More economic good news: Economy adds 223,000 jobs, unemployment drops to 5.3%

[JimH52]

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

The recovering alcoholic started two wars and then gave a tax break to the wealthy. It was a first for the United States.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of Obama vs. Reagan.

Hold that thought for President Hillary Clinton......

 

[pinqy]

I did the math m

What are you talking about? You know you can't compare the two different surveys. The Current Employment Statistics show a gain of 223,000 jobs and the Current Population Survey shows a loss of 56,000 employed. You can't compare the two.

I'm using actual data from the BLS data look up tables for my more detailed analysis - not the spin figures from the PR department.

I also used Table A-1, the Employment Situation Summary which is an exhibit to the press release.

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

 

[Faun]

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

CRA did not cause the meltdown, so Clinton didn't do it.

Pelosi was a member of the minority party in the House when most of the toxic subprime loans were written, so she didn't do it.

Reid was a member of the minority party in the Senate and didn't filibuster any GSE reform bills, so he didn't do it either.

Republicans, controlling the House for 12 years, the Senate for 10.5 of those 12 years, and Bush caused the Great Recession.

 

[boedicca]

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

CRA did not cause the meltdown, so Clinton didn't do it.

Pelosi was a member of the minority party in the House when most of the toxic subprime loans were written, so she didn't do it.

Reid was a member of the minority party in the Senate and didn't filibuster any GSE reform bills, so he didn't do it either.

Republicans, controlling the House for 12 years, the Senate for 10.5 of those 12 years, and Bush caused the Great Recession.

You are historically ignorant. Here's an antidote:

Reckless Endangerment How Outsized Ambition Greed and Corruption Created the Worst Financial Crisis of Our Time Gretchen Morgenson Joshua Rosner 9781250008794 Amazon.com Books

 

[boedicca]

I did the math m

I'm using actual data from the BLS data look up tables for my more detailed analysis - not the spin figures from the PR department.

I also used Table A-1, the Employment Situation Summary which is an exhibit to the press release.

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

I'm comparing that to the headline figure the OP is using, specious though his figure is.

 

[boedicca]

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

The recovering alcoholic started two wars and then gave a tax break to the wealthy. It was a first for the United States.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of Obama vs. Reagan.

Hold that thought for President Hillary Clinton......

Thank you for the suggestion, but I'll pass.

 

[Faun]

1/2001 - 1/2009 : 1.3 million jobs added; CNP grew by almost 21 million; 6.1%

Clinton .... 114.9%
Reagan ..... 97.5%
Carter ....... 90.6%
Obama ..... 49.4%
Bush41 ..... 31.7%
Bush43 ........ 6.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bush is Not Reagan. Get over it.

Reagan didn't hand Obama the Great Recession which lowered that ratio, Bush did.

Clinton-Pelosi-Reid handed Obama the Great Recession. But keep spinning.

CRA did not cause the meltdown, so Clinton didn't do it.

Pelosi was a member of the minority party in the House when most of the toxic subprime loans were written, so she didn't do it.

Reid was a member of the minority party in the Senate and didn't filibuster any GSE reform bills, so he didn't do it either.

Republicans, controlling the House for 12 years, the Senate for 10.5 of those 12 years, and Bush caused the Great Recession.

You are historically ignorant. Here's an antidote:

Reckless Endangerment How Outsized Ambition Greed and Corruption Created the Worst Financial Crisis of Our Time Gretchen Morgenson Joshua Rosner 9781250008794 Amazon.com Books

Too funny. To show your idiotic claim that Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid cratered the economy ... you reference a book which doesn't implicate them.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Only stupid people think the Economy is improving. You know, Americans.

 

[pinqy]

I did the math m

So am I. The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Oh, and just trust me on the margins of error. The CPS error is not published...you have to do the math yourself, though they provide the parameters.

I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

I'm comparing that to the headline figure the OP is using, specious though his figure is.

