Oh Frabjous Day!! Unemployment Rate Increases by Only 0.1%!!

Oh Frabjous Day!! Unemployment Rate Increases by Only 0.1%!! July 2, 2009

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

Finally. Finally the slowing of the unemployment rate increase has arrived. We’ve been waiting for months for unemployment to show signs of topping out, and it looks like it may be happening at last.

The unemployment rate for June only went up 0.1%; much less than in previous months, and finally deviating from the near-linear increase we’ve seen since last year.

Is it the stimulus finally taking effect? The natural recovery of the economy? Just an anomaly?

Whatever. Tomorrow I’ll dissect it. Today I’ll just enjoy it (though it appears at first glance that the rate increased so slowly because a number of people dropped out of the labor market).

[It is assumed that by now this chart is self-explanatory. If not, delving into the posts over the past 3 months will tell you more than you need to know about the chart’s pedigree.]

Comments

1. Mrs. Peel - July 2, 2009: Woo-hoo! Smaller first derivative!

Thanks, geoff.
2. Lucius Vorenus - July 2, 2009: In May, 504,000 jobs were lost [since upgraded to 519,000], and unemployment increased 0.5 points, from 8.9 to 9.4 percent.

In June, 467,000 jobs were lost, but unemployment increased only 0.1 points, from 9.4 to 9.5 percent.

Looks to this layman as though someone is cooking the books – otherwise we ought to be up around 9.8 or 9.9 percent

This is the sort of thing that just reeks of Axelrod & the Psychological Warfare Team:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153,00.html

And don’t think for a second that they wouldn’t do it – just make up completely bogus numbers right out of thin air.

PS: You’re the number one hit at Google for “May Unemployment”:

http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=may+unemployment

So again: Don’t think for a second that the Psy Ops Team doesn’t have their eyeballs all over this stuff, and that they aren’t terrified of the looming prospect of the big 10 point 0 – to the point that they wouldn’t hesitate to release bogus data – if for no other reason that to reign in your graphics.
3. Lucius Vorenus - July 2, 2009: that = than
4. Joey Buzz - July 2, 2009: Not to nitpick…ever… but I think you need to shift your dot to the right..if in fact the next line represents the end of Q2 and the start of Q3. My interpretation is that along the x, 1/2 a square = 3 months. But I was wrong a couple of times yesterday too.
5. Edward Von Bear - July 2, 2009: expect Hosannas from the MSM.

Suddenly, the number of people who simply gave up looking for work is no longer important. Suddenly, the number of losses is unimportant vis a vis the percent. And the actual percent will be unimportant, while the small increase will be what is hyped.

Regardless, watching The Deciders flail around for a positive spin for this one will be hilariuous
6. reason - July 2, 2009: But, I thought those people who gave up looking for jobs were, as the LA Times put it, “funemployed!”

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-funemployment4-2009jun04,0,7581684.story
7. TattooedIntellectual - July 2, 2009: I have to say I don’t like the whole blue/maroon theme.
8. Blame for the current unemployment rate | Radio Vice Online - July 2, 2009: […] Jim Geraghty from The Campaign Spot has the graph and links us to the full post at Innocent Bystanders. […]
9. geoff - July 2, 2009: Looks to this layman as though someone is cooking the books – otherwise we ought to be up around 9.8 or 9.9 percent

Don’t have time to do much delving into the numbers today (gotta tube!), but I think it’s the “gave up on looking” crowd that makes the difference (as EvonB notes). They’ve ballooned to several times their normal size, so now they alone can swing the unemployment rate by a couple of points.
10. geoff - July 2, 2009: I have to say I don’t like the whole blue/maroon theme.

Colorist.
11. Headless Blogger - July 2, 2009: The BLS report lists an increase of 358,000 workers who are “Not in labor force.” In the previous months this number was a negative. That’s the .3 or .4% that is missing from the 9.9 or 10% unemployment.
12. Herr Morgenholz - July 2, 2009: The BLS report lists an increase of 358,000 workers who are “Not in labor force.” In the previous months this number was a negative. That’s the .3 or .4% that is missing from the 9.9 or 10% unemployment.

They’re not unemployed, they’re “funemployed”. The Funemployment numbers will be released next week.
13. Economy keeps truckin’ along thanks to Obama! « The West Coast Outpost - July 2, 2009: […] (HT: Innocent Bystanders) […]
14. Herr Morgenholz - July 2, 2009: 358,000 left the workforce in June? College graduation month? Methinks not.
15. TattooedIntellectual - July 2, 2009: Colorist.

I really think you should be working w/ a chartreuse & gamboge color combo. Something truly nauseating.
16. reason - July 2, 2009: Definitely needs a splash of avocado green.

Perhaps that can be used to track the discouraged / no-longer-working / funemployed! numbers.
17. TattooedIntellectual - July 2, 2009: Ohhh, I hadn’t considered avacado. Don’t know if it’s gonna work w/ the maroon/blue, I still think Geoff needs to change that.
18. FreakyBoy - July 2, 2009: This really stinks.

If 467,000 job losses produces a 0.1% rise in unemployment, then you can calculate the total employment (jobs) you are basing this percentage on by dividing 467,000 by 0.001, right?

This number is a ridiculous 467,000,000 jobs.

Which means every person (including elderly & children) in the US is working approximately 1.4 jobs.

Last month 504,000 lost jobs resulted in a 0.5% rise, which results in 100,800,000 total employment. Which is probably a good number.

This reeks.
19. Sequel - July 2, 2009: I’m with Lucius. The raw numbers of lost jobs were:
April 519K
May 322K
June 467K
There’s no way this gives a knee to the graph line, the near linear line changes all right, just not the way we would hope (and change).
20. blue/maroon - July 2, 2009: 17:
Hater
21. Alice H - July 2, 2009: Beautiful work again, Geoff! DPUD linked you, BTW.

I’m wondering if a percentage of the ‘with recovery plan’ curve were added to the ‘without recovery plan’ curve, would we see some way to predict the actual unemployment data. Probably just wishful thinking on my part.
22. lauraw - July 2, 2009: Tomorrow I’ll dissect it.

I’m psyched.
23. Gabriel Malor - July 2, 2009: Linked at the Big Man’s place. I may have mocked Geoff. It happens, okay?
24. Dave in Texas - July 2, 2009: Heh. He can take a punch.
25. Edward Von Bear - July 2, 2009: almost on cue, here is a liberal’s response to the jobs numbers.
http://twitter.com/darrinbodner/status/2439272856

or this:
http://twitter.com/darrinbodner/status/2439418568
26. Lucius Vorenus - July 2, 2009: almost on cue, here is a liberal’s response to the jobs numbers

God, it’s hard to tell whether that guy is a member of the Psychological Warfare Team or whether he’s just another peon who’s drunk the koolaid.

Sometimes I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the Star Chamber – just so that I could tell who was really in the know all along, and who was merely duped.
27. Lucius Vorenus - July 2, 2009: Oh wow – I just googled “Darrin Bodner” – I had never heard of the guy before.

Well now that I know who he is, I can guarantee you that he is pure, unadulterated, 110% Psy Ops.

EXACTLY as I predicted.
28. wiserbud - July 2, 2009: almost on cue, here is a liberal’s response to the jobs numbers.

These are the same people who can supposedly understand the most intricate and minute details regarding global temp statistics that seem to elude us troglodyte non-believers, in order to support their Chicken-Little-ish cries of “Global Warming!!” , but somehow can’t seem to see beyond the headlines when it comes to this type of economic analysis.

How marvelous that the ‘adults’ are now in charge, huh?
29. BackwardsBoy - July 2, 2009: I agree with Lucious @2. Methinks someone is massaging that math thingy I keep hearing so much about.
30. Instapundit » Blog Archive » OBAMA, STIMULUS, AND UNEMPLOYMENT: What was promised, vs. what has happened…. - July 2, 2009: […] OBAMA, STIMULUS, AND UNEMPLOYMENT: What was promised, vs. what has happened. […]
31. SK - July 2, 2009: The unemployment rate jumped 0.15%…

The math:

May = 14,511 / 155,081 = 9.36% (rounded up to 9.4%)
June = 14,729 / 154,926 = 9.51% (rounded down to 9.5%)

We’ll be close to the 10% level by October… And then perhaps some seasonal hiring in November will keep us from the psychological double-digit threshold.
32. dscott - July 2, 2009: I would like to comment that the number you are using is SEASONALLY adjusted, thus it is low balling the actual impact, but I supposed Obama’s projection was Seasonally Adjusted? Or was it?

