Economics, Pethokoukis

873,000 jobs? Last time, the economy added that many, it was growing at a white-hot 9.3%

Economic consulting firm IHS Global Insight:

The household employment estimate is subject to a bigger sampling error than the payroll estimate. Its 873,000 increase is a huge statistical outlier on the upside.

Look at it this way: Back in June 1983, the economy added about 900,000 jobs, according to that same household survey. During the second quarter of 1983, the quarter that month falls in, the economy grew at an astronomical 9.3% annual rate. The supply-side Reagan Boom was in full swing.

Right now, in the third quarter of 2012, economists think the economy is growing at an an anemic 1.5% or so. So the economy was growing six times as fast in 1983 when it was adding that many jobs. Hmmmm ….

26 thoughts on “873,000 jobs? Last time, the economy added that many, it was growing at a white-hot 9.3%

  1. Is there any chance the Labor Dept. was encouraged by the White House to cook the numbers? Can we determine independently if this might have been the case? This is obviously an extremely politically sensitive statistic at this moment in the campaign season.

    • You bet there was, check my post above and then Google the history of the new female director/administrator.

      Its shocking.

    • Erica Groshen, Obama’s commissioner appointment to head the BLS…check her out and where she sends her kids to summer camp. I posted a background report earlier.

      Quid pro quo…one socialist to another.

      • That :socialist” is still working at the NY Fed as an analyst since the GOP has held up her appointment.

        You do give this site some needed (cough) color.

        • That yet to be appointed socialist is Obama’s first and only choice and her influence is already unambiguously conspicuous.

          The Head Chef doesn’t have to be in the kitchen 24/7 in order to determine whats on the menu.

          My color is a lot faster than yours…you are way out of your league.

          • Sir, you’re a fool. How could she have any influence in a department she isn’t working in?

            You’re clueless- and the “MacDaddy” handle gives you up anyway.

          • The staff at Labor got its marching orders from their new Obama appointed boss months ago.

            Job creation is jobs #1 at Labor.

        • Right- the current head who was a GOP appointee is allowing her to cook the books from the Federal Reserve building in Lower Manhattan.

          • Cooking, baking, steaming, broiling…the fingerprints of the new boss are all over it.

            The new jobs numbers are conspicuously bogus.

        • This was debunked. You people are afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome.

          Once elected,

          He wasn’t born here
          He was a Communist
          The poll numbers are skewed when they show him in the lead, and you howl with glee when they’re not

          and now this. Another conspiracy, perhaps the 10oth one the wingnuts have cooked up.

          Sick. Just sick.

  2. I guess that would make 1.3% GDP growth America’s BLACK HOLE.

    It looks like Obama’s last appointment of a committed socialist–check her background (like where she sends her kids to camp)–to manage the jobs data didn’t come a any too early–she’s already paying big dividends.

  3. Uhn, Jim, aside from the fact your numbers from June 1983 might be for the wrong month, I did find this:

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3799

    The labor force participation rate (the percentage of people aged 16 and over working or looking for work) remained a depressed 63.8 percent;

    before the current economic slump, labor force participation had not been this low since 1983.

    The share of the population with a job, which plummeted in the recession from 62.7 percent in December 2007 to levels last seen in the mid-1980s and has been below 60 percent since early 2009, remained at 58.6 percent in June.

    As discussed above, long-term unemployment remains a significant concern. Over two-fifths (41.9 percent) of the 12.7 million people who are unemployed — 5.4 million people — have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. These long-term unemployed represent 3.5 percent of the labor force.

    Before this recession, the previous highs for these statistics over the past six decades were 26.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, in June 1983.

  4. Is there any oversight of the BLS and specifically it’s sampling algorithm for the Household Survey?

    My understanding is the Household Survey is based off phone polling. These things, which numbers and regions are sampled, are very… needing of transparency.