Which is what I've been saying!!!! The 223,000 is a different survey, different definitions and cannot be compared. Geez...So you did NOT get all your numbers from Table A-1. Why did you say you did? The OP number of job is from Table B-1.

 

[rightwinger]

If that is the case....what do you call LOSING 700,000 jobs a month?

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

George W Bush added only one million jobs in eight years

If eight million jobs added is DISMAL, what would you call jobs growth under Republicans?

Bush isn't Reagan, moron.

No shit Moran

Reagan is dead. We are still feeling the effects of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

 

[Stephanie]

Only stupid people think the Economy is improving. You know, Americans.

well they didn't blink an eyelash over Obama getting LIE of year or Over the Gruber calling them ALL STUPID
that's why we are in BIG trouble. These elected ass Politicians realizes it and Doesn't care to tell us the truth anymore. they see CONTROL AND POWER for them is just around the corner.

 

[JimH52]

Something that happens in a Recession combined with a Government Manufactured Financial shock.

But we're supposed to be in the Obama Recovery now. The Recession ended in 2009.

Where are the jobs?

Something like 8 million jobs have been added since the end of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

The question is...what ever happened to all those "trickle down jobs" we were supposed to get from Reaganomics?

And the Civilian Population increased by 16M, so the ratio of jobs to population growth is only 50%.

That is DISMAL.

George W Bush added only one million jobs in eight years

If eight million jobs added is DISMAL, what would you call jobs growth under Republicans?

Bush isn't Reagan, moron.

No shit Moran

Reagan is dead. We are still feeling the effects of the Great Bush Recession of 2008

And now the GOP is saying...."GIVE US ANOTHER CHANCE."

As Boedicca said....."Thank you for the suggestion, but I'll pass."

 

[boedicca]

I did the math m
I did the math myself with source data from the BLS - see post #72.

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

I'm comparing that to the headline figure the OP is using, specious though his figure is.

Which is what I've been saying!!!! The 223,000 is a different survey, different definitions and cannot be compared. Geez...So you did NOT get all your numbers from Table A-1. Why did you say you did? The OP number of job is from Table B-1.

And it's BOGUS.

That is why I look at the more detailed data.

 

[JimH52]

Only stupid people think the Economy is improving. You know, Americans.

well they didn't blink an eyelash over Obama getting LIE of year or Over the Gruber calling them ALL STUPID
that's why we are in BIG trouble. These elected ass Politicians realizes it and Doesn't care to tell us the truth anymore. they see CONTROL AND POWER for them is just around the corner.

Anger pills might help....

 

[pinqy]

Yes, I know, but you didn't get the "number who found jobs" from Table A-1...you were using the "new jobs" number which is not comparable.

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

I'm comparing that to the headline figure the OP is using, specious though his figure is.

Which is what I've been saying!!!! The 223,000 is a different survey, different definitions and cannot be compared. Geez...So you did NOT get all your numbers from Table A-1. Why did you say you did? The OP number of job is from Table B-1.

And it's BOGUS.

That is why I look at the more detailed data.

What's bogus? Are you seriously trying to claim that the results of one survey are wrong based on the results of a smaller and less accurate survey that's measuring something completly different?

I'll repeat myself, and try to actually read it this time.
The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Is there anything there you did not understand? 2 different surveys, with different definitions and different margins of error. The negative change in employment for the CPS is NOT statistically significant. The positive change in non-farm payroll jobs is statistically significant.

 

[boedicca]

Wrong, silly wabbit.

The line items I used from Table A-1 are:

Civilian Non-Institutional Population
Civilian Labor Force
Participation Rate
Employed
Not in Labor Force

For Post #72 - I did used the Top Picks Data Tools for Employment.

It's useful to check the data for oneself instead of just gobbling up the PR Pablum.

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

I'm comparing that to the headline figure the OP is using, specious though his figure is.

