Which of the following DOL employment statistics, current as of Oct. 2013, should the Obama team be most proud?

Question

1.)   735,000 jobs pared from the U.S. economy. BLS Employment Situation Report Tables A and A-1 show Americans employed in September at 144,303,000, while just a month later in October 2013 the number employed, according to the BLS, fell to 143,568,000. Net jobs lost for October reached 735,000 once gainfully employed Americans disappearing from DOL counts.

2.)   932,000 Americans moved from counts of the nation’s long-term unemployed, marginally attached would-be job seekers to an all-time-high “Not in Labor Force” figure of  91,541,000 trained and ready, age-appropriate workers from the civilian noninstitutional population. Dropping nearly a million unemployed from BLS counts serves to keep the critical U3 unemployment rate well under Obama’s nearly 9% 58-month average at 7.3%. Since taking Office in January 2009, the 80,588,000 Americans not in the labor force inherited by Obama jumped 10,953,000.

3.)   108,707,000 American workers filed new, distinct claims for unemployment after job losses since January 24, 2009, according to figures released by the DOL’s Employment & Training Administration. During Hilda Solis’ tenure as Obama’s Secretary of Labor for 234 weeks – 4 years, 6 1/2 months – only twice were fewer than 300k weekly claims registered for job losses, and both were 4-day weeks with 299,729 registered during the shortened Labor Day week 2012, while the mark was bettered once more during Memorial Day week 2013 at 293,792. From March 2004 through October 2007, the Bush Administration managed to record 95 out of 183 weeks with fewer than 300k jobs lost on weekly ETA counts. In 2007, across the end of summer months transitioning into fall, the weekly job loss count under Obama’s predecessor averaged 258,751.

4.)   Two months shy of 5 years in Office, the 108.7 million Americans separated from work under Obama suffered more than double the length of time separated from work recorded for every prior President since the metric was added to BLS counts, averaging close to 40 weeks. The latest count at 36.5 weeks unemployed, on average, dropped largely on the basis of 932,000 unemployed being reassigned to “Not in Labor Force” status. Since taking Office, the nation’s 108 million jobs losers have been pared from the ranks of the unemployed by transfer to Not in Labor Force counts at a rate of 3 to 1 over American workers who’ve been restored to full time employment.

5.)   At election time, 46 months into the Obama Presidency, Americans suffered more than a half million more jobs lost on average monthly in comparison to corresponding months of George Bush’s second term. In January 2013, with 48 months of data for comparison, Obama’s work force numbers showed 107,600 more jobs lost on average for each week of his Presidency and 495,000 more during months with 31 days than faced that painful life-changing separation under Bush’s economy the left was so angry about.

6.)   The workforce participation rate slipped in October to 62.8%, lowest since 1978, while the rate some analysts consider the most important individual figure, the employment-population ratio fell to 58.3%. The latter figure just missed Obama’s personal low of 58.2% reached back in December 2009, November 2010, and back-to-back months during June and July of 2011. Ahead of Obama’s labor force futility, neither his 58.2% nor current 58.3% rate had been seen for more than 30 years. For comparison, Obama’s lowest employment-population ratio was fully 4% below George Bush’s final year average across 2008, which stood at 62.2%. The drop was even more severe from Bush’s 2001 ratio at 5% fewer Americans employed using census data, and 4.5% from 2005 and 2006 numbers, which included foreign born immigrants and migrants new to the U.S. this millennium in the teens in millions.

7.)   In January 2009, the DOL’s comprehensive workforce count from nationwide employers’ payroll record figures stood at 133,886,830. Because of the way the data is gathered from each state, the cumulative workforce counts appear on a quarterly basis through the ETA. The latest count released earlier this month shows 130,396,096, providing evidence of a modest recovery from the 8.3 million jobs lost between January 2009 and the first two calendar quarters of 2011. The first job growth of Obama’s Presidency using real ETA counts showed a paltry 12,595 three-month gain in the first half of 2011. The latest ETA nationwide employers’ payroll count remains 3,490,734 workers down from the total Obama inherited in 2009. In comparison to Bush numbers, the January 2001 count of 126,843,537 Americans on nationwide payroll records showed 7,043,293 jobs added to the economy during the two terms of Obama’s predecessor. Since Obama remains 3.5 million jobs down from the 133,886,830 contributors to the economy turned over to him, the difference between Bush’s verifiable job growth and Obama’s punishing job losses remains fully 10.5 million in favor of the Chicagoan’s predecessor.

Charles the 4th · Accepted Answer

Those are all hard-hitting statistics the media has intentionally ignored. Thanks for organizing and presenting them here.

