Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

[Publius1787]

You're trying to blame Obama for circumstances beyond his control.

The mere fact of his presidency does not mean he created the unemployment phenomenon you highlighted. It is the result of many factors, not all of which are subject to the President's power.

...

The fact of the matter is that the White house assumed that the job market was within their control, which is why they released the above chart. Therefore it is only right that Obama should be held accountable to such economic assumptions and promises.

I think they underestimated the intensity of the Republicans' opposition. One of Obama's biggest faults is faith in the process and his trust in the good faith of policy-makers. He never expected what he got.

Got to find some way to blame the Republicans and the American People huh?

 

[Publius1787]

Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Change in Number of Unemployed
11,616,000 Jan 2009
10,351,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

Change in the Number of Employed
142,099,000 Jan 2009
144,586,000 Dec 2013
Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
65.5% Jan 2009
62.8% Dec 2013
Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

Total Not in Labor Force
49,455,000 Jan 2009
55,220,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Jobs to Dropouts
Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly

Your Thoughts?

You can't use the archived news release for seasonally adjusted numbers, as they get revised every December

Your Not in the Labor Force numbers are way off…it was 80,259,000 and 91,808,000

And an increase in Not in the Labor Force is not necessarily a decrease in the Labor Force, or people "dropping out.

I see. So it was worse than I thought.

 

[pinqy]

Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Change in Number of Unemployed
11,616,000 Jan 2009
10,351,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

Change in the Number of Employed
142,099,000 Jan 2009
144,586,000 Dec 2013
Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
65.5% Jan 2009
62.8% Dec 2013
Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

Total Not in Labor Force
49,455,000 Jan 2009
55,220,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Jobs to Dropouts
Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly

Your Thoughts?

You can't use the archived news release for seasonally adjusted numbers, as they get revised every December

Your Not in the Labor Force numbers are way off…it was 80,259,000 and 91,808,000

And an increase in Not in the Labor Force is not necessarily a decrease in the Labor Force, or people "dropping out.

I see. So it was worse than I thought.

You don't seem to realize that "Not in the Labor Force" does not mean "dropped out of the labor force."

 

[Publius1787]

You can't use the archived news release for seasonally adjusted numbers, as they get revised every December

Your Not in the Labor Force numbers are way off…it was 80,259,000 and 91,808,000

And an increase in Not in the Labor Force is not necessarily a decrease in the Labor Force, or people "dropping out.

I see. So it was worse than I thought.

You don't seem to realize that "Not in the Labor Force" does not mean "dropped out of the labor force."

Yes, an oversight on my part. It is indeed worse than what I assessed. Where do I find the numbers of those not participating in the labor force at the BLS then?

 

[pinqy]

I see. So it was worse than I thought.

You don't seem to realize that "Not in the Labor Force" does not mean "dropped out of the labor force."

Yes, an oversight on my part. It is indeed worse than what I assessed. Where do I find the numbers of those not participating in the labor force at the BLS then?

The news release tables are at Employment Situation
More detailed tables are at CPS Tables

Labor Force is going up, number of emp loo tied is going up, number of unemployed is going down. All good things. More people are retiring, and fewer teenagers are looking for jobs, so participation is down, but that's not necessarily bad. It was much lower in the '40s, '50s, and 60's. In fact, if we had the same participation rate as 1963, the unemployment rate would be around d zero.

 

[Publius1787]

You don't seem to realize that "Not in the Labor Force" does not mean "dropped out of the labor force."

Yes, an oversight on my part. It is indeed worse than what I assessed. Where do I find the numbers of those not participating in the labor force at the BLS then?

The news release tables are at Employment Situation
More detailed tables are at CPS Tables

Labor Force is going up, number of emp loo tied is going up, number of unemployed is going down. All good things. More people are retiring, and fewer teenagers are looking for jobs, so participation is down, but that's not necessarily bad. It was much lower in the '40s, '50s, and 60's. In fact, if we had the same participation rate as 1963, the unemployment rate would be around d zero.

As the op demonstrates, I know where to find the employment situation. that was not the question I asked.

The only standard you can use is these numbers as a percentage of the total population in their respected fields. Raw numbers alone does not justify an improving economy/job market. Unlike in 1963, we have an expanded welfare state and more women in the labor force as a percentage of the national whole. That throws a wrench in the gears so lets compare apples to apples shall we?