Check our comments at: http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/07/02/the-june-employment-situation-report-070209-follow-up-possibly-deferred/

1,122,000 were actually newly unemployed in June, not 467,000. The total unemployment figure really stands at 15,095,000 not 14,729,000. Those of us who are unemployed don’t like being left out.
33. dscott - July 2, 2009: Sorry, left off the source of the number, BLS Table A-1
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
34. CCPhysicist shows correct June graph - July 2, 2009: My comments on the possible inflection point are in an article I posted today on my blog (linked from my name up above) and in a comment on your article yesterday.

Apropos what SK just wrote, my graph also shows the quarterly average that was used when the original graph was constructed. That smooths out the noise in the data, which do not rate 5 sig figs or even the 3 sig figs SK advocates – at least until the rate gets into double digits. Remember, unemployment rates are based on a survey.

It is much too early to say for sure that the curvature of unemployment is turning negative, particularly with weekly claims where they are, but I explain my reasoning in my July 2 and June 14 blog entries. The June 14 entry also explains what I know about how the BLS gets its data, having once been a participant in that survey.
35. Pupster - July 2, 2009: *trouble brewing*
36. Edward Von Bear - July 2, 2009: Well, Obama wants us to be more like Europe, so 10% unemployment gets us there
37. MostlyRight - July 2, 2009: If red skittles were used instead of red dots for actual unemployment, and yellow skittles for unemployment without stimulus, and blue skittles for unemployment with stimulus, and a unicorn was pasted in the top right corner, shitting the red skittles of the continuing unemployment, we’d be seeing the unicorn shitting rainbow skittles that Obama promised us all. I’d assumed mine would be in the mail by February, but apparently the Post Office works at single-payer health care emergency room pace and I just have to be patient.
38. Joey Buzz - July 2, 2009: I think they only counted the folks that used to work at the now closed republican owned GM and Chrysler stealerships.
39. Lou Reed - July 2, 2009: Someone based an Onion-style parody on an earlier version of this chart. It’s entitled “Obama Appoints Russian Mystic Rasputin ‘Psychic Economic Adviser to the Czars'” and can be found here: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-appoints-russian-mystic-rasputin.html
40. Steved - July 2, 2009: Guys,

The reason that the May 504k drop in employment in resluted in .5% unempoyment increase, but the June 467k drop in employment only resulted in a .1% unemplyment rate increase can be explained in one word……..entrpenuers!

Because of Obamacare, all of those unemployed are now free to pursue their dreams of being their own boss! Because of Cap and Tax, they are working in their garages as entrpenueral inventors, pursuing the next great energy source.

All hail OBAMA!

{er….that was meant as sarcasim, in case you didn’t catch my drift}
41. Obama is causing unemployment « The Javelineer - July 2, 2009: […] a comment » The actual unemployment is much, much higher than Obama projected. Unemployment: what Obama promised and what he […]
42. Detailed Balance » Blog Archive » Lagging Indicator - July 2, 2009: […] bill, they claimed, unemployment would peak at 7.5% in the third quarter of 2009. Here’s is IB’s graphical summary of their prognosticatory […]
43. Anonymous - July 2, 2009: Hey just so everyone knows. The Birth/death model adjusted this month’s job in a positive direction more than ANY June for the past eight years.

That’s right small business grew at the best pace employment wise this past month since 2000.

Yah.
44. Edward Von Bear - July 2, 2009: ^huh?
45. nicedeb - July 2, 2009: GOP.Gov has there own Stimulus jobs chart, now, much like Geoff’s:

http://www.gop.gov/accountability
46. These Are the Smart Guys? « Columbia Gorge Dispatch - July 2, 2009: […] uncertainty, and doubt? You betcha. It’s one thing if it would have worked, but guess what? They weren’t even close. So wait, these are the smart guys we’re supposed to trust, like, way more than the last […]
47. Where’s Them Jobs? « Nice Deb - July 2, 2009: […] Which is just a *slightly* slicker version of Geoff’s updated monthly chart from Innocent Bystanders: […]
48. Instapundit » Blog Archive » REPUBLICANS blame Obama for job losses. Well, it’s not what he promised when the stimulus was up fo… - July 2, 2009: […] blame Obama for job losses. Well, it’s not what he promised when the stimulus was up for a vote, is […]
49. Instapundit » Blog Archive » WHY ISN’T AMERICA HIRING? “America isn’t hiring precisely because of government policy. Small busin… - July 2, 2009: […] Employment numbers certainly aren’t living up to Obama’s “stimulus” promises. […]
50. Michael - July 2, 2009: Wow — 3 Instalanches in one day for The Chart!
51. Lara Jackson - July 2, 2009: I certainly hope something turns around soon…the numbers still don’t look good to me. I’ve been out of my field for 19 months. Underemployed right now. Going to take some time though.
52. Yea for the Jobs Created and Saved! - July 2, 2009: […] seen here. Posted by LTC John @ 9:43 pm | Trackback Share […]
53. allthatswrong - July 2, 2009: The unemployment rate in Mendota, CA is @ 41% thanks for the “Save the Fucking Smelt” campaign. Glad I’m not a farmer. Guess we won’t see that on the 11 o’clock news.
54. Nearing bottom? « Internet Scofflaw - July 2, 2009: […] The unemployment rate increased just 0.1% in in […]
55. Hot Air » Blog Archive » New GOP ad: The stimulus isn’t working - July 2, 2009: […] a centerpiece of the next ad, along with the now-famous Heritage deficit and Innocent Bystanders unemployment graphs. And by all means, put Obama’s moronic “created or saved” spin to the good […]
56. Tushar - July 2, 2009: >>Wow — 3 Instalanches in one day for The Chart!

Time to rename the blog geoffscomments.wordpress.com
57. lauraw - July 2, 2009: Geoff needs a def new blogname commensurate with his bloggy glory.

Sir Charts-A-Lot

I like big triangles
and I cannot lie…
58. Michael - July 2, 2009: Sir Charts-A-Lot

Hah! That’s perfect.
59. Tushar - July 2, 2009: who charted?
60. Tushar - July 2, 2009: chart attack
61. Michael - July 2, 2009: Speaking of charts, take a look at the Sitemeter graph for today. I’ve never seen such a dramatic spike like the one that hit IB between 2-3 p.m.

Even better, we picked up three new flags!!!
62. Michael - July 2, 2009: chart of darkness

Hey Tush, how are those impossibly cute kids of yours?
63. TattooedIntellectual - July 2, 2009: I think you could see even more hits, and even more flags if Geoff would just drop that awful maroon/blue theme.
64. Mickey - July 2, 2009: I see that unemployment numbers keep on increasing at about 600,000 a week. How is it that the employment rate hasn’t changed, 9.4-9.5??? That sounds like somebody is playing games with the numbers.The rates are much higher if real numbers were used it is 25% in many areas. You have to count the people that are unemployed but whose benefits have run out, small business owners who do not qualify for benefits (even though they must pay in for others) and the graduates who will not find jobs because they have no experience to get a job even if there were any.
The only place hiring seems to be the government and that is costing all of us twice since it using our money to create and taking jobs out of the private sector.

Bush obfuscated to Obama in November…you know, the good old days when the unemployment rate was about half. The idiots in Congress passed massive HOG Stimulus bill and then a HOG budget with over 9,000 pork earmarks…again we said NO don’t pass more wasteful bills…then we bailed out and took over banks and car companies (the latter being an unconstitutional theft of tax payer funds and giving it to a foreign country (the birthplace of organized crime).

People here are concerned that the country will have an economic collapse. There is a major concern for the loss of freedoms under what has become an oppressive, out of control dictatorship in the making! What is the response from the Obama/Congress? SPEND MORE and FASTER!

And what did a Democrat Congressman New York Rep. Jose Serrano, a Democrat, introduced a bill (H.J.RES.5) on Jan. 6, when Congress opened, proposing the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms… Don’t know about you but I see what is happening and in isn’t in Cuba, Venezuela or Hondurus. It’s right here in the USA!
65. Independence Day T-minus 2 « Obi’s Sister - July 2, 2009: […] out the Beltway Libs dancing in the streets over numbers, which they don’t […]
66. Unemployment Rate increases by only 0.1% « Law Of Increasing Conservatism - July 2, 2009: […] Rate increases by only 0.1% Jump to Comments Break out the finest meats and cheeses! Thanks to Geoff for doing all the legwork. Finally the slowing of the unemployment rate increase has arrived. We’ve been waiting for […]
67. GayPatriot » Despite Failure of “Stimulus” to Work as Advertised,President Focuses on Regulatory Schemes, not Economic Recovery - July 2, 2009: […] Obama Administration forecast it would have attained without the “stimulus”–and considerably higher (considerably, considerably) than Democrats promised if Congress passed the legislation which may well have ended Arlen […]
68. Tushar - July 2, 2009: Michael, the kids are doing great!

