Unemployment rate to 8.8%

[editec]

the NUMBER of jobs is only part of the story.

What do the median salaries look like?

How about the income inequity?

Is it getting better or worse?

A single swallow does not a summer make, folks.

 

[sparky]

what about a fat swallow?

Reuters is reporting that TEPCO, the Tokyo Electric Power Company which owns the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, is offering workers exorbitant amounts of money in a bid to persuade them to help stabilize the reactors damaged in the March earthquake and tsunami. Some workers report being offered 200,000 yen ($2,500) a day, for what amounts to only an hour of work on the reactor.

TEPCO recruiting nuclear workers for up to $5,000 per day | The Raw Story

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the NUMBER of jobs is only part of the story.

What do the median salaries look like?

How about the income inequity?

Is it getting better or worse?

A single swallow does not a summer make, folks.

Well when the numbers of Food stamps users are at an all time high you do the math.

 

[editec]

the NUMBER of jobs is only part of the story.

What do the median salaries look like?

How about the income inequity?

Is it getting better or worse?

A single swallow does not a summer make, folks.

Well when the numbers of Food stamps users are at an all time high you do the math.

ANOTHER useful metric, that.

But you know as useful and informative as all our econo-metrics are (and they are uselful tools) none of them individually, and all of them collectively do NOT give us the real picture that is our economy.

No more than a well documented history book can REALLY inform us what the past was like.

At best every econometric gives us but a small fragment of the entire picture.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the NUMBER of jobs is only part of the story.

What do the median salaries look like?

How about the income inequity?

Is it getting better or worse?

A single swallow does not a summer make, folks.

Well when the numbers of Food stamps users are at an all time high you do the math.

ANOTHER useful metric, that.

But you know as useful and informative as all our econo-metrics are (and they are uselful tools) none of them individually, and all of them collectively do NOT give us the real picture that is our economy.

No more than a well documented history book can REALLY inform us what the past was like.

At best every econometric gives us but a small fragment of the entire picture.

What happen to those jumping for joy about some false information about the unemployment numbers? Did I shut this thread down?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the NUMBER of jobs is only part of the story.

What do the median salaries look like?

How about the income inequity?

Is it getting better or worse?

A single swallow does not a summer make, folks.

Well when the numbers of Food stamps users are at an all time high you do the math.

ANOTHER useful metric, that.

But you know as useful and informative as all our econo-metrics are (and they are uselful tools) none of them individually, and all of them collectively do NOT give us the real picture that is our economy.

No more than a well documented history book can REALLY inform us what the past was like.

At best every econometric gives us but a small fragment of the entire picture.

To answer your post I gave two good indicators of the true unemployment numbers.But I also forgot to add one thing New private sectors jobs? How are the jobs in the Private sector?


Which was the only good news I could see. However the rise in new jobs in the private sector was mostly in the service end. which is not a good thing because if people don't have the money they cannot use the service, and those jobs will start to decline.

Particularly significant in the government jobs numbers was the strength shown in most sectors. The service sector created 152,000 jobs with the growth strongest in transportation and warehousing (+22,000), employment services, including temp, (+28,600), health (+36,200), and leisure and hospitality, particularly in food service (+21,000).

The only true bright spot was in the construction industry.

The construction industry, which was hit hard by the recession, added 33,000 jobs. It lead the goods-producing sector, to an overall increase of 70,000 jobs. Manufacturing added 33,000.

Private Sector Job Growth Fastest in Months as Unemployment Rate Ticks Down - ERE.net

Which in my opinion is the best indicator of a healthy economy. 33,000 new jobs is not that great but it's better than 32,999.

 

[pinqy]

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

I NEVER SAID A LOWER PARTICIPATION RATE MEANT AN ABSOLUTE LOWER QUANTITY OF THE LABOR FORCE, you nattering nabob of nicompoopdom.

Sure looks like that's what you're saying.

The relevant point is: the only reason unemployment has declined by 1% is because 1.7M people have given up looking for work. If they hadn't given up, unemployment would be 9.8%.

