U.S. unemployment rate falls to five-year low of 7 percent

Employers nationwide added total of 203,000 jobs in November

Hertz CEO Mark P. Frissora, Gov. Rick Scott, and Lee County Commission Chairman Larry Kiker, left to right, shovel dirt at the ground breaking event for Hertz at its new headquarters in Estero on Nov. 26, 2013. The global headquarters is located at the intersection of U.S. Route 41 and Williams Road. The project is expected to create about 400 jobs to be filled locally and 300 positions to be filled by Hertz employees relocating to Estero.

Photo by DANIA MAXWELL // Buy this photo

Hertz CEO Mark P. Frissora, Gov. Rick Scott, and Lee County Commission Chairman Larry Kiker, left to right, shovel dirt at the ground breaking event for Hertz at its new headquarters in Estero on Nov. 26, 2013. The global headquarters is located at the intersection of U.S. Route 41 and Williams Road. The project is expected to create about 400 jobs to be filled locally and 300 positions to be filled by Hertz employees relocating to Estero.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A fourth straight month of solid hiring cut the U.S. unemployment rate in November to a five-year low of 7 percent. The surprisingly robust job gain suggested that the economy may have begun to accelerate.

It also fueled speculation that the Federal Reserve will scale back its economic stimulus when it meets later this month.

Employers added 203,000 jobs last month after adding 200,000 in October, the Labor Department said Friday. November's job gain helped lower the unemployment rate from 7.3 percent in October.

The economy has now generated a four-month average of 204,000 jobs from August through November. That's up from 159,000 a month from April through July.

After the report was released, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose to 2.91 percent, up from 2.86 percent just before the employment figures were announced. That was a sign that many investors think the Fed will slow its monthly bond purchases, which have been intended to keep interest rates low.

An especially encouraging sign was that much of November's job growth was in higher-paying industries. Manufacturers added 27,000 jobs, the most since March 2012. Construction companies added 17,000. The two industries have created a combined 113,000 jobs in the past four months.

Friday's report follows other positive economic news. The economy expanded at an annual rate of 3.6 percent in the July-September quarter, the fastest growth since early 2012, though nearly half that gain came from businesses rebuilding stockpiles. Consumer spending grew at the slowest pace since late 2009.

Greater hiring could support healthier spending. Job growth has a dominant influence over much of the economy. If hiring continues at the current pace, a virtuous cycle will start to build: More jobs usually lead to higher wages, more spending and faster growth.

But more higher-paying jobs are also needed to sustain the economy's momentum. Roughly half the jobs that were added in the six months through October were in four low-wage industries: retail; hotels, restaurants and entertainment; temp jobs; and home health care workers.

The Fed has pegged its stimulus efforts to the unemployment rate. Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed will ease its monthly purchases of $85 billion in bonds once hiring has improved consistently.

The recent economic upturn has been surprising. Many economists expected the government shutdown in October to hobble growth. Yet the economy motored along without much interruption, according to several government and industry reports.

Early reports on holiday shopping have been disappointing. The National Retail Federation said sales during the Thanksgiving weekend — probably the most important stretch for retailers — fell for the first time since the group began keeping track in 2006.

Consumers are willing to spend on big-ticket items. Autos sold in November at their best pace in seven years, according to Autodata Corp. New-home sales in October bounced back from a summer downturn.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Comments » 18

leneggs writes:

this is all Obama's fault...if Romney was elected the unemployment rate would be 0 by now.
hahahahahah

GratefulDem65 (Inactive) writes:

Ummm.....yep.
Doomsday postponed. Again.

Vote Democrat.

hoperequired writes:

All from Republican governors who incentivize private sector jobs! Oh, that's right....or more government jobs under Obama paid for by US, the tax payers!

hoperequired writes:

Just found out 41% of jobs created were GOVERNMENT jobs! Just more for us to pay for tax payers!

MasonDixon writes:

in response to leneggs:

this is all Obama's fault...if Romney was elected the unemployment rate would be 0 by now.
hahahahahah

How do we know he didn't cook the books just like he admitted to doing before his last campaign?
With his ratings tanking, that wouldn't be a surprise to anyone paying attention.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to MasonDixon:

How do we know he didn't cook the books just like he admitted to doing before his last campaign?
With his ratings tanking, that wouldn't be a surprise to anyone paying attention.

The ratings are due to so many ill informed citizens who rely on FoxNews--just because more watch it, doesn't mean that are giving the proper perspective on issues---and, like yourself, absolutely refuse to express any pleasure when positive economic news is released. You, and them, would rather respond with non-factual attacks on a person, rather than credit the impact of the policies of a Majority Party (other than i the gerrymandered House (which tallied an impressive 61% votes for Democratic candidates as a whole).

