US Needs To Generate 246,600 Jobs A Month To Get To Pre-Depression Employment By End Of Obama Second Term

Tyler Durden's picture

Every time we revise the attached chart, its looks worse and worse. The first time we did an analysis of how many jobs per month the US has to generate each month to get back to the same payroll number as of November 2007, right before the start of the Greater Depression, and when accounting for the 90K/month natural growth to the labor force, something the administration continues to blissfully ignore (with the labor participation rate plunging to a 26 year low) it was in the mid 220s. As of today, the number is almost quarter of a million, or 246,600. That is how many jobs the US has to generate every single month until November 2016, or the end of Obama's improbable second turn, for the unemployment rate to get back to where it was when accounting for population growth. And while this is obviously impossible, one other thing that is concerning is that post the revised NFP numbers, not only do we now get a lower cumulative low of all jobs lost, at just over 8.6 million attained in February 2010, but as the highlighted area demonstrates, the recent trend in jobs is one of accelerating deterioration. If in the offchance it were to, gasp, snow in February, March will likely have the first negative NFP print since September. Oh yes, post today's revisions, we now learn that the months June through September actually lost jobs (granted, inclusive of census adjustments). One thing is certain: 5% unemployment will not be back for the next 5 years. 100% guaranteed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NOTW777's picture

not if we use affirmative action standards

Twindrives's picture

Let's hope the lying bastard is a one term president, then goes back home to Kenya afterwards.

VegasBD's picture

At the end of BOs second term there will be much higher unemployment than when he took over. At that time, and after 8 years of failed economic policies, will it still be George Bush's fualt? Ha


Pure Evil's picture

Obama may serve two terms, but most of that time he'll be on vacation and won't know exactly why the economy has failed or whose at fault.

Of course, he can always blame Generalissimo Benkranqer Wanquer.

RiotActing's picture

You jabronies act like it matters who is president. Who's next? magic underpants guy? Please, the powers that be will decide who's best for them and Obama has been doing just fine letting them do what ever they please.

Triggernometry's picture

Yes, it would be.

Since the FBI is on record as having warned of widespread mortgage abuse in 2003, it should be obvious Bush's hands off approach had much to do with inflating the bubble. This couples with the trillions sunk in middle east quagmires puts the brunt of the blame on Bush.

Unless you're arguing Obama would have done the same, are you?

Don't get me wrong, Obama is ultimately responsible for what happens, or fails to happen under his watch, but he didn't stack the house of cards or blow it down. Fuck Obama, but fuck Bush twice.

tarsubil's picture

In terms of policy, there is very little different between Obama and Bush. I said before the war and now that we'd be there regardless of which party wins. The only difference would have been that the NYT would have supported Gore in starting the wars. The only real difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama wants to blow more money in bigger and more wasteful ways. And he hates America. Otherwise, beyond meaningless superficial differences they are both big corporate/government guys.

DaveyJones's picture

I hate all of them...alot. Think it was Pelosi who after her party took over congress (much like the recent gig) but back then, it was over ending the stupid wasteful, criminal war. She then said (privately) they would not stop it so they could further damage the other party. These people are filth. Like you said, it doesn't matter, they will steal anything from anyone, kill anyone for anything, to serve their masters. This will not end without a lot of grief, a lot of pain, and a universal destruction of the ruling parties. 

RiotActing's picture

Hates America? Are you really that dense? He loves America he does what the power elite tell him, he does it with a smile.... Hate America. Man I had no idea this many idiots read ZH.

Alex Kintner's picture

Bush will burn in hell regardless of what Obama does. However, to this point, it looks like BO is auditioning for a part as Bush III.

TheGoodDoctor's picture

Nah that will be Jeb Bush's half latino son. Next Bush to be President if you ask me. "El Busho!" 2040?

redpill's picture

"100% guaranteed"

Many things are certain in Benbabwe!