Paying for college is going to kill me, isn’t it?
69. Top Posts « WordPress.com - July 2, 2009: […] Oh Frabjous Day!! Unemployment Rate Increases by Only 0.1%!! Finally. Finally the slowing of the unemployment rate increase has arrived. We’ve been waiting for months for […] […]
70. cynthia - July 2, 2009: There has to be a point where the unemployment percentage stops going up, even if unemployment continues to grow. People exhausting their UI benefits stop being counted as the newly unemployed start receiving checks. So the system becomes both steady-state and a joke.
71. Michael - July 2, 2009: That has already happened, Cynthia. That’s why the number of jobs lost in June was greater, but the increase in unemployment as a percentage (based on an adjusted survey) appeared to slow.

That’s why the stock market went down today.
72. Madison County Republican Party of Indiana » Pence: Congress Should Follow the Example of American Families - July 2, 2009: […] See also: Oh Frabjous Day!! Unemployment Rate Increases by Only 0.1%!! […]
73. Unemployment Update - Economics - - July 2, 2009: […] (1)January 2009 (2)December 2008 (1)November 2008 (3)October 2008 (1)September 2008 (3) Source of graph. Click here for my discussion of […]
74. JanSimpson - July 2, 2009: Ha ha – the true unemployment is well over 25% – the government is llying – they only count people who receive benefits not those who don’t qualify for benefits nor those who can’t receive benefits since their benefits ran out – shameful lying to the American public
75. Obama and Gaithner sold the American people the Brooklyn Bridge « Cliftonchadwick’s Blog - July 2, 2009: […] show this chart frequently. One can see that the situation is getting worse and that the predicted effects of the […]
76. A Miserable Failure | America Watches Obama - July 2, 2009: […] plan, which mainly stimulated Democratic constituencies with great gobs of pork. The web site Innocent Bystanders has done a service by plotting the actual unemployment rate against the Obama […]
77. Maybe We'd See some "Green Shoots" if the Government Would Stop Tromping All Over Things - AIP Blog - American Issues Project - July 2, 2009: […] caused by the Stimulus Plan, which was supposed to create jobs (or save them, har har) and head off a dizzying unemployment rate of 9 percent! Imagine what will happen when nationalized health care and cap-and-trade hit those businesses? […]
78. Riteaidbob - July 2, 2009: The littel Chicago Thug lied?

My oh my.

I take comfort knowing that when the idiot is through ruining the country all the fools that voted for him will suffer right along with the rest of the nation.
79. Americaneocon - July 2, 2009: “I take comfort knowing that when the idiot is through ruining the country all the fools that voted for him will suffer right along with the rest of the nation.”

Me too …
80. So, when was that stimulus supposed to kick in? « Blog de KingShamus - July 2, 2009: […] Update: Here’s a charming graph detailing Team Obama’s stupendous piles of fail: […]
81. Dracovert - July 3, 2009: Recessions start when the there are excessive conditions in the economy. There were actually few identifiable excesses a year ago except Detroit autos, which have been in excess and in trouble for twenty years, and the mortgage follies, brought to you by Democrats.

Every other sector of the economy one year ago was doing well and indicators were benign, such as P/E ratio; the DOW P/E was about 22 at the 2007 peak, a very acceptable level. In contrast, the NASDAQ P/E ratio peaked early in Clinton’s last year at about 65, and the DOW P/E ratio peaked at about 45 just before Clinton left office. That is nosebleed territory, and indicated serious excesses during Clinton’s last year.

Recessions end when the excesses are wrung out of the economy, which is what Reagan did in the early 1980s and Bush did in the early 2000s.

But Obama is adding excesses to the economy as fast as the Democrats can vote: excess debt, excess spending, excess taxes. There will be no end to this recession until the excesses are stopped and investors regain confidence that the government is not going to do anything stupid.
82. Magic Dog - July 3, 2009: Yes, it’s true. George W. Bush gave the American economy a royal fucking, and it’s nowhere near over with.
83. Herr Morgenholz - July 3, 2009: Magic Dog:

Can you be more specific? No? Then go to the corner and lick your balls.
84. lauraw - July 3, 2009: In most people’s minds who don’t really follow politics all that closely and don’t understand what’s going on, Obama gets a few more months to blame Bush. About a year of being Prez.

Because recessions are historically pretty short in this country. Americans who truly understand long-term privation is are quite old.

After that, he owns this situation. Nobody is going to live through a five or ten year Great Recession and still blame the guy who’s been out of office that long. People just aren’t that retarded, despite what the Obama team hopes.

This is why Carter was expectorated from office.

The Dems’ only hope is to continue to fuck with procedure and to register more parasites to vote. I’m not talking about welfare people. I’m talking about actual flatworms.
85. Atlas Groans « Innocent Bystanders - July 3, 2009: […] rate press release showed a very small increase in unemployment from May to June – only 0.1%. The natural question is: Why? Why is it so small? Are things getting […]
86. GayPatriot » Does media coverage of economy affect our perception of its health? - July 3, 2009: […] I wonder how much worse the incumbent’s numbers on the economy if the MSM did as the conservative media and blogosphere is doing, showing the amount debt which will accrue with Obama’s policies–and contrasting the unemployment figures projected by the Administration when they pushed passage of the…. […]
87. June’s Unemployment Chart « Scott’s Slant on Politics - July 3, 2009: […] Source: Innocent Bystanders. […]
88. Patriotic Dissent - July 3, 2009: Stimu-Less in Obamanation…

The graph says it all:

……
89. Edward Von Bear - July 3, 2009: 84: that’s why he sent all that $ to ACORN. They are good at digging up felons, dogs, multiple voters, dead people, and statues at the park to vote.
90. Doodad Pro - July 3, 2009: that’s why he sent all that $ to ACORN. They are good at digging up felons, dogs, multiple voters, dead people, and statues at the park to vote.

HATER!
91. danielmaxson - July 3, 2009: Heh, not to be a naysayer, but the other side of “unemployment only went up .1 percent” is “unemployment is at a 26-year high” as in Newsy’s video about the record-high unemployment. I’m also a little amused/bemused that the actual results are higher than their projected unemployment without stimulus. Guess it’s a lesson for the future…
92. domainiac - July 3, 2009: Wow, I guess Im that guy! Just got the axe here in Utah but hey the Obamanators gonna save us all right?
93. nightbusiness - July 3, 2009: Oh wow. This is a really fascinating piece of subject matter. Thanks for the post. : )
94. Cathy - July 3, 2009: Sorry to hear about the “axe” domainiac.

Drop by and tell us how things are going from time to time.

Most/all of the regulars here (or our close friends and family) have had somebody out of work recently.
95. High CSQ » Blog Archive » Geoff’s Unemployment Chart — June Edition - July 3, 2009: […] Posted here. Well at least it looks like the corner has been turned. Seems a bit abrupt for a normally expected smooth curve. It might be adjusted up next month or a bunch of people have fallen off the unemployment rolls. Perhaps both. In any case, the curve is much higher than was projected for no Recovery Plan. It may well be that the “economy” has stalled because the Obama administration keeps changing the rules. Constantly changing the rules is one reason why we now have the term, “The Great Depression”. […]
96. aba - July 3, 2009: I think you people mean asymptotic not linear
97. geoff - July 3, 2009: I think you people mean asymptotic not linear

That’s nonsensical.
98. aba - July 3, 2009: And linear increase is not….it is ambiguous at best. What I was trying to convey is that the graph was approaching a vertical line….ie acting as a hyperbola approaching its asymptote. hell a linear curve could have a near horizontal slope and still be linear. It could have a very small slope say something like y= .00001x + 1 and still increase linearly.

I do not think this is the meaning you are trying to convey. Instead the curve is approaching the horizontal. I thought of a hyperbola approaching its asymptote….it seems a better a more vivid metaphor than the flaccid and ambiguous linear increase
99. Cathy - July 3, 2009: Hey aba.

