June Jobs Report: Unemployment Holds Steady at 8.2 Percent


The Bureau of Labor Statistics released yet another weak jobs report this morning, showing that the economy gained just 80,000 jobs in the month of June. That's just a tiny bit better than the May report, and somewhat below market expectations, which had been looking for closer to 95,000 new jobs. It leaves the top-line unemployment figure unchanged at 8.2 percent. Meanwhile, U-6-, the broadest measure of the unmployment rate, actually rose slightly from 14.8 percent in May to 14.9 percent.

It's another month, in other words, in which the positive early labor market signals we glimpsed at the beginning of the year seem to have vanished, and momentum seems to have stalled. Expect lots of spin from both presidential campaigns, but the bottom line is that although the economy isn't getting dramatically worse right now, it's not getting much better either. 

NEXT: Voting with Your Feet (Police Edition)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don't worry, I'm sure now that Obamacare's taxes, mandates, regulations, et alia are green-lighted by the SCOTUS, Pelosi's 400,000 hires will happen soon, followed by millions more thrilled to have the boot of the Central State pressed even more firmly onto their necks.

  2. The spin I saw in my newspaper this AM was that it was a sign things were improving and businesses were starting to hire and take risks and had higher confidence.

    1. that always seems to be the spin: things are always improving and the new era (comdrade) is just around the corner.

    2. It is just a flesh wound!!

      1. T'is but a scratch!

    3. Did they also announce the increase in the chocolate ration from 300g to 200g per month?

      1. They're smarter than that. It's increased from 60g a week to 200g a month.

    4. I caught about a minute of CNN this morning. They said something along the lines of how it showed 27 months of continuous growth so it's good for Obama.

  3. It leaves the top-line unemployment figure unchanged at 8.2 percent.

    Oh, good! Cuz without us bein Stimulated it woulda been 8.2 percent!
    No, wait, that'snot right. Can't be. Lem'me check my notes. I goddit here somewhare...

    1. I'm doing so well, I'm only working fifty-five hours a week!

    2. Without cut public employment it would have been 7.2 %.

      Without the stimulus, Obama would have

      a) slightly less hatred from libertarians.
      b) unemployment levels and payroll trajectory that would probably allow Santorum or even Palin to sail into the oval office with a small red majority in both chambers.

      In other words, the stimulus saved America at the price of 700 billion dollars and angry comments from people who would have hated Obama anyway.

      1. Why should we like Obama, Romney, or any other presidential hood ornament?

      2. unemployment levels and payroll trajectory that would probably allow Santorum or even Palin to sail into the oval office with a small red majority in both chambers.

        Why would unemployment levels at 6.5% (see page 4) and saving over $800 billion be bad for the company??

        1. Wait, so libertarians can say things would have been better without stimulus, but democrats can't say the stimulus helped?

          1. If you'll stop being illiterate, I'm quoting an administration projection of the horror story case where they don't pass the stimulus.

            1. I didn't believe that report for a second - the stimulus was weak and the administration knew it.

              1. It was "weak" and yet it "saved America" from "the worst recession since the 30's"?

                Wow, stimulus is some badass shit.

              2. So they lied twice to us?

                1. That seems to be Mary's defense.

                  1. Might as well have drilled a hole to the center of the earth, and filled it with hundred-dollar bills.


      3. Umm, Apparently, you seem to have overlooked that the stimulus postponed, but did not prevent, those public employment cuts. The stimulus money mostly went to shore up state budgets, but it ran out last year.

        Effect on pubsec payrolls as of 06/2012 - zero.

        Effect on debt as of 06/2012 - over $700BB.

        1. Then it is no wonder aggregate demand goes down, and businesses won't hire or expand.

          1. And really, why should they?

      4. Unfalsifiable comments are unfalsifiable.

        Why stop there? Why not claim that without the stimulus, we would have been taken over by aliens, would have been cursed by an old god, and would have been plunged into a different dimension by a powerful sorcerer? They'are all equivalently bs claims.

        The argument "but it could've been worse" can be used any time. The Earth can be rocketing towards the sun this very moment, and with the destruction of all life imminent, someone could say "it could be worse, you can have a hangnail right now too!"

        I'm sorry, but you're "it could've been worse" argument is simply immature. The administration made estimates to where we'd be with stimulus, and they've proven to be grossly incorrect. In short, they haven't a clue, and neither do you.

      5. Without cut public employment it would have been 7.2 %.

        With an honest LFPR it would be over 11%

  4. How to fix aggregate demand...

    1. Quit trying to fix the economy by blowing hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus?

      1. Nah, when all businesses are waiting on other businesses to hire or expand so that more people can buy more stuff, no one wants to go first. Plus, the US is way behind on infrastructure - perfect time for government spending.

        1. Plus, the US is way behind on infrastructure - perfect time for government spending.

          Didn't we try that a couple of years and $105 billion ago? Oh, that's right! We didn't spend enough. How about $500 billion?

          1. Bigger! And whatever number you come up with, it still needs to be bigger.

  5. Fun facts about the employment recession hier:

    Pull quote on pub-sec v real jobs:

    Private-sector employment still down 3.9%, or 4.502 million. Government jobs overall are down 1.9%, with federal jobs (ex post office) up 10.7%.

  6. Nobody should kid themselves: this latest report is just awful. It's so bad that not even our very own Shrieking Idiot is bothering to try to put a happy face spin on it, and Paul Krugman appears to be too depressed to even make a blog comment on it.

    Even the most conservative estimates going around were expected to have better numbers than this. About the only good thing that can be said right now is that the double-dip recession hasn't officially started yet.

  7. No joke. The libtards at Daily Kos were drooling over the 175k job estimate yesterday.

    1. Some of them have been posting here, as well.

  8. You know that if political pressure can work to juice the economy for those precious few months that Mr. Obama needs to be re-elected, such pressure is being applied intensely enough to create diamonds from coal. If this is the best they can do, then look out for a very bumpy ride after November. The Demos and GOP have the perfect opportunity to retire from the field and run cor cover, while letting someone else take the blame, or at least deal with the cleanup: They should covertly arrange for Libertarian Gary "Fallboy" Johnson to win, and then head offshore until armageddon is over.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.