U.S. Economy Adds Only 80,000 Jobs In June

[News_Editor]

U.S. economy adds only 80,000 jobs in June < br />

2012-07-08 00:52:19 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- The labor market in the United States added only some 80,000 jobs last month, keeping the unemployment rate unchanged at 8.2 percent but representing the third consecutive month of weak job growth, officials said on Friday.

The numbers released by the U.S. Labor Department were lower than forecast, as only 3,000 jobs were added when compared to the 77,000 jobs added in May, according to revised figures. In addition, the numbers for June are more than three times lower than the year's first quarter in which the economy was averaging well over 200,000 new jobs a month.

It is more troubling news for U.S. President Barack Obama who is seeking re-election this year.

"(The numbers are) a step in the right direction," Obama said. "But we can't be satisfied, because our goal was never to just keep on working to get back to where we were back in 2007. I want to get back to a time when middle-class families and those working to get into the middle class have some basic security. That's our goal. So we've got to grow the economy even faster and we've got to put even more people back to work."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Obama, saying the president has no plan and has not proposed any new ideas to get the economy going. "This is a time for America to choose whether they want more of the same; whether unemployment above 8 percent month after month after month is satisfactory or not," he said. "It doesn't have to be this way. America can do better and this kick in the gut has got to end."

Meanwhile, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis defended the numbers, saying the report represents the 28th consecutive month of private sector job growth, during which the economy added nearly 4.4 million private sector jobs. "We have added an average of 150,000 private sector jobs per month in 2012, continuing at the same steady pace as last year and with jobs being created across all sectors and regions of the country," she said. "Gross domestic product growth has now been positive for 11 consecutive quarters. We remain on a path toward stable and durable growth."

Solis also noted that Europe's recession has been affecting the U.S. economy, being the country's largest trading partner, but "there are signs that European leaders are moving away from an austerity approach and toward stabilization and growth strategies that will have a positive impact on our own recovery and ease concerns at home," she said.

"While the private sector is creating jobs and corporate profits have never been higher, a big drag on our economy is the continued layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers. We should embrace the president's proposal to put these Americans back to work, while giving additional tax cuts to small businesses that are key contributors to job creation," Solis added.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-07-08

[rakman]

"(The numbers are) a step in the right direction," If you add up all the jobs gained and lost during Obama's Administration, he has lost a net 818,000 jobs.

If you add in the minimum of 150,000 jobs per month needed to keep the unemployment rate steady, Obama is 6.7 million jobs in the hole. 8.2 % unemployment is a myth.

The term for Obama is: ONE

Edited July 7, 2012 by rakman

[Jingthing]

"(The numbers are) a step in the right direction," If you add up all the jobs gained and lost during Obama's Administration, he has lost a net 818,000 jobs.

If you add in the minimum of 150,000 jobs per month needed to keep the unemployment rate steady, Obama is 6.7 million jobs in the hole. 8.2 % unemployment is a myth.

The term for Obama is: ONE

Yes, one more winning election, that is. The trouble is that his opponent offers nothing better.

[bedouin1990]

I would personally rather be governed by the first 200 people in the telephone directory than Obama.

[Scott]

This thread is about jobs.

Please stay on the topic.

[flying]

"But we can't be satisfied, because our goal was never to just keep on working to get back to where we were back in 2007. I want to get back to a time when middle-class families and those working to get into the middle class have some basic security. That's our goal. So we've got to grow the economy even faster and we've got to put even more people back to work."

oh winged horse of marble white take me on a magic flight....

The majority of Americans would be more than happy to at least get back to where they were when O took office.

Edited July 8, 2012 by flying

[chuckd]

"(The numbers are) a step in the right direction," If you add up all the jobs gained and lost during Obama's Administration, he has lost a net 818,000 jobs.

If you add in the minimum of 150,000 jobs per month needed to keep the unemployment rate steady, Obama is 6.7 million jobs in the hole. 8.2 % unemployment is a myth.

The term for Obama is: ONE

The "underemployed" rate is 14.6%. The real rate is said to be in the 18-19% range.

