The halcyon days of winter, when the job market was showing sharp improvements, seem like a long time ago. The last three months have shown one disappointing jobs report after another, each worse than the last, with today's new data nothing short of brutal.
The expectations were that the economy, after a rough April, would "snap back in May," producing 150,000 jobs. As of this morning, the new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed an economy that added less than half that figure: the U.S. created only 69,000 jobs in May, while the unemployment rate inched higher to 8.2%.
As is nearly always the case, there was a gap in the public vs. private sectors -- American businesses added 82,000 jobs last month, while the government shed 13,000 jobs.
Common sense suggests policymakers would see data like this and act immediately, taking bold steps to boost job creation. Given Republican power in Congress, however, that's no longer an option.
Adding insult to injury, the job totals for both March and April were both revised in the wrong direction. There's no sugarcoating today's job news -- it's a disaster, and the worst report since May 2011.
The only Americans thrilled by today's news is Mitt Romney's campaign, which needs bad news to advance their ambitions, though I'd remind the Republican campaign that, as of this week, taking an economy that was losing jobs and turning it into an economy that's adding jobs is a sign of success, not failure.
And with that, here's the chart I run on the first Friday of every month, showing monthly job losses since the start of the Great Recession. The image makes a distinction -- red columns point to monthly job totals under the Bush administration, while blue columns point to job totals under the Obama administration.
Update: Here's another chart, this one showing monthly job losses/gains in just the private sector since the start of the Great Recession.
Leave a Comment:
No more mincing words. The bottom line that the media is blatantly and purposefully ignoring is that the Republican Party is on a sabotage mission against the American economy. Every single action taken and word spoken by Mitt Romney, John Boehner and every Republican in Congress is designed to kill as many jobs as possible by the election. It's that simple, and that disgusting. These traitors are thrilled with such bleak numbers because they know that their master plan is working. How are we supposed to grow the economy when the GOP is threatening fiscal disaster at every turn and refusing to cooperate with policies that actually create jobs?Something needs to be done...
It is indeed maddening to hear the media, day after day, talk about the economy as though Obama is solely responsible for the good or the bad. Nary a peep about McConnell's "One Term President" quip, so many years ago!
But "The Media" is a Corporation- "my friend",- and its charter is to make money for its shareholders. So we will have a horse race, no matter what 'the polls' might say.
Hercules' Fifth Labor (cleaning the Augean Stables) was a piece of cake, compared to Obama's.
Agreed. Obama is right to blame Congress. I blame Norquist and everyone who follows him: the conservative party doesn't care about jobs, really, they care more about Winning the Election, and (supposedly) Cutting the Deficit (what a crock).
I read their whole campaign as saying: "As long as the rich get richer, forget about safe products, clean air/water/food, affordable health care..." We know they won't actually cut spending.
It's maddening because everything I read says that the Ryan Austerity Plan will tank the economy even more.
We need riots in the streets. Meanwhile this middle-aged-middle-classer is trying to reach retirement before I'm 80. So depressing today.
69,000 jobs - what's brutal about that? 69,000 people now have jobs who did not have them last month. Next month will see at least that number doubled adding people building new homes or rehabbing those bought at foreclosures!
I've always wondered that same thing.
Is it as good as expected? No. Is it getting jobs back fast enough? No not really.
But as long as the job gains are greater than the losses, that is still a positive (even if just a small positive) as far as I am concerned.
OK, more jobs is better than nothing, but remember that there's always a constant stream of people entering the labor force (mainly HS and college grads), not to mention the people on the sidelines who would get into the labor force if they could. This is greater than the number of new retirees. The economy needs to produce more than 69,000 jobs a month to satisfy the net number of new jobseekers. I forget the exact number, but I think it's something like 150,000.
Fault the Obama reelection team who isn't copying that jobs graph and posting it on every campaign poster they print. You don't need half a brain to see the direction Republican leadership took us, or that things have definately improved under Obama.
Texas - they also aren't doing a great job of promoting Obama's accomplishments, to counter Romney's lies. Not sure what's going on.
