U.S. Adds 103,000 Jobs in December, Unemployment at 9.4%

[pinqy]

It does make sense in that the government stopped counting the very long term unemployed in 1994. It's not accurate to assume that everyone who is classified as not in the labor force wishes to be not in the labor force.

No, they didn't. The change you're referring to was for Discouraged workers. Since 1967 they've been counted as "Not in the Labor Force." Before then, they were allowed to be included as unemployed at the interviewers discretion.

From 1976 to 1993, Discouraged were included in alternative measures (the U-7) as those who were willing and able to work but weren't looking because they did not believe they would find work. In 1994 the definition was changed that they must have looked for work sometime in the previous 12 months. Note that lack of time frame doesn't just mean long term, but would also include (as an extreme example) a 17 year old slacker who lives with his parents and doesn't really want a job but claims as his excuse that he's too young/black/white/unskilled etc.

For the longer term people, that someone did look in the last year but has stopped is a good indicator that they really do want a job, while someone who hasn't even looked for work in 4 years is a little suspicious about how likely they really would take a job.

 

[rdean]

But the job growth fell short of expectations based on a strengthening economy. And the drop in unemployment was mainly because people stopped looking for work.

Through all of 2010, the nation added 1.1 million jobs, or an average of 94,000 jobs a month.

The health care and leisure and hospitality sectors showed the strongest job gains last month. Health care added about 36,000 jobs, while restaurants and hotels hired more than 29,000 new workers.

Retailers added 12,000 net new jobs, and manufacturers 10,000. The bleeding continued in construction, which cut 16,000 jobs.

Including those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work, and those who have given up looking for work, the underemployment rate was 16.7 percent last month. That's down from 17 percent in November.

103K New Jobs In Dec. Point To Steady Growth

Manufacturing Net seems to have the most consistant reporting.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

As long as the hiring numbers are positive, I am happy.


I have been seeing an increase in help wanteds.

And I dropped out of the statistics back in October. I still don't have a job. I am not just not part of the numbers.

 

[william the wie]

Actually the US should see a huge false recovery over the next 6-12 months.

Australian coal fields are flooded and the US will have to pick up the slack.

Chinese capital control reforms means a lot of Chinese capital can be and will be invested overseas such as in the US.

So a self-limiting boom is in progress and I fully expect to see the S&P reach new all time highs with a 5% shot at doubling in value then reality will rear its ugly head and be uglier than usual.

Could be.

I would not be surprised to retest the highs then fail.

Check with the commodities guy at your firm. If I read the report right about European power plants American coal exports are about to explode. That means that the transport index is going to rise too. UE will have dipped below 9% by June. Depending on damage assessment in Australia it's a coin flip as to whether UE will dip below 7% by December.

So I do in fact expect new all time highs. If infrastructure damage is severe enough to limit Australian exports for a year or more 20+K DJIA is definitely possible. But when the music stops meltdown II will greet us. The MA court decision on foreclosuregate today or yesterday more or less guarantees another meltdown 12-18 months out at best.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As long as the hiring numbers are positive, I am happy.


I have been seeing an increase in help wanteds.

And I dropped out of the statistics back in October. I still don't have a job. I am not just not part of the numbers.

It isn't positive.
Anything below 225,000 is negative.

 

[loosecannon]

As long as the hiring numbers are positive, I am happy.


I have been seeing an increase in help wanteds.

And I dropped out of the statistics back in October. I still don't have a job. I am not just not part of the numbers.

It isn't positive.
Anything below 225,000 is negative.

is it really that high?

You have to consider that we are on the cusp of a generational tipping point regarding the size of the labor force as a % of population. Within a window of 16 years almost 1/3 of our entire population will retire in one huge surge.

The % of our population in the workforce will shift from historic highs to the lowest ebb since the depression in about 15 total years. All evidence indicates that this is beginning just a few years earlier than expected due to a poor economy and forced early retirement.

This is a well understood effect commonly discussed in terms of "the aging populations" of developed economies and China.

