Jobless claims finish December averaging 362,000 per week, 2014 ends at 15.9 million total first time claims for unemployment

All figures are raw, not-seasonally-adjusted.

The 15.9 million figure is now the lowest in the 21st century, beating the heretofore best level achieved under Bush, which was 16.2 million (but when the participation rate of the labor force was much higher than it is today, 66.4% in November 2006 vs. 62.8% in November 2014). Previously I had expected claims to total 15.7 million in 2014, but first time claims for unemployment ramped up a little higher in December than they had been averaging through November.

Here's the historical record:

2001 20.9 million

2002 20.9 million

2003 20.8 million

2004 17.7 million

2005 17.7 million

2006 16.2 million

2007 16.7 million

2008 21.6 million

2009 29.5 million

2010 23.7 million

2011 21.7 million

2012 19.4 million

2013 17.8 million

2014 15.9 million.

Conditions remain very favorable for making continued progress on a recovery of full-time jobs, which are still 3.8 million off their 2007 peak, over seven years ago.

You could almost say the few people Obama's added to the labor force he's sent straight to the unemployment lines

The lowest jobless claims yet still don't yield the lowest unemployment levels under Bush.

As I pointed out here, jobless claims for 2014 are probably going to finish the year at the 15.7 million level, not-seasonally-adjusted. The comparable year under Bush was 2006, coincidentally also his sixth year in the presidency, when there were 16.2 million similarly measured jobless claims. That's as low as claims ever fell under Bush in absolute terms, and as low as they've been in this century, until now.

So things are better under Obama, right, because claims are going to be the lowest yet this century?

The civilian labor force level was 152.6 million in November 2006, almost 10 million higher than when Bush was first elected, but only 3.7 million higher now at 156.3 million as of November 2014. So claims were 10.6% of the civilian labor force in 2006, and 10.0% of the civilian labor force in November 2014, so yes, things are marginally statistically better, but still very close.

But what's not close is the unemployment rate, or the unemployment level. Not-seasonally-adjusted the rate was 4.3% in November 2006, but 5.5% in November 2014. The civilian labor force has barely grown by 1.7 million after six years of Obama, yet the unemployment level is still 2.05 million higher today than it was in November 2006 when first time jobless claims were at their lowest level before now.

You could almost say Obama sent the few people he's added to the labor force since 2008 straight to the unemployment lines. The other 8 million or more sent themselves straight out of the labor force, never to be counted as unemployed again.

Obama's civilian labor force has only grown 1.7 million since 11/2008, 1.3 million of which came in the last year!

The civilian labor force grew by 1.3 million 11/13-11/14

By contrast George Bush's civilian labor force grew by 11.8 million over his presidency, 6.9 times more than Obama's. To the same almost 6 year point in his presidency Bush's civilian labor force grew by 9.8 million, 5.8 times more than Obama's.

The current year's addition of 1.3 million may be contrasted to the 2.4 million added at the same interval under Bush.

Obama, he sucks!

The civilian labor force grew by 2.4 million 11/05-11/06

2.8x more people left the work force in the last year than did at the same time under Bush

360,000 left the labor force 11/05-11/06

1 million have left the labor force 11/13-11/14

Unemployment comes down faster when you have fewer unemployed people to count.

Part-time jobs peak at the end of the year, and full-time jobs peak in the middle of the year

Part-time jobs hit a new all-time high level in November at 28.225 million. This follows a pattern of part-time peaking at Christmas time and full-time peaking around Independence Day. The oscillation between the two is best observed in the not-seasonally-adjusted data.

What waiting over seven years for that full-time job looks like

"Been waiting here that long, eh?"

Obama says you're better off than when he took office, except you are not

click to enlarge

Obama says, quoted here:

"Like the rest of America, black America in the aggregate is better off now than it was when I came into office."

On the contrary:

Full-time jobs have not recovered to their 2007 peak and won't until summer 2015, if we are lucky. That will be eight years later, when full-time jobs in the past have always bounced back after at most three years in post-war recessions. Obama has done nothing for jobs, except to let the problem fester and try to heal itself.

Health insurance costs much more, covers much less and has narrower and less convenient networks. The proof of this is in the polling, where the majority of Americans remain opposed to ObamaCare. The minority which likes ObamaCare is benefiting from it at the expense of those who don't, who are more numerous. It's called income redistribution. Otherwise known as socialism. You know, like in Cuba, Obama's new best friend.