What? President Obama claimed that the recession/unemployment was the result of the policies of GWB (although they never show any cause and effect with respect to any GWB policy). Then when unemployment goes down and President Obama claims the credit. Now that unemployment has ticked up today, it is again the fault of the Republicans. So I guess the view of the Democrats is that bad things are always the fault of someone else and good things are always a result of their actions.
The reality is that no President can have that much impact in terms of his actions resulting in unemployment or increasing employment. Fiscal policy can only take you so far in terms of climbing out of a recession.
Historically, the way we got out of recessions was through maintaining or increasing government spending – infrastructure and revenue to the States to support pay for key services (police, fire, teachers, etc.) that support the local economies until the private sector can recover. The other thing that got us out was housing – home sales and construction.
With this recession, that key piece – housing – was one of the causes and is not available to help us out.
The Recovery Act (AKA – stimulus) was the effort to maintain government spending (revenue to the States), infrastructure and tax cuts to individuals to support local economies. At the time it was passed, it was a four foot ladder to get us out of a four foot hole. We didn’t realize until later that the recession was deeper than we thought it was. So we had a four foot ladder to get out of an eight foot hole.
The Obama Administration – backed by lots of rational economists and data – realized that additional stimulus effort was needed – a longer ladder. The Republicans blocked these additional efforts. This is a fact that they freely admit and boast about.
The Great Recession occurred on President GW Bush’s watch. To say that President Obama’s policies have failed implies that he was able to actually implement all of his policies – which is simply not true.
@ST54, are you serious? Did you even read over what you wrote before you posted it? GWB not only slashed taxes (especially on millionaires & up), but started 2 wars that were never accounted for, millions of dollars were siphoned off by Haliburton among others, etc. - or did you sleep thru the first decade of this century?! Frankly democrats haven't been in control long enough to create the catastrophe that this President inherited.
The reality is that while the President "doesn't have that much power" as you say - it is the actions of Congress that led to policies that have not just redistributed income towards the richest 5% with billionaires and corporation essentially paying NO taxes! When Nancy Pelosi held the gavel more legislation was passed under her reign than has been passed since the Great Depression!
And as most economists will state that "the Stimulus" could have been a bit bigger to truly have a long term impact. But we currently have an obstinate and traitorous Congress whose sole aim is to defeat this President, not to help the people of this nation. Instead of re-framing FAUX NOISE talking points you might want to do some independent research and actually learn the truth for yourself.
Zora-how did the two wars (which as you note were not accounted for in any normal accounting system), tax cuts etc lead to a recession and unemployment?
My point is that President Obama lays the blame for the recession on the "policies" of GWB, wants credit for any decrease in unemployment and when unemployment goes back up it, then is still the fault of someone else. In my view GWB is no more responsible for the unemployment then President Obama is. Both parties blame the other for whatever and never share the credit.
The fact that Republicans want to defeat President Obama is hardly surprising. I do not recall in the Democrats during the first term of GWB suggesting that he should be elected for a second term.
Our current economic system is complex and spending (stimulus) in and of itself can not reverse a recession. In my view, fiscal policy and monetary policy (which it this points has effectively no bullets left) can at most lessen the impact of a downturn. As painful as it is ( and I have had two of my children in the ranks of the unemployed over the last two years) it will simply take time for the recession to "end". Although the "end" may not be what we would normally expect. Those of use born since 1945 or so have never really seen the "bad times" that our parents did in the recession and since that time each recession has ended and typically there has been increased economic recovery thereafter. This time may be different.
ST54 - the money spent on those wars was never calculated into the deficits, so that by the time the Obama administration started adding them in, that deficit that the GOP is crying about most of that was inherited from the Bush administration.
And yes it was the polices that were put forth not just during the Bush administration, but Clinton shares some blame for that also. In case you don't realize it jobs much of it manufacturing jobs were shipped to low/no wage nations, which in turn led to the "laying off" American workers. Again this is about "policy" and a tax code that rewarded these businesses even as they allowed for the "off-shoring" of jobs.
