This Is Your Obama Recovery: May Edition

The economy created fewer than 100,000 jobs this past month – and the numbers for March and April have been revised down, to boot – but in fact May’s labor force participation rate “jumped” from 63.6% to 63.8%.

However, the unemployment rate – the percentage of those 63.8% of the workforce that’s trying to work – crept back up to 8.2%.

Put it all together, and on 58.57% of the workforce is actually working. Which is almost exactly two points lower than it was when Obama took office, and only 7/100 of a percent higher than in October of 2009, when unemployment was 10%. It’s 6/100 of a percent higher than in December of 2009 – the putative nadir of the recession.

By all means, let’s talk about the President’s freaking birth certificate.

Posted

June 1, 2012

Campaign ’12, The Great Recession

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “This Is Your Obama Recovery: May Edition”

The Big Stink

June 1, 2012

Invalidate Obama’s American birth and you have set the stage for a race war. Think it through! Blacks will rally ’round him in a fashion which will make the Rodney King affair look like a Spring Prom.
Terry

June 1, 2012

I wonder what the birthers think would happen if certified proof appeared that Obama was born in Kenya, with witnesses to back it up.
Obama would just leave? Maybe the Senate would vote to impeach?
Get over it.
kel

June 1, 2012

Obama’s msg today at Honeywell/GV:
“You’ll have to re-elect me to see a recovery!”
nate

June 1, 2012

Kel, in the olden days, we said we had a secret plan to win the war. Worked for us then, should work for him now, right?
Sanity

June 1, 2012

“Put it all together, and on 58.57% of the workforce is actually working.”

Does this mean the real unemployment rate is over 41% (100% minus 58.57%)

??
jpmn

June 2, 2012

“By all means, let’s talk about the President’s freaking birth certificate.”

So far Romney is running an excellent campaign. Sticking to the economy and letting the MSM go ballistic on people like Trump who are only marginally connected to him.

In comparison the Obama campaign is faltering everywhere. Gays, dogs, Bain Capital, bullying, even his die hard supporters are balking at some of the attacks.

Obama won in 2008 for two reasons. The eight year MSM campaign to marginalize Bush and the Republicans, and Obama was never challenged to defend his positions.

McCain ran a dismal campaign, but I don’t think any Republican could have won in 08. Now that Obama has a record that everyone has seen he will have to defend his past, at least the past four years.
nate

June 3, 2012

Sanity, that’s exactly what it means.

The official government unemployment rate is “adjusted” to remove people, which has the effect of making the economy look better than it is.

Simple example: the population on your block is 100 people. 20 are retired, 30 are children, 50 are working-age adults. If 10 were laid off, we’d have 40 out of 100 working meaning 60 are unemployed. 60% unemployment,

The government wouldn’t count it that way. They’d say only 50 are eligible to partifipate in the labor force and and of the 10 who are laid off, only 4 are actually sending out resumes – the other 6 have given up. So that’s 4 looking out of 50 eligible = 8% unemployment.

So which is correct: 8% or 60%?

If one more guy gives up, can we make it 3 out of 50 = 6%? Hooray, the ecomony is improving, unemployment is down, Obama is a hero!

Except …
K-Rod

June 3, 2012

Don’t be so obtuse, Mitch, don’t you know that Seeueentee said months ago that the recovery is underway! Praise be to the Lightworker, the Obamassiah!

And Treyvon Martin never smoked pot!

So why won’t you give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, Mitch? You old and white, flabby and crabby gun carryin nut job! [insert Dean scream]
Mitch Berg

June 3, 2012

“Sanity”,

Nate’s got it, mostly.

The “participation rate” counts the percentage of the population that are…
1) Between 16 and 65,
2) Actively looking for work, and
3) haven’t been out of work for more than two years – they were quietly dropped a while back.

So to run with Nate’s example: take 100 people (who are between 15 and 65). 10 are disabled, 10 are retired, 10 are voluntarily out of the job market (homemakers, personal reasons, working on the underground economy or whatever), 10 are unemployed and looking for jobs, 10 have been unemployed for over two years and are ruled to have quit looking, and 50 have jobs. The “Labor Force” would exclude the disabled, retired, homemakers, and long-term unemployed, leaving an unemployment rate of 10 out of 60 (16%). But the fact remains that only half of the work force is working.