What I find most ironic about it is that the world wide baby boom driven workforce imbalance was a direct effect of world war. In fact of two in a row, one gen apart. Those who argue that war is good for the economy are therefore extremely shortsighted.

 

[rdean]

As long as the hiring numbers are positive, I am happy.


I have been seeing an increase in help wanteds.

And I dropped out of the statistics back in October. I still don't have a job. I am not just not part of the numbers.

It won't stay positive. The only thing that will help the American economy is "US Manufacturing". That means we have to "make stuff" to sell overseas.

Obviously, we can't make hand painted flower pots. To keep the US in a leadership position, we have to sell "high tech". And that's not just electronics. All kinds of things can be "high tech".
But that will take education.
Did you see who Republicans put in charge of the Committee on Higher Education? Virginia Foxx.
Did you see who Republicans put in charge of the Committee on Science and Technology? 87 year old Ralph Hall.
The geezer and the tard. One is "crazy", the other's "insane".

 

[william the wie]

is it really that high?

You have to consider that we are on the cusp of a generational tipping point regarding the size of the labor force as a % of population. Within a window of 16 years almost 1/3 of our entire population will retire in one huge surge.

The % of our population in the workforce will shift from historic highs to the lowest ebb since the depression in about 15 total years. All evidence indicates that this is beginning just a few years earlier than expected due to a poor economy and forced early retirement.

This is a well understood effect commonly discussed in terms of "the aging populations" of developed economies and China.

What I find most ironic about it is that the world wide baby boom driven workforce imbalance was a direct effect of world war. In fact of two in a row, one gen apart. Those who argue that war is good for the economy are therefore extremely shortsighted.

I agree with that last part but as to the rest "Great Expectations" by Jones 1980 was the first standard popularization of the baby boom. Generations X,Y & Z have no standard nomenclature. Generation Y will probably resolve itself as those born 1982-2004 based on the length of the civic crisis expected to hit in 2020.

Due to everyone trying to revise things to make themselves look like a genius the original 1943-64 baby boom definition has been shrunk in many ways. But using the original definition early retirement of the first boomers to full Social Security for the last boomers is 2005-31 or 34 (assuming full retirement is raised to 70 years as anticipated). Last time I checked that was 27-30 years. The guy who gave you the data for 1/3 of the labor force in 16 years combined two different definitions of the start and stop dates of the boom, assumed unchanging or even self-defeating uniform economic behavior, no changes to social security and no doubt other fantasies I did not spot. In short, double-check both the data and the assumptions no matter what the source including me because legal changes to social security.

What I think happened is that Medicare eligibility was confused with Social Security activation by your sources and that is very different subject. Assuming rounding error and certain definitions of the boom 16 years of increasing medicare payments is quite defensible.

 

[loosecannon]

I don't think you can dispute the fact that within 15 or so years we will transition from the largest labor force as a % of population to the smallest in more than 60 years.

So a major exodus from the labor force effecting unemployment stats is not only hard wired into the demographic trends but also has been predicted for decades.

That it is happening 2 or 5 years sooner than anticipated is not a huge issue. Forced early retirement, bad economy, shit happens.

 

[Trajan]

I don't think you can dispute the fact that within 15 or so years we will transition from the largest labor force as a % of population to the smallest in more than 60 years.

So a major exodus from the labor force effecting unemployment stats is not only hard wired into the demographic trends but also has been predicted for decades.

That it is happening 2 or 5 years sooner than anticipated is not a huge issue. Forced early retirement, bad economy, shit happens.

sounds like a Japanese issue....hey, wait a minute..

 

[william the wie]

I don't think you can dispute the fact that within 15 or so years we will transition from the largest labor force as a % of population to the smallest in more than 60 years.

So a major exodus from the labor force effecting unemployment stats is not only hard wired into the demographic trends but also has been predicted for decades.

That it is happening 2 or 5 years sooner than anticipated is not a huge issue. Forced early retirement, bad economy, shit happens.

sounds like a Japanese issue....hey, wait a minute..