NOTW777's picture

listen to the angry black guy - obama is doing a great job creating "jobs"

the problem is with the "previous admin."  LOL

topcallingtroll's picture

I dunno. The one before him kinda scared me too.

schoolsout's picture

Well, uh...what can I say

Rush mentioned Zerohedge today on his program and a fellow by the name of Tyler Durden regarding true unemployment figures.



Logans_Run's picture

Rush probably thinks TD is a real person. D'oh!

ColonelCooper's picture

Someone said in another thread that a ZH story was linked by Drudge; that's probably where he got it from.  

DaveyJones's picture

by the way, which one is pink?

topcallingtroll's picture

Probably wont happen...attempting to push employment up that quickly might accelerate inflation, unless we get really huge productivity numbers along with it, but that probably is wishful thinking.

kengland's picture

Why would you benchmark employment against an economic bubble? Your smart enough to know better unless of course you have an agenda? Puting aside the bit of producitivty gains achieved over the last 30 years, has any part of it been real?



mrcmmm's picture

I had similar thoughts.  While I think the point of the graph and article remains valid, the number for comparison should be some normalized employment level taking out the effects of the bubble.  In the end, there still needs to be a large number of jobs created to return even to that level -- maybe it's 200k/mo, maybe 175k/mo, I dunno.  We're still far behind.

HarryWanger's picture

For an excellent explanation of today's jobs report please read 

Daily Color: Two Employment Surveys, Different Results

at Calculated Risk. It's the best I've read from anyone and is spot on.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Watch out Harry. That confirmation bias will give you heart burn and make your ding dong flaccid and useless.

What? Oh, sorry. Too late I see.

trav7777's picture

you don't know that they just rejigger the number of people in the "labor force" to get the headline UE?

this is how unemployed people who did not get jobs can suddenly no longer be "unemployed."

andybev01's picture

It's hard to count people who have become invisible, isn't it?

Pure Evil's picture

Well, according to Hankqer Cankqer, all they need to do is get a job at Walmart or Burger King.

I think Walmart and Burger King ought to be able to create 246,600 jobs a month to put all those lazy asses back to work.

Nothing like creating minimum wage jobs to put America back into preeminence on the world stage.

DaveyJones's picture

they can also then still qualify for public services further draining the empty public coffer. 

Internal Wal-Mart Memo Validates Findings of UC Berkeley Study
October 2005, by Arindrajit Dube, Ken Jacobs and Steve Wertheim

The Labor Center’s report, Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs, found that Wal-Mart workers disproportionately rely on taxpayer funded public health programs in California compared to workers in large retail as a whole. An internal Wal-Mart memo reported on in The New York Times provides data from Wal-Mart validates the basic findings of that UC Berkeley report. This research note highlights this confirming evidence, focusing on workers’ and dependent children’s health coverage.


MiddleMeThis's picture

"The CPS estimate of employment is for the total number of employed persons. Included are categories of workers that are not covered by the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey: self-employed persons, private household workers, agriculture workers, unpaid family workers, and workers on leave without pay during the reference period."

Great, so the bulk of available jobs are maids/nannies, migrant worker (that the illegal aliens have cornered) and housewives.   I'd be interested to see the breakdown in the categories.

Cash_is_Trash's picture

jobs...that the illegal aliens have cornered

America mainly produces mediocre jobs; including menial, repetitive and lame work conditions for its people, exactly the type fit for illegal labor.

Want a job scrubbing dishes? No prob!

Want a job mopping floors? No prob!

Even to become a waiter or bartender at a classy place has fierce competition, and the job still SUCKS.

The unemployment numbers are important, but of those employed, how many remain underemployed? ~90%?

Pure Evil's picture

Don't forget about cleaning toliets!

To the stalls you god damn illegal aliens. Hut, hut, grap your toilet brushes.

This is my plunger, this is my mop, this one's for unclogging, and this one is for sticking up the American taxpayers ass while popping out squatter citizen birthright babies.

I also hear there will be large demand for bed pan and diaper changers with the coming baby boomers retiring in large numbers.

Cash_is_Trash's picture

Birthright citizenship is extremely misleading...