So what, exactly, does it take for you and others to assume the role of the old adage "Give credit where credit is due"--because if the economic data were as negative as we saw in 2006-2008 we know that you be using that data to ABSOLUTELY blame the President and Party occupying the White House---AND YOU'D BE CORRECT IN DOING SO---hey, it's what I do for the President and Party that WAS in the White House 2006-2008.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

The official unemployment rate is down, but not because new jobs are being created and people are going to work.

Unemployment rates are down because people have stopped looking for work because the available jobs are so few, and because people no longer qualify to receive unemployment benefits. Neither of those categories are tracked by the government or included in official unemployment rate calculations.

If you include those categories in the unemployment figure, to get a more accurate number, the figure is still around 15%.

The percentage of the U.S. population currently employed is at it's lowest point since 1929.

MasonDixon writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

The ratings are due to so many ill informed citizens who rely on FoxNews--just because more watch it, doesn't mean that are giving the proper perspective on issues---and, like yourself, absolutely refuse to express any pleasure when positive economic news is released. You, and them, would rather respond with non-factual attacks on a person, rather than credit the impact of the policies of a Majority Party (other than i the gerrymandered House (which tallied an impressive 61% votes for Democratic candidates as a whole).

So what, exactly, does it take for you and others to assume the role of the old adage "Give credit where credit is due"--because if the economic data were as negative as we saw in 2006-2008 we know that you be using that data to ABSOLUTELY blame the President and Party occupying the White House---AND YOU'D BE CORRECT IN DOING SO---hey, it's what I do for the President and Party that WAS in the White House 2006-2008.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when an alleged 7% unemployment rate is celebrated.
Unemployment rate Jan. 2006: 4.7%
Unemployment rate Nov. 2008: 6.8%
Unemployment rate Jan. 2009: 7.8%
Not to mention those who fell off, and those who jumped on the disability dole.
But I do give Obe's elcono,ic plan credit for those folks.
BTW, where's my $2500 health insurance savings I was promised?
Is that Fox New's fault too? LOL.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

The official unemployment rate is down, but not because new jobs are being created and people are going to work.

Unemployment rates are down because people have stopped looking for work because the available jobs are so few, and because people no longer qualify to receive unemployment benefits. Neither of those categories are tracked by the government or included in official unemployment rate calculations.

If you include those categories in the unemployment figure, to get a more accurate number, the figure is still around 15%.

The percentage of the U.S. population currently employed is at it's lowest point since 1929.

And I suppose if we elected the person behind this type of thing, we would have MORE jobs here??

“according to government documents . . . Romney, when he was in charge of Bain [Capital], invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.”

...so it is very difficult to undo what has been done in the past--those jobs are not coming back to the US --and no one can blame Obama and Democrats for those actions...

And that 15% rate you prefer to look at was 18% in Jan. 2008----so let's accept the distasteful (to you) reality that the job situation has improved, and is on an upward trend, no matter what stat anyone cares to cherry pick.

And please provide the source for that 1929 rate--did that also include the "underemployed" etc--didn't think they had data on that to compare 1929 to today.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to MasonDixon:

I never thought I'd live to see the day when an alleged 7% unemployment rate is celebrated.
Unemployment rate Jan. 2006: 4.7%
Unemployment rate Nov. 2008: 6.8%
Unemployment rate Jan. 2009: 7.8%
Not to mention those who fell off, and those who jumped on the disability dole.
But I do give Obe's elcono,ic plan credit for those folks.
BTW, where's my $2500 health insurance savings I was promised?
Is that Fox New's fault too? LOL.

Now this funny--citing how the unemployment rate that Bush INHERITED at the start of his Presidency to the level it was at when Obama INHERITED it from him--because true economists always point out that most of the first year of any new President as that data impacted by the fiscal calendar of the one before him.

So we can clearly see the failure of the Republican led era known as "The Great Recession". Just as we saw the same impact in the 1930's Great Depression and 1987 Stock Market Crash.

So as a voter--fool me once, shame on you---fool me twice, .....How does that go again??

It's what the phrase "low information voter" refers to

And as to those on public assistance---the fact that worker's on 40 hours a week STILL qualify for benefits is the direct result of allowing the pay and salaries of lower income workers to be decimated---they even reported on the news coverage of the job rate improvement. So you need to tr and be a little insightful and look beyond the numbers.

Ruskin writes:

"The Obama administration, bolstering a sustained push by Democrats to extend emergency unemployment benefits, said today that a lapse may cost the U.S. as many as 240,000 jobs in 2014.
An estimated 1.3 million unemployed workers would immediately lose benefits if the emergency program -- extended repeatedly since its inception in 2008 -- is allowed to expire on Dec. 28, according to the report drafted by President Barack Obama’s Council on Economic Advisers and the Labor Department. During 2014, 3.6 million more would have their benefits cut off."

