Unemployment rate falls to 9.4% in December; payroll employment increases by 103,000

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- DECEMBER 2010

The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.4 percent in
December, and nonfarm payroll employment increased by 103,000, the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in
leisure and hospitality and in health care but was little changed in
other major industries.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons decreased by 556,000 to 14.5 million
in December, and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent. Over
the year, these measures were down from 15.2 million and 9.9 percent,
respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(9.4 percent) and whites (8.5 percent) declined in December. The un-
employment rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (25.4 per-
cent), blacks (15.8 percent), and Hispanics (13.0 percent) showed
little change. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.2 percent, not
seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In December, the number of job losers and persons who completed tem-
porary jobs dropped by 548,000 to 8.9 million. The number of long-
term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 6.4 million and accounted for 44.3 percent of the unem-
ployed. (See tables A-11 and A-12.)

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

---

The drop in the unemployment rate, 0.4 percentage points, is, if I am not mistaken, more than expected. The increase in payroll employment, 103,000, is less than expected. The figure I had heard on the overnight news broadcastw was likely was on the order of 165,000 to 175,000. This was on account of the ADP figures released Wednesday.

[Lochloosa]

1. No No No....

gloom and doom....gloom and doom

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Need 150,000 to break even - true unemployment increased

We need 150,000 new jobs each month to break even due to population growth. So the unemployment number went down only because of so many more discouraged workers.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. "We need 150,000 new jobs each month to break even due to population growth."

That sounds about right. CBS radio news was saying 125,000 was necessary just to tread water. At any rate, 103,000 is lower than what many people were hoping for.

Thanks for the input.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Might be 125,000 - I've seen both numbers

It's certainly more than 103k.

[lonestarnot]

5. A few people got peanut jobs?

[robcon]

6. I'm sure some Repuglicans are taking credit for this news already.

n/t

[AlbertCat]

14. I'm sure some Repuglicans are taking credit for this news already.

Well of course. Because what other possible reason in December could there be for job increases? You'd almost think there was some event or holiday or something that required extra work force in December!!!!

[pinqy]

15. The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for normal fluctuations

[sweetapogee]

32. help me with this

Sorry to say I'm home recuperating from a tib/fib fracture and somewhat medicated. I read the article at the OP link three times and still I cannot find a figure for the new unemployment claims filed. To make a point, if we accept the 103,000 figure for new jobs created and there are say 400,000 new unemployment claims filed then the economy lost 297,000 jobs.

The only way the actual unemployment % goes down is if the number of new claims for unemployment is say 400,000 and there are new hires of say 400,001.

So, does anyone see a figure for new unemployment claims in the article? Thanks.

[jpak]

7. Thank you Obama

No doom for you

:D

[Kahuna]

25. +1

:D

[onehandle]

8. A staggering amount of people have simply given up. And job growth was worse than expected.

All that 'helps' the number.

Tax cuts for the rich are going straight into their Swiss bank accounts.

[dmallind]

9. Ah the DU double standard on full display!

When job numbers stay the same but the rate goes up (due to more seekers active), the rate matters most. The poutrage over 9.8 from 9.6 was huge even though private sector added iirc 63k.

When the rate goes down and job numbers only go up slightly (due to fewer seekers active), the rate is unimportant. The drop to 9.4 is worthless with "only" 103k.

Either the rate matters or it doesn't guys. If the former this is good news. If the latter, the increase to 9.8% was meaningless. Personally I could argue either way (while preferring to look at job#s), but which way should not depend on which is the bad news like it does for doomer DUers.

So answer me this before it inevitably happens. If jobs go up by 150k plus but rate goes up too because of more seekers, will that be bad news or good news? I'd like to bookmarka nswers and compare with reactions to these data.

