough common shares of its stock for the dividends paid to come anywhere near the amount you're paying in taxes to support the infrastructure.

Sorry for the regulation rant. Just on my radar today due to some things that are happening at work. I work for a pharmaceutical company, by the way. You wanna know some things that will scare the pants off you? Work for a pharmaceutical company....

I do support the effort to improve our national infrastructure. It's something we need to do. The personal animosity shown by people against our current President shocks me a little, considering what he's doing that's so "wrong" is just the same thing that any President has done and will do. I don't like it either (especially considering I voted for him), but just because you don't like the man doesn't mean the cause isn't worth supporting.

sorry, I get carried away

All good - I think it got a little off-base, and many of those oppositions are the extremes of the continuum (especially dereg of the pharm industry)...

The pipeline thing isn't some off-the-cuff project - It was already approved by the Administration, which then backed off in light of a very small, very loud group of people who were concerned about it impacting their drinking water supply (which we already have a regulatory watchdog for). No, the state isn't opposing it (it would bring jobs to a region that desperately needs them), and no, it has been researched and in the works for years.

I'm all for a complete rehash of our infrastructure - great idea, and I'd gladly accept a tax increase to help pay for it.

BTW, I'm not a conservative. I'm a Libertarian with a strong social-liberal streak and a mean case of fiscal conservatism.

I wasn't deliberately trying to call you a conservative (sorry if it came out that way), but your commentary is very much like what mainstream conservatives are saying. I also am a fiscal conservative with strong liberal social views (although I think I might be about 3 ticks to the left of you in both categories).

I always appreciate the level-headed way you talk through these issues.

Unfortunately, as I get older, I find myself less and less passionate about "The Issues" and more in touch with "choosing my battles" (i.e., the things I can control and the things that directly affect me and my family).

I just hope to never get to the point where I'm:

- Apathetic to the point that I just accept whatever happens as inevitable
- Uninformed, party-loyal, and "ranty" like so many older Americans (on both sides of the aisle)

On a side note (and I think I may have mentioned this before), I didn't vote for BHO - The last election was the first Presidential election I DIDN'T vote in (because I couldn't bring myself to support EITHER candidate, and voting for a 3rd-party candidate was less important than whatever else I had to accomplish that day - I believe i was traveling to Vegas for a conference).

AZhitman wrote:On a side note (and I think I may have mentioned this before), I didn't vote for BHO - The last election was the first Presidential election I DIDN'T vote in (because I couldn't bring myself to support EITHER candidate, and voting for a 3rd-party candidate was less important than whatever else I had to accomplish that day - I believe i was traveling to Vegas for a conference).

LOL -- somehow I gathered that you didn't vote for BHO, Greg.

That's the way I felt in the 1996 election. Didn't want Clinton and didn't want Dole, but unlike 1992 I didn't want to vote for Perot either.

I did vote for Obama (though I'm not a member of any political party), and I still do think the guy gets a bad rap overall and is subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny because he ran a campaign of idealistic messaging and so visibly overpromised in the heat of the moment. I also think that the blind galvanization of the GOP against him has really hurt this country and I'll not forgive the GOP for that. But I'm not happy with Obama either, especially his foreign policy, his inability to lead his party, and now with this questionable proposal to fund the payroll tax rollback by dipping into the Social Security fund. He tries to make everybody happy and ends up making no one happy. Carter had the same flaw.

The sad truth is, and place the blame where you will, but our nation has become extremist. And the thing that scares the color out of my beard is that it's not extremism based on ideology but is instead simply a general addiction to extremism in every aspect of our daily lives. Because of that, we are becoming increasingly succeptible to propaganda (commercial, political, and social). And because so many are so easily influenced and take such extreme positions, anyone who argues with that position is branded an enemy. Meanwhile any actual, unbiased fact contained in the counterpoints is immediately dismissed, demonized, and lumped into the "because righteousness" category.

We need to get away from the notion of "American Exceptionalism". We simply aren't exceptional any more in any way other than our arrogance. We trail other nations in education, in support of the arts, in criminal justice, in scientific achievement, in economics, in human rights, in basic freedoms, in population health, in economic growth, and in governmental effectiveness. What we need is a national vision, to bring us together against the forces which would prevent us from reaching that vision, rather than setting us off one against another. I thought BHO was going to be able to give us that. He hasn't. And that's why I'm not satisfied with him.

Perfectly-said, and I agree 99.9%. I still think we're "exceptional" - or rather, have the capacity to be exceptional (if only because of our Constitution).

Trying to please everyone is a sad, sad mistake. You gotta break a few eggs. I'm waiting for that candidate.

I thought 9-11 would bring us to the point of which you speak. It did - for a month.

Hopefully, I (we) can use what little influence we have to inspire the few that read what we write to go out and be more.

^THIS.

I want us to be exceptional, don't get me wrong. But exceptionalism for exceptionalism's sake is extremism. Making a goal and then exceeding that goal is what creates exceptionalism.

I too, thought 9/11 would be that force which united us. And yes it did for a short time. I was out in the square at Daley Plaza, singing the national anthem and God Bless America right along with everyone else. But in hindsight, I'd rather our national goal to be motivated by positivity rather than fear.

Yep.

Unfortunately, it seems people are more interested in who the Kardashians are blowing than they are in creating something impressive.

I'll be over here in the corner, not watching TV, not buying designer clothes, and not giving a damn about other peoples' drama. Building a community... with a lot of help from awesome people.

And dat's why you da man. Much love, brother.

AZhitman wrote:Trying to please everyone is a sad, sad mistake. You gotta break a few eggs. I'm waiting for that candidate.

Such candidates have come up in the past, but people seem to want promises and rhetoric instead of a good dose of reality.

Most notably, Sen John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992.

BTW, President Gerald Ford had this to say of Sen Anderson: "He's the smartest guy in Congress, but he insists on voting his conscience instead of party."

Thus, a good person in my book!

Z

I voted for Perot in '92.

Just sayin'.

Encryptshun wrote:I voted for Perot in '92.

Just sayin'.

I did the same - although I don't remember if it was 1992 or 1996 that I voted for him.

I couldn't vote for Sen. John Anderson in 1980 even though I really wanted to after I saw him in the first debate ... I wasn't eligible (I did not become a citizen till later).

Z

In November, 1992, I was seven-years-old.

Get off my lawn, Isaac, or so help me I'll throw my toast and boiled peas at you.

You'll only clutter up your front steps, old man. You know you can't reach me with that arm anymore.

That's why I have this:

I want one.

It's for throwing a ball. Not for what you think.

...pervert.

Don't lie. You want one, too.