 

[pinqy]

Yes, an oversight on my part. It is indeed worse than what I assessed. Where do I find the numbers of those not participating in the labor force at the BLS then?

The news release tables are at Employment Situation
More detailed tables are at CPS Tables

Labor Force is going up, number of emp loo tied is going up, number of unemployed is going down. All good things. More people are retiring, and fewer teenagers are looking for jobs, so participation is down, but that's not necessarily bad. It was much lower in the '40s, '50s, and 60's. In fact, if we had the same participation rate as 1963, the unemployment rate would be around d zero.

As the op demonstrates, I know where to find the employment situation. that was not the question I asked.

Well, you didn't show the correct numbers: Jan 2009 UE rate has been revised up to 7.8%, for example. And your Not in the Labor Force numbers seem to have come from thin air, so no, you didn't demonstrate your ability to find data. And it was the question you asked. If I misunderstood, feel free to rephrase it.

The only standard you can use is these numbers as a percentage of the total population in their respected fields.

Not necessarily. The unemployment rate is percent of the Labor Force, not population, for a reason. Demographic changes would distort the picture, otherwise.

Raw numbers alone does not justify an improving economy/job market.

True, but that doesn't mean they give no indication.

Unlike in 1963, we have an expanded welfare state and more women in the labor force as a percentage of the national whole. That throws a wrench in the gears so lets compare apples to apples shall we?

Right, which is why using Labor Force Participation Rate can be misleading when used the way you did in the OP.
Let's look at what the numbers mean.
In January 2009, 7.8% of those available for work (doing something about working) were not working, and 65.7% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available.
In December 2013, 6.7% of those available for work were not working, and 62.8% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available. Why were so many not available? Because the chose not to be, or were unable to start work at the time.

The UE rate tells us how hard it is to get a job, while the Labor Force participation rate tells us what percent of the population is available for work.

 

[Publius1787]

The news release tables are at Employment Situation
More detailed tables are at CPS Tables

Labor Force is going up, number of emp loo tied is going up, number of unemployed is going down. All good things. More people are retiring, and fewer teenagers are looking for jobs, so participation is down, but that's not necessarily bad. It was much lower in the '40s, '50s, and 60's. In fact, if we had the same participation rate as 1963, the unemployment rate would be around d zero.

As the op demonstrates, I know where to find the employment situation. that was not the question I asked.

Well, you didn't show the correct numbers: Jan 2009 UE rate has been revised up to 7.8%, for example. And your Not in the Labor Force numbers seem to have come from thin air, so no, you didn't demonstrate your ability to find data. And it was the question you asked. If I misunderstood, feel free to rephrase it.

Not necessarily. The unemployment rate is percent of the Labor Force, not population, for a reason. Demographic changes would distort the picture, otherwise.

Raw numbers alone does not justify an improving economy/job market.

True, but that doesn't mean they give no indication.

Unlike in 1963, we have an expanded welfare state and more women in the labor force as a percentage of the national whole. That throws a wrench in the gears so lets compare apples to apples shall we?

Right, which is why using Labor Force Participation Rate can be misleading when used the way you did in the OP.
Let's look at what the numbers mean.
In January 2009, 7.8% of those available for work (doing something about working) were not working, and 65.7% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available.
In December 2013, 6.7% of those available for work were not working, and 62.8% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available. Why were so many not available? Because the chose not to be, or were unable to start work at the time.

The UE rate tells us how hard it is to get a job, while the Labor Force participation rate tells us what percent of the population is available for work.

1. Then correct the data. How should my numbers look? And that was not the question I was asking.
2. They give little indication, if any, away from any reasonable context.
3. I am aware. But if the labor force participation rate was the same as in 2009 Obama is at a net loss on unemployment.

 

[pinqy]

As the op demonstrates, I know where to find the employment situation. that was not the question I asked.

Well, you didn't show the correct numbers: Jan 2009 UE rate has been revised up to 7.8%, for example. And your Not in the Labor Force numbers seem to have come from thin air, so no, you didn't demonstrate your ability to find data. And it was the question you asked. If I misunderstood, feel free to rephrase it.

Not necessarily. The unemployment rate is percent of the Labor Force, not population, for a reason. Demographic changes would distort the picture, otherwise.


True, but that doesn't mean they give no indication.

Unlike in 1963, we have an expanded welfare state and more women in the labor force as a percentage of the national whole. That throws a wrench in the gears so lets compare apples to apples shall we?

