US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Unemployment Rate Rose to 7.9% in November

[stevo]

Notice how this report didn't come out earlier. Expect a bunch of revisions for the prior months soon.

Boise, Idaho (PRWEB) November 06, 2012
According to the recent release by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate increased to 7.9% in November 2012 as compared to 7.8% in September 2012. The report was met with waves of frustration from the US working class. One group of people highly affected by the rising unemployment is that of fresh graduates who struggle to find jobs in order to pay back student loans and other expenses. With the economy in a stagnant condition, more and more people are turning towards online jobs, such as making money blogging, as a reliable source of income.

Stevo

[AdamLX]

Notice how this report didn't come out earlier. Expect a bunch of revisions for the prior months soon.



Stevo

It came out last week, but the spin on it was unprecedented.

The good news in the rising jobless rate

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney November 2, 2012: 12:44 PM ET
5 Email Print

The unemployment rate rose partly because job seekers are becoming more optimistic about the labor market.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Sometimes, an increase in the unemployment rate is good news for the economy. October was one of those months.

The rise, to 7.9% from 7.8% in September, was due to more people entering the job market. Many of those who had stopped searching for work were encouraged enough by the economy to start looking once again.

In determining the unemployment rate, the Labor Department surveys households to see how many people are in the labor force -- either on the job or looking for work. October's survey showed 578,000 more people than in September. About 170,000 of those have yet to find work, thus the slight uptick in the jobless rate.

"If the unemployment rate is going to rise, this is the way we want it to happen," said Heidi Shierholz, labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.

Only once during the last five years -- in May 2012 -- have so many people returned to the labor force at one time. In September, an additional 418,000 people returned, marking two months of strong growth.


"The data is volatile, but two months like this suggests we might be starting to see people be more confident in the job market," said Shierholz.

Related: It's not just a low-wage recovery

There are other signs of growing confidence in the labor market. Consumer confidence reached a four-year high in Thursday's reading, largely due to improvements in how people viewed the condition of the job market.

"The high level of consumer confidence indicates that voters are feeling better about the economy and its prospects," said Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at Cal State University Channel Islands.

The rise in unemployment comes even as more of the working-age population found jobs -- an increase of 410,000, according to the Labor Department's household survey.


The other reading in the October jobs report found an increase of just 171,000 people added to payrolls, according to a survey of businesses that determines how many workers they have. But people who have gone into business for themselves, those who work for start-ups, or those who are contract employees can show up in the household survey's employment calculation before they show up in an employer's survey.

[Snatch Napkin]

The rise, to 7.9% from 7.8% in September, was due to more people entering the job market. Many of those who had stopped searching for work were encouraged enough by the economy to start looking once again.

That has got to be the most retarded explanation ever. If they were jobless when they started looking for work then they were jobless beforehand. They were already counted as unemployed.

[Sean88gt]

Enjoy it, this will be the lowest it is for the next 5 years.

[mikec]

Mother of God. How anyone could read that as a positive is beyond...

Oh wait, forgot about democrats.

Carry on.

[Baron Von Crowder]

That has got to be the most retarded explanation ever. If they were jobless when they started looking for work then they were jobless beforehand. They were already counted as unemployed.

We dont count them if they arent looking for a job, this number is the people that dont have one but are looking for one. If they are sitting at home waiting for the mal to run, we dont count them.

[Snatch Napkin]

We dont count them if they arent looking for a job, this number is the people that dont have one but are looking for one. If they are sitting at home waiting for the mal to run, we dont count them.

No shit? Then the problem is much, much worse than I thought. I knew it was a problem, but that's fucking ridiculous.

[Forever_frost]

Let's get that number up to around 15%. We can do it, YES WE CAN! Let's move that number FORWARD

[8mpg]

sorry...but that number was out on Nov 2 or 3. There is another unemployment thread where I posted it.

Just wait as seasonal jobs lay off in January and more dolts come off 99 weeks unemployment

[Broncojohnny]

They just lied about labor force participation rate. In those numbers it is the lowest it has been since the 1980s.

The number will creep back up over 8% over the next few months and will probably go higher. Boeing announced layoffs today and other companies won't be far behind given the environment we are in. A lot of places were waiting to see the outcome of the election in order to make decisions. With Obama still in office no one is going to deploy capital. The media will blame it on "the fiscal cliff" just like they blamed today's stock market sell off it. After the end of the year they will find something else to blame it on to keep the lie going. These people are ridiculous.

True story, fewer people have jobs right now than when Obama was elected. That is with four years of population growth thrown into the mix. Yet he supposedly has "created jobs" and has "got the economy going". lol

[Slowhand]

They just lied about labor force participation rate. In those numbers it is the lowest it has been since the 1980s.

The number will creep back up over 8% over the next few months and will probably go higher. Boeing announced layoffs today and other companies won't be far behind given the environment we are in. A lot of places were waiting to see the outcome of the election in order to make decisions. With Obama still in office no one is going to deploy capital. The media will blame it on "the fiscal cliff" just like they blamed today's stock market sell off it. After the end of the year they will find something else to blame it on to keep the lie going. These people are ridiculous.