The 8.2% rate is holding firm because many people drop off the unemployment roles each month as their benefits run out or they stop seeking employment. They are not counted.

It is also interesting to note that 85,000 people dropped off the roles last month due to their becoming eligible for "disability".

This entire process is driven by political necessity and is all smoke and mirrors.

Yes, it was the same under Bush but the unemployment rate then was in the 4% range.

[how241]

"(The numbers are) a step in the right direction," If you add up all the jobs gained and lost during Obama's Administration, he has lost a net 818,000 jobs.

If you add in the minimum of 150,000 jobs per month needed to keep the unemployment rate steady, Obama is 6.7 million jobs in the hole. 8.2 % unemployment is a myth.

The term for Obama is: ONE

Yes, one more winning election, that is. The trouble is that his opponent offers nothing better.

+1

[Jingthing]

The unemployment rate when Bush left office was approximately ... 8 percent.

[flying]

Yes, one more winning election, that is. The trouble is that his opponent offers nothing better.

+1

Therein lies the rub.....

Contestant #1 has shown he is incapable & has helped destroy the country like none before him

Contestant #2 as some here claim offers nothing better.....So......Stick with the proven loser?

Don't get me wrong I think this election is basically the same as always...One to give the US citizens the illusion that

they have control & choice......Yet once again even by their own words...folks freely admit they will choose between

which one is less crappy...........

Sadly they will rinse & repeat this until the US is no more.

Ultimately..........The US citizens have only themselves to blame.

[craigt3365]

The US citizens have only themselves to blame.

Why is that? When you are given such limited choices when voting. And they rarely do what they promised. The system if flawed.

[flying]

The US citizens have only themselves to blame.

Why is that? When you are given such limited choices when voting. And they rarely do what they promised. The system if flawed.

Yes but whose system is it? Will it change if those who supposedly own it do not speak up & reject it?

I agree with you it is flawed or as I have said "beautifully broken"

[craigt3365]

The US citizens have only themselves to blame.

Why is that? When you are given such limited choices when voting. And they rarely do what they promised. The system if flawed.

Yes but whose system is it? Will it change if those who supposedly own it do not speak up & reject it?

I agree with you it is flawed or as I have said "beautifully broken"

Agreed. Something like 70% disapprove of the government. But how do you change it? Many of the problems the US is facing now are due to politics. I think the Republicans are making things worse to make Obama look bad. It'd be great to kick most of congress out!!!

[flying]

Agreed. Something like 70% disapprove of the government. But how do you change it? Many of the problems the US is facing now are due to politics. I think the Republicans are making things worse to make Obama look bad. It'd be great to kick most of congress out!!!

Yes true Craig...as to how to change it?

Well we would have to look back at where we started & how we came to be. It is not so different that we now seek to escape from basically the same.

When one reads the Declaration of Independence much could be considered in present times to be the same.

But to blame either the Republicans or the Democrats is just more of that same illusion of choice. The system is completely & beautifully broken.

When both wings of the same bird is corrupt & useless the bird has to go period.

The US has a beautiful document called the Constitution. A government that supports it in its entirety would be a great start.

Edited July 8, 2012 by flying

[happysanook]

The US citizens have only themselves to blame.

Why is that? When you are given such limited choices when voting. And they rarely do what they promised. The system if flawed.

Yes but whose system is it? Will it change if those who supposedly own it do not speak up & reject it?

I agree with you it is flawed or as I have said "beautifully broken"

Agreed. Something like 70% disapprove of the government. But how do you change it? Many of the problems the US is facing now are due to politics. I think the Republicans are making things worse to make Obama look bad. It'd be great to kick most of congress out!!!

People so quickly forget how much of a downward spiraling crap hole the States were in due to the Bush reign before Obama took office and turned things around.

Edited July 8, 2012 by happysanook

[chuckd]

People so quickly forget how much of a downward spiraling crap hole the States were in due to the Bush reign before Obama took office and turned things around.

What has been turned around?

