Unemployment Rises to 6.2%

[pinqy]

Again. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth,

Last year, 58.7% of the population was employed.
This year 59% of the population was employed.
That means that employment is increasing at a faster rate than the population.

and we are not making a dent in the millions of people who are un and underemployed, and who have given up.

Unemployed went down 1.7 million (-15%)
underemployed (part time for economic reasons) went down 669,000 (-8%)
People who have "given up" (discouraged) went down 247,000 (-25%)

Those aren't dents? Really? What numbers would you like to see that would be a dent?

 

[boedicca]

Again. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth,

Last year, 58.7% of the population was employed.
This year 59% of the population was employed.
That means that employment is increasing at a faster rate than the population.

and we are not making a dent in the millions of people who are un and underemployed, and who have given up.

Unemployed went down 1.7 million (-15%)
underemployed (part time for economic reasons) went down 669,000 (-8%)
People who have "given up" (discouraged) went down 247,000 (-25%)

Those aren't dents? Really? What numbers would you like to see that would be a dent?

I'll refer you to the 101M plus who are not employed or have given up and are no longer counted. We have a declining LFP. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth. That is not healthy for the economy, nor for the millions who are affected by lack of job creation.

 

[edthecynic]

You truly are dense.

The population is growing.
The absolute amount of the labor force is growing (while the ratio is declining).

If more people were retiring and dying than the amount of new entrants into the labor force, there would be a declining labor force. That is not what is happening.

It's a shame you are such a brain washed moron that you cannot even do math.

How Many Jobs Does It Take to Keep Pace With the Growth of the Labor Force? | Beat the Press

I have been saying that it takes roughly 90,000 jobs a month to keep pace with the underlying growth rate of the labor force. This means that more rapid growth should lead to declines in the unemployment rate while less rapid growth would lead to increases.

Many other analysts have used higher numbers. For example, in her NYT blognote, Catherine Rampell suggested that the necessary number for keeping pace with the growth of the labor force is 150,000 jobs a month. People have often asked me to explain the difference.

I can't say where others are getting their higher numbers from, but I know where I get my numbers. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the labor force will grow 0.7 percent annually for the next several years. If we go back to the pre-recession level of payroll employment (140 million), this implies 980,000 jobs a year or 82,500 a month.

There is another way to back out a growth number. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the civilian non-institutionalized population over age 16 increased by 1,781,000 people over the last 12 months. If we assume that 64 percent of this increment to the above age 16 population is employed (roughly the 2000 percent) then this would imply an increase in employment of 1,140,000.

However, this would overstate payroll employment slightly since roughly 6 percent of the workforce is self-employed. If we assume that 6 percent of the increment is also self-employed, this implies that roughly 1,070,000 payroll jobs are needed to keep pace with the growth of the labor force, or just under 90,000 a month.

 

[pinqy]

Again. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth,

Last year, 58.7% of the population was employed.
This year 59% of the population was employed.
That means that employment is increasing at a faster rate than the population.

and we are not making a dent in the millions of people who are un and underemployed, and who have given up.

Unemployed went down 1.7 million (-15%)
underemployed (part time for economic reasons) went down 669,000 (-8%)
People who have "given up" (discouraged) went down 247,000 (-25%)

Those aren't dents? Really? What numbers would you like to see that would be a dent?

I'll refer you to the 101M plus who are not employed or have given up and are no longer counted.

How many of them want a job? How many of the 101 million want a job and is that percentage higher or lower than last year.

Are you honestly claiming that all 101 million who aren't working have given up or should really be counted?

You keep talking about tens of millions of people who don't want or need a job as if they've given up or quit the labor force. If the number of people who don't want/need to work goes up...is that bad? if the labor force percentage goes down because fewer people want/need work, is that bad?

 

[Dad2three]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

Baby Boomers' Impact on Participation Rate Big, Expected

Retirements account for nearly half of the fall in the participation rate

Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News

I provided the stats that show this claim is false, but I understand how comparing numbers would overwhelm you.

No you didn't

 

[Dad2three]

What would unemployment be if had all those jobs back from China? Thought the Democrats were supposed to fight for the American worker? Oh, I forgot, Harry Reid's son works for Chinese company. Aw man...**** me. What? Clinton signed NAFTA with heavy Democratic Party support. Aw man...**** me. What?Democrats have created thousands of government jobs? But what about private sector jobs? Aw man...**** me. Democrats don't create jobs. Well, if things are bad, better have Obama bring in millions of more immigrants to feed.

" Clinton signed NAFTA with heavy Democratic Party support."

Yep, EXCEPT 60% OF DEMS VOTED AGAINST NAFTA (that thing Reagan announced the day he ran fopr Prez in 1979 from CONSERVATIVE HERITAGE FOUNDATION). AND EVERY 'FREE TRADE' AGREEMENT. Which party supports it again?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The basic MATH is that the number of people who are un and under employed, and who have given up has increased.