If everything is all peaches and cream at the faux unemployment rate of 7% then why is Obama extending unemployment benefits for another year?

"As many as 23.9 million people have received the benefits since 2008, the report said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12...

Hope and change? Too funny!

anicou writes:

Magic! Are you PMZ's reincarnation?

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to anicou:

Magic! Are you PMZ's reincarnation?

I don't know who that is, but if it was someone who posted truth, optimism, a well thought out long view of history, relied on factual data from evenly balanced sources, rather than only from right wing sources like Breitbart, FoxNews at al., gave Republicans support with a misguided vote for Bush in 2004, supports their own nation when faced with attacks from terrorists regardless of the Political Party, instead of always blaming my own National Leadership for these attacks .......

......then who knows, maybe I am.

And many more are who support the Democratic Party economic policies based on more than a century of comparing the economic impacts of each Party when they control the Presidency--

-and then there are the simpletons who simplify the Party differences by claiming that all Democrats are on the dole, lazy, in favor of a Socialist economy, etc.===and support the laissez-faire capitalism approach which eliminates the Middle Class--and belongs back in the 19th century

The only thing we need to fear is fear itself, AND the constant negativity by so many who recoil at the prospect of positive developments--AND WISHING THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENTS WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.

And are you the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover??? McKinley?? Herbert Spencer???

So--hello to PMZ wherever you are--come on back

Ruskin writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

I don't know who that is, but if it was someone who posted truth, optimism, a well thought out long view of history, relied on factual data from evenly balanced sources, rather than only from right wing sources like Breitbart, FoxNews at al., gave Republicans support with a misguided vote for Bush in 2004, supports their own nation when faced with attacks from terrorists regardless of the Political Party, instead of always blaming my own National Leadership for these attacks .......

......then who knows, maybe I am.

And many more are who support the Democratic Party economic policies based on more than a century of comparing the economic impacts of each Party when they control the Presidency--

-and then there are the simpletons who simplify the Party differences by claiming that all Democrats are on the dole, lazy, in favor of a Socialist economy, etc.===and support the laissez-faire capitalism approach which eliminates the Middle Class--and belongs back in the 19th century

The only thing we need to fear is fear itself, AND the constant negativity by so many who recoil at the prospect of positive developments--AND WISHING THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENTS WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE.

And are you the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover??? McKinley?? Herbert Spencer???

So--hello to PMZ wherever you are--come on back

Here's the link two comments up again, just in case you ignored it the first time.

"The Obama administration, bolstering a sustained push by Democrats to extend emergency unemployment benefits, said today that a lapse may cost the U.S. as many as 240,000 jobs in 2014.
An estimated 1.3 million unemployed workers would immediately lose benefits if the emergency program -- extended repeatedly since its inception in 2008 -- is allowed to expire on Dec. 28, according to the report drafted by President Barack Obama’s Council on Economic Advisers and the Labor Department. During 2014, 3.6 million more would have their benefits cut off."

If everything is all peaches and cream at the faux unemployment rate of 7% then why is Obama extending unemployment benefits for another year?

"As many as 23.9 million people have received the benefits since 2008, the report said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12...

WeThePeople2016 writes:

So there is still too much unemployment--it will take longer to get back to the level that Bush inherited--Everyone knows that---and those without work will still need help--which the Republicans in the House will vote down because they WANT the negative impact to happen--heck, Cruz will probably filibuster against any extension--so what else is new?? Republican chances in 2016 are slim enough in 2016--and if the rate continues to drop, slim chance becomes none--so, as they did in Fiscal cliff and Shutdown, we'll see what's good for the Party from them rather than what the people need individually, or the nation as a whole.

But we do know how many jobs were outsourced out of the country---not Obama's fault.

Total number of U.S. jobs outsourced in 2011 ------2,273,392

Percent of CFO’s surveyed who said their firm was currently outsourcing --35 %

Percent of CFO’s who favored India for outsourcing --24 %

Percent of CFO’s who favored China for outsourcing --18 %

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

And I suppose if we elected the person behind this type of thing, we would have MORE jobs here??

“according to government documents . . . Romney, when he was in charge of Bain [Capital], invested heavily in a Chinese manufacturing company that depended on US outsourcing for its profits—and that explicitly stated that such outsourcing was crucial to its success.”

...so it is very difficult to undo what has been done in the past--those jobs are not coming back to the US --and no one can blame Obama and Democrats for those actions...

And that 15% rate you prefer to look at was 18% in Jan. 2008----so let's accept the distasteful (to you) reality that the job situation has improved, and is on an upward trend, no matter what stat anyone cares to cherry pick.

