Friday, June 1, 2012

Unemployment Goes Up -- "Suggesting the Economic Recovery Was Faltering" -- With Comments -- Labor Secretary: "Totally Supportive of Increasing Jobs" -- CNBC: Stunning

Remember: the magic number is 200,000
Labor Secretary, direct quote: "I am totally in favor of increasing jobs."

April jobs: up 69,000
Job growth in May was the weakest in a year and employers added far fewer jobs in the prior two months than previously reported, suggesting the economic recovery was faltering.
Employers created a paltry 69,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, the fewest since May last year. Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to increase 150,000.
In addition, employers added 49,000 fewer jobs than previously estimated in March and April. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent as people flocked into the labor market.
Let's see: how many months now have we seen this phrase: ".... suggesting the economic recovery was faltering..."? I think I've seen that phrase used monthly for the past year.

Another phrase: "... revised downward ..."

What other adjectives or phrases that caught my eye in today's report? paltry, faltering, fewest, expected, unemployment rate rose...

But again, look at the real story: analysts had expected nonfarm payrolls to increase by 150,000 -- instead, less than 70,000. And it could be revised downward next month.

This is spring. Hiring should be increasing for all those shovel-ready jobs.

The only good news: the unemployment rate was predicted to rise by some a few months ago when analysts expected "people flocking back into the labor market."

Two dots to connect:
CNBC: "the numbers were less than expected." Wow, that was an understatement.

A third dot to connect: local and state governments shedding jobs. This was predicted. Much of the stimulus money simply allowed states to delay downsizing.  Now that the stimulus money has run out, state governments are shedding jobs. 

A talking head on CNBC: "in 2008, the market lost 38%, but if folks stayed in the market, they "earned back" 90% of their money."  So, in other words, if you stayed invested since 2008, you still haven't gotten back to even; at least that's what I thought I heard him say. It's been four years. Hope and change.

Oh, one last thought. What's the biggest problem with this phrase, "... suggesting the economic recovery was faltering." The phrase suggests there was an economic recovery underway.

CNBC, 9:00 a.m.: a "stunner" of a jobs report. "There was practically nothing positive in this report." "Not one good thing in this report." "Stunning construction numbers." "Massive government layoffs." "Stunning."

The administration's spin on this at 9:30 a.m. on CNBC: this is similar to May in all the past years. Wow! Am I missing something? "We" all share responsibility; most of the blame on Congress; need more cooperation "from the other side of the aisle"; emphasized green energy jobs and training at the beginning, until Jim Cramer asked about fossil fuels; her immediate reply --- "totally supportive of increasing jobs" -- never once mentioned the phrase "fossil fuels" -- went back to "renewable energy."  Her first reaction when she heard the news: "silence." She says we were here last year, so she's not worried. She says the US will be able to keep adding jobs. She is very, very optimistic that the US will keep adding jobs, but needs more cooperation from other side of aisle. I guess the buck does not stop in the Oval Office for this administration. Jim Cramer told her straight out that "renewable energy" was a job destroyer. She did not have chance to reply. But the administration is clearly stuck on "renewable energy" as source for job creation. [Quote attributed to Albert Einstein: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.] What I found most remarkable: the labor secretary was absolutely unable to say "oil" or "coal."

Her comment that she was "totally supportive of increasing jobs" was not taken out of context. That was her answer when asked about the energy revolution going on in Texas, North Dakota, and Kansas (I believe those states were listed in that order in the question).

**************

CNBC's leading economic analyst, after having some time to digest the numbers: it could not have been a more depressing analysis. The real rate of unemployment jumped to 14.4% after several months of dropping. See first comment below, also, which was posted before CNBC reported the real rate of unemployment.

Political impact, John Harwood (and we know his leanings): There is no sugar coating this. This is a real bad number for the Obama White House... grim news for them (Obama White House)....very worrisome for the White House. Grim numbers even worse among minority voters, especially Hispanic voters.

From the NYTimes:
The payroll growth, which came in at less than half of what analysts had expected and was the lowest number of net jobs created in a year, was potentially devastating for President Obama as he faces re-election.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.