Right, which is why using Labor Force Participation Rate can be misleading when used the way you did in the OP.
Let's look at what the numbers mean.
In January 2009, 7.8% of those available for work (doing something about working) were not working, and 65.7% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available.
In December 2013, 6.7% of those available for work were not working, and 62.8% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available. Why were so many not available? Because the chose not to be, or were unable to start work at the time.

The UE rate tells us how hard it is to get a job, while the Labor Force participation rate tells us what percent of the population is available for work.

1. Then correct the data. How should my numbers look? And that was not the question I was asking.

Jan 2009:
Adult Civilian Non-institutional Population: 234,739,000
Labor Force: 154,210,000
Labor Force Participation Rate: 65.7%
Employed: 142,152,000
Unemployed: 12,058,000
Unemployment rate: 7.8%
Not in the Labor Force: 80,539,000

2. They give little indication, if any, away from any reasonable context.

Which is why the UE rate is the main indicator...it requires less context.

3. I am aware. But if the labor force participation rate was the same as in 2009 Obama is at a net loss on unemployment.

Please show your math. But basically all you're saying is that if there were more unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher.

 

[Publius1787]

Well, you didn't show the correct numbers: Jan 2009 UE rate has been revised up to 7.8%, for example. And your Not in the Labor Force numbers seem to have come from thin air, so no, you didn't demonstrate your ability to find data. And it was the question you asked. If I misunderstood, feel free to rephrase it.

Not necessarily. The unemployment rate is percent of the Labor Force, not population, for a reason. Demographic changes would distort the picture, otherwise.


True, but that doesn't mean they give no indication.

Right, which is why using Labor Force Participation Rate can be misleading when used the way you did in the OP.
Let's look at what the numbers mean.
In January 2009, 7.8% of those available for work (doing something about working) were not working, and 65.7% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available.
In December 2013, 6.7% of those available for work were not working, and 62.8% of the adult civilian non-institutional population was available. Why were so many not available? Because the chose not to be, or were unable to start work at the time.

The UE rate tells us how hard it is to get a job, while the Labor Force participation rate tells us what percent of the population is available for work.

1. Then correct the data. How should my numbers look? And that was not the question I was asking.

Jan 2009:
Adult Civilian Non-institutional Population: 234,739,000
Labor Force: 154,210,000
Labor Force Participation Rate: 65.7%
Employed: 142,152,000
Unemployed: 12,058,000
Unemployment rate: 7.8%
Not in the Labor Force: 80,539,000

2. They give little indication, if any, away from any reasonable context.

Which is why the UE rate is the main indicator...it requires less context.

3. I am aware. But if the labor force participation rate was the same as in 2009 Obama is at a net loss on unemployment.

Please show your math. But basically all you're saying is that if there were more unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher.

Essentially, this is correct. If more people were looking for jobs the unemployment rate would be much higher. With more people dropping out/not participating in the labor force they do not get counted as unemployed.

 

[pinqy]

1. Then correct the data. How should my numbers look? And that was not the question I was asking.

Jan 2009:
Adult Civilian Non-institutional Population: 234,739,000
Labor Force: 154,210,000
Labor Force Participation Rate: 65.7%
Employed: 142,152,000
Unemployed: 12,058,000
Unemployment rate: 7.8%
Not in the Labor Force: 80,539,000

Which is why the UE rate is the main indicator...it requires less context.

3. I am aware. But if the labor force participation rate was the same as in 2009 Obama is at a net loss on unemployment.

Please show your math. But basically all you're saying is that if there were more unemployed, then the unemployment rate would be higher.

Essentially, this is correct. If more people were looking for jobs the unemployment rate would be much higher. With more people dropping out/not participating in the labor force they do not get counted as unemployed.

Actually, the Labor Force is going up, it's just not going up as fast . As population g to. Participation has been going down since 2000. And that's not necessarily bad. Remember,, about 92% of those not in the Labor Force don't want a job. Of those that say they do, most only theoretically want one (half who say they want a job haven't done anything I. Over a year, so it's hard to say they really want one.

 

[oldfart]

Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Change in Number of Unemployed
11,616,000 Jan 2009
10,351,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

Change in the Number of Employed
142,099,000 Jan 2009
144,586,000 Dec 2013
Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
65.5% Jan 2009
62.8% Dec 2013
Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

Total Not in Labor Force
49,455,000 Jan 2009
55,220,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Jobs to Dropouts
Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly

Your Thoughts?