Are you on meds?

Just curious.
100. aba - July 3, 2009: ^^sorry I meant approaching the vertical not the horizontal.
101. geoff - July 3, 2009: Look at the data between Oct ’08 and May ’09 – the timespan to which I referred. There is no indication in that timeframe that the curve is anything but linear, which was what I said in the post. And the point about it being linear is that we weren’t seeing any sign of an inflection point, or indeed any influence of stimulus spending on the slope of the rate increase. Instead we saw an inexorable linear increase.

An asymptote is a gradual approach to a fixed line, where the curve never quite reaches the fixed line – the data is nothing like an asymptote.

What you really mean is that the June ’09 data suggests that we’ve reached the long-awaited inflection point in the curve. I think it’s too early to tell for sure, but I do hope that it’s true.
102. Michael - July 3, 2009: I thought of a hyperbola approaching its asymptote….it seems a better a more vivid metaphor than the flaccid and ambiguous linear increase . . .

I thought the actual unemployment numbers might eventually round off and look like a boob. Is that the same thing?
103. aba - July 3, 2009: At the graphs given level of resolution nearly all previous periods post approx Q2 2007 all appear to increase linearly; just at different linear slopes. That is my point the term “linear increase” tell one nothing of the steepness of the increase. Taking the asymptote as a vertical line the would represent 100% unemployment, the curve appears to be approaching it….realistically it would never reach such a boundary…..hence the term asymptote.

If you look at a hyperbola and its approach to a vertical asymptote….this is a far better description of what the behavior I believe you are trying to describe as linear increase. Once again a linear increase could be nearly imperceptible or it could be very steep….on the other hand on its approach to a vertical asymptote the curve would appear very steep….I think that it is this steepness of slope that you are referring to while perhaps not technically incorrectly as linear; it nonetheless suffers from ambiguity and weakness in meaning. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you or other are meaning by “linear increase”…..from the graph I take it you mean nearly or approaching the vertical. Is this incorrect?

But even if it is incorrect; nonetheless as earlier stated all period after about Q2 2007 at least from the graphs resolution also appear to increase linearly as well….some less steep ; some more steep;

If my take on what you call linear increase is correct…..ie that it means it is approaching the vertical. Then in fact your use of linear increase would be improper as this would be more akin to a discontinuity……not linearity
104. BrewFan - July 3, 2009: Mamma Mia!
105. geoff - July 3, 2009: That is my point the term “linear increase” tell one nothing of the steepness of the increase.

It was never meant to. It was meant to show that the second derivative of the curve was zero. The steepness of the data curve was never an issue – it’s obvious at a glance. The point was that the data was not deviating from its linear course, despite the accumulating expenditures of the Stimulus package.

The term “near-linear” would never be understood as “approaching vertical.” In fact, if it was “approaching vertical” it wouldn’t be linear – it would be asymptotically approaching linearity.
106. spudmomof6 - July 5, 2009: I had an opening at my business for a $12-$15/hr administrative position and had a lawyer and civil engineer among the applicants, as well as several people with years of experience who were working part-time. Not to include the multiple formerly self-employed Realtors. That told me more about the state of the economy than anything else. It used to be hard to fill staff positions even one year ago; now I have a great team that’s motivated, and I expect that we will make great strides forward.
When the unemployment figures include the formerly self-employed, students who can’t find summer work, early retirees who opt for social security because no one hires 64 year olds except Walmart, folks who have maxed out their jobless benefits, and those who are fired and therefore don’t qualify, it will be a more useful statistic. Remember all those help wanted signs that were everywhere when we had a Republican in the White House?
107. Instapundit » Blog Archive » BRUCE BARTLETT: We Do Not Need A Second Stimulus Plan. I agree. Paul Krugman, meanwhile, runs t… - July 5, 2009: […] Paul Krugman, meanwhile, runs this chart, when perhaps he really should be talking about this one. […]
108. FINANCIAL INFIDEL - July 6, 2009: While all of you are sitting here looking at the lines on a chart go up and down is anyone pondering the ramifications of another $845 billion dollars going to Africa as a result of the “Global Poverty Act”?

THIS IS GOING THROUGH THE UN RIGHT NOW AND NOT ONE MSM OUTLET IS TALKING ABOUT IT.

We have bailed out GM,CHYSLER,800M+ TO GAZA TO REBUILD,THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND ALL THE BANKERS and now comes word that we are going to send $845 billion to the United Nations for them to plunder and steal while nothing gets done in Africa. The UN has done a damn poor job every time they get any money, not to mention allowing every human rights abusing country in the world onto the human right panels of the UN.

What has the UN ever done for the American people? We have given every corrupt country in the world a place away from their own people to covertly steal from and rape the rest of us of our hard earned dollars.

WHEN CAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN GET HIS BAILOUT AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF $300 OR 600 AMERICAN DOLLARS.

WHY IS THIS NOT BEING COVERED IN THE MSM?

I guess,I am going to have to relocate to Africa to get any help for my small business and myself.

Its a known fact that our leader recieved many donations illegally from the African continent in the form of small donations from credit cards.When these were converted to American dollars he recieved amounts like $77.25,51.36 or 23.69. When was the last time any of you donated to you favorite elected officals in uneven amounts.Go look at the Federal Election Commission website if you dont believe me.

WHEN IS AMERICA GOING TO WAKE THE FUCK UP AND SEE THAT OUR GOVT IS STEALING US BLIND AND FORCING YOUR CHILDREN AND MINE TO FIGHT AMONGST OURSELVES AND WITH OTHER NATIONS IN THE FUTURE TO GET THE BASIC ITEMS WE NEED TO SURVIVE.

WHEN A STREET THUG HAS HIS GUN UP IN YOUR FACE AND IS DEMANDING YOUR BMW OR LEXUS IT WILL TOO LATE TO ASK WHERE DID AMERICA GO WRONG? YOU WILL BE DEAD AND IT WONT MATTER BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TOTAL CHAOS IN AMERICA.

I WOULD LOVE FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME IN A MANNER THAT I AND THE REST OF AMERICA CAN UNDERSTAND.

WHY IS EVERYTHING THIS ADMINSTRATION IS DOING GETTING COMPLETED UNDER THE RADAR OR IF IT IS BEING REPORTED ON HAS TO BE DONE TODAY WITHOUT DELAY DENYING INTELLIGENT DEBATE.OUR OFFICALS ARE NOT EVEN READING THE BILLS THEY ARE VOTING ON OR VOTING AS THEIR PEOPLE THAT PUT THEM INTO OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Things are not going to better,in fact, they are going to get alot worse.
109. FINANCIAL INFIDEL - July 6, 2009: I would also like to point out that the unemployment rate of 9.5% is not correct. Its more like 28.5% of Americans because a third of them have run out of their alloted benefits and are now on welfare. Another third of them are not on unemployment rolls but are living off of saved retirements to pay bills. The 9.5% comes from the people who are in the system right now collecting govt payments.

Last, these numbers are coming from the govt and should not be trusted either.

WAKE UP AMERICA AND SPIT THE GOVERNMENTS KOOL-AID OUT OR ITS GOING TO KILL YOU!
110. Howie Feltersnatch - July 6, 2009: Obama to cheers at a Hollywood fundraiser: “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Unfortunately they applaud job killing in Hollywood.
111. Isn’t this how Bush explained Iraq? | Blackinformant.com - African-American culture, news commentary, politics - July 6, 2009: […] This is the latest chart comparing what was promised by the stimulus, what would have happened if there was no stimulus and finally what has happened with the stimulus. […]
112. Purple Avenger - July 6, 2009
113. DarkHelmet - July 6, 2009: As a private sector economist let me explain the numbers. There are three main sets of employment data. Every month we get results from two of them: the ‘establishment survey’ which produces the non-farm payroll figure (net jobs gained or lost) and the ‘household survey’ which is used to calculate the unemployment rate. In addition, there is a weekly report on unemployment insurance which has two main elements: initial claims (people applying for benefits who are newly out of work) and continuing claims (people who are not new applicants but still collecting unemployment checks.)

Because the non-farm payroll figure and the unemployment rate come from different surveys it is quite common for them to diverge on a month to month basis. They can even go in opposite directions for short periods. Over the long term they tend to track pretty well.

