Friday, October 5, 2012

Unemployment 7.8%?

The left finds it simply mahvellous that unemployment is dropping so precipitously, and just in time to distract from the debates, too. The right is suspicious, both on account of the timing, which I'll grand could happen, but also on account of some other things that just don't add up.

Remember that in a normal economy in this country it takes some 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep the rate from moving one way or another. Last months job creation number was 114,000, which all else being equal would result in 35,000 more people out of work. The last time the rate went down, from 8.2 to 8.1, the reason was a drop in workforce participation.This time the BLS is actually reporting an infinitesimal rise in that number from 63.5% 60 63.6%. This suggests more people looking for jobs to go with not enough jobs being created.

In the past these two factors have caused unemployment rates to rise at the beginning of a recovery as people rejoin the work force seeking to rejoin the ranks of the employed. Were the books cooked again? I could believe that a plausible explanation will emerge shortly before the next debate.

1 comment:

Brad K. said...

After the show Romney put on, I wouldn't bet a $2 bill that President B. Hussein Obama shows up.

And I want to see an alternative inflation rate, one that reflects the prices people pay -- especially including food, utilities, and gas and diesel fuels. That rate, since the Clinton era, I think, would be something tough for President Obama to counter.

I think there is room to criticize Obama for allowing the nation to move along, for his entire term, without a Congressional budget. I think that a list of Obama's specific goals and promised actions could be listed and compared to his actions.

President Obama hasn't mentioned his Nobel Peace prize for his foreign policy plans -- what he did, and how it turned out, should entertain us all.

President Obama spent several moments repeating his barb that Romney wants to increase military spending "that the military hasn't asked for". Um, isn't the military supposed to ask for stuff to meet their assigned missions? I would think the Commander in Chief would be the one tasking, and supplying, the military.

And I think there is room to criticize the Obama administration for the skyrocketing growth in the number of automatic and assault weapons and assigned units, in federal units outside the military. Like the Department of Education, for one instance.

I do like Romney's quip, "You can have your own airplane, Mr. President, but you can't have your own facts."

No, I am not betting that President Obama will actually show up for either debate.