Unemployment rate offically rockets over 10%!!!!

[Ame®icano]

Jobs Data Lift Recovery Hopes

U.S. job losses slowed sharply in November and the unemployment rate unexpectedly declined, in a sign the labor market is finally starting to heal as the economy recovers.

Nonfarm payrolls fell by just 11,000 last month, slowing down from a downwardly revised 111,000 drop seen in October, as the recovery encouraged companies to retain workers, the Labor Department said Friday.

It was the best showing since December 2007, when payrolls rose by 120,000, said a Labor department official. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a payroll decrease of 125,000.

The unemployment rate, calculated using a survey of households as opposed to companies, edged lower to 10% in November from 10.2%. Economists had forecast the jobless rate would remain at October's level of 10.2%, when it rose to the highest level since April 1983.

Employment fell in construction, manufacturing and information, while temporary help services and health care added jobs.

 

[Ame®icano]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers..

Nov.2009 - 17.2%

 

[pinqy]

So, the unemployment rate fell.

That's a good news, but I don't understand their math. If last month unemployment was 10.2% and we lost 11,000 jobs last month, how is possible that unemployment fell?

Could someone explain?

It's two different surveys that measure different things.

The Employment Level (the 11,000 jobs lost) is a monthly survey (Current Employment Survey) of non-farm payroll jobs from establishments. It shows the net difference month to month between the number of non-farm jobs. Excluded are the self-employed, domestic workers and the like.

The Unemployment rate is a monthly household survey (Current Population Survey) and it's the other part of the BLS Employment Situation report. Includes everyone 16 and over not in prison, a mental institute, or the military. You are employed if you worked at least one hour for pay (or were on leave or out sick etc). You are unemployed if you did not work for at least one hour for pay and actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. Note that UI benefits are not mentioned at all...they're not a factor. Everyone else: not in the labor force. Bigger margin of error than the establishment survey so its employment data are not the official Employment numbers. And the 2 surveys won't match up (by the CES, employment went down 11,000, by the CPS it went up 227,000. Labor Force = Unemployed + Employed. Unemployment rate = Unemployed / Labor Force.

So while the Establishment survey showed a loss of 11,000 jobs (plus or minus 60,447) the household survey showed a gain in employment of 227,000 (+- 436,502) and a drop in unemployment of 325,000 (+- 383,614). And some people are no longer in the labor force (no longer looking for work), so the labor force is lower as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers..

Nov.2009 - 17.2%

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

 

[pinqy]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers..

Nov.2009 - 17.2%

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

That would be hard since the U6 wasn't calculated until 1994. (there was a U6, but it measured different things, much like the current U3 was the U5 then)

 

[Maple]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers..

Nov.2009 - 17.2%

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

Yes, but Reagan actually did something to correct the problem he passed across the board tax cuts, called trickle down theory, which created 20 million new private sector jobs.

Obama, has an opposite theory it's called " Flood the basement," Keynesian economics theory which has never worked to create jobs in the private sector.

 

[saveliberty]

So, the unemployment rate fell.

That's a good news, but I don't understand their math. If last month unemployment was 10.2% and we lost 11,000 jobs last month, how is possible that unemployment fell?

Could someone explain?

It's two different surveys that measure different things.

The Employment Level (the 11,000 jobs lost) is a monthly survey (Current Employment Survey) of non-farm payroll jobs from establishments. It shows the net difference month to month between the number of non-farm jobs. Excluded are the self-employed, domestic workers and the like.

The Unemployment rate is a monthly household survey (Current Population Survey) and it's the other part of the BLS Employment Situation report. Includes everyone 16 and over not in prison, a mental institute, or the military. You are employed if you worked at least one hour for pay (or were on leave or out sick etc). You are unemployed if you did not work for at least one hour for pay and actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. Note that UI benefits are not mentioned at all...they're not a factor. Everyone else: not in the labor force. Bigger margin of error than the establishment survey so its employment data are not the official Employment numbers. And the 2 surveys won't match up (by the CES, employment went down 11,000, by the CPS it went up 227,000. Labor Force = Unemployed + Employed. Unemployment rate = Unemployed / Labor Force.

So while the Establishment survey showed a loss of 11,000 jobs (plus or minus 60,447) the household survey showed a gain in employment of 227,000 (+- 436,502) and a drop in unemployment of 325,000 (+- 383,614). And some people are no longer in the labor force (no longer looking for work), so the labor force is lower as well.

I think tracking employed people would actually be a more useful number. pinqy actually makes sense here. I think the biggest factor is more people simply dropped out of the count, so the percentage went down. Pretty sad, not only are these people not employed, but the government ceases to give a crap they don't have work.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers..

Nov.2009 - 17.2%

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

Great plan dumb ass....let's discuss 1983 unemployment...it has such a huge impact on todays unemployment rate.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

That would be hard since the U6 wasn't calculated until 1994. (there was a U6, but it measured different things, much like the current U3 was the U5 then)

and what exactly was U2 doing at the time..... and if the U6 is like the U3 but was actually the U5 isn't the U6 the U5?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

Yes, but Reagan actually did something to correct the problem he passed across the board tax cuts, called trickle down theory, which created 20 million new private sector jobs.