Please demonstrate that's the ONLY reason rather than fewer 16 year olds entering the labor force, or more people taking early retirement, or more secondary earners losing or quitting their part time jobs and deciding it's economically better to stay at home and look after the kids than get a low paying part time job.

There are many other reasons other than discouragement. There are less than 1 million discouraged workers currently, they can't possibly make up all the increase in NiLF.

And note that the Labor Force has INCREASED the last two months. Not as much or about the same as population growth, so that hasn't affected the rate.

Take 4th grade math. A percentage decreases if you lower the numerator or raise the denominator. You're talking as if the only reason for the decrease is a lowering of the numerator.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

I NEVER SAID A LOWER PARTICIPATION RATE MEANT AN ABSOLUTE LOWER QUANTITY OF THE LABOR FORCE, you nattering nabob of nicompoopdom.

Sure looks like that's what you're saying.

The relevant point is: the only reason unemployment has declined by 1% is because 1.7M people have given up looking for work. If they hadn't given up, unemployment would be 9.8%.

Please demonstrate that's the ONLY reason rather than fewer 16 year olds entering the labor force, or more people taking early retirement, or more secondary earners losing or quitting their part time jobs and deciding it's economically better to stay at home and look after the kids than get a low paying part time job.

There are many other reasons other than discouragement. There are less than 1 million discouraged workers currently, they can't possibly make up all the increase in NiLF.

And note that the Labor Force has INCREASED the last two months. Not as much or about the same as population growth, so that hasn't affected the rate.

Take 4th grade math. A percentage decreases if you lower the numerator or raise the denominator. You're talking as if the only reason for the decrease is a lowering of the numerator.

One of those I have been waiting to return for their beat down

However, I do not see anyone discussing the raise in food stamp users.

It will detract from their argument as to torpedo it...

Let's proceed. I posted in this thread the rise in food stamp usage. Yes here it is

42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000


An additional 4.3 million unemployed workers received benefits under the extended programs during the week ending Feb. 19, a drop of about 200,000 from the previous week. Some of those recipients may have found jobs, while many likely exhausted their benefits. Altogether, 8.8 million people were on the benefit rolls that week.
Claims for unemployment benefits rise, stay under 400,000 - USATODAY.com

Now I must ask what idiot says the unemployment percentage numbers are going down?

 

[pinqy]

One of those I have been waiting to return for their beat down

Oh? Like when you beat me down with your claim that the UE rate comes from UI claims? Oh, no, you were wrong. Or maybe it was your belief that there's no difference between an opinion poll and a sample survey. No, that was just ignorance of statistical methodology. hmmm when have you shown any knowledge of stats or economics? I must have missed it.

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Neither of those have anything to do with the UE rate. Initial claims are the number of people claiming UI benefits for that week. That's a gross number. Tells us nothing about how many people were hired, or even about all the other people who left their job.

So let's look at the Feb to March changes. I'll use the not seasonally adjusted numbers (which gives a higher UE rate for that period) so all data will be comparable.

The Current Population survey covers the week that contains the 12th, so we're looking at Feb 6-12 versus March 6-12.

For the week of Feb 6-12, there were 424,400 new claims. There were total 4,570,539 people collecting state UI benefits, and 4,665,630 collecting Federal benefits so 9,236,169 people collecting UI benefits.

Looking at total Unemployment, there were 14,542,000 Unemployed, 138,093,000 Employed for a Labor Force of 152,635,000 and a UE rate of 14,542,000/152,635,000 = 9.5%

So in the next few weeks, there were initial UI claims of 380,985; 353,961; 409,683 and 371,721. But obviously some people came off of unemployment as well, either by finding a job or running out of benefits. So for the week ending March 12th, there were 4,262,025 people receiving state benefits and 4,508,418 receiving Fed benefits for a total of 8,770,443. A drop of 465,726 people on unemployment. No, there is no way of telling why those people no longer received UI benefits, and undoubtedly many ran out.

