Unemployment falls to lowest level since 2008

[alan1]

What a crock of shit. Here is from your same CNN propaganda article. 144K supposed people gained employment MORE THAN HALF IN LOW WAGE RETAIL! Yet the same way the get dependency president got the FAUX unemployment rate down before it is happening again. 350K people supposedly dropped out of the work force!

So you can't find a job, sorry son you now have the effect of being employed on the unemployment rate!

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonal hiring.

And while the Labor Force did drop 350,000, 122,000 of that was from employed. No one was "removed" it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition of either employed or unemployed. The number of people who don't want a job went up 312,000

"Seasonally adjusted" always occurs after the season. I'm talking about now.

"it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition".
nice
They no longer fit as part of the qualification for "unemployed" by definition, not by reality.

 

[pinqy]

We call that "seasonal hiring", those jobs will be gone come Jan 30th.

Yep, we just removed 350,000 people from "unemployment" without a single one of them getting a job.

The numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for seasonal hiring.

And while the Labor Force did drop 350,000, 122,000 of that was from employed. No one was "removed" it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition of either employed or unemployed. The number of people who don't want a job went up 312,000

"Seasonally adjusted" always occurs after the season. I'm talking about now.

Where'd you get that idea? Seasonal adjustment is done on a monthly basis, based on historical trends. Now next month there will be enough data so that the seasonally adjusted numbers for 2008-2012 will be revised.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_seas.pdf

"it's just that 350,000 fewer people met the definition".
nice
They no longer fit as part of the qualification for "unemployed" by definition, not by reality.

Reality? I'm sorry, what is this absolute, unquestionable, God-given definition of unemployed? Everything is by definition.

 

[Avorysuds]

how are they equally responsible when it was the Bush SEC who held back the broker rules in GLBact?

Maybe because it was Clinton that deregulated the housing market....

 

[RoadVirus]

This is great news. However, how much has people giving up on looking for jobs contributed to the fall in the UE%?

 

[oldfart]

yet at the end of October 143,384,000 were employed. Today's release for Nov.?
143,262,000. A loss of 122,000 jobs from Oct. to Nov. Yeah, just great news, isn't it?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
..................................................... Oct. Nov. Loss
Employed... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,384,000 143,262,000 -122,000

Yep, the household survey conducted by census showed a job loss of 122,000 and the establishment survey showed an increase of 146,000. They move in opposite directions pretty often. Since you apparently didn't know this, I suggest you go back to BLS (which I applaud you for going to instead of just repeating the news articles) and read the Technical Note which explains the differences.

 

[Annie]

Lots of links and charts at site. Someone who does know what he's talking about:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/no...other-nasty-new-normal-month-for-u-s-workers/

The more you drill down into the November jobs report, the worse it looks. On the surface, not so bad. Nonfarm employment increased by 146,000 jobs last month, beating expectations of around 93,000. What’s more, the jobless rate fell to 7.7%, the lowest since December 2008, versus expectations of 7.9%. And the broader U-6 rate — taking into account some discouraged workers and the underemployed — fell to 14.4% from 14.6%. Private sector jobs rose by 147,000.

But those numbers, unfortunately, are only part of the story. As Citigroup notes this morning, “Far more robust monthly averages than 150,000 jobs per month would be needed for a true restoration of normal labor markets.” Here’s why:

1. The two-tenths drop in the unemployment rate was because people gave up looking for work. The labor force participation rate fell to 63.6% from 63.8% in October. If it had just held steady since then, the unemployment rate would be back over 8%. Indeed, if the LFP rate was just where it was in November 2011, the unemployment rate would be 8.3%. Some 542,000 Americans left the labor force just last month.

2. If labor force participation was at its January 2009 level, the unemployment rate would be a whopping 10.7%. Now, some of the drop in the LFP is due to demographic reasons, primarily the aging of the US population. But even taking that into account would give you a much higher unemployment rate than 7.7%. If you go by the pre-recession CBO forecast of the 2012 LFP rate, the unemployment rate would be 10.4%.

3. In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.63. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.7%. Unfortunately, inflation — as measured by the consumer price index — has risen by 2.2% over the past year, meaning average hourly earnings have fallen by 0.5% in real terms.