[Jingthing]

People so quickly forget how much of a downward spiraling crap hole the States were in due to the Bush reign before Obama took office and turned things around.

What has been turned around?

It's hard to sell but the truth is the US and the world was headed into a severe depression when Obama took office rather than a long, severe recession. Politically, it's poison to say it could have been much worse, but actually that is the TRUTH. Obama deserves more credit than he is getting but politics isn't always fair.

[flying]

It's hard to sell but the truth is the US and the world was headed into a severe depression when Obama took office rather than a long, severe recession. Politically, it's poison to say it could have been much worse, but actually that is the TRUTH. Obama deserves more credit than he is getting but politics isn't always fair.

The truth is the can has only been kicked down the road which increased the future pain to be dealt.

[Ulysses G.]

It's hard to sell but the truth is the US and the world was headed into a severe depression when Obama took office rather than a long, severe recession. Politically, it's poison to say it could have been much worse, but actually that is the TRUTH.

Actually, it is pure speculation. No one knows the truth.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Exsexyman]

The US citizens have only themselves to blame.

Why is that? When you are given such limited choices when voting. And they rarely do what they promised. The system if flawed.

Yes but whose system is it? Will it change if those who supposedly own it do not speak up & reject it?

I agree with you it is flawed or as I have said "beautifully broken"

" If voting made any difference, they would abolish it" Sad but true.

[Scott]

Politicians have proper names; use them or your post will get deleted. Profanity is also not permitted. Further such comments will result in a posting suspension.

Edit: An off-topic post has been deleted. Stay on topic.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Scott

[RaoulDuke]

The data speaks for itself. The jobs were lost under Bush. No person can turn an economy around in a year, especially given how long it takes to get policy implemented. The jobs lost in Obama's 1st year were from Bush's economy

[rijb]

I believe the first step to improving the government (and the economy) is term limits for congress.

Edited July 8, 2012 by rijb

[MJP]

What's the 'unemployable' rate?

[RaoulDuke]

I believe the first step to improving the government (and the economy) is term limits for congress.

Until they reverse Citizens United, which unleashed billions of corporate dollars into the election process, the last thing we need are more new politicians, as only the corporations biggest cheerleaders will be able to raise enough money to get elected. Voter education and fighting voter apathy is far more effective than term limits. If an elected official fails to represent the people, they can always vote them out. The people have no one to blame but themselves if they keep electing a poor leader. But if the person is a very good leader (rare among politicians but still possible), there is no reason they should not be reelected just because other politicians get worse with age. You need to have some experience in politics. Just look at the gridlock in DC right now, as all these completely unexperienced tea party people have no idea that government requires COMPROMISE. It always has and always will, you cannot purport to represent all people by completely ignoring the half of them who did not vote for you.

[ttelise]

Political grid lock is caused by large corporations, big pharma, oil companies, insurance companies and banking/financial institutions that have all of the lobbying power, but have interst directly contrary to the common middle class hard working Americans. The perception that a president has a lot of power is misguided. The US Supreme Court has way more power than any politician because they are life appointed.

[KeyserSoze01]

The unemployment rate when Bush left office was approximately ... 8 percent.

Perhaps you can get a job with the DNC, as you have their rhetoric down pat.

Before I get started, let me qualify this by saying that I voted for Obama in the last election. I, like many moderates saw a need for a change and the right offered nothing but the status quo in the last election, with an injection of whacko in Sarah Palin. Obama actually sounded sincere in his advocacy for change, so he got my vote. After 3.5 years of Obama's incessant blaming everything on prior administrations and doing absolutely nothing to improve the state of the country, I will not vote for him again. If anything, it appears that his positions, tactics and lack of engagement in the political process makes it appear that he is intentionally trying to bring down the country. His own people say that he prefers the limelight to the nitty-gritty of grinding out policy.

Now this thread is about jobs, so I better comment on that so my post doesn't get the ax. It is NOT the job of the US government to create jobs. It is the job of the US government to provide an environment by which business' create jobs. You do not create an environment which is conducive to business growth through punitive regulations, uncertain future tax requirements, double taxation on repatriated earnings from overseas, paralysis from the government and the highest corporate tax rate on the planet. Uncertainty does not breed confidence. Is it any wonder why companies are not hiring?