Switcing to total unemployment, there were 14,060,000 unemployed (-482,000) and 138,962,000 employed (+869,000) for a total labor force of 153,022,000 and a UE rate of 14,060,000/153,022,000 = 9.2%

So that's how the UE rate went down...while a few million lost their jobs, more were hired (or started their own business).

 

[boedicca]

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

I NEVER SAID A LOWER PARTICIPATION RATE MEANT AN ABSOLUTE LOWER QUANTITY OF THE LABOR FORCE, you nattering nabob of nicompoopdom.

Sure looks like that's what you're saying.

The relevant point is: the only reason unemployment has declined by 1% is because 1.7M people have given up looking for work. If they hadn't given up, unemployment would be 9.8%.

Please demonstrate that's the ONLY reason rather than fewer 16 year olds entering the labor force, or more people taking early retirement, or more secondary earners losing or quitting their part time jobs and deciding it's economically better to stay at home and look after the kids than get a low paying part time job.

There are many other reasons other than discouragement. There are less than 1 million discouraged workers currently, they can't possibly make up all the increase in NiLF.

And note that the Labor Force has INCREASED the last two months. Not as much or about the same as population growth, so that hasn't affected the rate.

Take 4th grade math. A percentage decreases if you lower the numerator or raise the denominator. You're talking as if the only reason for the decrease is a lowering of the numerator.

Please, take a remedial math class. I provided all of the calculations which show that the only reason the unemployment rate has decreased is because more people are no longer being counted as part of the labor force than the ones who have been hired for net new jobs during the past year.

 

[boedicca]

One of those I have been waiting to return for their beat down

Oh? Like when you beat me down with your claim that the UE rate comes from UI claims? Oh, no, you were wrong. Or maybe it was your belief that there's no difference between an opinion poll and a sample survey. No, that was just ignorance of statistical methodology. hmmm when have you shown any knowledge of stats or economics? I must have missed it.

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Neither of those have anything to do with the UE rate. Initial claims are the number of people claiming UI benefits for that week. That's a gross number. Tells us nothing about how many people were hired, or even about all the other people who left their job.

So let's look at the Feb to March changes. I'll use the not seasonally adjusted numbers (which gives a higher UE rate for that period) so all data will be comparable.

The Current Population survey covers the week that contains the 12th, so we're looking at Feb 6-12 versus March 6-12.

For the week of Feb 6-12, there were 424,400 new claims. There were total 4,570,539 people collecting state UI benefits, and 4,665,630 collecting Federal benefits so 9,236,169 people collecting UI benefits.

Looking at total Unemployment, there were 14,542,000 Unemployed, 138,093,000 Employed for a Labor Force of 152,635,000 and a UE rate of 14,542,000/152,635,000 = 9.5%

So in the next few weeks, there were initial UI claims of 380,985; 353,961; 409,683 and 371,721. But obviously some people came off of unemployment as well, either by finding a job or running out of benefits. So for the week ending March 12th, there were 4,262,025 people receiving state benefits and 4,508,418 receiving Fed benefits for a total of 8,770,443. A drop of 465,726 people on unemployment. No, there is no way of telling why those people no longer received UI benefits, and undoubtedly many ran out.

Switcing to total unemployment, there were 14,060,000 unemployed (-482,000) and 138,962,000 employed (+869,000) for a total labor force of 153,022,000 and a UE rate of 14,060,000/153,022,000 = 9.2%

So that's how the UE rate went down...while a few million lost their jobs, more were hired (or started their own business).

This is specious reasoning.

The simple truth is that the labor force participation rate decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% over the past year. With 239M in the civilian population, this means that 1.67M less people are no longer counted by the Feds as being part of the labor force.

Learn to read the tables:

Employment Situation Summary

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One of those I have been waiting to return for their beat down

Oh? Like when you beat me down with your claim that the UE rate comes from UI claims? Oh, no, you were wrong. Or maybe it was your belief that there's no difference between an opinion poll and a sample survey. No, that was just ignorance of statistical methodology. hmmm when have you shown any knowledge of stats or economics? I must have missed it.

