In January, 6.45 million people wanted a job but were not in the labor force. This is 10% higher than Bush’s worst month in office (the month President Obama took over), and thirty percent higher than the average of Bush’s worst year in office.

NJSL Editor Write: when Christie presents himself as the guy who’s turning around the state’s job market, it’s mostly bunk. Claiming that he deserves kudos for the roughly 60,000 private sector jobs added since his first full month in office is a political stage performance.

Former governors admit there’s actually very little they could have done over four years to improve the job market. It’s unrealistic of voters to expect that kind of wand-waving. Under any governor, Democrat or Republican, New Jersey’s economy has always tended to track the national trends.

At the same time, Christie does deserve some credit. He got a grip on New Jersey’s ballooning public sector workforce, which, over the past decade, had grown disproportionately while the private job market remained stagnant. That balance had to be righted.

POAC Reports: The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics goes to great lengths to distill the unemployment rate from the current conditions in American households, to ensure the number is completely credible and that it is released all at once – at exactly 8:30 a.m. the first Friday of each month.

Were someone to find out the number even a few minutes early, he would know whether it would boost or sink stocks and could make a quick buck with some instant electronic trades.

To prevent that from happening, James M. Borbely and his fellow BLS economists work in a secure room with secure networks and servers, and no email capability, to derive the unemployment rate from the Current Population Survey. That’s often called simply the household survey, as opposed to the bureau’s separate monthly survey of companies, government and other establishments.

“We’re basically in a locked room. They don’t even take our garbage out. We have to take it out. They don’t let cleaning people in,” said Borbely, describing the Office of Employment and Unemployment Analysis within the BLS Division of Labor Force Statistics.

To ensure the jobless rate appears on TV and websites at precisely the right moment each month, a select group of journalists get the employment report at 8 a.m. under very controlled conditions, he said.

“We give some television and news outlets access in a locked room in the Department of Labor, and no one can have a cellphone, so they get a little bit of a head start to write the story,”Borbely said. “At 8:30 exactly, they press send or move the file, and that’s under high scrutiny. We don’t give them a whole lot of time.”

That file immediately appears on websites and the Teleprompters of reporters outside the building, who start reading the key elements of the report to the nation at once.

(Read More)

My following article was today at American Thinker:

Obama campaign spin is headed our way. He has ‘turned around the economy, and employment numbers prove it. We’ve turned the corner, the plan is  working, so we must stay the course.’  By any historical standard, Obama’s  job performance is pathetic.

The  jobs numbers for December are not yet released and the stats for October and  November will be revised once or twice. But at the current stage, the economy gained 1,445,000 jobs in  2011; the most since 2006 when a smaller economy  gained two million-plus jobs, yet the Republicans still lost both Houses of  Congress that year.

The  1.44 million jobs gained in 2011 is an improvement over the almost one million  jobs gained in 2010, and is way better than the millions of jobs lost in the  preceding two years. However, the job losses were not destined to continue  forever. Moreover, 8.2 (yes, eight point two) million net jobs were gained in  the 29 months following the steep and long 1981-1982 recession, and 2.58 million jobs were gained following the short and light recession that ended March  1991. These numbers surpass the poor 1.21 million net jobs gained in the 29  months following the last recession. (The picture is worse if placed in the  context of population and economic sizes of then versus now.)

Yes,  President Obama can argue that he had a steep and long recession, but so did  Reagan, yet he produced 285,517 jobs per month in the same period that Obama  produced only 41,896 jobs per month. More shocking: President Ford created  171,368 jobs per month in the nineteen months after  the long 1974-1975 recession through October of 1976; the month before he  lost reelection.

An  argument can be made that the steeper the contraction, the stronger the roar  back needs to be. Yet, Obama’s post-recession monthly average on jobs is less  than half the 89,103 monthly average jobs produced in the 29 months following  the short recession that ended in March 1991; i.e. six months before Bill  Clinton announced in October 1991 that he is running for President, and almost  two years before Clinton came into office in January 1993.

Comparing the Unemployment Rate to March 2009 is inaccurate. Here is why:

The UR counts the percent people of a Labor Force who don’t have a job. So if your Labor Force (those within your overall population holding a or looking for a job) consists of 100 million people, and 95 million of them have jobs, then your UR is 5% of your Labor Force.