The US government seems to think that it is a company's responsibility to create jobs. It is not. A companies soul purpose is to return profits to it's shareholders. Full stop. US manufacturing has been gutted over the last 30 years as companies moved offshore to escape US regulations, labor unions, high tax rates and labor costs. Those jobs will not come back unless there is an incentive to do so. We now live in a global economy, so just because someone is born American, doesn't mean they have to operate a business based in the US to have access to that market. I recently heard an interview with a Dem Senator where he stated that is was the moral obligation of every American company owner to hire more employees. I almost pissed myself laughing, as would anyone else who has ever been in business. The good Senator most likely has never owned a business in the private sector.

The US government also thinks it is their responsibility to create jobs. It is not. The role of the government is to provide security and common social services, all to be provided for through taxation. There is no reason that the government should not be able to balance their budget, just as you and I are required to do. The plethora of government agencies is astounding, all manned by good little bureaucrats whose soul purpose is to justify their existence by creating more rules and regulations to further inhibit the populace.

Security should not include billions of USD to be sunk into black projects, of which the only people to benefit are the elites. Nor is it the role of the government to be the world's cop, sticking their nose into affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the US. I for one see it as a positive that government jobs are being cut. I truly am looking forward to the mandatory military budget cuts that go into effect next year. The f'tards in the military industrial complex are just itching to kick off another war to justify their existence.

The bottom line is that the jobs picture in the US will not improve for a long, long time. The US needs 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with new people being added to the labor market. A GDP of 1.9% doesn't get you there. This is not only dictated by events in the US, but world wide. ISM numbers are declining across the planet. This is a leading indicator that we are slipping back toward a world wide recession.

Whew, that felt good. rant off.

[ttelise]

The unemployment rate when Bush left office was approximately ... 8 percent.

Perhaps you can get a job with the DNC, as you have their rhetoric down pat.

Before I get started, let me qualify this by saying that I voted for Obama in the last election. I, like many moderates saw a need for a change and the right offered nothing but the status quo in the last election, with an injection of whacko in Sarah Palin. Obama actually sounded sincere in his advocacy for change, so he got my vote. After 3.5 years of Obama's incessant blaming everything on prior administrations and doing absolutely nothing to improve the state of the country, I will not vote for him again. If anything, it appears that his positions, tactics and lack of engagement in the political process makes it appear that he is intentionally trying to bring down the country. His own people say that he prefers the limelight to the nitty-gritty of grinding out policy.

Now this thread is about jobs, so I better comment on that so my post doesn't get the ax. It is NOT the job of the US government to create jobs. It is the job of the US government to provide an environment by which business' create jobs. You do not create an environment which is conducive to business growth through punitive regulations, uncertain future tax requirements, double taxation on repatriated earnings from overseas, paralysis from the government and the highest corporate tax rate on the planet. Uncertainty does not breed confidence. Is it any wonder why companies are not hiring?

The US government seems to think that it is a company's responsibility to create jobs. It is not. A companies soul purpose is to return profits to it's shareholders. Full stop. US manufacturing has been gutted over the last 30 years as companies moved offshore to escape US regulations, labor unions, high tax rates and labor costs. Those jobs will not come back unless there is an incentive to do so. We now live in a global economy, so just because someone is born American, doesn't mean they have to operate a business based in the US to have access to that market. I recently heard an interview with a Dem Senator where he stated that is was the moral obligation of every American company owner to hire more employees. I almost pissed myself laughing, as would anyone else who has ever been in business. The good Senator most likely has never owned a business in the private sector.

The US government also thinks it is their responsibility to create jobs. It is not. The role of the government is to provide security and common social services, all to be provided for through taxation. There is no reason that the government should not be able to balance their budget, just as you and I are required to do. The plethora of government agencies is astounding, all manned by good little bureaucrats whose soul purpose is to justify their existence by creating more rules and regulations to further inhibit the populace.

