Unemployment, what is really wrong.

Unemployment, what is really wrong.

Chart shows 11 years of jobless increases , can't blame all on Obama  ?

'Abysmal' Jobs Report a Blow to Obama

NEWS papers drape the bad News , but Pres. Obama blames :

President Obama addressed the increasing unemployment rate Friday morning, stating that the latest jobs report confirms "what most Americans already know."
"We still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to give people the security and opportunity that they deserve," he said.
Recent natural disasters, spikes in gas prices, and state and local budget cuts have contributed to the down economy, Obama listed. He also noted that more than 2 million new private sector jobs were added over the past 16 months but that the recession "cost us more than 8 million."

Obama want's you to boycott ATM machines , will you do that?

There's really is one problem by looking at the above chart from the Department of Labor Statistics . The surge in unemployment began in 2008.  I am trying not to point the finger at Obama , but something has slipped . The stimulus money was supposed to save jobs , and create jobs . Was that Obama BIG plan? Throwing darts on Obama alone is just not the problem . He's a symptom.  He's failed to act .  He did not blame NAFTA . Obama blamed ATM’s today for his record unemployment rate… Because we all know ATM’s were just introduced since he took charge of the economy.FOX Nation reported: President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren’t hiring is not because of his policies, it’s because the economy is so automated. … “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

Look at NAFTA first, over the last decade America sent millions of jobs overseas :

NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government’s ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care.
Remarkably, many of NAFTA’s most passionate boosters in Congress and among economists never read the agreement. They made their pie-in-the-sky promises of NAFTA benefits based on trade theory and ideological prejudice for anything with the term “free trade” attached to it Rob Scott at the Economic Policy Institute has released a new study estimating 683,900 U.S. jobs have been displaced due to the rise in the trade deficit with Mexico after NAFTA was enacted. It serves as a grim warning of what could come if Congress were to approve the Korea FTA, which is based on the NAFTA model. Scott breaks down the job displacement by industry and congressional district, illustrating how workers across the country have been harmed as the deficit with Mexico skyrockets.

As Scott notes, corporate lobbyists and administration officials pushing the Korea FTA today sound just like pro-NAFTA government officials back in the early 1990's before NAFTA devastated U.S. manufacturing jobs. Once again they are claiming that a NAFTA-style trade agreement will create thousands of jobs, but this new study is a wakeup call to anyone who views their claims as believable.

Scott highlights the fact that the industrial structure of U.S. trade with Mexico and South Korea are very similar, which portends NAFTA-like job loss if the Korea FTA were to be implemented. The U.S. has huge trade deficits in electronics and motor vehicles and parts with both Mexico and South Korea, and the U.S. International Trade Commission predicts that the U.S. trade deficit in these products will dramatically increase if the Korea FTA were to enter into force.

Daniel Griswold over at the Cato Institute challenged the results of the study, claiming that the study's method of computing job losses is flawed. Proponents of unfair trade may rail against the methodology that Scott employs now, but what did they think of it when they were trying to prove that NAFTA would be a boon for workers before it passed? They embraced it. Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott, leading NAFTA proponents at the Institute for International Economics, released a study in 1993 predicting that the annual U.S. trade balance with Mexico would improve by $9 billion due to NAFTA, leading to a net increase of 171,000 U.S. jobs. To estimate the increase in the number of jobs, they used same method as Rob Scott used in his latest NAFTA study and applied it to their prediction of the change in trade flows after NAFTA, although their study did not break down jobs geographically.* Perhaps FTA proponents have changed their minds about the method merely because it now reveals all those claims about NAFTA job gains went up in smoke after NAFTA was actually enacted.

Griswold then goes on to belittle the magnitude of the job displacement estimated by the study, comparing it to the 15 million jobs that are created and destroyed annually. It's a silly comparison, because the 15 million figure deals with turnover, whereas Scott's study deals with the changes in the total number of jobs displaced by trade with Mexico at two different points in time, i.e. the net change after all the turnover has completed. 683,900 jobs is a lot of jobs, especially to those workers who have seen their jobs offshored due to unfair trade policy.

*The only significant difference between the studies is that Hufbauer and Schott used estimates from a 1992 Department of Commerce study of the number of jobs supported in each industry by each export commodity to Mexico, for which there is no similar recent data. Scott used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the jobs supported by a given quantity of goods produced in the United States by industry, which gives results similar to the Department of Commerce data..

.

My Question are all the Numbers right? Maybe................................

 The addition of 18,000 jobs is effectively a loss, since the economy must generate about 125,000-150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with the expansion of the work force population.

The employment numbers are far worse than expected. Many economists had expected a gain of over 100,000 jobs last month and thought the unemployment rate would remain at 9.1 percent.
Meanwhile, job increases recorded in previous months were revised downward to 25,000 in May and 217,000 in April.

Obama has 'time' , and to reflect and  act , and MAYBE reverse NAFTA trade agreement .