Jobs coming back?

[we vs us]

January jobs added nearly doubled the expected number, and dropped the unemployment rate to 8.3%. 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.

Hiring was much stronger than expected, and once it was apparent the job gains were broad based across several sectors, economists and investors called it a "nice surprise," "fantastic," and even "a touchdown!" Stock futures immediately headed higher.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.

All of this is interesting in light of Obama's approval rating, seen below.  The chart itself tracks it vs. political events, but I'm more inclined to see it tracking the generally improving economic news.  If the growth continues -- and if it starts to regularly exceed expectations -- Mitt's chances in the general will be awful.

[Conan71]

Certainly any job gains are great news and there's lots to be happy about reading through the report.  Looking through the list there are gains in desirable sectors which would indicate a recovering economy.  More blacks are also going back to work.  They have been particularly hard-hit with unemployment.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The problem for President Obama though is the picture for long-term unemployed and discouraged workers is still very bleak.  Those are the people who could un-seat him if they view he is to blame for their limited employment chances and are pissed off enough to go to the polls.

Professional and business services continued to add jobs in January
(+70,000). About half of the increase occurred in employment services
(+33,000). Job gains also occurred in accounting and bookkeeping
(+13,000) and in architectural and engineering services (+7,000).

Over the month, employment in leisure and hospitality increased by
44,000, primarily in food services and drinking places (+33,000).
Since a recent low in February 2010, food services has added 487,000
jobs.

In January, health care employment continued to grow (+31,000). Within
the industry, hospitals and ambulatory care services each added 13,000
jobs.

Wholesale trade employment increased by 14,000 over the month. Since a
recent employment low in May 2010, wholesale trade has added 144,000
jobs.

Employment in retail trade continued to trend up in January. Job gains
in department stores (+19,000), health and personal care stores
(+7,000), and automobile dealers (+7,000) were partially offset by
losses in clothing and clothing accessory stores (-14,000). Since an
employment trough in December 2009, retail trade has added 390,000
jobs.

In January, employment in information declined by 13,000, including a
loss of 8,000 jobs in the motion picture and sound recording industry.

In the goods-producing sector, manufacturing added 50,000 jobs. Nearly
all of the increase occurred in durable goods manufacturing, with job
growth in fabricated metal products (+11,000), machinery (+11,000),
and motor vehicles and parts (+8,000). Durable goods manufacturing has
added 418,000 jobs over the past 2 years.

Employment in construction increased by 21,000 in January, following a
gain of 31,000 in the previous month. Over the past 2 months,
nonresidential specialty trade contractors added 30,000 jobs.

Mining added 10,000 jobs in January, with most of the gain in support
activities for mining (+8,000). Since a recent low in October 2009,
mining employment has expanded by 172,000.

Government employment changed little in January. Over the past 12
months, the sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local
government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal
Service.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was
unchanged in January. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.3 hour
to 40.9 hours, and factory overtime increased by 0.1 hour to 3.4
hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory
employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.8
hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private
nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $23.29. Over the
past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 1.9 percent.
In January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees edged up by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to
$19.62. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was
revised from +100,000 to +157,000, and the change for December was
revised from +200,000 to +203,000. Monthly revisions result from
additional sample reports and the monthly recalculation of seasonal
factors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to these
revisions.

The problem for President Obama though is the picture for long-term unemployed and discouraged workers is still very bleak.  Those are the people who could un-seat him if they view he is to blame for their limited employment chances.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 8.2
million, changed little in January. These individuals were working
part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were
unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged
workers in January, little different from a year earlier. (The data
are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not
currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available
for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the
labor force in January had not searched for work in the 4 weeks
preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

[Townsend]

Spin City:

Republicans respond to new economic numbers

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/republicans-respond-to-new-economic-numbers/

(CNN) – Republicans were slower than usual to respond to the better than expected January jobs report Friday, which showed the unemployment rate fell to 8.3% and employers added 243,000 jobs.

However, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was the first high profile GOPer to react, saying the "welcome news" is too little for most Americans.


"Our economy remains unacceptably weak, and families across the country are still struggling to make ends meet," Priebus said in a statement. "Today's unemployment numbers remind us that our economy is far from fixed. That, by the president's own standard, should make him a one-term president."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the first 2012 presidential candidate to respond to the figures and did not miss the opportunity criticize President Barack Obama's handling of the economy.

"Unfortunately, these numbers cannot hide the fact that President Obama's policies have prevented a true economic recovery. We can do better," Romney said in a press release. "I am running for president because I have the vision and experience to help rebuild the economy and put us on a path toward greater prosperity for all Americans."