Quite frankly, I don't hear the President blaming anyone, but I also recognize that the GOP have ensured that not a whole lot of meaningful legislation has gotten thru on their watch. As for the mis-administration of GWB, he deserves to be in jail, he's the worst President in my life-time (I wasn't here before JFK)! The police state that we're still living in because of the "Patriot Act" is further evidence of his failure to this nation.
The fact that the GOP have gone to such extra-ordinary lengths to defeat this President may not be surprising - but the acrid, rancorous, pit-bull waving red meat galvanizing of this man is based solely on his color, not his policies! GWB is an idiot, and he ran rough-shod over this nation while ensuring the upwards redistribution of wealth to his cronies - in other words there were reasons enough that democrats and people with conscious should have marching in the streets; this President is intelligent, articulate, and while I don't always support his positions because this nation's policies have been hi-jacked way too far to the right, I still support him over another term of another Shrub in the office of the President!
Our current economic system is built on a Ponzi scheme, it's not difficult! We are no longer really able to "produce" enough for our own consumption! And yet, our economy is now built around consumption - which is why many are carrying debt loads that they cannot afford. And contrary to continuing unsustainable tax cuts, along with draconian cuts to social programs all while continuing to increase defense spending is an anathema that WE as a nation cannot afford!
It is because WE are in difficult economic times that it is precisely the government that must start leading the charge in spending - spending to rebuild our infrastructure (roads, schools, bridges, etc.), upgrades to our energy grid, R&D into alternative energy, etc.! It is what ended up happening to pull this nation out of the GREAT DEPRESSION and it's exactly what is needed now, along with closing the tax loopholes on the rich and corporate that will help to pull US up out of this recession and back onto a more prosperous footing, thereby ensuring that future generations won't look back in shame asking "what were they thinking".
Thanks. I do recall hearing President Obama on the campaign trail the other day blaming GWB for the "worst" economy since the great depression. Again I do not see any connection between GWB "policy" and the recession or at least I have yet to see anyone point to a specific policy that had a direct connection to the recession. Reducing taxes or spending money on a war would not case a recession.
Infrastructure spending is not a bad thing. And by the way WWII pulled us out of the depression not building roads and dams. Prior to WWII the US was not the dominate economy in the world. After WWII the US was effectively the only economy left standing and in large part the general economic prosperity that we have enjoyed since 1950 is a result of that fact.
In any event, building roads etc can only take you so far. As I recall the argument against the proposed Canadian pipeline was that the jobs created were temporary, the same is true of roads etc.
While your comment that our economy is a ponzi scheme is interesting and in a sense correct, that is the inherent nature of a market economy (vs a planned economy).
The consumption based comment is likely on point. Our economic model has changed from (other than in case of food) buying what we produce to importing in large measure what we buy. This may be a real sea change. That is things may not be the same again.
So what is the solution- in a sense there is none. The economy- US and the world- will be what it will be and people will be impacted accordingly. If you increase taxes then what. If those funds are held for debt reduction or social security or whatever, then fine. But congress (whether republican or democrat) tend to spend what the government takes in. I believe that we as individuals make better decisions on how to spend our money then the government does. In any event, thanks for your comments.