Security should not include billions of USD to be sunk into black projects, of which the only people to benefit are the elites. Nor is it the role of the government to be the world's cop, sticking their nose into affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the US. I for one see it as a positive that government jobs are being cut. I truly am looking forward to the mandatory military budget cuts that go into effect next year. The f'tards in the military industrial complex are just itching to kick off another war to justify their existence.

The bottom line is that the jobs picture in the US will not improve for a long, long time. The US needs 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with new people being added to the labor market. A GDP of 1.9% doesn't get you there. This is not only dictated by events in the US, but world wide. ISM numbers are declining across the planet. This is a leading indicator that we are slipping back toward a world wide recession.

Whew, that felt good. rant off.

Look, politicians want jobs. Corporations give a crap less about jobs and care more about PE ratios and reducing costs. What sucks is money government and Fed is pumping into corporate America to induce corporate America to create jobs, yet corporate America just trickles that money upward to it's executives and to shareholders. Sucks for us tax layers as we are just making executives fatter because money is being misallocated.

Truth is, corporate America has both te Republican party and the Federal Reserve in it's pocket so Obama and democrats have a lot less influence than you give them credit.

Too many people yet technology is advancing eliminating huge blocks of lower middle class jobs. Look at all of the cashiers that have been replaced across the country by self checkout at grocery stories and large retail stores. Executives cut those jobs, save the companies billions, and in turn get bug fat bonuses and share holders get larger dividends. Nothing can be done really to stop it, especially with higher minimum wage in US.

[rakman]

The data speaks for itself. The jobs were lost under Bush. No person can turn an economy around in a year, especially given how long it takes to get policy implemented. The jobs lost in Obama's 1st year were from Bush's economy

This is the data from the BLS:

ref: http://data.bls.gov/...t_view=net_1mth

After spending 876 Billion US$, plus an additional $80 billion from TARP, Obama has "created" a loss of 473,000 jobs over his term, so far.

While the administration is touting 4.5 million jobs created so far, the real number is only 4.1 million (positive job numbers) vs. 4.6 million jobs lost.

But the real story is the US economy needs between 150,000 to 170,000 jobs per month (numbers vary by source) to "stay even" in employment as the population increases. Using that number, Obama would need over 6.1 million net new jobs to keep pace.

How can Obama claim this is "moving in the right direction", when his policies are losing more and more jobs.

The economy tanked in late 2007 because of two important reasons: Lax lending practices, starting around 2000, fostered by Fannie and Freddie which created the housing bubble, and US$147 per barrel price of oil.

People, as in any bubble, do stupid things and the "conventional wisdom" was "the value of real estate always goes up".

When gas prices in the US go near or over $4 / gal, people get scared and quit buying. This starts a downward cycle right into recession.

People with BDS also forget 9/11 and the economic impact it had.

Edited July 8, 2012 by rakman

[KeyserSoze01]

The unemployment rate when Bush left office was approximately ... 8 percent.

Perhaps you can get a job with the DNC, as you have their rhetoric down pat.

Before I get started, let me qualify this by saying that I voted for Obama in the last election. I, like many moderates saw a need for a change and the right offered nothing but the status quo in the last election, with an injection of whacko in Sarah Palin. Obama actually sounded sincere in his advocacy for change, so he got my vote. After 3.5 years of Obama's incessant blaming everything on prior administrations and doing absolutely nothing to improve the state of the country, I will not vote for him again. If anything, it appears that his positions, tactics and lack of engagement in the political process makes it appear that he is intentionally trying to bring down the country. His own people say that he prefers the limelight to the nitty-gritty of grinding out policy.

Now this thread is about jobs, so I better comment on that so my post doesn't get the ax. It is NOT the job of the US government to create jobs. It is the job of the US government to provide an environment by which business' create jobs. You do not create an environment which is conducive to business growth through punitive regulations, uncertain future tax requirements, double taxation on repatriated earnings from overseas, paralysis from the government and the highest corporate tax rate on the planet. Uncertainty does not breed confidence. Is it any wonder why companies are not hiring?