4. The number of long-term unemployed remains at a sky-high 40.1%, the same as in August.

5. Since the beginning of this year, employment growth has averaged 151,000 per month, about the same as the average monthly job gain of 153,000 in 2011. At that pace, the US would not return to pre-Great Recession employment levels until after 2025, according to the “jobs gap” calculator from The Hamilton Project.

6. Also note that the misleadingly low 7.7% unemployment rate is still 2.5 percentage points above the 5.2% rate that Team Obama predicted for November 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus.

Bottom line: The November jobs report showed job creation far too slow to get the labor market back to pre-recession levels or boost wages. Faster, please.

Someone that knows what he's talking about:

James Pethokoukis is the Money & Politics columnist-blogger for the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. Pethokoukis has written for many publications including USNews & World Report, The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, USA Today, and Investor's Business Daily. Pethokoukis is also an official CNBC contributor. In addition, he has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, The McLaughlin Group, CNN, and Nightly Business Report on PBS. A graduate of Northwestern University and the Medill School of Journalism, Pethokoukis is a 2002 Jeopardy! champion.

 

[jtpr312]

there's no denying that we've gone from staggering job losses to job gains. you might not be happy or satisfied with the state things are in now but to pretend they aren't better than they were four years ago is an exercise in self delusion.

Here's the thing though. When you lose 100 jobs in june, and then gain 10 jobs in july, 10 in aug and 10 in sept, you have still not "gained" any jobs. You're still 70 jobs in the hole so to speak and that's what these statistics are showing.

 

[jtpr312]

More fake math. The number is dropping because they don't count those people that have exhausted their UI benefits,

The survey doesn't even ask about benefits. Unemployed means did not work but actively looking for work. That's about it. Benefits are irrelevent to the calculations.

nor do they count those that went from full time to part time because they couldn't find another full time job.

I'm sorry, are you seriously saying that someone who has a job should be considered unemployed? What bizzarre definition is that?

The govt doesn't count people who have left the UI rolls in their statistics, nor do they count those that have been out of work so long they have quit looking for work. As for people who went from full time to part time because there are no full time jobs available for them, they fall under the classification of underemployed. Now as for what kind of bizzarre definition, how about this? If you had a family and you worked 40hrs a week, lost your job and could not find another 40hr a week job, but had to settle for the jobs that were out there, like a 20hr a week job, you and your family may just consider you unemployed.

 

[alan1]

Reality? I'm sorry, what is this absolute, unquestionable, God-given definition of unemployed? Everything is by definition.

I'm pretty sure god has nothing to do with it. Must be the atheist in me.

 

[depotoo]

yet at the end of October 143,384,000 were employed. Today's release for Nov.?
143,262,000. A loss of 122,000 jobs from Oct. to Nov. Yeah, just great news, isn't it?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
..................................................... Oct. Nov. Loss
Employed... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,384,000 143,262,000 -122,000

Yep, the household survey conducted by census showed a job loss of 122,000 and the establishment survey showed an increase of 146,000. They move in opposite directions pretty often. Since you apparently didn't know this, I suggest you go back to BLS (which I applaud you for going to instead of just repeating the news articles) and read the Technical Note which explains the differences.

my whole point is jobs were lost, not gained as people are claiming. Also to note what is included in the household survey versus the establishment survey, without getting into those that have dropped completely off the rolls per BLS (which is a whole different ballgame showing many more unemployed) -
Differences in employment estimates. The numerous
conceptual and methodological differences between the
household and establishment surveys result in important
distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the
surveys. Among these are:
 The household survey includes agricultural
workers, self-employed workers whose businesses
are unicorporated, unpaid family workers, and
private household workers among the employed.
These groups are excluded from the establishment
survey.
 The household survey includes people on unpaid
leave among the employed. The establishment
survey does not.
 The household survey is limited to workers 16
years of age and older. The establishment survey is
not limited by age.
 The household survey has no duplication of
individuals, because individuals are counted only
once, even if they hold more than one job. In the
establishment survey, employees working at more
than one job and thus appearing on more than one
payroll are counted separately for each appearance.

Total overall, the employment situation has not improved any under this President, in my opinion studying the numbers.

 

[pinqy]

More fake math. The number is dropping because they don't count those people that have exhausted their UI benefits,

The survey doesn't even ask about benefits. Unemployed means did not work but actively looking for work. That's about it. Benefits are irrelevent to the calculations.

nor do they count those that went from full time to part time because they couldn't find another full time job.

