The economy supposedly added 227K Job, but unemployment remains unchanged? Huh?

[GHook93]

February jobs report: Unemployment holds steady amid hiring - Mar. 9, 2012

According to the government 227K were added in Feb, so why didn't unemployment change? Well the government answer is those pesky unemployed people that have been unemployed for so long we no longer considered them unemployed started looking again. So what have they been doing for the other 1-4 years they weren't employed? Catching up on daytime soaps! So why bow do they arbitrarily become considered unemployed, when they technically have been employed for a while and are in the same boat? It makes no sense.

If I lose my job, go on unemployment insurance, can't find a job after unemployment runs out, why should I be considered not looking (in effective employed for unemployment calculation purposes) and then some time later in the future when I am still unemployed, I officially become unemployed again for the statistic?

Whether its being done during a R or D administration the "official" statistics are bullshit! A person should not be considered employed (meaning causes unemployment stat to go down) until A) He finds a job, (B) Is classified as a dependent for tax purposes (such a student, house-wife, dependent parent etc), (C) Becomes LEGALLY disable, (D) Leave the country or (E) Retires!


Interesting note: The biggest gains were restaurants (41K) and temp jobs (41K)! I'm sure there were managers, waiter, bar tenders and chefs that make decent money, but I guarantee the biggest restaurant gains were low wage help and waiters! The 82K in professional and business services (so ambigious, who can't tell what that is) sounds great until you consider HALF were temp work.

Therefore, 37% were not the high paying jobs people want! Oh know maybe Americans took away jobs from illegals, better get the ACLU on that one!

Restaurants and bars added 41,000 jobs... the strongest hiring came in professional and business services, which added 82,000 jobs. More than half of those positions were at temp agencies.

Good Note: I liked seeing the nice gains in unemployment!

 

[buddy_boy8403]

You gotta love how they can manipulate the statistics to show anything they want. This just goes to show you can't trust anything.

 

[rdean]

Not unusual for a country with over 300,000,000 people.

 

[stevetracks]

The economy plays important role in the development of the country ...

Economy really had great think about it . It got up & down all over the economy of country. New york based economy really has a great think about it . It got all over the world users watches its day to day changes

 

[pinqy]

February jobs report: Unemployment holds steady amid hiring - Mar. 9, 2012

According to the government 227K were added in Feb, so why didn't unemployment change? Well the government answer is those pesky unemployed people that have been unemployed for so long we no longer considered them unemployed

Untrue. There is no cut off. If someone has looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, they're counted as unemployed. No max time. If you're not TRYING to get a job, you're not unemployed.

As for the rate, first, the 227k jobs is not used for the UE rate. The 227k is only non-farm payroll jobs.

The UE rate comes from a household survey. Let's do the math:
The UE rate is Unemployed/Labor Force.
Labor Force is Employed + Unemployed.
January 2012, there were 12,758,000 unemployed and 141,637,000 employed for a Labor Force of 154,395,000 and a UE rate of 12,758,000/154,395,000 = 8.3%

In February 2012, there were 12,806,000 unemployed (increase of 48,000) and 142,065,000 employed (increase of 428,000) for a Labor Force of 154,871,000 and a UE rate of 12,806,000/154,871,000 = 8.3%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

The reason both employment and unemployment went up is that more people who had not been looking for work (not in the labor force) started looking.

So let's see, you confused two seperate surveys, you mistakenly thought the UE rate stayed the same because less people were counted when really it was because more people were counted, and you mistakenly thought that long term unemployed weren't counted when they are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The economy plays important role in the development of the country ...

Economy really had great think about it . It got up & down all over the economy of country. New york based economy really has a great think about it . It got all over the world users watches its day to day changes

Is this suppose to be coherent?

 

[pinqy]

If I lose my job, go on unemployment insurance, can't find a job after unemployment runs out, why should I be considered not looking (in effective employed for unemployment calculation purposes) and then some time later in the future when I am still unemployed, I officially become unemployed again for the statistic?

That's not what happens. Whether or not you collect benefits is irrelevent...it's not even asked. If someone is not working, but looking for work, they're unemployed. That's it.

A person should not be considered employed (meaning causes unemployment stat to go down) until A) He finds a job, (B) Is classified as a dependent for tax purposes (such a student, house-wife, dependent parent etc), (C) Becomes LEGALLY disable, (D) Leave the country or (E) Retires!

Only A is considered employed. Or C if the person is still looking for work. B, and E (and C if not trying to work) are Not in the Labor Force. D is not in the population.

I think where your confused is that you seem to think there are 2 classifications, when there are 3. For the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population people are classified as:
Employed (working for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in family business or farm)
Unemployed (not working, looked for work in previous 4 weeks)
Not in the Labor Force (not working, not trying to work).