… or not?
It all depends on how you spin it. The economy apparently added more jobs than anticipated, which is 
for Obama, yet the unemployment rate inched up a tenth of a point to 8.3%, which is for Romney. I read that the actual rate, though, went from being 8.22% to 8.25% and it was just rounded up to 8.3%, so essentially everything has been unchanged since last month.
The Obama team will say that this is a sign that the economy is improving, while Mittens and his minions will point to the higher unemployment rate and demonize the POTUS for it. Whichever argument will resonate more with voters is probably irrelevant, though, because most people have likely already factored in the sluggish economy into their election outlook.
Yes, it’s good for Obama. The fact that the unemployment rate went up by a tiny bit isn’t bad because it indicates more people were looking for work instead of sitting at home. Of course there are going to be 12 more of these before the election, so unless this kind of thing is sustained I don’t think anyone’s going to remember what the August 3 job report said.
Well, the stock market went way up on the jobs news, so they think it’s Good, at least for them.
I should have posted a link to the latest unemployment news also.
I hadn’t heard that. Is there actual evidence that this is true?
I hadn’t heard that. Is there actual evidence that this is true?
And if it is, are most Americans actually going to understand that instead of just seeing the unemployment rate go up?
Still, we’re just entering the silly season (August). What really matters is what happens in Sept and Oct.
According to my coworker, “The jobs report is a LIE…”
The rest of the quote: “…just look at the story on Fox News!”
Jobs increased and the unemployment rate ticked up 0.03 percent or whatever it was. What’s the other explanation?
I think so. If not, I don’t think a lot of people are going to get anxious over the unemployment rate being 8.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent.
I read somewhere today that no president has ever been reelected with unemployment over 8%. Even a small uptick moves the rate further above that benchmark, so the Obama camp can’t be pleased regardless of how they spin it for public consumption.
My hardcore conservative uncle posted the following on Facebook. I haven’t done any work to fact-check it or whatever; I’m providing it only as an example that for at least some people out there, no, this is not good for Obama. But one suspects that for these people, nothing would be good for Obama, including his personally discovering a cure for cancer and ending world hunger.
Oh, OK. Previously, people just gave up. What you’re saying is that people aren’t giving up. That’s cold comfort.
The rate is going up. That’s what matters.
The Unemployment number is the metric people pay the most attention to, so that’s bad. But the report was mixed and the recovery is still moving along, so that’s good.
I really think that whoever wins in 2012 will end up presiding over a very healthy economy as long as they don’t screw it up with huge deficits or something.
I can’t find the raw U6 numbers but the BBC has some statistics.
If that number’s correct, then U6 should drop.
I think you credit the electorate with more intelligence than is warranted.
For more detail on the employment numbers, see here. There are several charts that put the current numbers and recovery in historical perspective.
I think it’s just noise. The jobs data and the unemployment data are from two different sources, with the unemployment data being based on a smaller sample. Going from 8.22% to 8.25% is not really statistically significant.
The August jobs report was issued yesterday. The numbers were poor - only 96,000 jobs created versus expectations of 125,000. And June and July numbers were revised downwards by a total of 41,000.
However, because of the vagaries of how unemployment is calculated, the headline rate actually fell from 8.3 to 8.1% because fewer people were looking for work.
So, more ammunition for both parties. The Dems can add another month to the number of successive months of job growth (even though several of them were less than is needed to cover population growth) and can point to a decrease in the headline rate. The Pubbies can claim (accurately) that the rate of job growth is anemic.
More details here.
Two more reports before the election, with the October report coming just four days before polling day. Is it possible for the Democrats to engineer good numbers in the final report? In theory, politicians cannot manipulate the numbers, but a commentator on CNBC yesterday reported that the October 2004 numbers were suspiciously good, with no obvious economic reason as to why.
Not sure what the commentator would be getting at, seeing as how the already low unemployment rate in October 2004 actually went up from 5.4% to 5.5%.
Except in 1932, 1936 and 1940.
Yep. FDR had a long stretch of unemployment numbers. 7 years of bad news until World War 2 got the factories moving with a purpose.
The August Jobs numbers did not squash the upturn in the Stock Market. Investors are still bullish.