And please provide the source for that 1929 rate--did that also include the "underemployed" etc--didn't think they had data on that to compare 1929 to today.

"And I suppose if we elected the person behind this type of thing, we would have MORE jobs here??"

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. That would be you trying to put words into my mouth to make your nihilistic argument appear to be relevant.

"...so it is very difficult to undo what has been done in the past--those jobs are not coming back to the US --and no one can blame Obama and Democrats for those actions..."

Not completely, no. But, they certainly haven't done anything to improve the situation since being in charge. The origins of the mass outsourcing of American jobs goes back to trade legislation enacted under G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, approved by a Congress made up of members of both parties. This is something that both parties get to be blamed for.

"And that 15% rate you prefer to look at was 18% in Jan. 2008----so let's accept the distasteful (to you) reality that the job situation has improved, and is on an upward trend, no matter what stat anyone cares to cherry pick."

I don't disagree that the trend is upward, however sluggishly it may be happening, and I'm certainly not cherry-picking anything. I was simply stating the truth. But, again, the upward trend is in spite of the current administration, not because of it. You can't point to anything that Obama has done to create jobs.

"And please provide the source for that 1929 rate--did that also include the "underemployed" etc--didn't think they had data on that to compare 1929 to today."

Bureau of Labor Statistics, among others. It's easy to find for anyone who really wants to find it. Kind of like that "greatest income disparity since 1929" statistic that you and others who believe as you do like to toss around without ever citing your source.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

So there is still too much unemployment--it will take longer to get back to the level that Bush inherited--Everyone knows that---and those without work will still need help--which the Republicans in the House will vote down because they WANT the negative impact to happen--heck, Cruz will probably filibuster against any extension--so what else is new?? Republican chances in 2016 are slim enough in 2016--and if the rate continues to drop, slim chance becomes none--so, as they did in Fiscal cliff and Shutdown, we'll see what's good for the Party from them rather than what the people need individually, or the nation as a whole.

But we do know how many jobs were outsourced out of the country---not Obama's fault.

Total number of U.S. jobs outsourced in 2011 ------2,273,392

Percent of CFO’s surveyed who said their firm was currently outsourcing --35 %

Percent of CFO’s who favored India for outsourcing --24 %

Percent of CFO’s who favored China for outsourcing --18 %

You like to quote statistics that appear to support your nihilistic rhetoric, but you ignore the basis of those statistics entirely.

You enter into no discussion at all about why those statistics even exist.

Congress, made up of Democrats and Republicans, has passed legislation, signed into law by both Republican and Democrat presidents, that not only allows corporations to outsource their labor LEGALLY, but doesn't penalize them for them doing so. Combine that with one of the highest corporate tax rates on the planet, and it's no wonder that so many corporations send jobs overseas.

If you truly want the situation to change, then your apparent anger needs to be directed towards both parties and getting the laws changed - to punish companies for sending jobs overseas, to reward companies for bringing jobs back to this country, and to reduce corporate tax rates and change tax laws to make it competitive for them to do so.

That's the discussion that needs to be had. Your partisan blamesmanship and hackneyed rhetoric do nothing whatsoever productive towards that end. You're more a part of the problem than you are a part of the solution.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

You like to quote statistics that appear to support your nihilistic rhetoric, but you ignore the basis of those statistics entirely.

You enter into no discussion at all about why those statistics even exist.

Congress, made up of Democrats and Republicans, has passed legislation, signed into law by both Republican and Democrat presidents, that not only allows corporations to outsource their labor LEGALLY, but doesn't penalize them for them doing so. Combine that with one of the highest corporate tax rates on the planet, and it's no wonder that so many corporations send jobs overseas.

If you truly want the situation to change, then your apparent anger needs to be directed towards both parties and getting the laws changed - to punish companies for sending jobs overseas, to reward companies for bringing jobs back to this country, and to reduce corporate tax rates and change tax laws to make it competitive for them to do so.

That's the discussion that needs to be had. Your partisan blamesmanship and hackneyed rhetoric do nothing whatsoever productive towards that end. You're more a part of the problem than you are a part of the solution.

And you can actually believe that with the clear data on how pay in this country for low and middle income workers has lagged for many years while CEO's and upper management salaries and bonuses have skyrocketed---

Sorry--there are MANY tax advantages for businesses in THIS country, including those included int eh bill Bush 43 signed as his condition to"reluctantly" agree to raise the minimum wage in 2007 --minimum wage had not been increased since 1997 ($5.15) with Clinton---

So you see the data as "hackneyed rhetoric"--lol---and a simple presentation of facts as "anger"----and feel the same in response to Reagan's former Budget Director--and his "hackneyed" input.

And continuing outsourcing jobs is good for the US in your opinion--not mine---and your flammatory vocabulary doesn't change the facts.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features