[rfranklin]

13. Jobs created is the key....

Whether the cheerleaders are waving their pom-poms or the gloomsters are predicting the end of the world matters not. Arguing over tiny fractions and green shoots is just plain silly. We need a much more dramatic approach to creating good jobs. The best first step would be to stop pretending that bailing out insolvent banks and giving more tax breaks to the already overindulged wealthy will create any jobs. Neither of those policies is working.

[jtuck004]

16. It would be bad news.

given the same conditions as today.

Because with just 150K it wouldn't be enough to put unemployed people back to work.

We have at least 30 million people unemployed, underemployed, or too disheartened to keep being rejected for awhile.

To get us back to around 5-6% unemployment we need to employ, very roughly, about 20 million of that 30 something million group.

There are varying estimates, from 130K to 150K per month of jobs needed just to employ those NEW to the workforce, so let's say 150K just cause that was your number.

So if we could create, say 250,000 jobs each month it would take us 16 years and 7 months to get back to "normal" unemployemnt.

That would be July of 2027.

Unfortunately we have NEVER created 250,000 jobs, month in and month out, for even a year in the modern history of the country, and it is not going to happen by hoping consumers, who have been living on credit for the past 2-3 decades while their means of producing wealth (good jobs) have been sold out from under them.

And even if we did that, given that 1 out of three people now work for $20,000 a year or less, it would very likely mean more people homeless, an increase in the 40 million on food stamps, and almost certainly many bankrupt cities and states, with tent cities across the country.

Puts a whole new meaning on "full employement".

On the other hand a government program which invests in the people of this country instead of campaign contributors on Wall Street might turn this around.

And feel free to save this one - I have had to eat my words before, but I don't think I will on this one.

[stockholmer]

18. jobs up + unemployed job seekers up = bad

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

it is all a con game with numbers, like counting 100 chickens in a pen, with food for only 95, then as the five w/o food get too weak to look for food, you now say no chickens are hungry because they are none coming to feeding area without getting food

next, it happens that you only have food for 90, and the same thing happens with the next 5 hungry ones

and so on............

[brentspeak]

26. Is your purpose here to taunt forum members? n/t

[girl gone mad]

29. These numbers are not "good news".

63,000 or 103,000 96.%, 9.8% - any way you slice it, the outcome is absolutely pathetic when you take into account the 24 trillion that was spent propping up the financial sector. Main Street continues to struggle while Wall Street has gone right back to its gambling, stealing, cheating ways. That this is happening under a Dem admin. is a disgrace.

[fasttense]

10. Happy Days Are Here Again!!!

You know talking bad about the economy just makes it angry. The economy gets meaner and nastier every time you say something bad about it.

So, Happy Days are here again cause I got a McJob again, now I can pay to get my teeth pulled. And I might even be able to afford to put some meat into my beans and rice once in awhile.

[Lucky Luciano]

11. I thought the report sucked.

The labor force dropped by 285k and the number of new jobs was very disappointing.

[bluestateguy]

12. Upward revisions to the previous 2 months

"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for October was revised
from +172,000 to +210,000, and the change for November was revised
from +39,000 to +71,000."

[stockholmer]

17. Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 25 Year Low, Adjusted Unemployment Rate At 11.7%

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/labor-force-participation-rate-drops-fresh-25-year-low-adjusted-unemployment-rate-117

While today's unemployment number came at a low 9.4%, well below expectations, the one and only reason for this is that the labor force in America has plunged to a fresh 25 year low. Assuming a reversion to the mean in the long-term average participation rate back to 66%, means that the civilian labor force, which in December came at 153,690, a drop of 260,000 from November, is in reality 157.6 million, a delta of 3.91 million currently unaccounted for. Maybe someone can ask Bernanke during his imminent presentation before Congress what happened to the unemployed population, which would have been 18.4 million if this labor force delta was incorporated, resulting in an unemployment rate of 11.7%.