ST - Over 40,000 plants closed in the U.S. during the last decade, most of which was during President Bush's terms of office. Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, passed legislation that did not penalize American companies for closing plants here and re-opening abroad. Deregulation of Wall Street begun during the Clinton era and boosted during GWB's terms again, gave Wall Street a pass to indulge in practices akin to a casino mentality. With no rules left, they gambled away the money that people had invested in their futures - the housing market, pensions, etc. If you look at the past history, our nation has thrived when tax rates on the wealthiest were raised; jobs were not taken away during any of those times; the country's economy allowed the middle class to develop and participate in the economy b/c they were able to buy the goods and services the corporations made, thereby enriching more those that were already wealthy. Congress may spend what the government takes in, but they also with Administration policies leading the way, spend more, especially if you've reduced the tax rates (even by a paltry 4%), pay defense contractors with borrowed money, and subsidize prescriptions doing the same thing, all without saying where the money would come from to pay off the loans. Then, you say three years later, we can't provide a safety net or pay for infrastructure jobs (which would go for years, there's so much to be done that would put a lot of people to work in many private companies) because the deficit is so high! But Vice-President Cheney said "deficits don't matter" just a few years ago to justify their spending. I don't know a lot about economics and the complexity of different markets, but even I can see how the decisions of the last 15 years have caused the crippling of our economy. Austerity will not put people back to work and neither will more tax cuts for the wealthy. Banks haven't spent the $2 Trillion in cash to lend to small businesses or large in three years to re-invest in the nation and allow businesses to hire. So, since they won't, the federal government has to take the lead again, taking on more debt at low rates to do what the banks who were bailed out three years ago refuse to do. So, there's complicity among all parties, but the Bush Administration and their supporters share a majority of the responsibility for many of the problems that confront the Obama Administration today.
GW's policies caused the recession. Obama's policies haven't been implemented because the Republican congress rejected them. Therefore, we're still suffering from the Bush economy to a large degree. I could point at Obama for failing to negotiate with the Republicans better, but then there's the long-term Conservative party plan to obstruct forever.
It's almost like we're back to 2011 again. Frankly, aren't we all just hoping for good luck on the economy? Obama can't pass stimulus, so he really can't do a lot. And Romney doesn't need to do anything but cruise and criticize. If Obama's team can't make a better case, then... look forward to 2016.
69,000 happy people, I'd say. Next month - double that with folks building homes and rehabbing foreclosed homes back on the market!
Where is the FDR legacy of the Dems when you need it? The good news is that the fall in the price of oil will drop the cost of agricultural production in the coming months and show up at the checkout before November.
Notice that May was weak last year. I have noticed more construction, mostly remodeling, going on around here. I know I am about to plunk a lot down on a house renovation, but so are my neighbors. The motivation, interest rates are near an all time low. Housing values are strengthing. If you have a decent job, now is the time to refi and build. Exports are still strong and energy costs are dropping. We look to have a good summer ahead.
Do you know what organized labor should be working on? The 36 hour week. That will increase job slots and broaden employment.
I'm a fan of the brilliant Rachel, and a lifelong wine-swilling Dem. But I do have a bachelor's in econ from the Wharton School of Biz (1966).
As a former corporate speech writer, I wrote this unsolicited speech for Liz Warren. She ought to deliver it but won't. But I delivered it to my PR/crisis communication class at Salem State. And shared it with a couple of op ed editors.
So, in the spirit of unsolicited bloviation, here is Liz Warren's apology -- as Memo to the Citizens of the Commonwealth. Coming clean quickly and fully is the very essence of crisis com. The speech says she's willing to do it. Her campaign and she have agreed not to. Bad mistake. Gets to the very heart of any candidacy: its legitimacy.
Liz Warren’s Apology
By
Robert E. Brown
Memo
Date: May 25, 2012
To: Citizens of the Commonwealth
Fm: Elizabeth Warren, Candidate for US Senate
Re: Clarification, Defense & Apology
I want to say two things about the questions and concerns that have become a persistent distraction in our campaign.
First, I offer my apology for the confusion and the barrage of questions posed by the well-intentioned but not fully informed media. The fault, however, has been mostly mine. My fault because the hasty, deadline-driven scrum of a press conference has turned out to be a very poor environment for responding fully to questions about my heritage and my personal, professional and ethnic identity.
Taking a page from Senator McCain’s direct and exhaustive relationship to the media, I too am willing to sit face-to-face with reporters and stay put until I’ve answered all their questions. No matter how long that takes.
I am not shocked that my political adversary in this crucial contest of words and images should seek advantage from the confusion. The citizens’ election of a US senator at this critical juncture of political, economic and social history is a matter of such great consequence that it deserves to be very hard fought.
