Seeking Alpha

September Nonfarm Payrolls: +114K vs. consensus +115K, +142K previous (revised from 96K)....

September Nonfarm Payrolls: +114K vs. consensus +115K, +142K previous (revised from 96K). Unemployment rate 7.8% vs. consensus 8.2%, 8.1% previous.
Comments (122)
  • 800,000 or so stopped looking. There's your drop in the headline number. Another wad probably also go added to the "disability" rolls, which has been another ongoing trend.


    They're hoping people who don't follow this stuff closely will just glance at the headline number and vote to re-elect Obama. That headline number will be even lower by Nov. 6, and even more imaginary than this one.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • Your obsession with Obama has blinded you from making a good analysis of the numbers....forget the politics....makes for bad analysis...
    5 Oct 2012, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • The BLS would "cook the books" for Romney just as much as they do for Obama. We all need to move past thinking the Repubs or Dems have a solution.


    Civilian employment did tick up to 58.7%, getting back to mid-2012 levels. Not a sign of recovery, but nice to see stability after drops in the previous two months.

    5 Oct 2012, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • If people want to see a strong middle class and strong jobs growth look at when the top tax rate was 90%.


    We need a 75% tax on the 1%. It would balance the budget and we would have some surplus to invest in the middle class.


    Obama has been too weak, he should have raised taxes to the top 1% on the first year. Enough of rich welfare!
    5 Oct 2012, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • Working pretty well for France

    5 Oct 2012, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • But no one really paid the 90%. Lots of deductions eased the chances of paying the 90%. Income taxes as a % of GDP, don't tend to get over 20%.

    5 Oct 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • lol... ouch sucks to be looking for work in france too Isuppose.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • There's a difference between levying a tax, and levying a tax you can actually collect.

    5 Oct 2012, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Bbro


    This is a decent report some positives in it but Obama must go. overall his administration is a net drag on growth - the Obama penalty is in the order of 1 to 1.5% of GDP. Shows you how stronf the US is - despite the pols.


    Obama Must Be Defeated.


    5 Oct 2012, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Detto, hasn't a clue. The 90% marginal tax rate was completely disconnected from the effective tax rates people paid back then. That was in fact the motivation for the AMT. Had in reality the effective tax rate been even half that 90% rate, you'd not have had any job or economic growth.


    The amazing thing to me is the blindly parochial nature of folks like Detto. France, as well as most of Europe, should be seen as a laboratory experiment and testing ground. If Detto's policies don't work there then only a fool would duplicate them in the US.


    Folks such as Detto and American In Paris are mindlessly Euro-centric and emotionally cling to a European heritage that they can't get past and doesn't reflect the current state of the sickly Old Man that is Europe.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • 1.1 million FEWER job seekers in the market in the past year due to fewer people in the labor force.


    I ought to know. I am one of them. Laid off. Never took unemployment. Not looking. Why bother? My pay was awesome, and I cant get that back.


    Living off my savings and investments from a lifetime of earnings made back when America had a great economy .


    The Great American Economy - 1980-2008. RIP.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Take your own blinders off. This report was a lousy report and another miss. The headline number is laughably misleading. 66% of household survey jobs added were parttime. really?!? that's 'good news'?!? wtfu.


    Q3 GDP will be under 1.8% for sure.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • " If people want to see a strong middle class and strong jobs growth look at when the top tax rate was 90%. "


    A 90% rate that NOBODY paid because they sheltered it in lower-taxed corporations and tax shelters.


    We had ZERO medicare taxes and a social security tax under 5%. Govt was a lot lot smaller (except for DoD) back in the 50s. Ok, so lets repeal medicare and cut social security be 2/3rds ... and while you are at it abolish the EPA, OSHA and other alphabet soup regulators, abolish HUD, Dept of Ed and about half of govt workers should be let go. *THEN* we'd be really back to those days .... ah, the good ol' days!
    5 Oct 2012, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Hooper....I think the Greeks have learned that lesson - probably Spain is learning fast as well.
    5 Oct 2012, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly so. Why try to find another job that pays half and has twice the aggravation? My employer is now Uncle Sam and he does not tell me stupid things to do every damn day.
    5 Oct 2012, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • The sarcasm is great.
    6 Oct 2012, 12:36 AM Reply Like
  • I have to agree. The rich should pay their fair share. A 50% top tax rate should be enough.
    6 Oct 2012, 07:12 AM Reply Like
  • Amen. Additionally, taxpayers fail to comprehend the follow on costs associated with government asset acquisition. Another monument, museum, park, open space, service, school, highway, etc. demand ever greater quantities of labor, maintenance, repair and improvement with accompanying taxes to fund. The real question to ask on every asset acquisition is it a want or a need.


    But few even recognize it in their personal lives either. Really? More "stuff" costs more? Had no Idea!!
    6 Oct 2012, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • Well said Petrarch.
    6 Oct 2012, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • Were you just imported from Europe? I see how that incentive is working there. You must be a real winner Detto. This is America not socialist Europe or communist China. Why do you think we have innovated so much here?
    6 Oct 2012, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • if you read the report its not better at all in fact it is dismal, or as they say in the report "flat" like flat line in the ER.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • Mostly good news one worry is the rise in part time employment due to
    economic reasons still as long as its down year over year it registers as a positive....
    5 Oct 2012, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • They need to start separating out the under-employed. The economy isn't getting better if the only jobs people are getting are part time.