The fact is that the length of time of transition has a huge difference in effects. In 11-14 years another baby boom attempt will launch and that has very long range effects. Strauss & Howe theorized that the early takeover of power by the Transcendental (baby boom) generation (born 1792-1821) in 1860 at an average age of 53.5 is still screwing the pooch in that the Missionary (1860-1882) generation did not boom and the Silent (born 1925-42) generation produced no presidents. The US has not had a normal generational cluster in 150 years. An extended transition could renormalize our culture, which is needed.

 

[loosecannon]

I don't think you can dispute the fact that within 15 or so years we will transition from the largest labor force as a % of population to the smallest in more than 60 years.

So a major exodus from the labor force effecting unemployment stats is not only hard wired into the demographic trends but also has been predicted for decades.

That it is happening 2 or 5 years sooner than anticipated is not a huge issue. Forced early retirement, bad economy, shit happens.

sounds like a Japanese issue....hey, wait a minute..

pretty much exactly.

 

[rdean]

One wonders, "Do Republicans see a connection between manufacturing and the economy?"

 

[Cuyo]

One wonders, "Do Republicans see a connection between manufacturing and the economy?"

I'll be honest with you Dean... I don't think anyone in government sees it. 800lb gorilla in the room, and we're discussing tax breaks for 'Job Creators' and extending unemployment benefits?

Hello!? There's no fuckin' jobs to be had... We're a nation of consumers with not enough production! Anyone with the balls to even bring that up, Sanders for example, is quickly labelled a radical and dismissed.

 

[Trajan]

One wonders, "Do Republicans see a connection between manufacturing and the economy?"

I'll be honest with you Dean... I don't think anyone in government sees it. 800lb gorilla in the room, and we're discussing tax breaks for 'Job Creators' and extending unemployment benefits?

Hello!? There's no fuckin' jobs to be had... We're a nation of consumers with not enough production! Anyone with the balls to even bring that up, Sanders for example, is quickly labelled a radical and dismissed.

I for one don't label him a radical for bringing it up, I just don't quite agree with his idea of a fix, or that is his perspective. yes we need to find a way to make on shore production and manufacturing enviable AND viable.

For instance how does he feel about free trade agreements? he thinks it harmful. That is not a sensible position imho.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One wonders, "Do Republicans see a connection between manufacturing and the economy?"

I'll be honest with you Dean... I don't think anyone in government sees it. 800lb gorilla in the room, and we're discussing tax breaks for 'Job Creators' and extending unemployment benefits?

Hello!? There's no fuckin' jobs to be had... We're a nation of consumers with not enough production! Anyone with the balls to even bring that up, Sanders for example, is quickly labelled a radical and dismissed.

I for one don't label him a radical for bringing it up, I just don't quite agree with his idea of a fix, or that is his perspective. yes we need to find a way to make on shore production and manufacturing enviable AND viable.

For instance how does he feel about free trade agreements? he thinks it harmful. That is not a sensible position imho.

NAFTA was the death knell for American manufacturing.

 

[Trajan]

I'll be honest with you Dean... I don't think anyone in government sees it. 800lb gorilla in the room, and we're discussing tax breaks for 'Job Creators' and extending unemployment benefits?

Hello!? There's no fuckin' jobs to be had... We're a nation of consumers with not enough production! Anyone with the balls to even bring that up, Sanders for example, is quickly labelled a radical and dismissed.

I for one don't label him a radical for bringing it up, I just don't quite agree with his idea of a fix, or that is his perspective. yes we need to find a way to make on shore production and manufacturing enviable AND viable.

For instance how does he feel about free trade agreements? he thinks it harmful. That is not a sensible position imho.

NAFTA was the death knell for American manufacturing.

free trade means a lot more than nafta. and iI think your angst is overblown bro.

 

[rdean]

One wonders, "Do Republicans see a connection between manufacturing and the economy?"