Second, I must do something that I have been too slow to do. I must explain the choices I’ve made that have been the subject not only of scrutiny but some misunderstanding, whether intentional or not.
I can briefly summarize these questions, I believe, fairly, and answer them.
The questions resolve themselves to three fundamental concerns: one, about the truth of my ethnicity; two, about my ethnicity ‘s relationship to my career as a teacher; and three, about my decision to discontinue indicating my ethnicity on annual information forms collected by a federal agency.
These are not unimportant questions, and I take responsibility for not responding to them more quickly. But in fairness, these questions and concerns fail to recognize an issue of far greater importance than any one campaign or the election of even a single US senator. These questions of fairness and equality -- whether of ethnic diversity under the law, or marriage equality, or gender equity – have been an underlying, ongoing debate of American history and jurisprudence from the very founding of the nation. In recent decades, the issue of racial, ethnic, religious, and gender balance has been decided and re-decided at the very highest level of the judicial system.
Forgive me for taking that paragraph to lecture! I am a teacher, and it’s the nature of the beast.
It has been correctly said that context gives meaning. And so my answers to the fair and important questions posed about my candidacy must, in all fairness, be answered not out-of-context, but fully within it.
Very succinctly, these are my answers to those three crucial questions.
One, in indicating for the record my ethnicity I have always been relying on a source I hold dear: my mother’s word. Was my indication that there is a Native American portion in my heritage a lie? Simply stated: No.
Two, have I ever gained unfair professional advantage from the statement of my ethnicity? There is no evidence whatsoever that my ethnicity played any role whatsoever in the decision of my university to hire me. It should be remembered that speculations about ethnic advantage simply continue the larger and often bitter and divisive debate about racial and ethnic diversity in university and other employer hiring practices.
For those who have argued against employment policies such as affirmative action, which have been motivated by the desire to correct a legacy of discrimination and lack of opportunity, such policies are simply wrong. I strongly disagree.
Three, after having indicated my ethnicity – however relatively small and fractional -- why did I discontinue making those indications for the record? Very simply put, after quite a number of years with my university as a teacher, I recognized that there was no longer any reason to indicate the special nature of my ethnicity. As I have stated many times in recent weeks, as a new teacher and new member of a university community I did believe that I could discover fellow employees and colleagues who, like me, had shared their portion of a mixed ethnic identity. But after having become a veteran teacher, I realized that I had made the transition from rookie hire to recognized member of the university community.
That said, I do want to clarify something else: my desire to serve all the citizens of Massachusetts as a senator who will fight for fairness and opportunity, and against inequality and exclusion, in government.
The author teaches public relations and crisis communication and management at Salem State University, the Harvard Division of Continuing Education, and lectures at Emerson College, UExernado, in Colombia, and the Blanquerna School of Communication in Barcelona.
Whenever I specify my race on a form, I casually identify myself as white. My wife is casually identified as black, although we both have admixtures of other ethnicities. I grew up thinking I was part Cherokee on my father's side, but a cousin of mine offered evidence that I was not. Recently my son found evidence that I am descended from a Massachusetts Indian tribe that sat on the opposite side of the Thanksgiving table from my ancestor who came over on the Mayflower. So perhaps Elizabeth Warren and I are related through her Indian connection. It's too bad I can't vote for her, since my family left Massachusetts for the South long ago, but I can hope that my distant cousins in Massachusetts (perhaps mutual cousins) will vote for her.
69,000 it's all positive, we are still going in the right direction and I have seen a lot of positive comments on this. All I can say is What is the Republican Congress doing on this to help?? NOTHING!! No wonder jobs growth is slow, we need to tell them in congress to STOP talking about the economy and Start doing something about it.
Yes, job growth is a bipolar patient off his meds.
The three presidential debates in the fall will go a very long way to deciding the election. Barring an Israeli strike on Iran's nuke facilities, or euro chaos in Europe, or Romney goes rogue and picks Trump for running mate, or some other "externality," it's going to come down to the perception, trust and faith of the independent voters.