    It's mostly ugly with some sprinkles here and there.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • I say eliminate the BLS entirely. These numbers need more granularity, but the government shouldn't be cooking them.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • "It's mostly ugly with some sprinkles here and there. "


    Actually, its almost all ugly, 114,000 is a dismal number, below the dismal averageof job growth in 2012 and extending more mediocrity over the last 4 years in the most dismal recovery since WWWII.


    highly suspicious that the only good part is precisely the part that the administration can tout in headlines. Oh, so U-6 is the same, the number jobs added is miniscule, household survey is all about part-time jobs, but we have a 7 handle to tout.


    This is like stores that change the dress sizes on dresses so women dont feel as fat when they try them on.... "Cool, I fit a size 7! I had no idea!"


    Yet .... We are in the same soup as ever.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • Well the sprinkles to me is that some increase in part time jobs is no increase...


    I know I'm being optimistic here... but there is enough negativity so if I can find even the smallest thing to be optimistic about then I guess I'll take it.


    For a while there I was afraid I might have to make my own pizza, instead of getting delivery. So there is something to be happy about.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • So the last 2 months when it was 8.2 - Let me guess those numbers were accurate and obama was a slouch, now that it drops they are manipulated. you can't have it both ways. So people are only getting part-time jobs - how is that bad? is it better then no employment? Now they have some money to spend albeit less than they would like. Isn't under-employed better then un-employed? Am I stupid for asking these questions? Is a little money better than none? are they not going to be paying taxes, and spending the money they earn? I must be dumb for believing that some is better than none.
    5 Oct 2012, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • 8.2 wasn't accurate either... people just got used to it.
    5 Oct 2012, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • For the data driven: F payrolls in 2010, 2011 took a big dive in May-June timeframe, remained level and then popped up around Sept..
    5 Oct 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Trucking transportation and temporary help services still positive year over year.....
    5 Oct 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • Oil Field
    5 Oct 2012, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • " temporary help services "


    OK, now *THAT* makes sense. Businesses are hiring but fear obamacare, fiscal cliff, economic uncertainty etc. so we are still in hiring temps mode.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • From the report "Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little
    change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to
    58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in
    the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor
    force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force
    participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1.)


    The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
    referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August
    to 8.6 million in September. 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."
    5 Oct 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • President Obama has worked hard to put more Americans to work each month, and the data proves this. Even more jobs are coming in his second term.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, if you think this report is good. Hey, if we can get thousands more people to drop out of the workforce, the rate can get ever better...
    5 Oct 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • Meanwhile U6 was unchanged at 14%. Keep drinking that kool-aid.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • Obama has done pretty good taking in consideration that Congress has been controlled by the tea bags.


    He deserves four more years. Equities are at highs, unemployment rate below 8%, home prices recovering and auto sales surging.


    One of the best days in America's history.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Sen. Reid is a teabag?
    5 Oct 2012, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • Blaming Congress? I thought it was the altitude's fault.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • "One of the best days in America's history"


    5 Oct 2012, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • @ anonymous#12: I think it's hilarious that in your profile it says you value entrepreneurship, which by the way you spelled incorrectly, and yet you support Obama who is turning our country into a socialist nation. "One of the best days in America's history"? Haha... this guy has to be a person on Obama's re-election team because that statement couldn't be any farther from the truth. So Obama's helping his supporters by boosting equities? How many low income people own stocks, especially since the depths of the previous recession? And the number of American's on food stamps recently hit 46 million, a record high. I don't think the 1% is using food stamps... Unfortunately it sounds like you will vote for Obama no matter what happens. Brainwashed...
    5 Oct 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • 2muchdebt:


    Please name 5 ways the US has become socialist since Obama's presidency.


    I'm really curious.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • Obama zombies out in force today
    5 Oct 2012, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • I would argue that we've become more of an Oligarchy than Socialist. Bush, Obama, Romney...doesn't matter, but:


    1. More Americans than ever get government payments.
    2. More Americans than ever receive healthcare via the govt.
    3. More Americans than ever receive food via the govt.
    4. Total spending on lobbying the federal government has almost tripled since 1998.
    5. Debt to GDP ratio permanently above 100% and rising.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • @kmi: The definition of socialism is an economic system which is substantially controlled by the government and government intervention within the system is prevalent. When I said “turning our country into a socialist nation” I was referring to the idea that we are moving in that direction away from a 100% capitalistic society. Bear that in mind as I list my reasons as you so kindly requested. 1) Welfare, including food stamps and government reliance, is at an all-time high. 2) Government regulation is getting way out of hand and exorbitant. 3) Government spending programs, most of which is wasteful in my opinion, have only increased in both breadth and depth since Obama took office. 4) The newly enacted healthcare law that requires all American's to have insurance and increases the governments influence in the healthcare system. 5) Obama's ideas surrounding income redistribution through higher taxes only on the rich. Obama is chastising the rich as bad people and trying to redistribute money from the wealthy to the poor. I’m not sure there are many other ways the government can engage in socialist activities than the ones outlined above except for intervention through majority equity ownership. We will never be a pure socialist society, but the meddling of the government in business and business activities needs to diminish.