Owners' equity in household real estate stands at 53.94%, still almost 10% below where it was in 2005. Completed foreclosures in the last month are still running 95% above normal.

More than half of the 66% of Americans who have saved anything for retirement have individually saved less than $25,000. American taxpayers are forced to contribute on average 13.5% to the pensions of the country's government employees and save for themselves only at the rate of 5%.

But perhaps the most damning indictment of Obama is how Americans of all stripes have been impoverished under his watch. Real median household income in the US is lower now than when the recession ended in Obama's first term in 2009, and much lower than when he took office:

"At this point, real household incomes are in worse shape than they were four years ago when the recession ended."

Lies told often enough can become the truth, but they are still lies.

Brian Wesbury is wrong: First rate hike will not be in six months

Brian Wesbury & Co. here says the first Fed rate hike is coming in six months (June) because "considerable time" has secretly meant six months to Janet Yellen all along. Dropping that phrase for the word "patient" signals that the six month timer has begun ticking.

OK, maybe so.

But if the employment numbers cool as I expect them to after the first of the year when all the part-timers hired recently are let go, the Fed will still be in the rhetorical catbird seat to delay a June rate hike indefinitely because of the language change, without looking like it has back-tracked on its plan.

Janet Yellen may have an "obsession with the labor market" but she is not stupid.

If Democrats and Republicans had been so obsessed, she wouldn't have to be. At least workers' lives matter to Janet Yellen, which is more than can be said for the usual practitioners of the dismal science.

Average hourly earnings are up 2.69% year over year, inflation 1.66% suggesting Fed tightening may be coming

Earnings are actually getting ahead of the curve in the latest data, suggesting the Fed may move to raise interest rates as "planned".

Not-seasonally-adjusted, average hourly earnings are up $0.65 from $24.11 to $24.76 for all private employees in November. For October the all items consumer price index is up only 1.66% year over year.

In July the picture wasn't as clear, before the dollar took off and gasoline prices began to fall off the cliff. Average hourly earnings at the time were up just 2.01% year over year while CPI (again with a one month lag) was up a nearly identical 2.07%.

I'll go out on a limb and say the Fed continues with "the plan" in order to cool the heat evident in rising earnings.

Not that they should.

I think everyone is forgetting that the employment numbers have recently surged as they always do at the end of the year because part-timers have swelled the ranks at the end of the year. Full-time surges to its cyclical peaks in the summers and early autumn. This is always made more clear by the not-seasonally-adjusted data, which is why it is often missed.

Remember, full-time failed to rise above the 2007 peak again this summer, the seventh year in a row and another dubious post-war distinction for the Obama regime, and part-time just made an all-time high.

An accommodative Fed is still probably necessary, unfortunately, at least the way they think.

Stupid things heard on the Steve Gruber Show radio program last week

Both the AM drive-time host, Steve Gruber, a libertarian for whom every opponent is taken as a challenge to his manhood, and his weekly punching bag guest, Liberal Lee, last Tuesday agreed that the middle class in America is basically . . .  intact!

Which just proves that ideologues are impervious to the destruction which has been all around them and that libertarians and liberals drink from the same cup. Both camps are too heavily invested in the political gangs they support to say otherwise, for if the one did it would mean George Bush and Alan Greenspan would have to be blamed, and if the other, Barack Obama, Larry Summers and the rest of the Clinton re-treads which steered the economy through the latest depression to give you . . . nearly $90 billion in costs for over 500 failed banks, over 5 million homes lost to foreclosure, full-time jobs still 4 million below the 2007 peak seven years ago, ObamaCare's lies, higher costs, poorer coverage and limited networks, the deaths of Americans at Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservatives, the most imperial presidency in our history, 30 million prime working age people not working, a lawless executive, and 1.8% GDP, the worst in the post-war.

For his part, Gruber basically gave over a segment on his show every week this fall to the reelection campaign of Congressman Tim Walberg, a conventional Republican who normally votes with the majority of his caucus, but who did vote against making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Walberg notably just rewarded his radio benefactor who opposed Cromnibus with a vote for it, in keeping with his past voting record for sweeping spending bills which avoid the traditional appropriations process in order to take the politics out of spending the people's money. Hey, thanks Gruber.

The Steve Gruber Show is unfortunately heard on many small market radio stations during morning drive throughout Michigan, which through August 2014 was the top state for completed foreclosures among non-judicial states for the prior twelve month period. But the show's best rank is only #3 in the Lansing market according to dar.fm, and #31 in the mornings overall, here. The best thing that can be said for it is that the stations it is on are typically low-power, like its commentary. 