I'm sorry, are you seriously saying that someone who has a job should be considered unemployed? What bizzarre definition is that?

The govt doesn't count people who have left the UI rolls in their statistics,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Ui benefits have nothing to do with the UE rate. Employment Situation Technical Note:

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Perhaps you should do some research so you don't sound like an idiot.

nor do they count those that have been out of work so long they have quit looking for work.

No one who is not trying to work is classified as Unemployed. Why would you?

As for people who went from full time to part time because there are no full time jobs available for them, they fall under the classification of underemployed.

There's no official definition of "underemployed." There is "Part Time for Economic Reasons, which is people who want to and are available to work full time but are working part time either due to slow business or because they can't find full time work. Those who can't find full time are the minority of Part Time for Economic reasons...most usually work full time but have had their hours cut.

Now as for what kind of bizzarre definition, how about this? If you had a family and you worked 40hrs a week, lost your job and could not find another 40hr a week job, but had to settle for the jobs that were out there, like a 20hr a week job, you and your family may just consider you unemployed.

Not in any reality I know. I'd have a job...employed. And your "definition" is too subjective to be useful. We would have 2 people working identical jobs with identical hours and you'd call one employed (because that's what she/he wanted to work) and one unemployed (because s/he wanted full time)
If you had the first clue about statistics you'd know that that's way to subjective to measure with any accuracy at all.

 

[pinqy]

yet at the end of October 143,384,000 were employed. Today's release for Nov.?
143,262,000. A loss of 122,000 jobs from Oct. to Nov. Yeah, just great news, isn't it?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
..................................................... Oct. Nov. Loss
Employed... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,384,000 143,262,000 -122,000

Yep, the household survey conducted by census showed a job loss of 122,000 and the establishment survey showed an increase of 146,000. They move in opposite directions pretty often. Since you apparently didn't know this, I suggest you go back to BLS (which I applaud you for going to instead of just repeating the news articles) and read the Technical Note which explains the differences.

my whole point is jobs were lost, not gained as people are claiming. Also to note what is included in the household survey versus the establishment survey, without getting into those that have dropped completely off the rolls per BLS (which is a whole different ballgame showing many more unemployed) -
Differences in employment estimates. The numerous
conceptual and methodological differences between the
household and establishment surveys result in important
distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the
surveys. Among these are:
 The household survey includes agricultural
workers, self-employed workers whose businesses
are unicorporated, unpaid family workers, and
private household workers among the employed.
These groups are excluded from the establishment
survey.
 The household survey includes people on unpaid
leave among the employed. The establishment
survey does not.
 The household survey is limited to workers 16
years of age and older. The establishment survey is
not limited by age.
 The household survey has no duplication of
individuals, because individuals are counted only
once, even if they hold more than one job. In the
establishment survey, employees working at more
than one job and thus appearing on more than one
payroll are counted separately for each appearance.

Total overall, the employment situation has not improved any under this President, in my opinion studying the numbers.

The question is accuracy. The Household Survey is a survey of about 60,000 households. The Establishment survey is of 486,000 worksites. Which do you think is more accurate?

The -122,000 is +/- 491,000
The +146,000 is +/- 90,892
So the Household Employment change is NOT statistically significant, the Establishment survey change is.

So, yes the Establishment survey is less inclusive and does double count some, but it is far more accurate and much less volatile.

 

[depotoo]

So, let's go with the establishment numbers, since some deem them more accurate -
..............Non-Seasonally adjusted..................Seasonally Adjusted
Jan 2001 130,018,000...................................132,129,000
Dec 2008 136,119,000....................................135,489,000
Nov 2012 135,069,000....................................133,852,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
see anything still wrong with this picture?
According to the census numbers the population has grown approximately 8-10 million since 2008.

 

[pinqy]

So, let's go with the establishment numbers, since some deem them more accurate -

Which are demonstrably and undisputabley more accurate.

..............Non-Seasonally adjusted..................Seasonally Adjusted
Jan 2001 130,018,000...................................132,129,000
Dec 2008 136,119,000....................................135,489,000
Nov 2012 135,069,000....................................133,852,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
see anything still wrong with this picture?