    The issue here is that Obama thinks the government can solve any and every issue. That is my point. Is that sufficient to appease you?
    5 Oct 2012, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • You can't have a purely socialistic economy. The collapse due to deep austerity.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • The "there are no socialists in the Democratic party" meme is absurd when you consider the fact that the senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, self-identifies as an "Independent Socialist," caucuses with Democrats, and votes with the Democratic party on essentially 100% of issues. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a de facto socialist party organization, whether they acquiesce to calling themselves that or not. If the word "socialist" weren't such a bogeyman in America, they would use it. Evidence for this: "Social justice," "economic justice," "education justice," etc. are all terms coined by socialists and which indisputably refer to socialist policies. But these terms have not (yet) become unpalatable in American politics, so Democrats continue to use them quite happily and publicly.


    With that said, 2MuchDebt's point that there is a mixed-government continuum from 100% capitalism to 100% socialism is exactly correct: the more welfare programs we have, and the more people who become dependent on them, the more we move away from capitalism and toward socialism. If it is absurd to say that there are no socialists in America, it is equally absurd to label all Democrats as card-carrying socialists. Some may be, but most simply favor creeping socialism.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • 2muchdebt,


    To your first point, I would ask, you are of the opinion that social safety nets are fundamentally not an obligation of government?


    To your second point, you believe the JOBS act reflects increased regulation? Or can you specify what specific legislation was passed by Obama that caused this increased regulation you find burdensome?


    To your fourth point, can you tell me if you are specifically of the opinion that the healthcare system, pre Obama, was healthy, functioning well, and didn't need any adjustment, in particular vis a vis pre-existing conditions and the millions of Americans who had zero access to same?
    5 Oct 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • kmi,


    All three of your arguments are classic examples of false-choice fallacies. 2MuchDebt and I have clearly explained how real economies are always mixed economies, wherein the degree to which socialism has creeped in is variable. This is what the real debate is about. The choice is not between social safety nets or nothing, nor between regulations or nothing, nor between the old status quo or ObamaCare. Such is exactly the campaign rhetoric of Democrats this election season: voters must choose between our regulations and another financial crisis, between our regulations and dirty air and water, between our social programs and throwing the poor, elderly, and disabled to the wolves, et cetera, ad nauseum.


    The real reason these debates and broader political system have become so poisonous lately is because of absurd mischaracterizations of the other party's policy proposals. If you declare loudly and repeatedly to the American people that there is no common ground between you and your opponents, you just might create a reality in which that is true. Case in point:
    5 Oct 2012, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • 6. Since socialism is ownership of means of production ... We STILL OWN GM.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • sean, I am merely asking questions, not making arguments, you are the one coming out swinging.


    To your point above, I concede that there is a 'needle' that moves and it may move towards 'capitalism' or 'socialism' but there is a fundamental underlayment in the way this country is structured so it can never be 'truly' one or the other in all the ways the are most important.


    That said, in the recent debate, Mitt basically agreed that, Dodd Frank was necessary, that healthcare reform had to happen, that Obama's foreign policy is essentially correct.


    What he disagreed with Obama on was -degree-


    He constantly made the case that although he agreed, with, for example Obamacare, he tried (and sorry, but as far I'm concerned, failed, to distinguish it from Romneycare) to suggest that he would do THE SAME THINGS but somehow he would do them differently and better and more capitalist-like.


    I'm sorry but.... wow. That is rather assinine. Just as is the notion that Obama has somehow fundamentally altered the country to become a socialist nation, and to Freedoms Truth below, let's not forget who it was who started us down that path ( "The day before, he conceded that he had been forced by the severity of the economic downturn to ignore many of the free-market principles he came to office embracing." fun stuff.).


    All I'm asking is a specific example of how Obama made the country more socialist and repressive, and, just to keep things honest, how he did it that Romney would not have.


    That said, I'm firmly a mixed party voter and vote my interest, why would I do otherwise? And my interest is in having a strong middle class, because, well, I'm in the business of selling a product to the US middle class, and I need it to afford my products. I own my own 'means of production' and although burdened by legislation, like everyone else, I can't say that any of it is a result of Obama policy.


    So, can you tell me where your pain with Obama policy lies? And in the interest of honesty, let it be something Romney hasn't already agreed to, like Dodd-Frank or Obamacare.


    PBS? Big Bird?
    5 Oct 2012, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • Tom,


    The report together the surge in the housing and construction and the continued strength in automobile production that the economy will be a lot stronger in the 4th quarter. There were very large upward revisions in net employment for August and July.


    The upward revisions make this a good report.


    Good investors do not let their politics distort their view of the economy.
    5 Oct 2012, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • How do you explain the jump in African American women and people without a HS education jumping into the workforce?


    They are not the ones who will be buying the big houses and cars.


    There is no way you can spin this into a good report. Low paying campaign jobs were created.
    5 Oct 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • kmi, apologies if I came across as confrontational. That wasn't my intent. With that said, asking a series of pointed questions implicitly involves making an argument. In all three of your questions, the implicit argument I read seemed to involve the "false choice" fallacy that Obama is fond of using in his stump speeches.


    I don't find Romney's "leave it up to the states" argument to be a bad one, considering the unconstitutionality of the ACA is irrelevant on a state level, where governments explicitly have plenary powers. The only real issue is why he decided to pursue an ACA-style policy as governor. I have no idea. He said in the debate that he likes it.