 

[we vs us]

I think he's vulnerable but only to a point.  Especially if the recovery continues, even the long term unemployed might finally believe that their circumstances are about to change, and that would blunt the need for a vote for change with Romney.  Not entirely erase it, of course, but definitely blunt its impact.

Even though I think it's morally reprehensible, the Republican strategy over the last couple of years hasn't been incorrect -- at least from a strategy standpoint.  Unseating Obama will definitely revolve around how people feel about the economy, and obstructing Obama's efforts to improve the recovery would be the quickest way there.  I wonder, though, if the obstruction itself will have backfired:  not delaying a recovery enough to knock out Obama and tarnishing the GOP along the way.  

[zstyles]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

[Conan71]

I think he's vulnerable but only to a point.  Especially if the recovery continues, even the long term unemployed might finally believe that their circumstances are about to change, and that would blunt the need for a vote for change with Romney.  Not entirely erase it, of course, but definitely blunt its impact.

Even though I think it's morally reprehensible, the Republican strategy over the last couple of years hasn't been incorrect -- at least from a strategy standpoint.  Unseating Obama will definitely revolve around how people feel about the economy, and obstructing Obama's efforts to improve the recovery would be the quickest way there.  I wonder, though, if the obstruction itself will have backfired:  not delaying a recovery enough to knock out Obama and tarnishing the GOP along the way.  

I agree, it's reprehensible as the psychological effect of a recession can do quite a bit to kill jobs and investment.  However it's no different than how the left was whipping up the winds of recession as early as 2006.  They were hoping and praying for a major calamity.  It's an election year, so I would expect no less, but I'm really tired of fear-based politicking out of both sides 24/7 365 days out of the year.

[Conan71]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

I don't think anyone should ignore discouraged workers dropping out of the U/E count but this blogger is gilding the lilly somewhat.  Here is BLS' explanation of population adjustment:

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian
  noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian
  labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000,
  and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total
  unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate
  and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3
  percentage point. This was because the population increase was
  primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons
  16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of
  labor force participation than the general population.
 
  Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments
  affect the comparability of household data series over time. Table C
  shows the effect of the introduction of new population estimates on
  the comparison of selected labor force measures between December 2011 and
  January 2012. Additional information on the population adjustments and
  their effect on national labor force estimates is available at
  www.bls.gov/cps/cps12adj.pdf.
 
 
  Table B. Effect of the updated population controls on December 2011 estimates by sex, race, and
  Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally adjusted                                   
                                                                             
  (Numbers in thousands)                                                     
                                                                             
  _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                              |      |     |      |       |        |       |           
                                              |      |     |      |       |  Black |       |           
                                              |      |     |      |       |    or  |       |  Hispanic
                  Category                    |Total | Men | Women| White | African| Asian | or Latino
                                              |      |     |      |       |American|       | ethnicity
                                              |      |     |      |       |        |       |           
  ____________________________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|___________
                        |        |      |     |     |      |      |
  Civilian noninstitutional population........| 1,510| -116| 1,626| -1,181|     407|  1,161|   1,330
    Civilian labor force......................|   258| -413|   671| -1,385|     166|    731|     781
      Participation rate......................|   -.3|  -.3|   -.2|    -.3|     -.3|    -.2|     -.3
     Employed.................................|   216| -368|   584| -1,266|     165|    676|     675
      Employment-population ratio.............|   -.3|  -.3|   -.2|    -.3|     -.2|    -.2|     -.3
     Unemployed...............................|    42|  -45|    87|   -119|       2|     55|     106
      Unemployment rate.......................|    .0|   .0|    .0|     .0|     -.1|     .1|      .1
    Not in labor force........................| 1,252|  297|   955|    205|     240|    430|     550
  ____________________________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|___________
                                                                             
   NOTE:  Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race groups (white,
black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races.
Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.           
 
 
  Table C. December 2011-January 2012 changes in selected labor force       

[Teatownclown]

Nah sayers....things are improving at a time the GOP/Teabaggers hate good news period.

[nathanm]

I don't think anyone should ignore discouraged workers dropping out of the U/E count but this blogger is gilding the lilly somewhat.  Here is BLS' explanation of population adjustment:

You can pretty much ignore anything you see from Zerohedge unless it's raw news. I read it fairly regularly for said raw news, but the analysis seems to be straight out of some disillusioned junior trader's imagination. And the comments. Oh boy, the comments. I've seen more cogent analysis in the Tulsa World's comment section.

[Conan71]

. I've seen more cogent analysis in the Tulsa World's comment section.

Pretty low brow, eh?