Two Takes On The NFP Number, Neither One Good

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/two-takes-nfp-number


Charting Three Decades Of The Exponential December BLS Seasonal Adjustment

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/charting-three-decades-exponential-december-bls-seasonal-adjustment


Another Big Miss: Just 103K New Jobs Created In December

http://www.businessinsider.com/december-non-farm-payrolls-2011-1#ixzz1AMyEGnpY

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[pinqy]

19. That's methodologically unsound

Yes, the LF participation rate has dropped and that's not good. But it's seperate from the UE rate and you can't just add them back in. For example: someone forced into early retirement due to the bad economy is no longer in the Labor Force, but you can't add them back in as unemployed...they'd either be employed or normally retired. Likewise, students, stay at home spouses, and retirees taking a post-retirement part time job are less likely to try to take a part time job (because they'd have no luck), but you can't add them back in as if they were unemployed either.

There are people who can be legitimately added back in for an alternate view...the Discouraged: those who have looked for work but gave up because they don't think they'd find work. Add them back in and that puts the UE rate at 10.2% Add in all people who are willing and able to work and who have looked in the past year but are no longer looking (for any reason, not just discouragement) and the UE rate goes up to 10.9%

Now adding in everyone not looking for work who says they want a job, regardless of whether or not they've ever looked or if they could actually take a job if offered boosts the UE rate to 13.1%, but it also puts the LF participation at 67%

Just taking the difference between current LF participation and some arbitrary guess at what it "should be," and calling all those people unemployed and added to the rate just doesn't make sense.

[stockholmer]

22. what UE rate do you refer to? you numbers are based on playing mix and match with U3, U4, U5, and U6

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf the BLS report


U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).


the U6 ws the OFFICIAL rate until 1994, when the Clinton administration changed it to the U3, even that is flawed, also the Small Business job creation birth/death cycle is always ovrestimtd by 2 to 5 percent, depending on the month (this started with Bush in 2003)

the actual UE rate in the USA is around 21 to 22%, if counted the way the EU does or the wsy the USA did for 100 years, pre-1994
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts


great article

http://www.oyetimes.com/news/america/8617-us-unemployment-numbers-what-dont-they-tell-us
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o2H52OH-Kdg/TScZbEZF5uI/AAAAAAAAAqY/YsKs6MIz_Lg/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-01-07+at+9.46.52+AM.png


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/07/bleak-jobs-report-never-s_n_805797.html

The news gets worse: less than half of the drop in unemployment rate can be attributed to new job creation -- the other half came from 260,000 Americans who have dropped out of the labor force altogether. This brings the percentage of Americans who are either employed or actively looking for work down to 64.3 percent, what economist Heidi Shierholz calls "a stunning new low for the recession."

[pinqy]

24. I was using multiple measurements

Adding in discourage workers, U-4, raises the UE rate to 10.2 (less than the 11.7 claim from manipulations based on LF participation).
Adding in all marginally attached, U-5, raises it to 10.9.
So adding in KNOWN quantities of those willing and able to work doesn't go anywhere near 11.7. Which makes that claim a little dodgy.

Adding in ALL who say they want a job, from Table A-1 of the Employment Situation, raises it to 13.1, but also raises the LF participation to 67%...higher than the 65% used in the estimates you posted.

So where is the validity of assuming a 65% LF participation and then counting all those as unemployed?

the U6 ws the OFFICIAL rate until 1994, when the Clinton administration changed it to the U3

No, it wasn't. The official rate was the U-5, under the old measurement scheme. The U-5 definition was almost identical to the current U-3. Discouraged, other marginally attached, and part time workers were NOT included. Marginally Attached, used in the U-5 and U-6 wasn't even a concept before 1994. And part time workers have NEVER been counted as unemployed. Alternative Unemployment Measures

the actual UE rate in the USA is around 21 to 22%, if counted the way the EU does or the wsy the USA did for 100 years, pre-1994

No, the EU uses the ILO definition: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Unemployment">Eurostat Glossary
And the US has only been systematically collecting UE data since 1941 when the Current Population Survey started. Before that, it was only sporadic census calculations. Data for the Depression weren't calculated until years later.