    As I've made clear, I don't think the notion of "fundamentally altering the country" (an argument which is made by both parties, by the way) is helpful or accurate. It is a continuum, and the issue is how far to the left or right we as a nation want to be. You and I may dislike the rhetoric that's been used, but I wholeheartedly support the continued gridlock in Washington and extended debate about the role of government that it entails. It's a good thing.


    To answer your question of how Obama has pushed the needle in favor of socialism is very simple: all you have to do is look at what percentage of GDP he would like to be devoted to government social services. If a 100% socialist society would spend 100% of GDP on social services, because the government controls 100% of the means of production, then the % of GDP spent by the federal government on social services in a mixed economy is a very rough measure of how far to the left or right we lie on that continuum we've discussed. It is plain as day that Obama's solution to chronic deficits is increased taxes, to make permanent current levels of spending. (His oft-repeated "$1 of new taxes for every $2.5 of spending cuts" is a farce and is more like $10 of new taxes for every $1 of spending cuts, when the budgetary gimmicks are stripped out.) It is equally clear that Romney's (and in particular, Ryan's) solution is decreased spending. (I should also point out that only a fool can't figure out that Romney intends to eliminate or restrict a number of popular tax deductions, including mortgage interest. He's not stupid enough to come out and say it, because Democrats' demagoguery and fear-mongering on this issue has blinded most people to the necessity of reform.) The feasibility of either man's proposal is irrelevant: one man wants current spending levels to continue or even accelerate, while the other wants to restore historical spending levels.
    5 Oct 2012, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • sean:


    In Westchester NY, our county executive is fighting overreach by HUD, which is attempting to use its heft as a federal agency to force conduct on the county that, frankly, I agree with the county executive, is way way beyond their authority to impose. And inappropriate to boot.


    This is a good example of where Federal authority is absolutely engaging in conduct it should have no place to. I don't discount the value of the 'leave it up to the states' proposition, but I can think of a dozen different 'unintended consequences' that would occur as a result that I would definitely not like.


    My opinion on the origin of the expanded social services you describe notwithstanding, both men have proposals as to how to combat it, both agree we need jobs, both suggest that middle class must be supported, and they have different strategies with which to achieve that. That's a different conversation though.


    Here is my opinion on 'increasing socialism'.


    In '08, we had two pretty centrist candidates running for the Presidency, at the start of the election, which was effectively a referendum on the Bush wars, and didn't become about the economy until late into the cycle, after summer in fact: McCain and Obama.


    McCain, someone who for a long time was very representative of my own positions, bent over backward and was pulled very hard to the right in order to appeal to the Republican fringe elements, who I don't think he actually agreed with at the time. The result was he ended up pulling much further to the right in order to distinguish himself from Obama who was really doing a good job of grabbing the centrist vote.


    The result was pulling the party, himself, and the entire political dialogue of the elections and the country to the right. That dynamic was followed by economic calamity resulting in Tea Party Congress, which has since pulled things even FURTHER to the right. Many would agree with me that the opinions this group holds are far out of the mainstream.


    In fact I think the country and the dialogue is so far to the right these days that it makes it hard for the Republicans to appeal to centrists anymore at all. And even moderates now look like 'socialists' to these same people, which really kills the dialogue.


    But in the end, the question I have is this: outside of the diatribes, where has Obama endorsed legislation creating or engendering socialism?


    In the end, things like the JOBS act seem to suggest he is far more center than anything resembling left, and that right there is the origin of my questions made to our friend 2muchdebt above.
    5 Oct 2012, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • In the interest of evenhandedness, lets bring up the topic of republican socialism:


    "July 23, 2012 5:45 am • By Tom Lutey


    With the largest drought in a half century chewing up farm acres, the call for federal assistance is growing.


    Montana farm groups are calling on Congress to renew emergency loss programs that expired last September. Forage losses to drought and fire, as well as lost crop revenue are hitting southern Montana farms and ranches hard.


    “A significant portion of Montana is in pretty rough shape, the south and southeast,” said Ryan McCormick, Montana Grain Growers vice president.


    Four disaster programs that expired last September should be revived to help drought-affected farms and ranches, McCormick said. For farmers, the big one is the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program. Also known as SURE, the program covers crop and livestock losses that crop insurance doesn’t cover. It was created in 2008 as part of the farm bill, but expired a year ahead of other farm bill provisions, which end in two months...."
    5 Oct 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • 867046


    So you're saying "socialism" is bad?
    5 Oct 2012, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • kmi,


    Agreed that McCain was a terrible candidate and deserved to lose.


    I've already answered your question about how Obama has engendered socialism in America. His biggest failure as a president has been his total unwillingness to reduce spending in any meaningful way. It's to the point that I genuinely believe that Obama does not consider federal spending at 23% of GDP to be a problem, and that the only thing the federal budget really needs at this point is more tax revenue. By crowding out the private economy, Obama is slowly but surely pushing us down the path to European-style soft socialism, where half of GDP is government spending on social programs and the vast majority of the population receives some form of welfare services.