  5. After revising the jobs numbers every week to worse than previously reported for over a year, nothing they could do would surprise me. May, or was it April, was a prime example, where there was jobs growth every single week, and then when the monthly total came out, which of course had at least 3 of the revised weeks’ numbers, we were all shocked that more people gave up looking for work than jobs created, and the jobs created number was pathetic.
    Then there was August, where we were told all month long how this was the month the recovery summer was going to come through, until the end of the month when all the revised weekly numbers were totaled, and what, 4x as many people gave up looking as there were jobs created, and that was apparently revised further down later.
    So, there is this little thing called credibility, and another called bias. After the labor department lied that the numbers were better than they were every week over 52 weeks in a row, then revised them down, every time, to make it easier to say things were moving the right direction the next week, well, that doesn’t deserve any credibility, and there is no way that error is random.

    They could say Unemployment was down to 4 or 5%, Bush levels, but with with a suffocatingly low GDP growth, I wouldn’t believe them. Maybe the 0bama soldiers who calc the unemployment and seasonal adjustments need to coordinate with those who do the GDP, like MSNBC should have done with the NYT, if they expect us to believe their lies. BTW MSNBC doctored tape and forgot to tell NYT, who quoted the events 1st hand, and inadvertently exposed MSNBC as more than the “usually pro-0bama” network. (politico accidently called MSNBC pro-0bama; you can bet they’re getting an email from Cutter, who forgot to coordinate her lies with her boss’s from debate night. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men…)

    • Perhaps a number of people who want the current administration to continue did not answer the survey honestly in an attempt to make the situation with employment look less bad.

  6. @max the number is completely cooked.

    1) The 800,000 jobs created are extrapolated from a phone interview of 50,000 people.

    2) lets assume the number is real. Why is U6 still so high? Why are there 15 million more people on food stamps today than there were january of 2009? how can it be that the U3 is the same as it was in January of 2009, even though labor participation is 8% lower?

    3) assuming this number os correct it doesnt meet the goals of Obamas stimulus he said unemployment would be at 5% if we passed the stimulus. Gdp growth is also not as good as previous tax cut, government reduction based recoveries.

    You deride Reagans recovery but there is a reason he won in a landslide against a liberal media.

    If Obama wins ita going to be under 50% which would be the first time a president has won re-election with fewer votea than his primary election.

    And his communist tendencies? just read his books. He calls himself a marxist. His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis an anti american marxist.

    His pastor is a black nationalist marxist. there is NO denying Obama is a commie. Those are the values of the modern democrat party.

    You know that the primary objective to convert a country to communism is to take over the healthcare system?

    • Taking some of the loonier points:

      1) The 800,000 jobs created are extrapolated from a phone interview of 50,000 people.

      The BLS uses the same frikkin methodology they always have since the mid 80s. Get a grip. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20120410.htm

      “You deride Reagans recovery but there is a reason he won in a landslide against a liberal media.”

      (God, its amazing that adults talk this way) Hey genius: know what the unemployment rate was when Reagan won his second term? 7.2%. Things still sucked, but the public had the sense that things were improving, and lets face it, Mondale ran a horrid campaign.

      “If Obama wins ita going to be under 50% which would be the first time a president has won re-election with fewer votea than his primary election.”

      How do you know? I personally think Romney is going to get crushed. He has no support among the young, women (especially single women) Hispanics, Jews oh, and then there’s the Black vote. I don’t see how Romney overcomes those deficits with those voting blocs. I REALLY don’t see it.

      “And his communist tendencies? just read his books. He calls himself a marxist. His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis an anti american marxist.”

      This is truly infantile. I read “Audacity of Hope” and this is one of the most centrist presidents we’ve had since Nixon. To hurl the “Communist” epithet- especially since this is still very much a free market economy, is lunacy.

      “His pastor is a black nationalist marxist. there is NO denying Obama is a commie. Those are the values of the modern democrat party.”

      If you’re stupid enough to believe the Party of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Clinton is “communist” you have, quite simply, lost your mind. You’re not worth talking to.

      “You know that the primary objective to convert a country to communism is to take over the healthcare system?”

      There was no “takeover” as you will still be mailing your check to Blue Cross, Humana, CIGNA or US Healthcare as before, and if you the “primary objective to convert a country to communism is to take over the healthcare system” not only do you know LESS than nothing about Communism, it would mean the United Kingdom is a Communist nation.

      You’re a fruitcake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>