Firms are plenty worried about the fiscal cliff. Having spent two weeks in NYC/DC in October discussing this very topic, every national practice leader in the Big 4 accounting firms and each of the 3 Fortune 500 CFOs I heard from cited it as the major issue facing their long term decision making.

They all seemed blissfully indifferent as to who won the election. They just want consistency, whichever way it falls, and think the divided Congresses is a much bigger issue than either dolt who was running for the position of Chief Dolt.

Rest assured that (large) firms are pants wettingly concerned about the fiscal cliff.

[Broncojohnny]

Firms are plenty worried about the fiscal cliff. Having spent two weeks in NYC/DC in October discussing this very topic, every national practice leader in the Big 4 accounting firms and each of the 3 Fortune 500 CFOs I heard from cited it as the major issue facing their long term decision making.

They all seemed blissfully indifferent as to who won the election. They just want consistency, whichever way it falls, and think the divided Congresses is a much bigger issue than either dolt who was running for the position of Chief Dolt.

Rest assured that (large) firms are pants wettingly concerned about the fiscal cliff.

Of course they are. That has little to do with the stock market though, which reflects the level of pants shitting fear we are operating under right this moment. Yesterday we had a solid up day. Today we had the worst day in about a year. When you get closer to the end of the year and it becomes apparent that nothing is going to be worked out then you will see the market react. Today was purely about Obama's second term.

[Slowhand]

Of course they are. That has little to do with the stock market though, which reflects the level of pants shitting fear we are operating under right this moment. Yesterday we had a solid up day. Today we had the worst day in about a year. When you get closer to the end of the year and it becomes apparent that nothing is going to be worked out then you will see the market react. Today was purely about Obama's second term.

That presupposes that the dip is:

a. entirely political (I'll buy it)
b. predicated purely on the outcome of the Presidential election (losing me)
c. caused by institutional buyers who, across the board, truly believe that the executive branch is a primary driver of economic performance and that Mitt Romney would have performed significantly better
d. the outcome of the races in the Senate/Congress was nothing more than noise

I don't buy B, I think C is weak, and I think D loses it completely. Not saying that homeboy is going to effectively handle the economy (he won't), and I'll buy that the movement was a reaction to the election(s), but I find it hard to believe that it's predicated upon Obama's reelection. If it is, I'd like to hear the hypothesis, from an institutional trader, in which a Romney administration provides a base for statistically-significantly different returns, especially with the Congresses the way they are.

But I'm also not in IB, and that's probably for a reason.

[jw33]

Firms are plenty worried about the fiscal cliff. Having spent two weeks in NYC/DC in October discussing this very topic, every national practice leader in the Big 4 accounting firms and each of the 3 Fortune 500 CFOs I heard from cited it as the major issue facing their long term decision making.

They all seemed blissfully indifferent as to who won the election. They just want consistency, whichever way it falls, and think the divided Congresses is a much bigger issue than either dolt who was running for the position of Chief Dolt.

Rest assured that (large) firms are pants wettingly concerned about the fiscal cliff.

I've worked for my company (50K+ employees) over 11 years and have recently had two political related e-mails from our CEO. Nothing partisan in the message, but we have never had anything even close to being political get sent out company wide like this. Even my manager who has been with the company slightly longer than I have was very surprised.

[Broncojohnny]

That presupposes that the dip is:

a. entirely political (I'll buy it)
b. predicated purely on the outcome of the Presidential election (losing me)
c. caused by institutional buyers who, across the board, truly believe that the executive branch is a primary driver of economic performance and that Mitt Romney would have performed significantly better
d. the outcome of the races in the Senate/Congress was nothing more than noise

I don't buy B, I think C is weak, and I think D loses it completely. Not saying that homeboy is going to effectively handle the economy (he won't), and I'll buy that the movement was a reaction to the election(s), but I find it hard to believe that it's predicated upon Obama's reelection. If it is, I'd like to hear the hypothesis, from an institutional trader, in which a Romney administration provides a base for statistically-significantly different returns, especially with the Congresses the way they are.

But I'm also not in IB, and that's probably for a reason.

It is simple and it has been the same thing for years, people are hesitant to deploy capital. Why is there record amounts of money sitting on S&P 500 balance sheets right now? Why were the banks some of the worst hit today? It is because no one knows what new regulation this administration is going to pursue tomorrow. What is tomorrow's agenda going to be? Or the next day's? or the next? They have just spent 18 months doing their best to demonize success in this country. The environment generated by the administration is very anti-business and that will continue, everyone I talk to knows it and is prepared to run silent and run deep for another couple of years. Instead of creating jobs they'll pay their owners and shareholders dividends and/or buy their shares back. Or even worse, buy other succesful companies and cut jobs out of them.