    As another specific example, consider the case of college tuition. Everyone knows that college tuition is exploding, year after year, despite no matching explosion in the quality of education. This money is going into a black hole of bloated compensation packages, bureaucracy, and fancy new buildings and classroom equipment. Even the part-time jobs the universities offer to students have absurd compensation--$10/hour for the kid who swipes meal cards in dining halls is perfectly normal. To pay for it all, most students now attending universities in the U.S. are receiving federal student loans for the majority of their tuition costs. College tuition is exploding because these students are told that their loans are not a big deal, that they don't have to pay them off for a long time (and may never have to, since student loan forgiveness is a topic that never seems to go away), and that everyone needs a four-year liberal arts degree from a prestigious university to succeed in the working world. As with healthcare--where people with employer-sponsored insurance have no idea how much the services they're receiving cost--these students have no idea whether the education they're receiving is a good value or not, compared to community colleges, to splitting two years at a community college and two years at a four-year university, to not going to college at all, or to going to a different college. Kids (and their parents) just pick a school they like and take out a loan for it. Where I'm going with all of this is that there's no real college education market (just as there's no real health care market) because most people in it are, however temporarily, having someone else foot the bill. Obama's solution to this has been to say that the lenders are the problem, and nationalized the student loan business so that he could write more loans. Let's be honest, if it were up to him, there would be a guaranteed college education for everyone. (On the healthcare front, Obama demagogues the idea of eliminating tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance. ObamaCare also basically eliminated the concept of high-deductible health savings account-type insurance, which also encourages people to become aware of the costs of health services. And of course Obama completely rejects the Medicare Advantage model.) On every issue involving exploding costs--federal social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; college tuition; private health insurance--Obama's approach has been to say, "Even though there is no market, the market has failed. The private corporations involved are to blame. Therefore, I would like to put those corporations out of business and provide their services to everyone for free." Still looking for specific examples? How about the illegal and unnecessary government takeover of GM? An orderly bankruptcy proceeding would have sufficed there, but Obama preferred to use his "false choice" rhetoric, proclaiming that the choice was either to nationalize GM or to liquidate the entire apparatus. How about the stimulus itself, which rather than stimulate anything in the private sector, went largely to bail out irresponsible state governments so that huge unionized worker compensation structures would not have to be re-negotiated. As Romney has repeatedly pointed out, Obama believes that the solution to all of America's problems is government. Or, as the Democrats in Charlotte put it, "Government is the only thing we all belong to." The socialist utopia is a society where the space between the government and the individual--which for the great bulk of American history has been filled by the family, the community, private enterprises, religious groups, etc.--is made as small as possible. Hence "The Life of Julia." I could go on like this forever, but I think more is probably less at this point.
    5 Oct 2012, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • Fair enough, I have a different take on a lot of that, and I also believe that Romney will both a) continue ballooning the country's costs, but with a different agenda and different tack and b) don't believe either prospect has the ability to push their platform through the partisan House/Senate.


    But your primary issue seems to be spiraling out of control costs and your opinion is that Obama is both driving these costs and ignoring their growth. Yet at the same time he has 1) removed US troops from Iraq, 2) set a deadline for exiting Afghanistan, 3) presided over the forced cuts in spending going into effect Jan 1 2013. And let's face it, Romney won't make defense cuts. He'll likely attack Iran. He supports extending the tax cuts. He claims he will implement savings by cutting stuff. Stuff he hasn't spelled out, which, as you correctly point out, may prove to be vastly unpopular with the electorate.


    My thoughts being, in brief, 1) you can't cut spending in the face of a potentially devastating recession, as we see from Europe. So spending growth is almost unavoidable. 2) he has or is exiting grossly expensive wars. 3) there are significant budget cuts coming online 2013.


    Explain to me how the 'fiscal cliff', exiting the overseas wars, and reducing defense spending is socialist, Obama's fault, and reflects willingness to grow spending without regard for moderation.


    In particular vis a vis the tax cut expiration, I wonder how come some folks berate him for initially extending them under Republican pressure, and then berate him again when he wants to let them expire now.
    5 Oct 2012, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • Congress has been controlled by the tea bags? Obviously you have no grasp of the real world and what political party has controlled Congress for the past six years. So, Harry Reid is a tea bagger?
    6 Oct 2012, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • In the 10/3/12 debate, Obama used the word fight several times. Common ground can never be found in a fight.


    I encourage folks on the left to read Woodward's book, "The Price of Politics." It clearly and objectively illustrates Obama's unwillingness to find common ground with folks on the other side.


    Rahm Emanuel's approach to negotiating with the other side is: "Fuck 'em. We got the votes." Source: "The Price of Politics," page 80. Those are his words, not mine. So, please excuse the course language.


    [Anonymous #12] These tactics, which Obama endorsed, used, and continues to use, led to the formation of and continues to drive the Tea Party.


    The Democrats had a choice in 2008 between Obama and Clinton. Had you all voted for the more experienced of the two, things would likely be much different today. Despite her many faults, Hillary would have got a deal done. The fiscal cliff probably would have never even evolved as it has today. Same applies to Simpson-Bowles. Like the former President, her husband (I think), she would have probably done those things necessary to win a second term. It is likely that she would have found common ground with those on the other side. That would have solidified her reelection bid. But you didn't choose her, which is too bad - for all of US. More importantly, Obama's - "Fuck 'em. We got the votes." - approach failed to produce any real or meaningful results. And results still matter.


    Since the 10/3/12 debate, there has been a dramatic shift in the polls, which my friends on the left continue to ignore. Here, I'm referring to polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports - like it or not, the most accurate pollster in the past two Presidential elections. [I tend to follow those with a proven track record.] In addition, all of the polling data is currently weighted on the 2008 exit polls and fails to acknowledge the meaningful shift in voter sentiment that began in 2010 and continues today. So, it is highly likely that Romney's lead is even better than Rasmussen and other pollsters are reporting. Weighting matters.


