|
|
"A historical political resource."
|
June Job Creation at 80,000; [Unemployment] Rate Holds Steady at 8.2%
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | Imperator |
| Last Edited | Imperator Jul 06, 2012 10:30pm |
| Logged |
1
[Older]
|
| Category | News |
| Author | Jeff Cox |
| News Date | Saturday, July 7, 2012 06:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The U.S. economy created just 80,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate held steady at 8.2 percent, reflecting continued slow growth in the economy with the presidential election just four months away.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said private payrolls increased 84,000, while the government lost 4,000 jobs. Economists expected job growth of about 100,000 and the unemployment rate to be unchanged, though many had increased their forecasts based on some recent indicators.
With yet another month of weak employment growth, the second quarter marks the worst three-month period in two years. The period averaged just 75,000 per month, against 226,000 in the first quarter, which benefited from an unusually mild winter.
May's weak initial 69,000 report was revised upward to 77,000, which made the June growth essentially the same. The April number was revised lower, from 77,000 to 68,000.
"What a disappointing number," said Jeff Savage, regional chief investment officer for Wells Fargo Private Bank. "This was kind of disastrous. We're not even keeping up with demographics at this point. This is not going to be liked in the markets." |
| Share |
|
| Article | Read Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
| [View All 12 Previous Messages] |
 |
 D:6086 | Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
|
Sat, July 7, 2012 06:34:30 AM UTC0:00
|
George McGovern
George McGovern
|
|
|
|
Probably around 8.5-9.3%...somewhere around there.
Probably around 8.5-9.3%...somewhere around there.
|
|
 |
Over. I think people understand however that the recession and financial crisis are/were much bigger than a usual recession, so their expectations are tempered appropriately, which is why the presidential race is close instead of being a walk in the park for Mitt Romney.
Over. I think people understand however that the recession and financial crisis are/were much bigger than a usual recession, so their expectations are tempered appropriately, which is why the presidential race is close instead of being a walk in the park for Mitt Romney.
|
|
 |
| R:8014 | 00 ( 26.6800 points)
 x2
|
Sat, July 7, 2012 05:24:40 PM UTC0:00
|
Absolutely agree. Under "normal circumstances," an incumbent President would be toast with 8% unemployment.
Absolutely agree. Under "normal circumstances," an incumbent President would be toast with 8% unemployment.
|
|
 |
Obama has a certain level of personal popularity that is keeping his numbers afloat against the anchor of the economy. However, if I remember correctly, George H. W. Bush was a pretty popular president going into 1992. (I actually think George H. W. Bush was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but that's just me.)
Obama has a certain level of personal popularity that is keeping his numbers afloat against the anchor of the economy. However, if I remember correctly, George H. W. Bush was a pretty popular president going into 1992. (I actually think George H. W. Bush was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but that's just me.)
|
|
|
|
Bush's approval ratings by this point, though, were like in the 20s.
Bush's approval ratings by this point, though, were like in the 20s.
|
|
 |
I went back and looked at the BLS data and the economy created jobs every month in 1992 except for February and many of those months were six figures.
I went back and looked at the BLS data and the economy created jobs every month in 1992 except for February and many of those months were six figures.
|
|
 |
| D:411 | Picimpalious ( 1229.6810 points)
|
Sat, July 7, 2012 09:32:34 PM UTC0:00
|
Obama has a certain level of personal popularity that is keeping his numbers afloat against the anchor of the economy. However, if I remember correctly, George H. W. Bush was a pretty popular president going into 1992. (I actually think George H. W. Bush was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but that's just me.)
I THUMBED IT UP.
J.R.: Obama has a certain level of personal popularity that is keeping his numbers afloat against the anchor of the economy. However, if I remember correctly, George H. W. Bush was a pretty popular president going into 1992. (I actually think George H. W. Bush was one of the best presidents of the 20th century, but that's just me.)
I THUMBED IT UP.
|
|
 |
I think people understand however that the recession and financial crisis are/were much bigger than a usual recession, so their expectations are tempered appropriately, which is why the presidential race is close instead of being a walk in the park for Mitt Romney.
Similarly, polls have also shown more people still primarily blame Bush for the economy. I don't believe any president has had such a luxury since FDR.
Of course Obama is still getting some of the blame, but it's another factor that subdues the impact of the economy on his poll numbers. "Obama should've done more" isn't nearly as toxic as "Obama caused this"
Brandonius Maximus: I think people understand however that the recession and financial crisis are/were much bigger than a usual recession, so their expectations are tempered appropriately, which is why the presidential race is close instead of being a walk in the park for Mitt Romney.
Similarly, polls have also shown more people still primarily blame Bush for the economy. I don't believe any president has had such a luxury since FDR.
Of course Obama is still getting some of the blame, but it's another factor that subdues the impact of the economy on his poll numbers. "Obama should've done more" isn't nearly as toxic as "Obama caused this"
|
|
|
|
52% also blame Obama for the economy.
52% also blame Obama for the economy.
|
|
 |
| FL:6309 | Silver Dime ( 94.8693 points)
|
Tue, July 10, 2012 06:20:59 AM UTC0:00
|
Bush (41) was a pretty likeable guy. He probably could have won had not the economy in '92 been so bad and Perot being in the race. His popularity was in the 80's or 90's after the Gulf War. It really only went down because of the economy.
I probably agree he was one of the best in the 20th century. There are very few that I can think of that beat him. I actually think I would prefer him over Reagan. (Which I'm sure many disagree but oh well)
Bush (41) was a pretty likeable guy. He probably could have won had not the economy in '92 been so bad and Perot being in the race. His popularity was in the 80's or 90's after the Gulf War. It really only went down because of the economy.
I probably agree he was one of the best in the 20th century. There are very few that I can think of that beat him. I actually think I would prefer him over Reagan. (Which I'm sure many disagree but oh well)
|
|
|
|
Bush (41) was a pretty likeable guy. He probably could have won had not the economy in '92 been so bad
Well it's not exactly as if Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover were huge assholes on a personal level either.
Silver Dime: Bush (41) was a pretty likeable guy. He probably could have won had not the economy in '92 been so bad
Well it's not exactly as if Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover were huge *******s on a personal level either.
|
|
|
|
|