As for the unemployment rate, there is no one answer. Different data series measure different things. The ‘standard’ unemployment rate you see every month consists of those who say they are out of work, but are actively looking for a job. That rate is currently 9.5%, up from 7.2% at the end of 2008. There is a broader unemployment rate which includes ‘discouraged workers’ (would like a job, but aren’t actively looking) involuntary part-timers and other underemployed people. The Bureau of Labor Statistics labels this rate ‘U6’ and it is currently 16.5%, up from 13.5% at the end of 2008. U6 data only goes back to 1994; we are currently at the highest level ever recorded on this series.

Finally, there is the ‘insured unemployment rate’ which calculates the number of people receiving unemployment insurance divided by those who are eligible for it. That rate is currently 5.0% versus 3.4% at the end of 2008.

Each figure describes a different aspect of the employment picture. At the moment all of them are bad and getting worse. Anyone who wants to examine the raw data need only go to the BLS website. There are, of course, some issues of data integrity and assumptions as in any large statistical analysis. Overall, however, I think a reasonable picture of the true employment situation can be gleaned from a careful examination of the available data.
114. DarkHelmet - July 6, 2009: And to return to the topic, the Obama ‘stimulus’ package was a bad idea badly executed so I am not surprised to see unemployment running far above administration forecasts. The ‘jobs created or saved mantra’ rings increasingly hollow as every measure of employed worsens month by month. Eventually, of course, the employment situation will stabilize and begin to improve — if the market is allowed to work. Things will get better despite the ‘stimulus’ rather than because of it.
115. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Who wants to take “Quotes on Economic Policy” for $100? Anyone? Here’s the quote:

“One of the hardest things to understand about economics is that policies generally impact on the economy only with a lag. That is, an action by the government today may not actually affect the economy for months or even years. It takes time for policies to take effect and change economic behavior.”

Who said it? Anyone? Bueller?
116. geoff - July 6, 2009: Good quote: that’s the point we’re making. That’s exactly what we said back when the plan was proposed – that projections of early effects on unemployment were hopelessly unrealistic, and that the economy would have begun healing itself naturally before the stimulus would have any effect.

Nice to have you joining our side.
117. Invictus - July 6, 2009: So if you knew that, why not at least give it a chance instead of calling it a failure at the first possible opportunity? Did anyone seriously expect we’d be adding jobs at this juncture after the massive bloodletting of the first several months of the year? Have jobs ever turned so quickly?
118. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: Invictus, moron, the point is that it was sold with giant lies, instead of the blithering obvious and yet irrelevant truth.

That’s the inherent problem with promising the moon. Can’t deliver.
119. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: Do I think Romer said it would? Yes.

Do I think she believed it? No.
120. geoff - July 6, 2009: why not at least give it a chance instead of calling it a failure at the first possible opportunity?

There are other parts of the prediction that go along with part that’s already been proven. Those parts say that the stimulus money is being applied in the wrong places, at the wrong times, and in excessive amounts (at least all-at-once). We continue to oppose the stimulus spending because Obama is running the economy like a social worker, not a businessman.

We oppose it because the price tag was enormous, and will have long-term damaging effects. We oppose it because the administration’s early missteps worsened the economic situation, and concerns over the effects of wanton spending are continuing to suppress recovery. And we oppose it because now, having seen how ineffectual the first package has been, the administration is making noises about a second stimulus package.

Yay.

Did anyone seriously expect we’d be adding jobs at this juncture after the massive bloodletting of the first several months of the year?

Uh yeah – Obama’s economic team did. That’s the point of the graph – that they were completely ignorant of the way the federal government functions when they made their predictions. Christina Romer, who is now the head of his Council of Economic Advisors, published that chart. She still has no idea how government functions, and I’m starting to believe that she doesn’t understand economics, either.

It’s amateur hour at the White House
121. geoff - July 6, 2009: Do I think she believed it? No.

Here Dave and I disagree – I think she’s ignorant and he thinks she’s dishonest. We shall see.
122. geoff - July 6, 2009: But Dave’s probably right – her caveats were probably designed to allow her to back away from predictions that she already knew were complete BS.
123. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: An honest person would have admitted her “mistake”.
124. geoff - July 6, 2009: An honest person would have admitted her “mistake”.

…and wouldn’t let the administration blame it all on Bush.
125. geoff - July 6, 2009: Heh. I swear Invictus had a post using his Bartlett quote up at his Blah3 site just a while ago. But now it’s disappeared.

Some might call it embarrassment, but I prefer to think of it as awakening.
126. Michael - July 6, 2009: Heh. I swear Invictus had a post using his Bartlett quote up at his Blah3 site just a while ago. But now it’s disappeared.

Nah, it’s still there. You have to go back to June 10th. Invictus is actually the top search result if you just throw the first sentence of that quote at Google.
127. geoff - July 6, 2009: Nah, it’s still there.

Dang. And I had so hoped that he would start to see the light.
128. Invictus - July 6, 2009: It has not disappeared, Geoff. I don’t disappear my posts; I stand by all of them. It’s right here. I can’t say what Romer, Bernstein, et. al., were looking at in December – January. It was clear — or should have been — that the economy was in horrible shape (we can certainly discuss why that was the case, and suspect we’ll disagree strongly on that).

Dave, the fact that you would start a response with “Invictus, moron” is, frankly, rather sad. You should try to learn to beat people with the merits of your argument, not with silly name calling. And speaking of things that were sold with ginormous lies…a certain war comes to mind.
129. Mrs. Peel - July 6, 2009: Invictus, if you don’t want your intelligence impugned, it helps to not say stuff like “Did anyone seriously expect we’d be adding jobs at this juncture after the massive bloodletting of the first several months of the year?”
130. Michael - July 6, 2009: The problem here, Invictus, is that we are a little short on patience when trillions are being wasted and the economy is being wrecked.

This has all been tried before, and it failed. It was called the “New Deal,” and there is a broad consensus amongst scholars of that era that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Government can not spend us out of a recession quickly enough or efficiently enough. It does not work, and the debt is a bitch.

Tax cuts work. Cutting taxes even invariably results in an increase in gross tax revenue, as tax avoidance behaviors become less necessary. Even JFK understood that.

Of course, that means ordinary citizens are deciding what to do with the extra money, rather than Obama, federal bureaucrats, and their pals at organizations like ACORN.
131. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Not sure of your point there, Mrs. Peel. We lost 2.6 million jobs in the first four months of the year: Jan -741k, Feb -681k, Mar -652k, Apr -519k. Is that not a bloodletting? Is it conceivable that any economic policy whatsoever would have us adding jobs within a few months of such mind-boggling losses? Has it ever happened that way in the history of our recordkeeping?
132. Michael - July 6, 2009: We have welded tax policy to the concept of income redistribution and a plethora of subsidies that skew the economy, rather than (1) simplicity, (2) fairness, and (3) funding the government without debt.
133. Michael - July 6, 2009: Is it conceivable that any economic policy whatsoever would have us adding jobs within a few months of such mind-boggling losses?

Yup. Tax cuts. Including for the rich. Tax cuts get cash into the system immediately as increased savings or spending. They work right away to save or create jobs, and encourage investment. The multiplier effect then kicks in as the money churns through the economy. It’s all good.
134. geoff - July 6, 2009: I can’t say what Romer, Bernstein, et. al., were looking at in December – January. It was clear — or should have been — that the economy was in horrible shape (we can certainly discuss why that was the case, and suspect we’ll disagree strongly on that).

If you want to get a sense of how they came by their predictions, you might read the second half of this post.

Warning: it ought to set off a sense of outrage over the feeble justification for burning 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

Did anyone seriously expect we’d be adding jobs at this juncture after the massive bloodletting of the first several months of the year?

To remind yourself of who said what, you should read this post on the administration’s statements, and the first half of this post on the history of opposition to the stimulus package.
135. geoff - July 6, 2009: Is it conceivable that any economic policy whatsoever would have us adding jobs within a few months of such mind-boggling losses?

Certainly there are faster ways to pump money into the economy, and it’s generally more effective to pump it in at the top than at the bottom, but that’s not the real point. The question is: was spending that much money worth preserving a million or so jobs for a year?

At over $300K/job, I don’t think so.
136. daveintexas - July 6, 2009: >> “Invictus, moron” is, frankly, rather sad.

Do you need a hug?
137. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Thanks, Dave, but I’ll pass. Appreciate the offer, but you wouldn’t want to be seen hugging a lefty like me.
138. daveintexas - July 6, 2009: I was going to pay someone to do it.
139. geoff - July 6, 2009: And speaking of things that were sold with ginormous lies…a certain war comes to mind.