    After the first debate, Romney has gained momentum and regained the lead in the polls. That's a huge difference from 2008 when Obama led McCain 52% to 46% (10/1/08). Looking ahead, don't count on Romney to let up and give Obama a free pass. Expect Romney step on the gas. There will be no more free rides for the President.


    Bottom Line: It is evident that the tide has turned. The burden of proof has now shifted to Obama to prove himself worthy of the office for another four years. Right now, he's not making the case. Calling your opponent a liar is a very poor strategy, which never seems to work. As such, the next 30 days will likely be very hard for Obama and his supporters. It is simple. Obama cannot overcome his own record.


    Conclusion: Romney will win the election.
    6 Oct 2012, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • No more QEx for you......if this report is SO good.


    But thankfully, it looks like a mess, so march on. Higher and higher. Deeper and deeper.


    Keep shoveling. We'll get out of the hole soon
    5 Oct 2012, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Lowest rate since Jan 2009!!! Knowing that companies were holding back hiring plans amid concern over Europe and the looming fiscal cliff, it s really hard to believe these figures. What is the participation rate again? Oh yes right 63.6! A 3 decades low!!!
    5 Oct 2012, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Unemployment over 8% for 43 consecutive months and in the last employment report before the election it suddenly drops below 8%. Even though this is the result of a few hundred thousand people dropping out of the labor force, this is going to look like it's political.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • I hate to be conspiratorial but Obama is for bigger government, Romney is for less government.


    This is a government agency reporting numbers... It's in their interest for Obama to get re-elected.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • Yes, we were much better off under George W.


    It's time for all of us to wake up and realize both parties got us into this mess. Arguing with each other over which party should lead deflects criticism from where it belongs: with both parties.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • @mjc99
    Not sure who thats directed at but just so my side is clear I completely agree, neither party is doing whats best for the country and we have let them become so powerful that a 3rd party is pretty much impossible (at least one that could be competitive).
    5 Oct 2012, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • I agree 100% with you. Both parties need to focus on improving the environment for the US economy and the employment picture. All other activities should be put on the back burner.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • All this talk about both parties need to come together is BS. There are two ideological differences between the two parties. It's either one or the other. You either want more government intrusion or less. It's that simple.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • By that logic Schnydz we should just split the country in two and let repubs control one side and dems control the other side.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • Isn't it interesting that collectivists attempts based on coercion wind up dividing everyone.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • ADP's report showed higher numbers for the record.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • Wasn't it George W. Bush, McCain and company that signed the massive unfunded Medicare Part D into law? Wasn't it the thrifty Republicans that spent trillions on a worthless war in Iraq? Now we get Romney, who wants a war with Iran and Syria, but doesn't want to cut entitlement spending.


    I'm sorry, but I'm just having a hard time seeing much of a difference in Republicans and Democrats these days.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • That's because Rep/Dems all have the same goal, to stay in office and further their personal wealth/agenda
    5 Oct 2012, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • It is political. People have gone Galt in Obama's economy, and many of them are now not counted as 'unemployed' but are totally off-grid.


    Obama hasnt done jack for me or millions like us who are now no longer in the official labor force, but who would and could be counted in a healthier real economy.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • For the data driven, NF payrolls in 2010, 2011 took a big dive in May-June timeframe, remained level and then popped up around Sept..
    5 Oct 2012, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Employed year over year not seasonally adjusted is 2.831 mill. or
    1.98% y-o-y....recession trigger is 1% y-o-y
    5 Oct 2012, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Correction up 2.01% y-o-y
    5 Oct 2012, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • What's the magic about whether we're in a technical recession or not? We're certainly not in a prosperous period.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • There is something very wrong with this report coming just before the election.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • Report is not including the unemployed that stopped looking for a job or under disability, which is the new gimmick to survive while unemployed,Obama will present 7.8% as an achievement of his policy.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • Gentlemen,


    The report is solid. There were big upward revisions to the previous months and it is likely that September will be sharply revised as well (ADP and government estimates over the long run share similar growth rates). Moreover, there was growth in income as well.


    The last several weeks has seen a bevy of reports beating expectations and that is what investors are interested in - the state of the economy. Real investors do not spend their time lending their political opinions taint their views.
    5 Oct 2012, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • Upward revisions to part time jobs maybe... but that doesn't exactly scream a healthy economy now does it?
    5 Oct 2012, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • Real investors operate in a real world where, perhaps even today, the vast majority of the influences on the investment opportunities are extremely politically influenced. If one doesn't consider that the outcome of the 2012 election will have significant ramifications on the investment climate, then one is not weighing all the facts.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • The jobs report is mediocre at best. Mid 100k in terms of monthly job gains is sub-par and highlights a struggling economy, especially as part-time jobs remain elevated. It shows a lack of confidence and growth prospects, especially considering the strength of corporate balance sheets.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • No, upward revisions to full time jobs. Read the report.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • So apparently African American women were hired in large numbers which caused the drop.


    ...another big subset that showed a drop was the people without a HS diploma.


    People I know are speculating this was nothing more than temporary campaign jobs being created.


    Not a good report if the only jobs we are creating are low end, temporary jobs.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • They were big upward revisions in percentage terms only because the original numbers reported were so poor. The revisions are still well below what's needed to keep up with population growth, let alone work down the backlog of unemployed.