30 million prime working age Americans 25-54 do not work, and 10 million are men, competing for fewer than 5 million openings

The New York Times reports here:

"As the economy slowly recovers from the Great Recession, many of those men and women are eager to find work and willing to make large sacrifices to do so. Many others, however, are choosing not to work, according to a New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation poll that provides a detailed look at the lives of the 30 million Americans 25 to 54 who are without jobs. ... [S]ome men might choose to describe themselves as unwilling to take low-wage jobs when in fact they cannot find any jobs. There are about 10 million prime-age men who are not working, but there are only 4.8 million job openings for men and women of all ages, according to the most recent federal data."

Liberal Zachary Karabell gets it: Maybe in 2.5 years job levels will fairly resemble 2007

And in Politico of all places, here:

Statistically, with a labor force that the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts at 156 million, a few hundred thousand jobs created a month is not quite as large a number as it seems. And because of the low “labor force participation rate,” we would need two and a half years of job creation at this November rate’s before we got back to where the United States was in terms of jobs in 2007, and three and half years of such reports before we approximated the labor market of the late 1990s, at least according to an analysis done by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

In other words (which they won't and cannot say), Barack Obama will be out of office before the jobs levels return to their peaks achieved under George W. Bush. Barack Obama: eight years of speed bumps for American jobs.

If you don't think the middle class is in trouble under Obama, you are an idiot

The basis of middle class prosperity in America has always been a full-time job. With one you can get married, buy a car and a house, and start and raise a family. That's the basic economic unit which gives life to everything in our society, starting with a strong tax base of families in single family homes on which we depend for tax revenue to erect schools, build roads, fund fire and emergency services, and provide for police to preserve, protect and defend law and order. Under Barack Obama full-time jobs have gone into deep trouble.

Examine the record of full-time jobs since the 1960s and you can't help but see how serious this is.

After recessions, full-time jobs have always recovered their former peaks within 2 to at most 3 years . . . until now. Full-time jobs bounced back to their former heights in 2 years after the recessions of 1973 and 1980, and in 3 years after the recessions of 1969, 1981, 1990 and 2001.

Full-time usually peaks in the summer months when the workforce is supplemented by young people flooding the jobs market to earn money for school and other things they want. Just before the onset of the most recent recession in 2007, full-time jobs peaked at 123,219,000 in July of that year. But now 7 long years later, full-time has still not recovered. After seeming to peak this August at 120,110,000 we've had a little headfake in October with full-time actually peaking for this cycle at 120,176,000. If we are lucky and continue to add jobs at a clip of 224,000 a month like we have added in the last twelve months, even next summer or fall we will still fall short of the 2007 high by 355,000 full-time jobs. That'll make it 8 years and counting that full-time has not recovered.

But factoring in the growth of the civilian noninstitutional population since 2007, arguably full-time jobs should be 130 million by now, not 120 million. Almost 5 million prime-working-age adults 25 to 54 do not work today who did in 2007. 

The hostility of leftists to the middle class used to be well-known in America when it was a better educated country. It's not a coincidence that with an actual leftist in the White House for the first time in history that the basis of middle class life in America is under attack like it's never been before.

Obama has promised many things which have turned out just the opposite, especially in the healthcare arena. Now the Gruber affair shows that it was in fact all by design. A subterfuge. A deliberate fraud. Many of us tried to sound the warning, but it got rammed down our throats regardless, and now you wonder why you can't keep your doctor, can't keep your insurance and have to pay much more for it.

How long will it take Americans to figure out that gutting the middle class is also by design? 

Fortune article perpetuates ignorance about part-time jobs, undercounting them by half

One Laura Lorenzetti misinforms us here:

"[T]he number of part-time jobs, while still elevated compared to pre-recession levels, have remained steadily (or stubbornly, one could argue) around the 14 million mark."

The error is inexcusable because the government goes to great pains in the Household Survey to collect the information on part-time and full-time, and anyone can look it up conveniently at the St. Louis Federal Reserve website. The number is double what she writes, and has hit a record high.

"Employed, usually work part time" is here.

It shows the current level at 28.225 million. Lorenzetti is right the level has been steady . . . but at about 27.436 million on average 2009-2013 inclusive, not 14 million, after taking a big jump up from the 25 million level in 2007.