I’ll gloss over the painfully stale and long-since debunked “Bush lied” mantra and move on to the subject of Halliburton.

Many people whined about Halliburton getting a sole-source contract from the government, and about KBR’s charges. Like Romer, those people also had no appreciation for how gov’t spending works. In order to get the money in the field immediately, they had to cut contractual corners. A sole source procurement can move through the system in 2 – 3 months, while a full-fledged competitive contract award takes 6 – 9 months.

That’s the pace even when all the money is being spent at the federal level. When you add transfers from the feds to the states, you add another tier of paperwork and delays (and overhead, of course). Fortunately states can award contracts more quickly than the feds, because they don’t have the GAO making the process intractable for them. So in the end states are about in the same boat, which means that money ain’t getting spent very quickly.
140. Michael - July 6, 2009: I was going to pay someone to do it.

I bet Rosetta would do it for fifty bucks.
141. geoff - July 6, 2009: I bet Rosetta would do it for fifty bucks.

Yeah, but you can’t get him to stop. Is that really the message that Dave wants to send?

Oh.
142. Michael - July 6, 2009: Invictus, it’s up to you. You can get a long affectionate hug from Rosetta. But there is an alternative — you can get a blowjob from Brewfan.

Either way, it’s going to cost Dave fifty bucks.
143. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Speaking of wasted trillions, Michael, I’m curious as to the explosion of the federal debt apparent in this chart. Curious, eh? What’d we get for that?
144. daveintexas - July 6, 2009: Stop driving the price up.
145. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Hmmm…Rosetta…Brewfan…perhaps a menage a trois…decisions, decisions.
146. Michael - July 6, 2009: Speaking of wasted trillions, Michael, I’m curious as to the explosion of the federal debt apparent in this chart. Curious, eh? What’d we get for that?

The corpse of Saddam and many whacked out jihadis, plus no attacks on American soil since 9/11.

Here’s the chart that should have you worried.

That chart scares me shitless. See, I am part of the 5% of Americans that pay 60% of all federal personal income taxes.
147. Michael - July 6, 2009: Anyway, gross federal debt on any chart is a relatively meaningless number. You have to look at debt as a percent of GDP, which sorta tells you if the capital structure of the country is in trouble.
148. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Speaking of Bruce Bartlett, whose quote I used in #115, I neglected to include some exerpts from his recent op-ed in the FT. (Keep in mind that Mr. Bartlett was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.) In his op-ed, he wrote:

“The first one [stimulus plan] was justified by extraordinary circumstances. But it must be given time to work.” […]

“Tax cuts and government transfers are slow to have an effect and have a low multiplier, raising GDP less than $1 for every $1 increase in the deficit even when fully effective after two years.

“By contrast, government purchases stimulate growth much more quickly and have a higher multiplier, raising GDP by $1.57 for every $1 spent.”

Does Mr. Bartlett not know what he’s talking about?
149. Michael - July 6, 2009: Check out this chart.

That’s not even Obama’s fault. It’s the entitlement programs that are embedded in existing law. Something has to give.
150. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Curious, Michael, before I even look at the chart you cite (which I see must be discounted due to its origin): Why are the anthrax attacks not considered an attack “on American soil since 9/11”?
151. Michael - July 6, 2009: Does Mr. Bartlett not know what he’s talking about?

Yes. Mr. Bartlett sounds to me like a moron who is trying to stay relevant in the Age of Obama.
152. Michael - July 6, 2009: (which I see must be discounted due to its origin)

The chart shows deficit projections from the Obama Administration and the Congressional Budget Office. The Heritage Foundation did not make this up themselves.
153. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Sorry, Michael, I thought they’d occurred in the fall of 2001, after 9/11. But maybe my memory is foggy because I had to walk past a building that had been targeted on my way to and from work. Seemed like late 2001 to me.
154. Mrs. Peel - July 6, 2009: I think he’s talking about the attempted attacks in late 2001, Michael. Or am I hallucinating again? The purple monkey says not, but he also says he knows Dave really well IYKWIMAITYD, which I think decreases his credibility somewhat.
155. Michael - July 6, 2009: You’re right, I just realized my comment was way off and deleted it (but not fast enough). The anthrax attacks and 9/11 were basically contemporaneous.
156. Invictus - July 6, 2009: “Attempted,” Mrs. Peel? I believe people actually died, which to my way of thinking makes it more than a mere “attempt,” no? And they occurred after 9/11. And they were terrorism, either foreign or domestic. Which means that there indeed has been an attack on American soil since 9/11, and I believe that’s fairly indisputable. So can we dispense with the “no attacks on American soil since 9/11” charade?
157. Michael - July 6, 2009: In any event, whatever economic policy we adopt, we should do so with due consideration given to the interests of the citizens of Liechtenstein.

None of whom have visited this site.

It’s the last frickin’ European flag that we don’t have, fer cryin’ out loud. We even got Monaco.

*Michael watches Flag Counter*
158. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: >> Why are the anthrax attacks not considered an attack “on American soil since 9/11″?

Because their origin remains unknown?

We can revise and extend if that changes. Hell, I’m willing to consider that in the early post 9/11 months Bush hadn’t quite ramped up the defenses and shit.

We’re not unreasonable you know.
159. Michael - July 6, 2009: Dave, I think the FBI tracked the anthrax to some domestic whacko who committed suicide shortly before getting busted.
160. Invictus - July 6, 2009: What difference does their origin make, Dave? They were terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that occurred after 9/11, regardless of their origin. The claim that “we haven’t been attacked since 9/11,” as former vice president Cheney is so fond of saying, is clearly false; we were, notwithstanding the origin of those attacks.
161. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: >> What difference does their origin make, Dave?

You mean, to someone who’s not an idiot?

Beats me.
162. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: Steve McNair was attacked on American soil this weekend!!!11!!!1ELEVENTY
163. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Gee, Dave, does the fact that we grow some of our own make them any less dangerous, or cause the families of their victims to mourn any less? Take your head out of your ass, dude.
164. Dave in Texas - July 6, 2009: Yes, I do believe their families mourn less. Good point, I will concede that one.
165. Invictus - July 6, 2009: Okay, folks. Fun chatting. Gotta go watch Hannity so I can learn all the new talking points you guys’ll have tomorrow.

Kisses to all, especially you, Dave, you big hunk you.
166. Mrs. Peel - July 6, 2009: You’re right – I had forgotten that some of the mail handlers were killed. My apologies.

I think Dave’s point is that when people refer to “no attacks since 9/11,” there’s an implied “by Islamic jihadis” in that statement. Imprecise, perhaps, but in the full context of the relevant conversation, it’s generally obvious that that’s what is meant.

None of which, I might add, has anything to do with the ridiculous predictions made by Obama’s economic team.
167. Invictus - July 6, 2009: So, Mrs. Peel, to revisit an item I’d mentioned in another thread here, was the Obama team’s forecast better or worse than the Bush team’s in January 2008:

“The Administration projects that employment will increase at an average pace of 109,000 jobs per month during the four quarters of 2008, before picking up to 129,000 jobs per month in 2009. In the longer run, the pace of employment growth will slow, reflecting diminishing rates of labor force growth due to the retirement of the baby-boom generation. The Administration also projects that the unemployment rate will edge up from 2007 to 2008 as a whole, before returning to 4.8 percent in 2010, the middle of the range consistent with stable inflation in the long run.”

Now THAT’S laughable.
168. Pupster - July 6, 2009: There was a terrorist attack on my beer this weekend.

I blame Busch.
169. Michael - July 6, 2009: So, Mrs. Peel, to revisit an item I’d mentioned in another thread here, was the Obama team’s forecast better or worse than the Bush team’s in January 2008:

Worse, because the Obama team had much more current information and the recession was obvious to everyone by then.

You just can’t compare projections made at different points in time with different information. It’s a juvenile argument.
170. Mrs. Peel - July 6, 2009: Are my rotten grapefruits from last year (which I just trimmed off the tree) better or worse than the green ones that are still smaller than tennis balls?
171. Michael - July 6, 2009: *Michael ponders Mrs. Peel’s comment*

*Michael seeks wisdom from Google*

Caine: Is it good to seek the past, Master Po? Does it not rob the present?

Master Po: If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present. But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future. The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
172. geoff - July 6, 2009: That’s pretty funny: Invictus completely loses his argument about Bartlett’s quote, and then can’t defend the Obama team’s prediction. Rather than accepting that and moving on, he then changes the subject:

Attack Bush and Iraq War (a favorite dodge of trolls): “And speaking of things that were sold with ginormous lies…a certain war comes to mind.”