Further reading: To see ALL definitions used for Unemployment since 1960, go to Employment and Earnings, a BLS journal, and pick any month of any year and go to the technical data and explanations. The only major definitional changes made were in 1967.

[pinqy]

27. Here, I'll make it easy for you:

Employment and Earnings, January 1968
Page 148 of the journal (145 of the pdf, I think), under Concepts:

Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back toa job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

And current definition Employment and Earnings, Dec 2010 page 177 of the journal, 178 of the pdf

Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So, now tell me how radically things changed in 1994. Mr. Williams at Shadowstats is referring to the requirement for job search in the previous year to be considered Discouraged. But Discouraged was not part of the definition. Before 1967 it was the interviewer's discretion to include people who weren't looking because they didn't believe they'd find work, but that was not consistant.

Nothing resembling the U-6 has EVER been used by anyone for an official UE rate.

[stockholmer]

28. Bottom line, Im sure we agree that something huge needs to give for a just,sound economic solution

we are getting lost in the weeds of stats

Here in Sweden, to get UE checks (which are not time-limited) there is a strict procedure, so all out of work people are counted, not simply labeled discouraged. Our measurable UE rate (which will fall under 7% in 2011) is at least comparable to the USA U6, and in truth is in line with William's US SGS Alternative rate of 22%. He has stated in several interviews that the Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, and Danish (eg Nordic zone) UE rate methodologies are very similar to his SGS Alternative rate.

We take into account part-time vs full-time employment based on a 35-hour work week) and this is adjusted in too. In summary, if the USA counted UE rate like Sweden, yours would be roughly triple ours. In addition, our minimum wage is more than double yours, and we do not make people NOR our employers pay for health care costs (other than a very small, annually capped co-pay on services AND medication. We also will run a National budget SURPLUS in 2011, versus the USA which will have over $1.5 trillion in 'official' deficit for 2011.

I ran a tax comparison for a friend living in NYC, making $66,000 US per year, and she would have close to $7,000 more US take-home pay here in Stockholm than she would in New York, after taxes (Fed, FICA, State,Local,Sales there, VAT here, income tax here) and medical insurance expenses are factored in. Even the low US, high Sweden taxes are a myth for most middle-class workers.

If we can do this here, you should be able to there, especially given our so-called over-payed workers, our lack of natural resources, and our so-called cradle-to-grave socialism. Unfortunately, your empiric war machine expenses and your rate of debt service alone add up to more than all your worker's income tax revenues.


an interesting article:


http://hellskitchenlife.com/2010/09/us-unemployment-rate-is-22really.html

Yes, it’s true; the total percentage of unemployed workers in the U.S. is 22%. Before you laugh this off and dismiss it as a joke or the ranting of a radical lunatic, let me be clear; I am neither joking nor am I a radical lunatic, so take a look at the chart above and the facts below.


The U.S. markets have been swinging wildly for the last few months every time a new unemployment figure comes out, and the problem with this is that the reported numbers are NOT accurate and do NOT reflect the actual number of people who are unemployed in this country. This is not an opinion; it is a well documented fact.




The "official" unemployment rate should be a single statistic/percentage that reflects the total number of people who are unemployed in the United States each month, but if it were it would not allow any opportunity for our plutocrats and bureaucrats to manipulate the figure, because you can’t interpret or manipulate a single number, you need multiple numbers in order to do that so you can create a little confusion, thus, our present system, with SIX different figures, U1 – U6. And before you all start throwing facts at me, I am well aware that there are “voluntary” and “involuntary” unemployed, and I am also aware that there are “cyclical”, “structural”, “hidden” and “discouraged” unemployed. These terms were made up to allow the government to drastically reduce the “official” unemployment figure.