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Neither of those have anything to do with the UE rate. Initial claims are the number of people claiming UI benefits for that week. That's a gross number. Tells us nothing about how many people were hired, or even about all the other people who left their job.

So let's look at the Feb to March changes. I'll use the not seasonally adjusted numbers (which gives a higher UE rate for that period) so all data will be comparable.

The Current Population survey covers the week that contains the 12th, so we're looking at Feb 6-12 versus March 6-12.

For the week of Feb 6-12, there were 424,400 new claims. There were total 4,570,539 people collecting state UI benefits, and 4,665,630 collecting Federal benefits so 9,236,169 people collecting UI benefits.

Looking at total Unemployment, there were 14,542,000 Unemployed, 138,093,000 Employed for a Labor Force of 152,635,000 and a UE rate of 14,542,000/152,635,000 = 9.5%

So in the next few weeks, there were initial UI claims of 380,985; 353,961; 409,683 and 371,721. But obviously some people came off of unemployment as well, either by finding a job or running out of benefits. So for the week ending March 12th, there were 4,262,025 people receiving state benefits and 4,508,418 receiving Fed benefits for a total of 8,770,443. A drop of 465,726 people on unemployment. No, there is no way of telling why those people no longer received UI benefits, and undoubtedly many ran out.

Switcing to total unemployment, there were 14,060,000 unemployed (-482,000) and 138,962,000 employed (+869,000) for a total labor force of 153,022,000 and a UE rate of 14,060,000/153,022,000 = 9.2%

So that's how the UE rate went down...while a few million lost their jobs, more were hired (or started their own business).

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Neither of those have anything to do with the UE rate. Initial claims are the number of people claiming UI benefits for that week. That's a gross number. Tells us nothing about how many people were hired, or even about all the other people who left their job.

Are yoiu really that stupid? It has everything to do with it. People lose their job they go on unemployment and to make up the short fall off unemployment some get food stamps. The fact is the unemployed is higher than the government wants you to believe. But any sill will agree if it makes obama look good.

 

[william the wie]

I think that last part was a cheap shot. Obama is looking like a lying pos simply because he is using the same stats he inherited. If he knew diddly-squat about economics he would not have hired Geithner nor have reappointed Bernancke then he would have taken a jab at his predecessor by shifting to more pessimistic definition of economic stats. UE is not only understated in bad times it is overstated in good times with people holding out $100K plus bennies and expense accounts when they are lucky to get $40K. By restatement of UE he would be looking much better right now compared to when he took office.

 

[editec]

One of those I have been waiting to return for their beat down

Oh? Like when you beat me down with your claim that the UE rate comes from UI claims? Oh, no, you were wrong. Or maybe it was your belief that there's no difference between an opinion poll and a sample survey. No, that was just ignorance of statistical methodology. hmmm when have you shown any knowledge of stats or economics? I must have missed it.

We have a rise in food stamp receivers and a rise in people receiving unemployment checks

Neither of those have anything to do with the UE rate. Initial claims are the number of people claiming UI benefits for that week. That's a gross number. Tells us nothing about how many people were hired, or even about all the other people who left their job.

So let's look at the Feb to March changes. I'll use the not seasonally adjusted numbers (which gives a higher UE rate for that period) so all data will be comparable.

The Current Population survey covers the week that contains the 12th, so we're looking at Feb 6-12 versus March 6-12.

For the week of Feb 6-12, there were 424,400 new claims. There were total 4,570,539 people collecting state UI benefits, and 4,665,630 collecting Federal benefits so 9,236,169 people collecting UI benefits.

Looking at total Unemployment, there were 14,542,000 Unemployed, 138,093,000 Employed for a Labor Force of 152,635,000 and a UE rate of 14,542,000/152,635,000 = 9.5%

So in the next few weeks, there were initial UI claims of 380,985; 353,961; 409,683 and 371,721. But obviously some people came off of unemployment as well, either by finding a job or running out of benefits. So for the week ending March 12th, there were 4,262,025 people receiving state benefits and 4,508,418 receiving Fed benefits for a total of 8,770,443. A drop of 465,726 people on unemployment. No, there is no way of telling why those people no longer received UI benefits, and undoubtedly many ran out.