I'll be honest with you Dean... I don't think anyone in government sees it. 800lb gorilla in the room, and we're discussing tax breaks for 'Job Creators' and extending unemployment benefits?

Hello!? There's no fuckin' jobs to be had... We're a nation of consumers with not enough production! Anyone with the balls to even bring that up, Sanders for example, is quickly labelled a radical and dismissed.

I for one don't label him a radical for bringing it up, I just don't quite agree with his idea of a fix, or that is his perspective. yes we need to find a way to make on shore production and manufacturing enviable AND viable.

For instance how does he feel about free trade agreements? he thinks it harmful. That is not a sensible position imho.

"Free" trade agreement isn't enough. It has to be a "fair" trade agreement.

Republicans and their employers, big corporations, think only about money and profit. The miss the "big picture". If they are going to invest overseas and let America fall apart, eventually, they will move overseas, at least we can only hope.

If you have millions of Chinese living in dorms, working 60 to 70 hours a week, and making 51 cents an hour with the government setting up cafeterias and ignoring pollution, then we can't compete with that. We never will. Americans would rather live in tents than in dorms.

I have a friend who heads a "machine shop". Their money maker was "railroad" spikes. They made tens of thousands of those spikes until that business was moved to Mexico. So they had two choices, expand or go out of business.
So they sent their guys out for training. They purchased the most modern CNC machines, MasterCam and new computers.
Now, they make high precision parts for the medical and aerospace industries. It's a lot more work. It doesn't bring in the same money as tens of thousands of railroad spikes. They have to continually go back to school and stay up on new technology. But they are working full shifts and sometimes working overtime. In fact, the machine operators had to be given raises because they were suddenly in demand.
That is how we compete. We become better.

Does anyone believe that will happen under a Republican Administration? Seriously?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'll be honest with you Dean... I don't think anyone in government sees it. 800lb gorilla in the room, and we're discussing tax breaks for 'Job Creators' and extending unemployment benefits?

Hello!? There's no fuckin' jobs to be had... We're a nation of consumers with not enough production! Anyone with the balls to even bring that up, Sanders for example, is quickly labelled a radical and dismissed.

I for one don't label him a radical for bringing it up, I just don't quite agree with his idea of a fix, or that is his perspective. yes we need to find a way to make on shore production and manufacturing enviable AND viable.

For instance how does he feel about free trade agreements? he thinks it harmful. That is not a sensible position imho.

"Free" trade agreement isn't enough. It has to be a "fair" trade agreement.

Republicans and their employers, big corporations, think only about money and profit. The miss the "big picture". If they are going to invest overseas and let America fall apart, eventually, they will move overseas, at least we can only hope.

If you have millions of Chinese living in dorms, working 60 to 70 hours a week, and making 51 cents an hour with the government setting up cafeterias and ignoring pollution, then we can't compete with that. We never will. Americans would rather live in tents than in dorms.

I have a friend who heads a "machine shop". Their money maker was "railroad" spikes. They made tens of thousands of those spikes until that business was moved to Mexico. So they had two choices, expand or go out of business.
So they sent their guys out for training. They purchased the most modern CNC machines, MasterCam and new computers.
Now, they make high precision parts for the medical and aerospace industries. It's a lot more work. It doesn't bring in the same money as tens of thousands of railroad spikes. They have to continually go back to school and stay up on new technology. But they are working full shifts and sometimes working overtime. In fact, the machine operators had to be given raises because they were suddenly in demand.
That is how we compete. We become better.

Does anyone believe that will happen under a Republican Administration? Seriously?

I don't see any reason it wouldn't. If a company wants to remain in business they will do so. If they wimp out, they wimp out. Someone somewhere will pick up the slack.

 

[loosecannon]

Someone in China undoubtedly.

Don't think for a minute that CAD machines are a domain that high priced US labor can dominate for long.

They make those machines in China and Taiwan. In fact I would bet that the very machines rdean was referring to came from Taiwan.

There is nothing we can learn to make that China can't make for pennies on our dollar.

All we have to count on is work that simply cannot be outsourced.