Obama, has an opposite theory it's called " Flood the basement," Keynesian economics theory which has never worked to create jobs in the private sector.

Thanks for the admission. And supply-side economics (1) further enriched the rich, (2) increased the deficit, and (3) decreased the purchasing power of the middle class. The so called 'Reagan Privitization' perverted the social compact, transferred wealth to the rich, and made the 'captive' populations (foster children, mentally ill, elderly, and prisoners) answer directly to those who made money from them instead of to government officials who could be held accountable.

 

[saveliberty]

Hmmm. . . want to bet the adjusted stats for November 1983 in Reagan's full third year was higher?

Yes, but Reagan actually did something to correct the problem he passed across the board tax cuts, called trickle down theory, which created 20 million new private sector jobs.

Obama, has an opposite theory it's called " Flood the basement," Keynesian economics theory which has never worked to create jobs in the private sector.

Thanks for the admission. And supply-side economics (1) further enriched the rich, (2) increased the deficit, and (3) decreased the purchasing power of the middle class. The so called 'Reagan Privitization' perverted the social compact, transferred wealth to the rich, and made the 'captive' populations (foster children, mentally ill, elderly, and prisoners) answer directly to those who made money from them instead of to government officials who could be held accountable.

Those of you bringing up the past seem to be doing so to obstruct addressing the problem and finding a good solution. How does it feel to know your part of the problem?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one expected saveliberty to respond except with old reactionary talking points.

America is changing for the better as the old perversion of Reagan convervatism is flushed down the electoral toilet for good. A good example was the result in the NY23rd distict.

 

[saveliberty]

No one expected saveliberty to respond except with old reactionary talking points.

America is changing for the better as the old perversion of Reagan convervatism is flushed down the electoral toilet for good. A good example was the result in the NY23rd distict.

We generally leave talking point to you Jake. Have you ever had an original thought? Even once? I would suggest budget cuts and the money freed up going to debt pay down. You realize we have just about no hope of EVER paying off our debt right? Even if you take all the corporate profits and tax the rich a much higher rate you can't pay the principal amounts. We are headed for bankruptcy. Nice new plan there.

 

[amrchaos]

I blame Bush

fail.................America was at full employment for almost the whole decade. HWen did it start going into the shitter? After the Dums took over Congress in 2006...........they fcukk with the market every chance they get and every time its a fcukking disaster!!!


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 7.60 8.10 8.50 8.90 9.40 9.50 9.40 9.70 9.80 10.20
2008 4.90 4.80 5.10 5.00 5.50 5.60 5.80 6.20 6.20 6.60 6.80 7.20
2007 4.60 4.50 4.40 4.50 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.80 4.70 4.90
2006 4.70 4.80 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.60 4.70 4.70 4.50 4.40 4.50 4.40
2005 5.20 5.40 5.20 5.20 5.10 5.10 5.00 4.90 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.80
2004 5.70 5.60 5.80 5.60 5.60 5.60 5.50 5.40 5.40 5.50 5.40 5.40
2003 5.80 5.90 5.90 6.00 6.10 6.30 6.20 6.10 6.10 6.00 5.80 5.70
2002 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.90 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.90 6.00



numbers dont lie s0ns!!!!!

Please link the data. I wish to see what the numbers were before Bush took office--At least 2000 and 2001must be present . By all rights, that should help you argue your case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Dems and Obama did not create the recession. That was all GOP, and we all know it. What Obama and the Dems do with it is another thing altogether.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The Dems and Obama did not create the recession. That was all GOP, and we all know it. What Obama and the Dems do with it is another thing altogether.

Never mind that the congress has had a Democrat majority for 3 years............

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ollie, don't be disingenuous like saveliberty. The great deficit was generated by the GOP-dominated Bush government. Now you want to argue that Obama is using the same type of financing? Hypocritical, just like saveliberty.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Ollie, don't be disingenuous like saveliberty. The great deficit was generated by the GOP-dominated Bush government. Now you want to argue that Obama is using the same type of financing? Hypocritical, just like saveliberty.

Well who THE FUCK is he borrowing all the money from dipshit???!!!! Tell us know it all !!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ollie, don't be disingenuous like saveliberty. The great deficit was generated by the GOP-dominated Bush government. Now you want to argue that Obama is using the same type of financing? Hypocritical, just like saveliberty.

Well who THE FUCK is he borrowing all the money from dipshit???!!!! Tell us know it all !!!!

That was not the topic of discussion. Pay attention. Here. Look at me. Look in my eyes. Take a deep breath. Now listen carefully. Don't talk until you are called. Did you get that? Good. Now, go. And listen for your call.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Ollie, don't be disingenuous like saveliberty. The great deficit was generated by the GOP-dominated Bush government. Now you want to argue that Obama is using the same type of financing? Hypocritical, just like saveliberty.

Well who THE FUCK is he borrowing all the money from dipshit???!!!! Tell us know it all !!!!

That was not the topic of discussion. Pay attention. Here. Look at me. Look in my eyes. Take a deep breath. Now listen carefully. Don't talk until you are called. Did you get that? Good. Now, go. And listen for your call.

Ah...my assesment was correct in the beginning...you're a chickenshit dumbass who's got no game other than trolldom.....