    Long-term unemployed showed little change. The only "good" in the report is the 600,000 rise in temporary employment, which isn't good and goes a long way in explaining the mysterious drop in the unemployment rate. Once these temp jobs end these gains will evaporate. It's clear that the long-term trend is of an economy that can't sustain any meaningful surge in job growth that would represent a real recovery.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Those temp jobs are campaign jobs.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Any money betting that the numbers get readjusted around Nov 7th? This is such a crock. Obama knew the numbers on Wednesday, well maybe the thin air made him forget them. Joe SixPack sitting at the table is saying, I didn't get one of those jobs. I wonder if this report came from Chicago political machine!
    5 Oct 2012, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm
    payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
    The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by
    456,000 in September. (See table A-1.)
    We hired 114,000 but unemployed decreasedby 456,000 - where did those 342,000 unemployed go?
    5 Oct 2012, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • October surprise!
    5 Oct 2012, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • The real October surprise will be earnings when they come out next week.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Various sources have been saying for months that 10,000 Boomers are retiring every day. Over a month, that is 300,000 people leaving the labor force.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • The percentage of civilians over age 65 who are retired has been dropping steadily for the last several years. This value was 83.5% in June of 2008 and is 81.4% now. So the claim that baby boomers retiring in large numbers is driving down the labor force participation rate is simply inaccurate. There are more people working past 65 now than there were when the participation rate was 3% higher, because the pace of new retirees is slower than the pace of people who still work turning 65.


    The reality is likely the exact opposite of the "boomers" argument: older workers are postponing retirement to try to regain the losses they sustained to their 401(k)s and property values, preventing younger employees from finding work. Moreover, because older workers command higher wages, this decreases the number of employees companies can hire, driving down employment among the entire population, not just the youngest cohort.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Apples and oranges....please do some research on the establishment
    survey and the household survey...if you want to do the homework...
    also look at non seasonally adjusted data if you hate seasonal factors....
    5 Oct 2012, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Indeed why don't you try some research, rather than spew the constant drivel that you've maintained for years now? Your cheerleading is transparent and monotonous.


    The U-6 number is nearly unchanged from last Spring. The fact is the numbers were really bad in the summer, and now they've just dropped back to being the bad numbers we've had since the supposed Joe Biden "Recovery Summer" of 2010.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • If only these numbers were based in reality.


    I guess if we keep taking an eraser to the denominator the unemployment rate will be down to 5% in no time at all.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • Comments:


    1) To all the conspiratorial types: For whatever reason, this monthly jobs number has always popped around the Sept. - Oct time frame going back to at least '09, some sort of pre Xmas ramp up?


    2) The companies in my industries are purging their work forces of older, more expensive engineers and scientists. By doing this of course, they save on labor and health care costs. As a result, the pages of LinkedIn are littered with 50+ year old "consultants".
    5 Oct 2012, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • This is the analysis we need, what does the historical figures say, do we always see a ramp up here during the fall months? Do the revisions always swing this far up/down.


    If this is business as usual their isn't much reason to be suspicious that the numbers have been skewed. They should still break out full time jobs and part time jobs and not just throw out some all encompassing number.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • only 114,000 jobs...that does not do anything for the economy...It does not cover the births....let alone the immigrations that we have every year...1.6 immigration...I am sorry...this is a Political number....its sad too..because now the BLS has really lost their credibility...and any number from here on forward will be suspect....If food stamps drops 2 million I will eat crow...but I doubt that will happen...
    5 Oct 2012, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • It is good to know that in a quarter where 0% growth in profits is expected, CEO confidence is at lows, and GDP totals 1.25% companies are rushing out ot hire.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do
    anything..can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch wrotes in Twitter.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Here is what yours truly said back in August:


    ""July Nonfarm Payrolls: +163K vs. consensus +100K, prior +64K (revised from 80K). Unemployment rate 8.3% vs. consensus 8.2%, 8.2% previous. [View news story] TT,


    If you look at the recent years numbers, there have been spike(s) up around the October time frame.
    Aug 3 11:08 AM | 0 Likes |Report Abuse |Link to Comment "
    5 Oct 2012, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • 7.8% and liberals are celebrating? It should be 5% by now and next month it will be revised downward, this is just political spin in order to give the president a boost for the election, since he was creamed in the debate the other night, is this a surprise they put out phony numbers?
    5 Oct 2012, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • Your argument is a red herring, even in one of the hottest, western, democratic economies in the world, Brazil, unemployment is 5.3% and I imaginge most of the jobs in Brazil are resource extraction based.


    The US is a much larger economy. What demand is going to soak up workers and drive unemployment down?


    a) Internal demand? US consumer wage growth and personal wealth growth is stagnating.


    b) External demand? You may have noticed that the rest of the world is trying to export their way to prosperity and the competition is intense. Even the world's largest exporter, China realizes that external demand is not the answer.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • 867046


    So we are in a 'new normal' of high unemployment and limited opportunities? And we can't do anything about it? Meanwhile the number of people using our food bank continues to grow.
    5 Oct 2012, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • Tex,


    We are in what I believe is the "lobster tank" economy: there are just as many smart educated people here as anywhere else.


    a) People in the US need to get over the attitude that manufacturing is some sort of legacy endeavor.


    b) Being a super power hits your pocket book.


    c) Books on how to perfect your "on-the-make" skills will flood the book stores.


    d) Hustling, swap meeting, and ebay will be the norm.