I believe the disturbing 108.7 million American workers separated from jobs under this Administration is the most telling, economy killing count. It's also the basis for each of the points following the third Obama failure listed above. Five is based on the count of unfortunate job losers calculated on a monthly basis compared against Bush numbers, and showing the workforce participation rate and employment population rate falling to more than 30-year lows makes the state of Obama's economy largely inarguable. It's a wreck and has inflicted life-changing hardship on stunning numbers of Americans who deserve better.

All the same, sycophants still try to deflect and obfuscate very real statistics that show the pain tens of millions are suffering. I've become a Peter Ferrera fan for his insight found in the Wall Street Journal and Forbes' online site. He made a strong case last spring for the nation suffering the worst economy since the Great Depression under the failure in the White House. The Chicago thug team should have been run out of Washington long ago, but the most troubling, inexplicable result was rendered in November when this Administration was granted four more years to finish its fundamental change, with its promised laser focus on punishment and reeducation of the American people rather than jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/02/07/the-worst-five-years-since-the-great-depression/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJivEOBpPR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTZT8i5e2Rs

Cobra · Answer

Let me just inform you that the Democrats will go by whatever is "Popular" just to get elected. I'm not saying every Democrat, but the liberal party in general. Recently Obama raised the debt ceiling in order to postpone the government from continuing to be shutdown. (At least a small percentage of the government) Now, the U.S Government's spending has already far exceeded what they take in. Borrowing money is fine, but it's when you can't afford it that the problem arises. Now banks won't lend the government money unless they increase the interest rates. (So the bank can play it safe). But now how do you think the government is gonna afford this? That's right, by gradually increasing your taxes. And when taxes become high, people spend less because they have to work more in order to make less. Now, companies rely on consumer purchases and if people aren't spending much anymore, then they have to fire workers in order to make up for the loss of their budget. The current workers in the company not only have to work more to fill in the gaps of the fired workers, but now people are jobless. NOW here's the catch. The government took more money away from you by increasing the taxes; and now, because you are jobless, they will give you your money back. They just need the votes and money from you to keep them up and running. And because of this our economy has suffered tremendously. Now, when Republicans vote to cut spending in order to afford what they need, then this lowers the interest rates by which the bank loans to the government. Thus, decreasing taxes and increasing the economy. If democrats would just agree to proper spending, then this WHOLE FALSE CIRCLE of prosperity will be turned around into real prosperity. Don't be like a frog in a slowly boiling pot. The change starts with you. God bless you.

Anonymous · Answer

Wow you really need to learn the art of brevity.

UNEMPLOYMENT DOUBLED while Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000
Unemployment for 2001-2011

Unemployment was at 4.6% in January 2007, the last time the Republicans had control of the government. It was under 5% for all of 2006.

After the Democrats gained a majority in both houses of Congress in the 2006 election, unemployment doubled. It was 7.8% when Obama took office in January 2009. And it kept rising to a peak of 10.1% in October 2009.

It finally dropped below 9.2% (double the January 2007 level) in January 2011. Which happens to be when the Republicans gained a majority in the House.

The more Democrats gained control of our government, the higher unemployment rose. Then it started falling when Democrats started losing their grip on power.

Miles from Michigan!! · Answer

sure the unemployment rate has declined! only because there's no one working!! all jobs to be lost have been and that's the good news!! the bad news is no one is being employed!!
as long as obama is President you'll have to take into account the obama spin on such matters as this!! a positive spin on a negative and no mention of a true positive!!

Homeschool produces winners · Answer

The U3 unemployment figures are absolutely 0bama's greatest unemployment achievement. Without the lemming press reporting "that" statistic while ignoring the U6 figure, Obama would be toast. Thank you for your research and placing all that data in one place. I know how long it took to do that research. I believe, taken as a whole, Obama's work toward the Cloward Piven Strategy, plus his masterful use of Saul Alinsky's  treatise on the art of political "dirt" slinging, explain all of 0bama's policies and actions toward destroying America as we know it. Or, as Obama himself said "fundamentally transforming America."

? · Answer

I 10 years studants

L.T.M. · Answer

Well the O-Bots here are proud of all of them. Just ask them. Because they know more unemployed eventually means more dependent on govt which means more votes for their team.

But #1 is right. This is "short attention span theatre" and few will bother to read something that may burst their bubble.

KarenL · Answer

Well, Mr Obama, should be proud of all 7 of those findings.  He worked hard to get people to lose their jobs and sink this nation into Debt.    I will select #5 as his most outstanding accomplishment, since the MSM will always understate it.

? · Answer

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't do more to analyze or give context to these stats.  You just posted a bunch of numbers and said 'things are bad, blame obama' .

who WAS #1? · Answer

.0001% of yahoo participants will read all that.
The Obama Admin has nothing to be proud of.

Trending News

Which of the following DOL employment statistics, current as of Oct. 2013, should the Obama team be most proud?

14 Answers