Switcing to total unemployment, there were 14,060,000 unemployed (-482,000) and 138,962,000 employed (+869,000) for a total labor force of 153,022,000 and a UE rate of 14,060,000/153,022,000 = 9.2%

So that's how the UE rate went down...while a few million lost their jobs, more were hired (or started their own business).

This is specious reasoning.

The simple truth is that the labor force participation rate decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% over the past year. With 239M in the civilian population, this means that 1.67M less people are no longer counted by the Feds as being part of the labor force.

Learn to read the tables:

Employment Situation Summary

One would HOPE that the methodology that the BLS uses to count employment would eliminate that problem.

Remember that the emplyment numbers are ALL BASED on surveys.

If that is true then your objection, Boed, is invalid.

But the POINT you make is, I think, valid.

The problem, as I see it, is that we depend on a SPECIOUS system to count employment and unemployment.

Why?

Seriously...I think its because the government just doesn't really want to know the REAL story.

I'll leave it to you to imagine why that might be.

 

[boedicca]

You are wrong, but you do get 10 Points For Consistency.

The BLS provides the stats that an intelligent person can use to connect the dots.

Labor Force participation declines are not a good economic indicator. People have given up looking for jobs because the economy is not creating enough of them.

That, in a nutshell, is the effect of Obamanomics Big Government Borrow from the Future to pay for Current Consumption policies (on top of decades of equally misguided Big Government agendas enacted by both parties).

 

[pinqy]

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

The simple truth is that the labor force participation rate decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% over the past year. With 239M in the civilian population, this means that 1.67M less people are no longer counted by the Feds as being part of the labor force.

Learn to read the tables:

Employment Situation Summary

Learn the tables yourself. Here's what you're claiming:
March 2011, Population = 239,000,000 , Labor Force = 153,406,000 giving LF participation of 153,406,000/239,000,000 = 64.2% Good, fine, correct.

But then you go on to say that March 2010 LF participation was 64.9% (true) so that 0.649*239,000,000 = 155,111,000 and 155,111,000 - 153,406,000 = 1,705,000 which is a loss of 1.7 million. But note that you're using a population of 239,000,000 for March 2010. This is incorrect.

The reality is March 2010, Population = 237,159,000 (NOT 239 million) and the Labor Force was 153,895,000 (NOT 153,406,000). 153,895,000/237,159,000 = 64.9% The population grew, but not everyone entered the Labor Force, and many left, so in March 2011 it became Population = 239,000,000 , Labor Force = 153,406,000 giving LF participation of 153,406,000/239,000,000 = 64.2%

One more time: Population grew from 237,159,000 to 239,000,000 and LF went down from 153,895,000 to 153,406,000 a loss of 489,000, NOT 1.7 million.

So yes, the Labor Force has shrunk in the last year, but the change in the LF participation is as much due to people not entering the Labor Force as it is loss of the Labor Force.

Now, since Jan 2011, things have gotten better. Population increased by 296,000 and the Labor Force increased by 220,000, keeping the LF participation rate flat (going out another decimal place it went from 64.17 to 64.19). Employment has increased by 541,000 and Unemployment has decreased by 231,000. Not in the Labor Force has gone up by 76,000 but that's clearly not a case of shrinking labor force, but simply people not entering the labor force when they enter the population.

 

[boedicca]

239M people are in the civilian population.

A .7% decrease in the labor force participation rate is approx. 1.7M less in the workforce.

With a 64.2% participation rate, the labor force is approx. 153M.

A 1% increase in the employment rate means 1.5M more people employed.

1.7M > 1.5M

More people have dropped out of the labor force in the past year than are getting net new jobs.

The simple truth is that the labor force participation rate decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% over the past year. With 239M in the civilian population, this means that 1.67M less people are no longer counted by the Feds as being part of the labor force.