    Welcome to the reversion to the mean.
    5 Oct 2012, 03:44 PM Reply Like
  • The long slog continues. It's frustrating to watch such an anemic speed and level of improvement in this country. Here in San Diego, California we've improved by tiny increments each month for about the last year. The USD Economic Index measures it. It blends together building permits, initial applications for unemployment, help wanted advertising, local stock prices and consumer confidence. That indexed number is now about where it was in April of 2009. Things are "technically" getting better, but it just doesn't feel like it.
    5 Oct 2012, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • I don't think anyone will change their vote based on the NFP report.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • So apparently the kids without a HS education are the ones leading the job growth.
    5 Oct 2012, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • I wonder if they'll start telling kids it's better to get a job then go to school...
    5 Oct 2012, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • See discussion here:
    5 Oct 2012, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • Kenyan socialist makes sure his buddies on the Wall Street make money hand over fist.


    SP500 1993/1/1 435
    SP500 2001/1/1 1283
    SP500 2009/1/1 935 down 27% under GWB
    SP500 Today 1466 up 56% under Kenyan Socialist


    These numbers are what a reasonably intelligent person looks at. The Fox News listeners do not.


    The intelligent person looks at what is good for his 401K and savings. The Fox News listeners do not.
    5 Oct 2012, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • What's the average IQ of a tea bag? I guess about 50.
    6 Oct 2012, 06:51 AM Reply Like
  • The u/e just happened to go below 8 right after a poor showing in the debate? If you believe this, well, I don't know what to think.


    The incumbent admins (not just referring to Obama here) easily manipulates numbers. This ploy is older than dirt.


    But seriously, a lot - and I mean A LOT - of people have stopped searching - which drives the u/e down. Many respected economists believe the true u/e is in the low 20's. Also certain company's have been asked to announce reduced/reduce head counts until after the election. Again, another ploy older than dirt.


    So, people, please be realistic. That means get off of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and read the real news and look at the real numbers.
    5 Oct 2012, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • I forgot the Economy !? ~ The freeQEd money is what counts!
    5 Oct 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Well, if 870K more people are actually employed in the labor market then I'm happy that is the case.


    But call me a little skeptical. Where were these 873K jobs during the summer? And how do they suddenly appear the month prior to the election.


    I'd believe it a lot more if 250K jobs had been created - it might mean there was a lag in reporting new employment the past couple of months and therefore make some sense. But how do you just "find" 870K more people being employed?


    And yes, I do believe the government would produce numbers to aid the Obama re-election effort.
    5 Oct 2012, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • In August of 2011 the Non-Institutionalized Civilian Population was 239.9 million. A year later it grew to 243.6 million or growth of 3.7 million people. How many people did the Civilian Job Force grow in the same period? A mere 971 thousand. That means we put to work 1 in 4 during the last year who became part of the Civilian work eligible population. PITIFUL !
    5 Oct 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • To expand:
    Look at the DOL Databases and Tables for Labor Force Statistics and we find:
    Sep 2002 – civilian Non-Institutional Population = 218.107 mil
    Sep 2008 – civilian Non-Institutional Population = 234.360 mil
    Sep 2012 – civilian Non-institutional Population = 243.772 mil


    Sep 2002 – civilian Labor Force = 145.167 mil
    Sep 2008 – civilian Labor Force = 154.509 mil
    Sep 2012 – civilian Labor Force = 155.075 mil


    By my calculations we had:
    2002-2008 workers added 16.253 mil to the eligible working population and 9.342 mil to the job force.
    2008-2012 workers added 9.412 mil to the eligible working population and 0.566 mil to the job force


    Doesn’t seem like we are making much progress vs. 2002 - 2008
    5 Oct 2012, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • Always enjoy the political commentary. Left, Right, or Indifferent, it doesn't matter. The American Government is Statist, regardless of party. The country is simply too big and diverse to permit much freedom. The masses must be controlled. Entitlements do much to placate those who can't or refuse to take care of themselves. The military industrial complex and the banking cartel placates the capitalists. Politics is a sideshow. Unless you directly benefit from the largess, you're not part of the system anyway. The two party system is symbiotic. The November election is theatre. We will be at war in the Middle East within six months of the election, under either party. The economy demands it. It's the debt stupid.
    6 Oct 2012, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • @The Geoffster


    Agree with your comment above.


    I love the political banter that I have seen on this string - very healthy. That's why I like the debates - I like to see the thought processes. I'm the type of person who is never so set that I can't be objective, and is always curious and I am willing to change my mind - but you have to convince me. I watched "The Rumble 2012" live stream last night - Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart. I respect them both. It was a good debate - and both were clear winners. It is $4.95 if you want to watch the 90 minutes or so debate on demand, it is available. There was a lot of humor undoubtedly. :) Some good zingers from both men.


    For me, it was interesting to see things play out, to really see the Liberal/Democratic, Conservative/Republican, Independent viewpoints and how they came to be. Very interesting.


    The only thing that I don't like - I've never liked - and I am sorry I see more liberals do this than conservatives - when you have differing viewpoints, be respectful, have good conversations, please do not resort to namecalling. I saw a lot of this on Twitter after the debate - last night and last week.
    7 Oct 2012, 12:48 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)