Simple. Right?

Ok. What happens if your economy is so bad that people just gave up and dropped out of the labor force? Meaning, what happens if your Labor Force consists of only 99 million people, yet 95 million still have jobs? Your UR goes down to approximately 4% because 95 million people out of 99 million holding a job is a bigger percent employed than if your Labor Force is at 100 million, which means the percent Unemployed is lower.

Indeed, this is not bumper sticker material. But not too complicated either.

This is where we stand now compared to March 2009: While the population in America grew since then and more people should have moved into the Labor Force looking for work, many people instead dropped out since then due to the economy being so bad. In actual numbers (and certainly compared to the population size of now versus March 2009), less people are in the work force than in March 2009. As a result, the Unemployment Rate is now at 8.6% instead of above 10% where it would have been if our Labor Force (in actual numbers and certainly compared to the population change) would have been now the same as in March in 2009.

The US job market lost in November only 11,000 jobs, much better than what economists expected. The four month average is a minus of 103,000 jobs per month. This indeed are better numbers than what the economy had a while ago, but

• When the economy gained on average 141,000 jobs leading up to the 2006 midterm elections, was it reported as a good economy?
• When the economy gained on average 169,000 jobs leading up to the 2004 president elections, was it reported as a strong economy?
• When the economy lost on average 42,000 jobs leading up to the 2002 midterm elections, was it reported as a recovering economy?
• When the economy gained on average 106,000 jobs leading up to the 1992 president election, was it reported as a strong economy?

The answer to all these questions is… No. They were not reported for what they really were, mainly so in ‘992 when a monthly gain of 106,000 jobs meant much more to the economy than what it means today. But of course, it was the economy, stupid. Right?

A good or weak economy depends more on the President and the agenda of media people, rather than what it really means to people on the street.

p.s. for the record: Thursday morning, Dec 2, I tweeted the following: “I wont B surprised if tom’s official job report is better than t ADP report of -160K, or t MW survey of economist that expect -100K.”

I wasn’t surprised

The White House is holding today a forum with 130 business, union and political figures to find ways how to create jobs.

For an administration that points to 600,000 to 1 million jobs “saved or created” in recent months, one would wonder why there is a need for a jobs summit. In addition, few unemployed people will view this forum as doing anything good for them because no jobs get created by talk and talk. Therefore one sure wonders why the administrations is holding a jobs summit in the first place.

Is it just a PR move? It appears so, but I doubt strongly that this can out-beat an ever-increasing unemployment rate.

In a survey by the National Association of Business Economics, economists expect the jobless economy to bottom-out in early 2010, with a job turnaround to follow right after that. This was reported today, Monday November 23, 2009.

Funny is, how the Market Indexes all flew up today, largely due to this report. When we want to feel good about a “bottom-out,” let’s remember that it is on the heels of a recession that lost MILLIONS of jobs, and as of a month ago the economy still lost more jobs than before the crisis begun. Within the final handful of months before the pivotal September 2008 (the month Lehman collapsed), the economy lost a monthly average of approximately 150,000 jobs, whereas this past October, the economy gave up almost 200,000 jobs. My point here is that we are not yet in the vicinity of not losing jobs, and when we do get there, we will have too many people out of work who will certainly continue to drag down the economy.

My other point is that politically, President Obama and the Democrats are doomed with this job market, even IF the turn-around (i.e. job growth) does indeed start by April ’10. Just look back to Bush the First: in the last six months of ‘992, the economy gained on average 129,000 jobs (or 101,000 jobs in the six months leading up to the election, including October), yet few until today think that the economy was an issue for Bush to use for his benefit. In addition, at that time, the Unemployment Rate was in the 7% area, whereas in the final months of election ’10, Obama will be lucky if the rate dips below 10% percent.

All in all I am saying that economically for the nation, and politically for the Dems, today’s survey is not one that anyone should cheer.

Those who know stats of the US job market are aware of the bitter fact that during the eight years of President George W. Bush, the economy gained only 2.58 million jobs. The main reasons for these bleak numbers are the recessionary, job-losing economy Bush inherited from President Clinton, and the weak economy that Bush had in his last twelve months in office.