Which is what I've been saying!!!! The 223,000 is a different survey, different definitions and cannot be compared. Geez...So you did NOT get all your numbers from Table A-1. Why did you say you did? The OP number of job is from Table B-1.

And it's BOGUS.

That is why I look at the more detailed data.

What's bogus? Are you seriously trying to claim that the results of one survey are wrong based on the results of a smaller and less accurate survey that's measuring something completly different?

I'll repeat myself, and try to actually read it this time.
The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Is there anything there you did not understand? 2 different surveys, with different definitions and different margins of error. The negative change in employment for the CPS is NOT statistically significant. The positive change in non-farm payroll jobs is statistically significant.

Here's what's bogus: The BLS press release pushes a jobs figure which is highly misleading when reviewed with the supporting tables.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Anger pills might help....

Reality pills might help.

 

[pinqy]

Then how did you get " that's nearly double the amount that found jobs. ?" Employment in the CPS went down. I'll remind you that we were discussing your statement: "432,000 people dropped out of the Labor Force - that's nearly double the amount that found jobs." So where are you getting "the amount that found jobs?" It ain't from Table A-11

I'm comparing that to the headline figure the OP is using, specious though his figure is.

Which is what I've been saying!!!! The 223,000 is a different survey, different definitions and cannot be compared. Geez...So you did NOT get all your numbers from Table A-1. Why did you say you did? The OP number of job is from Table B-1.

And it's BOGUS.

That is why I look at the more detailed data.

What's bogus? Are you seriously trying to claim that the results of one survey are wrong based on the results of a smaller and less accurate survey that's measuring something completly different?

I'll repeat myself, and try to actually read it this time.
The A tables are the Current Population Survey (CPS)...a survey of 60,000 households. That's the official Unemployment and Labor Force data.
The B tables are the Current Employment Statisics (CES)...a survey of 588,000 worksites.
The two surveys cover different periods of time, and use different definitions of employment. They will never ever match.

So by the CPS, during the week of May 10-16 there were 148,795,000 (+/-484,000) people age 16 and older who worked 1+ hours for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family enterprise and for the week of June 7-13 it was 148,739,000 (+/- 485,000). Change of -56,000 (+/- 397,000) Keep that margin of error in mind..the actual change was between -453,000 and +341,000 (95% confidence)

By the CES, for the Pay Period that included May 10-16, there were 141,619,000 (+/- 142,000) people on non-farm payrolls. For the pay period including June 7-13 there were 141,842,000 (+/- 142,000) for a change of +223,000 (+/-65,289) So the actual change for non-farm payrolls was between +158,000 and +288,000

Is there anything there you did not understand? 2 different surveys, with different definitions and different margins of error. The negative change in employment for the CPS is NOT statistically significant. The positive change in non-farm payroll jobs is statistically significant.

Here's what's bogus: The BLS press release pushes a jobs figure which is highly misleading when reviewed with the supporting tables.

No it's not! The A table are NOT supporting tables for the 223,000 new jobs! The B tables are.

 

[gipper]

Great news for the 4th of July

Employers added 223 000 jobs in June

Employers added 223,000 jobs in June as the labor market posted a third straight month of solid gains after a winter downturn.
The unemployment rate from 5.5% to 5.3%, the lowest since April 2008, the Labor Department

Businesses added 223,000,000 jobs, led by professional and business services, health care and retail. Employment was unchanged in the public sector.



Now, in preparation for the "Economy must fail" crowd....These were not "burger flipping jobs", they were not part time jobs and they were not government hiring

Feel free to start your diversions about the labor participation rate



.

Hey Leftnutter, David Stockman (hero of leftists who hate Reagan and his supply side economics) says the unemployment rate is REALLY 43%. What say you?

The Warren Buffett Economy Why Its Days Are Numbered Part 4 David Stockman s Contra Corner

 

[Faun]

Average unemployment rate after 77 months in office:

Reagan: 8.0%
Obama: 8.0%

How cool is that?