Your main point is awkwardly stated but essentially correct. You took the long and complicated route that involves a bunch of methodological problems which are avoided by a shorter route. Try this:

Start with the civilian non-institutional population over 16 years of age and look at the employment to population ratio in the BLS stats. This avoids all the problems of defining who is in the labor force that make the LFPR such a bad measure. We are only dealing with two numbers, employment and population, which don't have as many definitional troubles. This ratio had been going down since 2007, but in December 2008 it was 61.0% which is as good a starting point as any other.

Now with an aging population, this overall ratio should be declining because of the changes in the age distribution (this is where your ceteris is not paribus). Now BLS has employment to population ratios for age groups, but you have to dig them out. Someone has already crunched the numbers, and it turns out that the age adjusted employment to population ratio overall should decline 0.3% from the end of 2008 to the end of 2013 if the ratios for each age bracket stay the same. That gives you a target employment-population ratio of 60.7% at the end of 2013. The actual ratio was 58.6%, a shortfall of 2.1%. This is a huge amount.

With a December 2013 civilian non-institutional population of 245,679,000 that difference works out to an employment difference of 5,160,000. Add that to the drop in employment for that period and you get the "shadow unemployment figure" and you can work out a "shadow unemployment rate" from there. It's pretty gruesome.

Now there is nothing about causality in this, just a measure of economic underperformance. We have a long way to go.

 

[pinqy]

Start with the civilian non-institutional population over 16 years of age and look at the employment to population ratio in the BLS stats. This avoids all the problems of defining who is in the labor force that make the LFPR such a bad measure. We are only dealing with two numbers, employment and population, which don't have as many definitional troubles. This ratio had been going down since 2007, but in December 2008 it was 61.0% which is as good a starting point as any other.

Good so far. And since you chose December, we can use the Not Seasonally Adjusted data (better for comparison of same month or for annual averages or more detailed level)

Now with an aging population, this overall ratio should be declining because of the changes in the age distribution (this is where your ceteris is not paribus). Now BLS has employment to population ratios for age groups, but you have to dig them out. Someone has already crunched the numbers, and it turns out that the age adjusted employment to population ratio overall should decline 0.3% from the end of 2008 to the end of 2013 if the ratios for each age bracket stay the same. That gives you a target employment-population ratio of 60.7% at the end of 2013. The actual ratio was 58.6%, a shortfall of 2.1%. This is a huge amount.

68.5% using the unadjusted numbers, but the point remains.

With a December 2013 civilian non-institutional population of 245,679,000 that difference works out to an employment difference of 5,160,000. Add that to the drop in employment for that period and you get the "shadow unemployment figure" and you can work out a "shadow unemployment rate" from there. It's pretty gruesome.

And now we run into problems when you assume that the difference should be considered unemployment. Ageing is not the only reason for a decline in the labor force/employment population ratio. If more younger people go to school or choose not to work while attending school, or if more families go to single earner to devote more time to children and/or save costs, then that's not a labor market problem, and it's misleading to view it as "shadow unemployment."

So let's break things down into percent of population (which will make unemployment look lower as UE rate is percent of labor force) all from http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm not seasonally adjusted.

Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population:
December 2008: 235,035,000
December 2013: 246,745,000

Employed:
2008: 143,350,000 (61.0%)
2013: 144,423,000 (58.5%)

Unemployed:
2008: 10,999,000 (4.7%)
2013: 9,984,000 (4.0%)

Not in Labor Force Does Not want Job
2008: 75,506,000 (32.1%)
2013: 86,406,000 (35.0%)

Not in Labor Force Wants Job
2008: 5,180,000 (2.2%)
2013: 5,932,000 (2.4%)

So, as you can see, while Employment dropped 2.5 percentage points as percent of population, those not wanting jobs increased 2.9 percentage points. Those looking dropped 0.7 percentage points and those wanting but not looking or not available increased 0.2 percentage points. (there are some rounding errors so the numbers don't add up neatly.

Looked at this way, your shadow unemployment drops a lot because you just cannot consider people who say they do not want to work as any kind of unemployed. While the percent of the population employed has dropped, the percent wanting employment has also dropped.

 

[expat_panama]

...cannot consider people who say they do not want to work as any kind of unemployed...

Election in '08 and...