In what time period? From before the recession? Then you'd be right.
Since Obama took office? Then you'd be wrong.
Since July 2013? You'd be wrong.

But one more time...there are many many people who are not in the labor force who have never been in the labor force.

What delusional little world are you and dad2three living in? Where exactly in the figures provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics do you find Americans are NOT underemployed? If you think the drastic decrease in full time employment along with a huge rise in part time jobs is an IMPROVEMENT on the economy (if you want to base it solely on job numbers), then perhaps your math skills aren't very good as you like to think they are? I mean you do know who the Bureau of Labor Statistics are, don't you? I laugh at the notion of a few graphs here and there is somehow proving to be more reliable than that.

The Obama administration and much of the media trumpeting the figure overlooked that the government numbers didn't distinguish between new part-time and full-time jobs.

Full-time jobs last month plunged by 523,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What has increased are part-time jobs. They soared by about 800,000 to more than 28 million. Just think of all those Americans working part time, no doubt glad to have the work but also contending with lower pay,

Mortimer Zuckerman: The Full-Time Scandal of Part-Time America - WSJ

 

[1776]

The GDP growth was going to happen unless Obama goes out of his way to shutdown the economy, but his policies have slowed economic growth.

The UE rate has only gone down due to sneaky book-keeping removing certain people from being counted once they gave up looking for a job.

Now some of them are trying to come back looking for a job and the UE rate is going up like it should've been doing the entire time.

The UE rate is going to go up and the economy is going to limp along while Obama is in the White House trying to destroy the US.

 

[boedicca]

The meager GDP growth we have now is in spite of Obama, not because of him.

 

[EconChick]

In case anyone missed from the other thread, EconChick got exposed pretty badly as a phony.

First you had her non-stop references to her creds instead of addressing any facts:

Someone with as much formal training as I have can see things wayyyy into the future.

g5000 decided to let her easily prove all this formal training:

EconChick, as an expert on stock markets and economics, you should recognize this immediately:

Can you tell us what it is?

and of course EconChick, with all her "formal training" couldn't take 5 seconds to prove herself, nah suddenly wants to type way more than the answer to avoid:

Yo, moron. I have no interest in games that 7 year olds play. Should we pull out the play dough while we're at it.

Sorry, me no play dumbass liberal games.

Of course other posters who aren't pretending to have formal economics training recognized it right away:

Black?Scholes model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of the funniest shit I've seen on these forums. EconChick = big phony, man that must be embarrassing.

Yo, Merc Boy, you're still crapping your pants about my GOTCHA, aren't ya?


When asked to comment on a formula that was actually RELEVANT to the thread in question, all you libs have beat feet. LMAO.

The only fakies on these econ threads are Jakey Fakey and the Fakey Band.

 

[pinqy]

Where exactly in the figures provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics do you find Americans are NOT underemployed?

"Underemployment" is not measured thing, because there is no objective, measurable, definition. So I have no idea what in particular you're talking about, let alone anything I said. I've only referred to underemployment using "part time for economic reasons" as a proxy.

If you think the drastic decrease in full time employment along with a huge rise in part time jobs is an IMPROVEMENT on the economy (if you want to base it solely on job numbers), then perhaps your math skills aren't very good as you like to think they are? I mean you do know who the Bureau of Labor Statistics are, don't you? I laugh at the notion of a few graphs here and there is somehow proving to be more reliable than that.

"Dramatic decrease in full time employment?" During what time frame?
People who usually work full time is down 3.4 million since November 2007 (the month before the official start of the recession). So no, we haven't recovered the full time jobs since that time.
But since Obama took office, full time has gone up 2.7 million.
Since last year it's gone up 2.3 million
Since last month it's gone up 285,000

So....was there a dramatic decrease in full time employment? Yep.
But the current trend is an increase.

The Obama administration and much of the media trumpeting the figure overlooked that the government numbers didn't distinguish between new part-time and full-time jobs.

Right...the headline jobs numbers come from a survey of establishments and only asks how many people are on the payroll, how many are women, wages and hours for all and for production employees.

Full-time jobs last month plunged by 523,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

. What has increased are part-time jobs. They soared by about 800,000 to more than 28 million. Just think of all those Americans working part time, no doubt glad to have the work but also contending with lower pay,

Not sure why you're emphasizing BLS when I've only been citing their data. The article you cite is for the May-June changes. For June-July, full time went up 285,000 and part time went up 52,000

Let's look at the BLS numbers in a slightly different way. Below is a graph where the values of full time and part time employment are both set to 100 for the beginning of the recession in December 2007. Full time employment plummetted to 91% of the number of full time jobs at the end of 2007 and part time employment soared to between 10 and 12% higher and finally reached a high of 13.9% higher than Dec 2007. As of July 2014, though, full time employment has steadily trended upward to 97% of pre-recession and part time has stayed around 13%.

Good enough? Of course not. Headed in the right direction? Unquestionably.
Edit: Maybe I should include the graph