Makes you want to shit-out a Kenyan named Barry, smoke your brains out, teaching it be arrogant and cocky, make the fucker bring the hopium.

Who needs that shit! Fuck it, I'm going to the bar. Peace.


d00daa's picture

Please, expand on your interpretation of this Harry.  Or are you just mindlessly regurgitating that which fits your world view?  You slam "doomers" here for exactly the same reason, yet offer ZERO analysis of your own.  Just flamebait hit-and-run troll posts.  And you wonder why no one takes you seriously??


So you believe we are indeed averaging approximately the "consensus" 150k at this point?  200k?  This is important.


When NFP doesn't come in @ ~ +300k (or whatever number that works with what you believe the "true" average to be) next month, what then?

Pure Evil's picture

But, but...., they all got jobs at Walmart and Burger King.

DaveyJones's picture

what a joke. I think CRs comment sums it up:

"Thanks! Six years and counting of being told I'm wrong ... it is always a joy to answer so many emails  Hey, I have no crystal ball - I'll be the first to point out weakness in the February report if it doesn't show some catch up."

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

US Needs To Generate 246,600 Paper Jobs A Month To Get To Pre-Depression Employment By End Of Obama Second Term

I fixed it for you Tyler.

HamyWanger's picture

You just have to kill all the unemployed people (in a human way, through lethal injection for example) and the global unemployment rate will drop.

But I don't think it will be needed, as the global recovery in the global economy is already creating jobs by the ton. Commodity prices reaching new highs proves that the worldwide recovery is accelerating, and that Keynesian policies are working.

topcallingtroll's picture

I love you to hammy but i dunno....some of might go a bit far....I will think about it though.

HamyWanger's picture

I know killing people might sound a bit far-fetched, but you have to understand that sometimes, you have to tackle the problem at the source. If there is no unemployed people left, there is no unemployment, and the global economy can grow again.

Dr. J. M. Keynes PhD., Dr. Ben S. Bernanke PhD., Dr. Paul Krugman PhD. (Nobel Prize) have already worked on the subject. Keynes was proposing to euthanize people on fixed income, so why not euthanize unemployed people? This is common sense.

This may sound immoral or cruel, but sometimes patriotism and sacrifice for the common good are needed.

equity_momo's picture

The next phase of the "War on Terror"  <cough> BS <cough> will take care of that.  Suitcase nukes or a draft to go and invade further into Middle-East Central Asia once the protectionist policies fail to beat down China.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

So if I follow your correctly here Hamy, and I think I do, Nazi Germany was just trying to deal with a nasty unemployment situation. How could the history books have it so wrong?

equity_momo's picture

I think Nazi Germany was dealing with a nasty jewish banker situation. The reason the Nazis existed in the first place can be traced back to the real axis of evil , the US and UK. In large part due to their meddling Jewish bankers.

Vast majority of history books are very good at explaining the micro but miss the macro. And the ones in the school system are re-written propoganda.

Whats that saying , history doesnt repeat but rhymes?

trav7777's picture

would have been easier to do what Putin did, just eject the oligarchs and leave the common jooz alone

equity_momo's picture

Yes , and it would have saved us the current problem of making bad policy decisions based around guilt. Slavery and the holocaust - how those jewish oligarchs have leveraged the guilt associated with both.

Pure Evil's picture

Well, if that idiot Hitler didn't have a woody for smokin' all the Jews with Zyklon-B, he might have used them to help build a nuclear arsenal like the US did, and then he could have nuked the damn commie russians into submission.

Lebensraum all around comrades.

DonnieD's picture

I believe this is already under way via food inflation. Dr. Bernanke will have the global unemployment rate down to 3% by the end of the year. He has already submitted his application for the Nobel Prize for Economics.

Cash_is_Trash's picture

Sounds like social darwinism majors will become the new fad.

How about we remove subsidies for everything, minimize government and maybe ppl err.. useful idiots will stop fucking?

I like when Gordon Gekko points out corporate America [[incl. America]] represents survival of the unfittest.