A subset of these are "part-time for economic reasons", here, presently at 6.85 million, still elevated about 2.5 million from the autumn of 2007 and still tracking the sudden jump up in part-time during the late depression.

"Employed, usually work full time" is here.

Lest you think all is fair and rosy about full time as Ms. Lorenzetti wants you to believe because of Friday's headline jobs number and the full-time up-trend since 2010, the employment situation in the last report shows a decline of 735,000 full time jobs and an increase in part time of 465,000, not-seasonally-adjusted for your holiday cheer.

The gap between the last peak in full-time, in 2007, and now is 3.778 million, even as over the intervening seven years we have added on top of that 15.9 million to the civilian noninstitutional population, that is, people 16 years of age and older who are not in prison, the nut house, retirement homes or the military, who can work but don't.

Ho, ho, ho. 

NY Times laments "tax uncertainty" over breaks which expired almost a year ago

As seen at Amazon

This is like lamenting that the Bush tax cuts became permanent two years ago. The only uncertainty is for liberals who still hope to repeal them. When pigs fly.

Here:

"Absent congressional action, a host of business and personal tax breaks expires on Jan. 1. ...

"Negotiators have all but given up culling the government’s growing list of temporary tax measures, making some permanent and jettisoning the most egregious tax giveaways. Instead, the House will vote Wednesday on a measure to restore almost all the tax breaks that expired last year for one year retroactively. That would allow taxpayers to claim them on their 2014 tax returns while forcing Congress to grapple with the issue again early next year."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahem. There's nothing temporary about a tax break which was allowed to expire many months ago. If you've been counting on getting any expired tax break back, you deserve to be disappointed. If Congress decides to reinstate any of them before the end of the year, you've received a gift.

And while we're at it, the New York Times isn't very helpful about telling you what expired. Here's a list:

Health Coverage Tax Credit

Deduction for Charitable Donations from IRAs

Educator Expense Deduction

Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit

Tuition and Fees Deduction.

But the real whopper of this story is that we're supposed to believe that

"Uncertainty alone raised corporate bond prices, lowered growth by 0.3 percentage points a year and raised unemployment last year by 0.6 percentage points."

Investors in popular corporate bond index funds know the first statement completely misrepresents history. Net asset values of intermediates and shorts fell dramatically in the summer of 2013 after Ben Bernanke's ill-timed remarks. That prices have recovered since then masks the fact that prices today are still almost 3% lower for intermediates than they were when the Bush tax cuts became permanent at the beginning of 2013, and a half percent lower for shorts.

As for lowering growth, how anyone is supposed to believe that is beyond me. Government revenues have SOARED to record heights in fiscal 2013 as a result of permanency in the tax code, allowing a positive contribution to GDP from government consumption expenditures for the first time in four years. The 3Q2014 contribution was 0.76, most of that military spending on the war against ISIS, and the 2014 average to date is 0.31. The average contribution from government spending for 2011, 2012 and 2013? -0.45, a subtraction from growth.

Meanwhile unemployment has been falling, mostly as a result of not counting over 6 million unemployed Americans who have given up on finding a job. Adding them back in would take unemployment up from 5.8% to 9.6%, and the New York Times thinks it can detect a 0.6 point contribution from "uncertainty". We should be so lucky.

Usually part-time vaults 465,000 in one month to new all-time high of 28.225 million

Those who work usually part-time vaulted 465,000 month over month, not-seasonally-adjusted, in today's Household Survey data in the Employment Situation Summary for November 2014. That puts the metric at an all-time high of 28,225,000, about 100,000 higher than the previous peak reached in the wake of the late economic depression.

Meanwhile, those who work usually full-time dropped 735,000 from October to November.

Full-time usually peaks in the summer and part-time usually peaks in the winter, so the data coheres with past experience, except the new high in part-time is a little worrisome.

Voluntary part-time is up big month over month (536,000) while involuntary part-time is down (74,000). Is that a sign of acquiescence to a new normal of part-time work? Admittedly, involuntary part-time is still 2.5 million higher than it was in the autumn of 2007, but it has fallen 2 million between 2011 and 2014 even as today there are 2.5 million more full-time jobs than there were a year ago.

Full-time remains 3.8 million under the 2007 peak.

Meanwhile multiple job holding is down 224,000 month over month, and the total employed is actually down 270,000, as is the total number unemployed, down 50,000 not-seasonally-adjusted.