Attack Bartlett: “Does Mr. Bartlett not know what he’s talking about?”

Attack Bush and spending: “Speaking of wasted trillions, Michael, I’m curious as to the explosion of the federal debt apparent in this chart.”

…then he capitalizes on Michael’s statement to start talking about anthrax attacks.

And finally he’s goes after Bush’s forecasts (an argument that was destroyed the last time he brought it up): “was the Obama team’s forecast better or worse than the Bush team’s in January 2008:”

When you’ve lost your point, attack something, anything, before you’re forced to concede defeat. Then you can say exactly the same stupid stuff later. It’s the liberal way.

I can see why he stands by his post.
173. Michael - July 6, 2009: Geoff: [after easily defeating Invictus in combat] Ha, ha, never assume because a man has no eyes he cannot see. Close your eyes. What do you hear?

Invictus: I hear the water, I hear the birds.

Geoff: Do you hear your own heartbeat?

Invictus: No.

Geoff: Do you hear the grasshopper that is at your feet?

Invictus: [looking down and seeing the insect] Old man, how is it that you hear these things?

Geoff: Young man, how is it that you do not?
174. Vmaximus - July 6, 2009: Invictus,
In January 2008 I was working 70 – 80 hours a week with no end in sight. I was sick to death of having to meet deadline after deadline. It was July 2008 that I worked my first 40 hour week in over 2 years.
..
.
.
.
Try again
175. geoff - July 6, 2009: On the “anthrax is terrorism” claim: we don’t normally attribute the acts of a mentally ill man to terrorism, which involves the desire to achieve some political goal. Ivins didn’t have a political agenda – he was paranoid and depressed.
176. daveintexas - July 6, 2009: My irony meter is totally fucked.

Infectus owes me money.
177. Michael - July 6, 2009: Infectus owes me money.

No way, dude. You promised him fifty bucks worth of special treatment. You can’t back off now.
178. geoff - July 6, 2009: If Invictus is right that tax cuts are slow to stimulate the economy (vice Michael’s suggestion), then Invictus is saying that President Obama is wrong too.

Is Invictus racist or something?
179. Tushar - July 6, 2009: >>Why are the anthrax attacks not considered an attack “on American soil since 9/11″?

For the same reason my neighbor’s dog humping my other neighbors leg and terrorizing him is not considered an attack on American soil. No foreign involvement was apparent.
180. Tushar - July 6, 2009: >>Infectus owes me money.

I thought Rosetta would shell out the 50 bucks to make a lefty his squeeze.
181. Tushar - July 6, 2009: BTW, Geoff

Greg Mankiw linked your chart here:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/unemployment-update.html

Hope you are happy now, messing with the minds of good economists.

😀
182. geoff - July 6, 2009: If you want to scare (and confuse) yourself, read this CBO report:

Long-Term Budget Outlook

I think what it’s saying (this is not what it’s authors intended it to say, but what I gleaned from it), is that only unrealistic estimates of Medicare/Medicaid cost increases and incredibly optimistic projections of average salary increases give scenarios where the government continues to function at a 2 – 3% deficit. At about 2030 it’ll start to crash anyway, even with this “rosy” set of assumptions.
183. Russ from Winterset - July 6, 2009: Invictus’ attempts at debate are HILARIOUS! We need to burn them to a CD & sell it for $5.95 a copy. He’s just barely competent enough to get some of the words right, but his coherence & delivery are a bit…….off. It’s like listening to a lecture on drug abstinence by a disheveled Nick Nolte…….where Nick forgot to wear pants that morning……..and he’s still got his one-hitter pot pipe on a braided hemp cord around his neck. Other than those glaring deficiencies, he’s a relative Perry Mason, that Invictus is!
184. Michael - July 6, 2009: Aw, c’mon, at least Invictus is relatively civil for a lefty troll. He didn’t start calling us gay or saying stuff about our mothers. That’s something.
185. Michael - July 6, 2009: Invictus also did not make any disparaging Lutheran jokes.

*Michael glares at everyone, giving you the stink-eye*
186. geoff - July 6, 2009: The way things are going during this term, Lutheran Reeducation Camps are starting to sound pretty good.

Laid myself off today. They were struggling to keep me on a charge number IV, but I told them to just wait until they had some real need for me. So I’m going home on Sunday.

I’m reeelly happy about that.
187. Michael - July 6, 2009: My foregoing comment did not apply to Lipstick, of course. Lipstick does not make Lutheran jokes. That is why there will always be a special place for Lipstick in my ~~loins~~ heart.
188. Michael - July 6, 2009: Geoff — ouch!

They were struggling to keep me on a charge number IV, but I told them to just wait until they had some real need for me.

What does that mean in English? I just googled “charge number IV” and got no useful information.
189. geoff - July 6, 2009: “IV” means “intravenous.” Like charge number life support, see?
190. geoff - July 6, 2009: Geoff — ouch!

Actually I think this is going to work out well. Perhaps not immediately, but in a few months things should be humming along.

I hope.
191. geoff - July 6, 2009: “IV” means “intravenous.” Like charge number life support, see?

Don’t know if “charge number” is obscure as well, but it’s basically the account to which you charge your hours.
192. Mrs. Peel - July 6, 2009: Laid myself off today.

Congratulations…I guess?

You know why I hate the Lutherans? Because one of them, I won’t name any names, ruined my Batman fantasies. And they were pretty awesome, I don’t mind telling you. Therefore, I am determined that none of you, Lutheran or otherwise, will ruin my Michael Westen fantasies.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I believe I have an appointment with danger. And his high-caliber weapon.
193. Michael - July 6, 2009: OK.

Let me know if you want to look for work in North Texas.
194. geoff - July 6, 2009: Let me know if you want to look for work in North Texas.

Thanks Michael. I’m kind of an odd, somewhat overspecialized, fish, but I have about 5 opportunities lined up. None of them will support me full time, but together…
195. Michael - July 6, 2009: Now if you’ll excuse me, I believe I have an appointment with danger. And his high-caliber weapon.

That’s kind of a grandiose description for your book club.
196. Michael - July 6, 2009: Oh wait, did you mean you found a buyer for the Jeep Cherokee?
197. geoff - July 6, 2009: Now if you’ll excuse me, I believe I have an appointment with danger. And his high-caliber weapon.

No anchovies? You’ve got the wrong man, I spell my name, Danger.
198. Lipstick - July 7, 2009: Now if you’ll excuse me, I believe I have an appointment with danger. And his high-caliber weapon.

You gave the Marine a second chance?! Yippee!
199. Mrs. Peel - July 7, 2009: No, no, I was implying that I was going to my bunk to…

Ok, never mind.
200. Dave in Texas - July 7, 2009: *puts fingers in ears*

LALALALALALALALALALALALALAH! LA!
201. skinbad - July 7, 2009: It’ll be high caliber after a child or two.
202. reason - July 7, 2009: “None of them will support me full time, but together…”