Imagine if tomorrow morning the SEC decided that it would suddenly change the way the U.S. financial markets calculated the value of stocks without any of the underlying facts of those companies’ values changing. This is effectively what happened to the “official” unemployment statistics in 1994; one day they just decided to change how they calculated it.


Since 1994, the hidden, discouraged, and long term unemployed have not been counted in the “Official U3 Unemployment Rate”, the official rate that you see in the news. This much is clear to me from the aforementioned; the official U3 number has nothing to do with the real total number of people in America who are unemployed.


We the citizens of this country need to know what the actual number of people in the workforce who are unemployed is. You can break it down anyway you want after that, but you cannot report a number as official when it is absolute fantasy (the U3 number) as well as being deliberately misleading and having no basis fact. The really worrisome part is that it is the official number that makes the cover of the major papers, which in turn is what powers or shrinks our financial markets as well as our economy.


The change in the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculating methodology that was put in place in 1994, is when “discouraged worker” became part of our vocabulary, and sadly it is also when he/she (the discouraged or long term unemployed person) was summarily dropped from the “official” rate that is widely publicized. This means that if you can’t or won’t find work, or you are unemployed for too long, you no longer exist as part of the official percentage of unemployed workers in America. Simply put, this is a ludicrous concept and the height of idiocracy. Is anyone else getting this?


The 1994 change also explains why unemployment so quickly and steadily dropped (nearly 50% percent) between 1993 and 2000, from 7.9% to 3.9% (Read it HERE), which is quite an impressive feat. That is, it’s impressive until you realize that it’s pretty easy to accomplish that if you just stop counting a large part of the population and pretend they don’t exist, which is exactly what happened, and what continues to happen today. Its simple; if you have been unemployed for too long you are one of those people who doesn’t exist in the eyes of the government.


The current (August, 2010) U6 unemployment number (which is not the official number) from the government, which is the total percentage of people unemployed according to the post-Clinton Bureau of Labor Statistics methodology is 16.7%, which is a 2% increase in unemployment since July (See it HERE). And incidentally, the U6 number is 72% higher than the “official” U3 August, 2010, number of 9.6% (See it HERE) which is what you see on the front page of the paper. This should frighten the hell out of you, and the one month increase should frighten you even more. Ironically, when referencing the official August 2010, numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says in its monthly press release (See it HERE) that, “The number of unemployed persons and the unemployment rate were little changed in August”. Huh? Obviously they are referring to their fantasy U3 number of 9.6%. Its nice to have fantasies, and apparently they make people with government jobs and pensions sleep better.


But wait; go get your adult diapers, because this statistic will really scare the crap out of you. It’s from, Shadow Government Statistic (SGS), which performs a widely respected statistical measurement of unemployment each month using pre-Clinton era methodologies to correctly measure the actual percentage of people who are unemployed each month in our country. Sadly, as well respected as the methodology is, the number is not widely reported and you won’t see it on the front page of your paper or at the top of your Google Business News feed.


So here is the really scary part; according to SGS, the current (August, 2010) unemployment rate for the U.S. is 22% (See it HERE). If that doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will. Oh, wait, there’s one more thing; the unemployment rate during the height of the Great Depression in 1933 was 24.9% (See it HERE), just 2.9% more than the current SGS number. And by the way, the SGS number is calculated using the same methodology that was used to calculate the rate during the depression.


I just can’t for the life of me understand why people aren’t screaming from the rafters about this. So folks, perhaps it’s time to start asking some serious questions very loudly because we can’t fix a damn thing until we have all the facts laid out.


One thing is for sure from all of this; manipulating data and trying to fool the people of this great country (read: lying) is not going to help anything, it’s only going to make it worse

[pinqy]

30. Why are you lying?

From http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/AM0401_2010M11_TI_AM100TI1012.pdf">Statistics Sweden

Arbetslösa omfattar följande grupper:
-personer som var utan arbete under referensveckan men som sökt arbete under de senaste fyra veckorna (referensveckan och tre veckor bakåt) och kunde arbeta referensveckan eller börja inom 14 dagar från referensveckans slut. Arbetslösa omfattar även personer som har fått ett arbete som börjar inom tre månader, förutsatt att de skulle ha kunnat arbeta referensveckan eller börja inom 14 dagar från referensveckans slut.