It looks as if the big jump of 321,000 in total nonfarm from the Establishment Survey is a phenomenon of part-time. Whether these part-time jobs become an enduring phenomenon in the form of permanent jobs won't be clear until after the new year.

The unemployment rate at 5.8% remains where it is as those not in the labor force continues ever upward, this time 536,000 higher from October to November. The metric hovers near the all-time high of 92.5 million reached in April. People dropping out means fewer people to count as unemployed.

The civilian labor force shrank in size 319,000 from October to November.

Jobless claims average 303,000 weekly in November, not-seasonally-adjusted

That rate is the annual equivalent of 15.8 million claims.

Not-seasonally-adjusted claims have now totaled 14.494 million in 2014 through the end of November, or 302,000 weekly on average.

If that average prevails through December, total claims will come in at about 15.7 million for 2014, lower than ever achieved under George Bush's best years in 2006 and 2007 when claims totaled 16.2 million and 16.7 million respectively, and the lowest so far in this century.

How to stimulate the economy and deport illegal aliens in the United States at the same time

In 1954 the Eisenhower Administration employed 750 agents who rounded up and deported 1.1 million Mexicans illegally in the country in what was called Operation Wetback. It took them one year.

With full-time employment in the United States still flat on its back with 3 million fewer working full-time than at the 2007 peak at 123.2 million, there is a plentiful number of people here which could be usefully employed at the federal level in the effort to enforce current immigration law and help secure the border.

Those who say we could never round up 11 million illegals fail to appreciate that the ratio of the agents to the deported in 1954 was 1:1,466. A deportation force of 7,500 Americans employed by the federal government, therefore, should be able to round up and deport 11 million illegals today. And if you paid them $50,000 each, the cost to the Treasury would be less than a half billion dollars. Peanuts in a $4 trillion dollar government.

We just have to want to do it.

But why stop with just 11 million illegals when there may be as many as 30 million here illegally, from places like Ireland, France, Poland and you name it? Triple the budget to employ 23,000 and you could really start to clean the place up and restore law and order, once and for all, and JOBS.

We owe it to ourselves. 

Bloomberg puts 6 million aged 25-54 still missing in employment action

Here:

So far, the faster pace of job creation hasn't coaxed enough people back into the labor force. As of October, the seasonally unadjusted participation rate for people age 25 to 54 stood at 81.1 percent, up 0.3 percentage point from a year earlier but about 6 million people below the 10-year pre-recession average of 83.5 percent.

Democrats lost last week simply because voters tired of waiting for full-time jobs to recover

Examine the record here of full-time job losses in recessions since 1969 and you will see that full-time jobs recovered to their previous peaks in 2 years after 1969, 2 years after 1974, about 3 years after 1981, 3 years after 1990 and about 3 years after 2000.

But after 2007? Full-time jobs have yet to recover, over 7 years since peaking in July 2007 at 123.2 million.

It's true that total nonfarm employment recovered to the November 2007 high this June, after 6.5 long years, but full-time is still 3 million below the 2007 peak.

The voting public has been very patient with President Obama and the Democrats. They know this was the biggest jobs debacle in the post-war. From peak to trough between July 2007 and January 2010 14.442 million full-time jobs were lost, beating the 8.1 million lost from 1981 under Reagan by a wide margin, a 9.3% loss. The percentage lost from the peak was also highest in the post-war, down 11.7% in the recent catastrophe vs. the 9.6% loss of full-time jobs from August 1974, the previous most recent top episode for full-time job destruction in percentage terms.

So it's understandable that voters might have re-elected Obama and the Democrat Senate in 2012 on the presumption that such a serious episode would take longer to fix. But even so it was still a relatively close election.

Last Tuesday's nationwide blow-out of Democrats, however, from the US Senate on down through the US House, governorships and state legislative chambers shows that the patience of the country has run out. While full-time jobs have roared back in the last 12 months it is likely that the trend has peaked for the year and that it will be next summer before we see full-time recover fully.

That will be 8 years . . . 5 years too many for many of the millions who lost their jobs to put their lives back together and rejoin the middle class. Five years too many for those who lived in the 5+million homes lost to foreclosure. For them there remains the hope only of minimum and low wage work, food stamps, government disability assistance, Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare and early death.

Obama will be remembered for attempting this hollowing out of the middle class, and some will correctly conclude it was intentional on the part of the country's first Bolshevik president.

"[T]he mass of middle class parasites which lived on the back of the old order is now, equally ready to live on the back of the proletarian State."