…they join forces to become the Payroll Justice Friends? Avenging the need for groceries and fighting off the Evil Dr. Foreclosure and his maniacal Mortgage Accelerator Ray!
203. Transor Z - July 7, 2009: Don’t forget about the Birth/Death Adjustment . . .
204. Steve IN Tulsa - July 8, 2009: minimum wage hike is coming at the end of this month. That should get the unemployment numbers moving up again.
205. GayPatriot » Barney Blames GOP for Crisis he Abetted by Thwarting Their Reforms - July 9, 2009: […] passed, it has not worked as advertised, job losses continue to mount to levels far higher than those the Administration had forecast. While the economic picture remains bleak, at least we can take some satisfaction in being proven […]
206. Hey, Obama Voters: Ready to Admit It Yet? :o) « N. Virginia, Richmond, VA and DC Metro Chapter - July 9, 2009: […] So how is all this spending affecting our economy so far? Are we feeling stimulated? Evidently not. Unemployment is rising much faster under President Obama. All this bold New-New Deal legislation is making things worse. Now, unbelievably, Democrats are […]
207. Paro, economía, y popularidad de Obama vs. Palin « Sarah Palin en Español - July 9, 2009: […] Innocent Bystanders mantienen el gráfico que compara las promesas de la Administración Obama sobre la evolución del paro con el Plan de […]
208. When Does Betrayal Become Treason? « Taxes, Stupidity, and Death - July 11, 2009: […] that ’stimulation’ for the economy that is supposed to be helping the now Carterian unemployment levels that continue to rise with every single month? No Jobs: While they have not been able to support […]
209. Stimulating the Unemployment Line — The Phoenix Real Estate Guy - July 11, 2009: […] This beauty is from a blog called Innocent Bystanders. I love this blog. It’s an eclectic and sometimes irreverent collection of stuff from a bunch of folks who claim not to be bloggers, but commenters. Seems to have a very active community and is entertaining (and educational) to read. I’m sure there are folks out there that would find some things there offensive. Personally, I’m basically unoffendable and any blog that has a commenter named “Nancy Pelosi on a Peyote Bender” is worth reading. […]
210. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obama’s WaPo essay extols Porkulus, offers zero solutions - July 12, 2009: […] as Geoff at Innocent Bystanders shows in his adaptation to Romer’s chart, Porkulus didn’t do anything to stabilize the […]
211. Lyin’ Messiah tour de farce » Cold Fury - July 12, 2009: […] Lie. It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps […]
212. Sign of the apocalypse | Hoystory - July 13, 2009: […] Ignore the re-writing of history if you can. The stimulus was not sold as a two-year plan designed merely to stop the free fall. It was sold as a jobs bill now, as evidenced by the famous chart showing how the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate climbing to 9 percent. For your information, here’s the latest chart by Geoff at Innocent Bystanders. […]
213. Obama’s Op-Ed, Annotated | Lux Libertas - Light and Liberty - July 13, 2009: […] a minute. At a press conference a few weeks ago, when confronted with the disparity between his administration’s projected unemployment figures under the stimulus (8 percent) […]
214. Cassy Fiano » New AIP column: Obama’s Stimulus Failure - July 13, 2009: […] reach 8.8 percent. The stimulus package would supposedly keep it at below 8 percent… this year. This chart proves his intentions, and proves that the stimulus package was a failure. Obama is lying, and he […]
215. Dishonest Little Weasels « A Red Tory in Lotusland - July 14, 2009: […] 7:23 pm After the Obama administration’s politically manipulated stimulus package has massively failed by its own standards, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl thinks the stimulus programme should be […]
216. EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » Deep Thoughts With Kevin - July 20, 2009: […] Despite the White House attempting to spin new terminology to cover up their ineptitude, it’s still nice to see how dismal their performance is using their own data and metrics. […]
217. Are You Freaking Stupid? » Obama vs Obama on the Stimulus – About time the GOP fought back some - July 20, 2009: […] Innocent Bystanders Categories: Palin Tags: Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback […]
218. Dude, Where’s My Budget? » Right Pundits - July 20, 2009: […] Wasn’t Larry Sommers saying in February that the spendulus would work “within weeks” of its being approved by Congress? How is that working out? […]
219. Sumfolio » Blog Archive » Methodology and the Recession - July 20, 2009: […] economists have famously missed either the recession itself or the extent of the recession. A now-famous graph depicts President Obama’s advisors’ prediction of unemployment data with or without the […]
220. domainiac - July 22, 2009: Thanks Cathy
I recently was laid off here in Utah but am using the time I now have to be creative in finding new sources of income. Finally I am seeing some results! I am using ebay to promote my Website Traffic service, have been busy learning all I can about website optimization and writing effective ads and listings. I think I have found my passion even!
221. Patterico’s Pontifications » June Unemployment News - July 22, 2009: […] always, Innocent Bystanders has much more, including the updated […]
222. Moe Lane » Where are the jobs? - July 22, 2009: […] (Via Innocent Bystanders) […]
223. Where are the jobs? - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState - July 22, 2009: […] (Via Innocent Bystanders) […]
224. Where are the jobs? | WTF?! Obama - July 22, 2009: […] (Via Innocent Bystanders) […]
225. Shane - July 27, 2009: I’m guessing the MSM will stop reporting the unemployment numbers before the end of July because they are now over 10%.
226. Cathy - July 27, 2009: Thanks Cathy
I recently was laid off here in Utah but am using the time I now have to be creative in finding new sources of income. Finally I am seeing some results! I am using ebay to promote my Website Traffic service, have been busy learning all I can about website optimization and writing effective ads and listings. I think I have found my passion even!

Thanks for getting back with us domaniac. I almost missed seeing this… and am a tad late also. Your good ole American creative juices kicked in and you are not only surviving, but have “found your passion.” Kudos!
227. Alice H - July 29, 2009: Looks like someone appreciates your graphs…

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/07/lolbama-part-19/
228. Jeffrey Moore - August 1, 2009: come on Micheal, Again your are stretching and bending reality. I WILL give you that the administration predicted that unemployment would not go beyond 8 or 9% ( btw Obama himself did not say that) and iended up going beyond that so yes…they missed it. But…HELLO…it a PREDICTION. Now the President is supposed to be the psychic in chief? Name one president in recent history who had the uncanny ability to predict the future? (don’t cheat and use the perspective of history) And then you have a caption that says “natural recovery”? Gimme a break brother. You can’t have it both ways. Last year you ( as in Republicans, Libertarians, conservatives…etc) said that the only way the economy would improve is through lower taxes and less regulaation. That didn’t happen and now you’re not giving the administration credit for taking action and iimproving the economy? If it was just a natural recovery then you were wrong last year. Your predictions were wrong. Then you turn around and slam the president because his people made wrong predictions? Isn’t that a case of the pot calling the kettle black? How can we have intelligent and much needed discourse if you are either going to make things up or make mountains out of mole hills?
229. geoff - August 1, 2009: …the only way the economy would improve is through lower taxes and less regulaation.

Don’t recall us trying that last year. So what are you talking about? But here’s the real point, the one that you’re lying about:

In December and January, the GOP said that the stimulus was too slow, focused improperly, and too wasteful. The Obama team assured us that the effects would happen immediately, and blah, blah, blah…

Now we look back on it, and the Obama team, skewered by reality, now says that it was never supposed to happen that quickly. This chart shows exactly how quickly they expected it to happen, so now it’s clear that they’re lying right to our faces.

Just like you are.
230. daveintexas - August 1, 2009: >> How can we have intelligent and much needed discourse if you are either going to make things up or make mountains out of mole hills?

One of us would have to be intelligent, and the other one would have to give a shit about having much needed discourse with you?

I dunno. I’m just spitballin here.
231. Michael - August 1, 2009: come on Micheal. Again your are stretching and bending reality.

Huh?

I did not write this post. Geoff did. Geoff is the one who is stretching and bending reality.
232. Dirty Democrats » Where are the jobs? - August 2, 2009: […] (Via Innocent Bystanders) […]
233. The Unemployment Prediction for July « Innocent Bystanders - August 6, 2009: […] The June numbers. […]
234. July Unemployment « Innocent Bystanders - August 7, 2009: […] July Unemployment August 7, 2009 Posted by geoff in News. trackback The BLS released the unemployment rate for July this morning, and the answer is . . . 9.4%. A little lower than the Bloomberg survey predicted it would be, a lot lower than my swag of 9.8%, and, notably, no change from June’s rate of 9.4%. […]
235. Where are the jobs? - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState web01.prod.theplanet.eaglepub.com 174.120.27.221 - August 13, 2009: […] (Via Innocent Bystanders) […]
236. A Miserable Failure | No Bull. news service. - November 20, 2009: […] plan, which mainly stimulated Democratic constituencies with great gobs of pork. The web site Innocent Bystanders has done a service by plotting the actual unemployment rate against the Obama […]
237. fred - July 1, 2010: Geoff,

I would love to see an update to the chart into the present. I’ve been trying to curve fit this with some credible projections of how long it takes us to get back to the 8% that Team-Obama thought we wouldn’t exceed. What site have you used for your raw data?

I agree that the uncounted unemployed are a difficult confounding factor in all of this. I would love to find some credible estimate source for adding that data to get actual unemployed. I think that explains why we’ve had a “bubble of hope” in the economy, while the actual economy is a good deal worse, setting us up for a 1930’s style second dip.
238. geoff - July 1, 2010: Fred:

All the cool kids know that it’s updated every month – it’ll be updated tomorrow. Last month’s is here. Today we had the initial unemployment claims post, which usually gets updated a couple of times a month.

If you do a search on “unemployment” in the little window in the sidebar, you’ll probably find 50 posts on it.

All data comes from the BLS (for unemployment rate) and the DOL (for initial claims).
239. david - August 4, 2011: Cool blog with great info