Learn to read the tables:

Employment Situation Summary

Learn the tables yourself. Here's what you're claiming:
March 2011, Population = 239,000,000 , Labor Force = 153,406,000 giving LF participation of 153,406,000/239,000,000 = 64.2% Good, fine, correct.

But then you go on to say that March 2010 LF participation was 64.9% (true) so that 0.649*239,000,000 = 155,111,000 and 155,111,000 - 153,406,000 = 1,705,000 which is a loss of 1.7 million. But note that you're using a population of 239,000,000 for March 2010. This is incorrect.

The reality is March 2010, Population = 237,159,000 (NOT 239 million) and the Labor Force was 153,895,000 (NOT 153,406,000). 153,895,000/237,159,000 = 64.9% The population grew, but not everyone entered the Labor Force, and many left, so in March 2011 it became Population = 239,000,000 , Labor Force = 153,406,000 giving LF participation of 153,406,000/239,000,000 = 64.2%

One more time: Population grew from 237,159,000 to 239,000,000 and LF went down from 153,895,000 to 153,406,000 a loss of 489,000, NOT 1.7 million.

So yes, the Labor Force has shrunk in the last year, but the change in the LF participation is as much due to people not entering the Labor Force as it is loss of the Labor Force.

Now, since Jan 2011, things have gotten better. Population increased by 296,000 and the Labor Force increased by 220,000, keeping the LF participation rate flat (going out another decimal place it went from 64.17 to 64.19). Employment has increased by 541,000 and Unemployment has decreased by 231,000. Not in the Labor Force has gone up by 76,000 but that's clearly not a case of shrinking labor force, but simply people not entering the labor force when they enter the population.

I explained my methodology much earlier in the thread.

If you can't grok it, it's not my problem.

Using your logic, as long as we eek out one more employed person than a year ago, the participation rate, resulting in millions of people no longer being in the workforce, is progress.

For those people who have give up looking, it's devastating. Long term unemployment DESTROYS PEOPLE'S LIVES.

But I doubt that you Compassionate Liberals care.

 

[pinqy]

I explained my methodology much earlier in the thread.

I understand it, you're just wrong by using the same population as a denominator. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

Using your logic, as long as we eek out one more employed person than a year ago, the participation rate, resulting in millions of people no longer being in the workforce, is progress.

I said nothing of the sort. You're still getting cause and effect backwards. the LF participaion rate is a function of the Labor Force and the Population. The participation rate doesn't change, causing a loss...but rather a loss or gain causes a change in the participation rate.

If you can't do simple fractions that's not my problem either.

But I doubt that you Compassionate Liberals care.

I was making the same arguements against Liberals when Bush was President.

 

[pinqy]

Look, IF the Labor Force had increased from 153,895,000 to 155,111,000 (1.2 million), then the LF participation rate would have stayed the same. But you can't consider the 1.2 million a loss to the labor force or say that that's 1.2 million more that should be counted as unemployed....that's just bad methodology. The loss to the labor force was only half a million. It's not good that the Labor Force has gone down (though it's going back up finally), but it's not as bad as you're painting it.

It's ridiculous that you think because I'm saying things aren't as bad as you're claiming that I''m saying things are all peachy keen. You're claiming the patient lost an arm, and I'm saying he only lost a finger, not that he's in perfect health.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I explained my methodology much earlier in the thread.

I understand it, you're just wrong by using the same population as a denominator. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

Using your logic, as long as we eek out one more employed person than a year ago, the participation rate, resulting in millions of people no longer being in the workforce, is progress.

I said nothing of the sort. You're still getting cause and effect backwards. the LF participaion rate is a function of the Labor Force and the Population. The participation rate doesn't change, causing a loss...but rather a loss or gain causes a change in the participation rate.

If you can't do simple fractions that's not my problem either.

But I doubt that you Compassionate Liberals care.

I was making the same arguements against Liberals when Bush was President.

Care to try again faily? If unemployment numbers are going down, why are the recievers of unemployment checks going up?