Yes. You're suddenly switching time frames. You were talking about the October to November change claiming there was really a job loss. Oldfart and I pointed out you were using the less accurate data, and now you're now longer talking about October to November 2012, now you want to talk about Jan 2001 to Nov 2012. Why would that be?
No, I don't see anything wrong with the picture. The numbers are pretty bad, but there's nothing wrong with them.

According to the census numbers the population has grown approximately 8-10 million since 2008.

Which Population are you using? Labor Force data uses the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population. Since November 2008 to November 2012, that's gone up 9.3 million.

What's your point? That job growth hasn't kept up with population? Duh.

 

[boedicca]

What would unemployment be if the Labor Force Participation Rate were what it was four years ago?

Answer: over 10%, even when adjusted for demographics (baby boomer retirement)

 

[depotoo]

So, let's go with the establishment numbers, since some deem them more accurate -

Which are demonstrably and undisputabley more accurate.

..............Non-Seasonally adjusted..................Seasonally Adjusted
Jan 2001 130,018,000...................................132,129,000
Dec 2008 136,119,000....................................135,489,000
Nov 2012 135,069,000....................................133,852,000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
see anything still wrong with this picture?

Yes. You're suddenly switching time frames. You were talking about the October to November change claiming there was really a job loss. Oldfart and I pointed out you were using the less accurate data, and now you're now longer talking about October to November 2012, now you want to talk about Jan 2001 to Nov 2012. Why would that be?
No, I don't see anything wrong with the picture. The numbers are pretty bad, but there's nothing wrong with them.

According to the census numbers the population has grown approximately 8-10 million since 2008.

Which Population are you using? Labor Force data uses the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population. Since November 2008 to November 2012, that's gone up 9.3 million.

What's your point? That job growth hasn't kept up with population? Duh.

So, what's your beef? The fact I continue to show that jobs are not on the rise as claimed here, or the fact I used both establishment and household data to show that?
It has been claimed jobs are on the rise, yet jobs are not according to all the numbers I have posted.
People want to move the goal posts, I fulfilled those wishes.

 

[elvis]

So, let's go with the establishment numbers, since some deem them more accurate -

Which are demonstrably and undisputabley more accurate.



Yes. You're suddenly switching time frames. You were talking about the October to November change claiming there was really a job loss. Oldfart and I pointed out you were using the less accurate data, and now you're now longer talking about October to November 2012, now you want to talk about Jan 2001 to Nov 2012. Why would that be?
No, I don't see anything wrong with the picture. The numbers are pretty bad, but there's nothing wrong with them.

According to the census numbers the population has grown approximately 8-10 million since 2008.

Which Population are you using? Labor Force data uses the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population. Since November 2008 to November 2012, that's gone up 9.3 million.

What's your point? That job growth hasn't kept up with population? Duh.

So, what's your beef? The fact I continue to show that jobs are not on the rise as claimed here, or the fact I used both establishment and household data to show that?
It has been claimed jobs are on the rise, yet jobs are not according to all the numbers I have posted.
People want to move the goal posts, I fulfilled those wishes.

This thread was started by a hack troll. A thread like this attracts other hack trolls.

 

[pinqy]

What would unemployment be if the Labor Force Participation Rate were what it was four years ago?

Answer: over 10%, even when adjusted for demographics (baby boomer retirement)

That's just saying the percent of people looking for work would be higher if more people were looking for work.

Using the same math, what would the US rate be if the participation rate was the same as 50 years ago?

Answer: 0,2% So which reference year should be chosen and why?

 

[Amelia]

What would unemployment be if the Labor Force Participation Rate were what it was four years ago?

Answer: over 10%, even when adjusted for demographics (baby boomer retirement)

That's just saying the percent of people looking for work would be higher if more people were looking for work.

Using the same math, what would the US rate be if the participation rate was the same as 50 years ago?

Answer: 0,2% So which reference year should be chosen and why?

Asking what the numbers would be if people were still being counted who were in the job market four years ago but who have now given up hope, is vastly different from the absurd comparison date you have chosen.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL

Bragging about 7.7% unemployment 4 years into Obamanomics

LOL

KoolAid snorters

But, but you said the rates would be going back up after the election. The world is crumbling.

but of course, the real bragging is that we have not let the repubs make it worse by opposing EVERYTHING that has been proposed to turn the unemployment numbers around much sooner.