By the way, I was on Statistics Sweden's email list, getting their newsletter every month for years. Didn't do me a lot of good as I don't read Swedish very well.

And you quote from an article that repeats the LIE that discouraged workers were counted prior to 1994. I linked to the damn definitions so you can't plead ignorance anymore.

[stockholmer]

31. ad hominen attacks are a refuge of scoundrels, you are treading into the swamp

You really need to go read up on our UE system, it is 2-tiered. the basic is covered by the Inspektionen för Arbetslöshetsförsäkringen http://www.iaf.se/ , working with the Arbetsformedlingen http://www.arbetsformedlingen.se/ .

In addition to basic, under a modified "Ghent System" workers can contribute to an additional, income-sensitive unemployment insurance fund as well, many overseen by the numerous trade unions (Arbetslöshetskassa). There are 36 of these funds in Sweden. Examples http://www.unionensakassa.se/ https://www.alfakassan.se/ (non-union)

After the fund insurance runs out, and still no job, a person qualifies for a Jobb och Utvecklingsgarantin programme. Through all this processes, a person has to fulfill certain meetings and trainings, which guarantee that they are kept track of in the official statistics.

here is a paper on how the part-time issue is treated here in Sweden
http://ucls.nek.uu.se/working%20papers/Summary%204.pdf



As to your continued misstatements about the 1994 BLS changes here is the official BLS release

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf


BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures. John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen”

“since the inception of the survey in 1940, only relatively minor changes have been made to the official definition of unemployment. (Definitionally, it was not changed at all, except for elimination of a small group of persons, namely those who volunteered the information that they were waiting to start a new job within 30 days, most of whom undoubtedly meet the jobseeking tests in any case. There were, however, changes in the wording of nearly all the questions – particularly as regards persons on layoff – that affected the underlying data in limited ways) … Most analysts monitor unemployment because of its role as a cyclical indicator … represents the degree to which available labor resources are not being utilized in the economy …

The 1994 redesign … a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced. … employed part-time for economic reasons.

The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. … Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. … Effects on indicator U-5 … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.”

[matt819]

20. The numbers are fundamentally meaningless

They don't reflect or capture those who have stopped looking for work. How these people are getting along day to day is a mystery, one the republicans are very happy to ignore.

Also, they don't capture the numbers of underemployed. The college graduates working for $12 an hour.

In short, they're a joke.

[Plucketeer]

21. Here we are....

counting kernels of corn in a silo! We must be assuming that every time a job is created, someone calls the White House to report it. Sure - that's how it works! Surprizing that the figures always end in three zeros. I mean - what's the chances of that???

One thing that DOES seem to show is a trend over the last half year, that jobs ARE on the increase. And what's truly baffling is that this trend started BEFORE small businesses had the spectre of looming tax increases eliminated! Maybe there were Republicans calling each and every business and assuring them there'd be no taxes to dissuade their future efforts. That's the only thing I can see that would have put the effect AHEAD of the cause that the GOP warned us about. :crazy:

And yet - STILL.... there's no crowing about this from the White House. WTF??? Are there any Nazi propagandists that this administration could bring on board???


GOP JOBS PLAN

[stockholmer]

23. no crowing because the actual pure number of people out of work is increasing each month and..

and the majority of ones getting hired are paid far less overall than they were making

just look at the NEW claims each month, and also remember that when a 99'er runs out of benefits, they are removed from the rolls

whenever you hear 'adjusted number' think FRAUD

you Americans call it 'putting lipstick on a pig' I do believe

cheers from Sweden