Both Obama and Romney are trust-deficient. Obama had perception, trust and faith, and lost most of it. With independents, Romney's only card is anti-Obama sentiment. But otherwise, he's a 'complete unknown, no direction home'.
Which is why the October mano-a-mano can be that three-round heavyweight bout that'll decide the championship.
The Falstaffian abstainer in me relishes this hugely consequential election. For those who think it won't really matter who wins, you're wrong. Children grow up with a president. They grew up with a Reagan culture, a Clinton culture, a George Bush culture, and an Obama culture. (I leave out Bush 41 because his presidency seems somehow like a cypher, culturally speaking.) But there is quite assuredly an Obama culture. And if Romney's elected, there will most certainly be a Romney culture. That is the reality, regardless of your politics.
The Republican jobs effort is working, and Mitch McConnell couldn't be happier.
There are 69,000 jobs won, despite Congress's best efforts to battle every initiative this president has proposed. Maybe if they stopped fretting over whether birth control should or shouldn't be available and started thinking about the American public's needs and priorities there'd be more than that. Obama is one man; to expect him to be solely responsible for the wellbeing of the economy is laughable.
Clearly, the Job Creators aren't doing their job.
This is a little off-topic:
I found some happy news! In April 2012 - for the first time since September 2008 - the Federal budget report shows a surplus (receipts greater than outlays)!
You might be wondering how I know this...
Over the last several years I have spent time searching for actual real data - particularly questions about the Federal Budget. (You know data - not spin, opinion, philosophy, lies)
One of the web pages I found is this one:
Financial Management Service a Bureau of the Treasury Department
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html
Another great one is an Excel file from: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911
This provides PDFs and Excel files from what I think of as the federal "bean counters"
These reports are the monthly outlays and receipts and has WAY more information that I can understand (!!). But if you want mind-numbing detail about where exactly the money goes or comes from - this is your place!
However, the Monthly Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit or Surplus, Fiscal Years 1981-2012 gives information that I find more understandable.
From 1981 up to September 2008, the monthly deficits bounced around – sometimes deficit, sometimes surplus – depending on what bills are paid or payments come in (like April tended to be surplus). After September 2008, the numbers have always been deficit. Until April 2012, when there was a surplus.
Another important thing that this report shows is - contrary to "popular if you are a Republican" opinion - the deficit is not due to out-of-control wild spending. The deficits increased dramatically because of huge drop-off-a-cliff reductions in receipts combined with modest increases (TARP, Recovery Act - but primarily mandatory spending such as Medicare and "Income Security" - unemployment, food stamps - things that must be paid if people qualify for them.)
By the way, the CBO has quarterly reports with their analysis of the effect of the Recovery Act. Excellent - detailed reading.
There's always a surplus in April. It's tax month you know.
Most posters here do not remember the Great Depression, neither do I but I do know that in started after the stock market crash in 1929 and lasted through the 30's until this country entered WWII. Today we are comming off the worst recession since that time and everyone thinks we can solve the problem in 3 years. That might have happened if Obama had not had the anchor of the Republican party hanging around his neck making progress all but impossible. The Speaker even tried to blame the President because Congress had not acted on the shortage of cancer drugs. I fear for the future of this country if Romney gets elected especially if he gets a majority in Congress because then it will be a one party monarchy which is what the Republicans want.
So then the answer out of our mess is WWIII? I can see BO starting a war with Syra or Iran and even both to save his job.
Brilliant, Hank. No, the answer, it stimulus. End of discussion.
Gee, Hank, that's what Senator McCain would have done if he was currently the President and what Governor Romney's advisors and he have been pushing, as well. If President Obama did do so, would you applaud him since it's what the Republicans are calling him out to intervene?
..
Does anyone know the sampling error in this unemployment figure? I believe it is a poll and most polls are +/- 3%. Seems to me 1/10 of 1% does not mean anything.
Agreed...gaining 69k jobs for a month compared to 800k jobs being lost in Dec 2008 when Bush left..I'd say we're doing pretty good considering Repubs dont and ever want to cooperate.