This was the thinking until now.

But a new complimentary way of counting jobs shows, that during President Bush’s tenure, the economy actually gained 12.9 million jobs, which GWB says is the credit of his tax cuts. The new model was designed by Chicago economist Barack H. Obama who calls his new system “Jobs Saved or Created.” This model calculates minimum x5 to the positive side the numbers produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official job-counting body of the US Government.

For example: According to the BLS, the US economy lost a total of 2.61 million jobs from March of ’09 through September ’09. Using the Obama model, these numbers mean that the economy actually gained or prevented from losing minimum 640,000 jobs, or perhaps even up to 1 million jobs. Based on this calculation, one should conclude that the BLS stats showing Bush’s economy gaining only 2.5 million jobs, likely has “created or saved” minimum 12.9 million jobs.

Economist Obama says that creating Congressional districts; claiming a pay raise as a job saved; and producing numbers out of thin air, are all welcome ways to use the Jobs Created or Saved system.

Fans of President Clinton are now petitioning the BLS that the current figures that show the economy gaining 22 million jobs during President Clinton’s era should be revised to a gain of minimum 100 million jobs.

Today, the Labor Department reported that 190,000 jobs were lost in October, worse than the 150,000 consensus in a Market Watch survey of economists. The Unemployment rate hit 10.2%, up from 9.8% a month ago, and much worse than what was expected.

Politically speaking, those on the Left will say that the current jobs report is better than in January when “we lost 700,000 a month.” I wrote already once that this excuse is lame, and the claim is false altogether. Besides, rest assure that those who lost their jobs this month don’t care for a dime how many more or less people lost jobs in this same month.

Those on the Right knew all along that the disasters job market is here to stay, and to get worse than what it was a while ago. On May 15, three months after the signing of the stimulus; a time when people were seeing “green shoots” and expecting wonders from Obama’s Stimulus; a time when the unemployment rate was at 8.9%; a time when Fed Chief Bernanke said that the unemployment rate won’t hit the 10% mark, and two months before Buffet warned of an 11% Unemployment Rate, I wrote the following on lohud.com (the article has been pulled since then):

“Sure, these and other statistics are “better” than November’s numbers, yet November and the immediate months after it were “depression era,” hardly an index against which to one would want to measure “better” times. Add to that the disastrous lagging indicator (jobs) that can itself destroy the economy. This leads me to conclude that for regular people on the street, though economic times have yet to reach full scale, and an unemployment rate of more than 11 percent might be here before we get to count the next twelve months.”

I know we are not close to 11 percent; however we are not yet at May ’10 either. Frankly, I was surprised that the Unemployment Rate didn’t crack the 10% figure two-three months ago, considering that so many things in the economy are still very bad. Yes, they are portrayed as “good” just on the basis that it’s not as bad as a year ago. But as I wrote in May, November of 2009 is hardly an era that you want to measure success against it.

As long Obama’s economy does not show a net gain on a monthly basis, and as long the unemployment rate doesn’t cool off, a spin of “saving or creating” jobs will, politically fall on death ears, and will economically keep the recovery down.

Everyone in politics knows the phrase that was coined in ‘992 by James Carvil, the political mastermind of then-Arkansas Governor and presidential candidates Bill Clinton: “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” This meant to say to voters, ‘don’t get distracted by other issues. The economy is the problem now, so vote in Clinton for President.’

This phrase 17 years later is still relevant from a political and economic perspective, becouse when debating these days Reaganomics, the Left points to the weakened economy of under Bush the First, and when debating “political strategies” some point to that “”masterful” phrase which “propelled Clinton into the White House.” Both, however, are the longest-standing economic and political myths that I have ever seen.

Consider some facts:

A)  In March of ‘991, the U.S. economy was officially out of recession. In English it means, that nineteen months before Clinton won the election, the economy (GDP) was actually growing again, following a very short and light recession.