The US government seems to think that it is a company's responsibility to create jobs. It is not. A companies soul purpose is to return profits to it's shareholders. Full stop. US manufacturing has been gutted over the last 30 years as companies moved offshore to escape US regulations, labor unions, high tax rates and labor costs. Those jobs will not come back unless there is an incentive to do so. We now live in a global economy, so just because someone is born American, doesn't mean they have to operate a business based in the US to have access to that market. I recently heard an interview with a Dem Senator where he stated that is was the moral obligation of every American company owner to hire more employees. I almost pissed myself laughing, as would anyone else who has ever been in business. The good Senator most likely has never owned a business in the private sector.

The US government also thinks it is their responsibility to create jobs. It is not. The role of the government is to provide security and common social services, all to be provided for through taxation. There is no reason that the government should not be able to balance their budget, just as you and I are required to do. The plethora of government agencies is astounding, all manned by good little bureaucrats whose soul purpose is to justify their existence by creating more rules and regulations to further inhibit the populace.

Security should not include billions of USD to be sunk into black projects, of which the only people to benefit are the elites. Nor is it the role of the government to be the world's cop, sticking their nose into affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the US. I for one see it as a positive that government jobs are being cut. I truly am looking forward to the mandatory military budget cuts that go into effect next year. The f'tards in the military industrial complex are just itching to kick off another war to justify their existence.

The bottom line is that the jobs picture in the US will not improve for a long, long time. The US needs 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with new people being added to the labor market. A GDP of 1.9% doesn't get you there. This is not only dictated by events in the US, but world wide. ISM numbers are declining across the planet. This is a leading indicator that we are slipping back toward a world wide recession.

Whew, that felt good. rant off.

Look, politicians want jobs. Corporations give a crap less about jobs and care more about PE ratios and reducing costs. What sucks is money government and Fed is pumping into corporate America to induce corporate America to create jobs, yet corporate America just trickles that money upward to it's executives and to shareholders. Sucks for us tax layers as we are just making executives fatter because money is being misallocated.

Truth is, corporate America has both te Republican party and the Federal Reserve in it's pocket so Obama and democrats have a lot less influence than you give them credit.

Too many people yet technology is advancing eliminating huge blocks of lower middle class jobs. Look at all of the cashiers that have been replaced across the country by self checkout at grocery stories and large retail stores. Executives cut those jobs, save the companies billions, and in turn get bug fat bonuses and share holders get larger dividends. Nothing can be done really to stop it, especially with higher minimum wage in US.

You sound like someone that subscribes to the Occupy Wall Street point of view. Lot's of opinions and few facts.

The US g'ment, the Fed, nor the Treasury has invested a single dime into corporate America with the exception of TARP, which was a stopgap measure to prevent insolvency in the banking systems. The TARP investments have been 50% repaid, with interest, by the banks. Please show me one instance where the US g'ment has made an investment into the private sector. You can't because they haven't done it. They can vote for subsidies for specific industries, such as solar, which we all know has been such a huge success.

Just how do you substantiate your claim that the Fed is in the pocket of corporate America? Corporate America is the only part of the equation that is working. Corporate profits have been up, despite the poor economy. What does that tell you? It means that corporate America has done what it needs to do to insure not only their survival, but growth. The size and scope of the g'ment is choking the life blood of the country. Corporate America sees it, so do the Republicans. The Dems are only concerned about their entitlements and more social services, that someone else pays for.

The lower middle class is being pinched because these are the folks that used to have the manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas. That and service industry jobs which have now been taken by emigrants who will work longer hours for less money. The bulk on the unemployment in the US is in this group. The unemployment rate for a college educated IT professional in the US in around 2%, while the unemployment rate for high school educated factory workers is over 12%. Seems pretty simple to me. You want to work in an advanced society, you either have the tools or you don't.

It sounds as if you believe that the government and companies owe these people some type of existence whether they have the ability to contribute to society or not. In other words, a socialist.