B)  You can claim that the GDP growth at the time didn’t translate into prosperity to people. Well, first, at least the economy was growing; it wasn’t in a recession as some try to believe until today. Secondly, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which in the current Stimulus Economy is a gage for success or failure, grew from a recession low of 2,398 in the week of October ‘990, to a high of 3,398 in the week of June first 1992. (The Dow didn’t have a disasters fallback as we had starting last year September, so it was not shooting radically upwards like we experience in recent months, nut it had a healthy growth).

C)  Seeing that the GDP and the Dow are not friendly to this “economy stupid” myth, you will turn to jobs. “Jobs growth is what counts in a REAL recovery.” Fine, let’s count jobs: In the last six months of Bush’s ‘992, the economy gained on a monthly average 129,000 jobs, and in the first half of ‘993, the monthly average was 208,000. Considering that jobs are a “lagging indicator,” meaning they lag the rest of the economy, it is fair to say that the healthy job growth (plus the declining Unemployment Rate) of the second half of ‘992 and the robust job growth of early ‘993, reflected a turned-around, BOOMING economy that started months before Team Clinton had its election night plans ready. While I am at it, get this: the last six months of Clinton’s ’00, the economy gained a poor monthly average of 100K, and the following half year the economy lost 73,000 jobs on a monthly basis, which confirms again that GW Bush inherited a recession, whereas Bill Clinton inherited a booming economy.

D)  Politically speaking, Bill Clinton won a poor 43% of the popular vote in ‘992, one of the weakest showings for an outside candidate, yet he still won the election, due to a third party candidate – Ross Perot running to the Right of Bush – picking up 18% of the popular vote, leaving Bush with just 37% of the vote. In other words, Carvil’s phrase resonated with only a small portion of the population, as we see that Clinton got  only 43% of the vote, of which a big chunk were African Americans who regularly vote 9-10 for Presidential Democrats, regardless the state of general affairs.

Obama and the Democrats credit the recent “better” job market to the Stimulus bill, but defend the-still-weak job market by saying that jobs are a “lagging indicator,” it lags the rest of the economy when it comes to improvements, therefore the Stimulus does not yet fully reflect in the job market.

The Problem is this: February, the month the stimulus was signed and before any stimulus money was dished out, the economy lost 60,000 jobs less than in January, and in March the economy lost even less jobs than in February. If the “logging indicator” excuse is true, why did the economy in March, the month stimulus money merely started rolling out, lose less jobs than it did in each of the two months before it? The March improvement cannot be attributed to the stimulus considering jobs are a lagging indicator. Right? It takes time for the Stimulus to reflect in the market.

Whichever way you will cook it, you are toast: if you use “lagging” as a factor, how/why did we get the March improvements? You will certainly have to agree that some (or most) of it happened on its own (just as February certainly did happen on its own, because February was before the Stimulus). If so, how much of the general improved job markets since then took place on its own, independent of Obama? Yet if you will say “logging” is not a factor and the better March number IS a direct result of the stimulus, why is the job market now, seven months into the Stimulus, still not doing better than it was in the months before the panic started last year September?

The answer is simple: the Stimulus failed to produce the job wonders Obama and the Dems assured us back in February. Did the panic that lasted from September 2008 through February 2009 subside? Is the job market now less bad than it was 10 months ago? Yes to both. But it is more from “natural causes” such as people getting over the shock waves of the Lehman collapse and the Medoff scheme (both of which generated the panic in the first place), than the Stimulus actually fueling a better economy. Heck, the New Orleans waters back in ’05 after Katrina receded before the Bush team took any action. Why? Because there is this much havoc that panic causes before things get less bad on its own. The same is with the job market: it started getting less bad on its own, back in February when it lost with 60,000 less than in January, before any Stimulus was spent, and is still less bad mainly on its own rather than the stimulus doing what it promised to do.

In his CNN interview this Sunday, President Obama said that people should expect a weak job market. He claimed that an economy adding 150,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with the current population growth, but for now people should not expect such job numbers.

This is a little confusing, because less than a month ago, the White House economic team proclaimed that the Stimulus bill “created or saved” 1 million jobs. Considering that only six full monthly job reports were published since the signing of the stimulus, it means that an average of 166,666 jobs were “created or saved” on a monthly basis.

So Mr. President, make up your mind: is our economy getting the needed 150,000 jobs per month, or not?