---ten million working age able bodied people suddenly they decide they don't want to feed themselves? I don't buy it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

To be fair it isn't like Obama's policies were taking place in 2008. He was sworn in in 2009, and surely there is a lag time on how quickly he could influence the unemployment picture.

Not saying he's done a good job or a bad job, just saying pinning that upward curve on him since 2008 isn't really fair.

 

[pinqy]

...cannot cons)ider people who say they do not want to work as any kind of unemployed...

Election in '08 and...

---ten million working age able bodied people suddenly they decide they don't want to feed themselves? I don't buy it.

While age 15 is interviewed, only age 16+ is published, so your chart is odd there.
"Jobless" is not defined.
And who said able-bodied? Not in the Labor Force includes 23.2 million disabled, 10.8 million of whom are under 65.

But let's look at the age breakdown:
For Dec 2008 http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn200901.pdf find Table A-38
Dec 2013 A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Not in the Labor Force does not want a job
Age 16-24
2008=14,615,000
2013= 16,375,000
Change = +1,760,000

Age 25-54:
2008= 19,077,000
2013= 21,226,000
Change= +2,149,000

Age 55+
2008= 41,814,000
2013= 48,804,000
Change= +6,990,000

 

[S.J.]

To be fair it isn't like Obama's policies were taking place in 2008. He was sworn in in 2009, and surely there is a lag time on how quickly he could influence the unemployment picture.

Not saying he's done a good job or a bad job, just saying pinning that upward curve on him since 2008 isn't really fair.

When did the Democrats take back Congress?

 

[oldfart]

And since you chose December, we can use the Not Seasonally Adjusted data (better for comparison of same month or for annual averages or more detailed level)

I try to use NSA data whenever possible because folks get confused when the seasonal adjustment changes annually.

With a December 2013 civilian non-institutional population of 245,679,000 that difference works out to an employment difference of 5,160,000. Add that to the drop in employment for that period and you get the "shadow unemployment figure" and you can work out a "shadow unemployment rate" from there. It's pretty gruesome.

And now we run into problems when you assume that the difference should be considered unemployment. Ageing is not the only reason for a decline in the labor force/employment population ratio. If more younger people go to school or choose not to work while attending school, or if more families go to single earner to devote more time to children and/or save costs, then that's not a labor market problem, and it's misleading to view it as "shadow unemployment."

OK we have a problem defining a base line. I argue that secular changes such as an increased desire for more education or to devote more time to family act over longer periods and don't explain the size of short term changes we observe. Had the job market not tanked, I think those secular changes would not have been observed at all. If there is a secular change in these areas we could adjust for it like the shifting age distribution. But going back to 1997--2007 there is no trend line for increasing educational participation nor for reductions in average work week.

Not saying it can't happen, just that the evidence doesn't seem to support an exogenous sociological change in the labor market.

So let's break things down into percent of population (which will make unemployment look lower as UE rate is percent of labor force) all from Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age not seasonally adjusted.

Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population:
December 2008: 235,035,000
December 2013: 246,745,000

Employed:
2008: 143,350,000 (61.0%)
2013: 144,423,000 (58.5%)

Unemployed:
2008: 10,999,000 (4.7%)
2013: 9,984,000 (4.0%)

Not in Labor Force Does Not want Job
2008: 75,506,000 (32.1%)
2013: 86,406,000 (35.0%)

Not in Labor Force Wants Job
2008: 5,180,000 (2.2%)
2013: 5,932,000 (2.4%)

So, as you can see, while Employment dropped 2.5 percentage points as percent of population, those not wanting jobs increased 2.9 percentage points. Those looking dropped 0.7 percentage points and those wanting but not looking or not available increased 0.2 percentage points. (there are some rounding errors so the numbers don't add up neatly.

Looked at this way, your shadow unemployment drops a lot because you just cannot consider people who say they do not want to work as any kind of unemployed. While the percent of the population employed has dropped, the percent wanting employment has also dropped.

The CBO today released an analysis that as a side note mentioned that their base macro model pegged the number of jobs that should have been created C.P. to be a bit over 5 million. My calculations put the number at 5,160,000, which in statistical jargon is "close enough for government work".

You are right that none of this really changes first order effects. Employment is a lot lower than it should be in the fifth year of a recovery.

 

[edthecynic]

Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office.

A perfect example of the complete dishonesty of the Right.

Aside from the fact that the LPR is affected by demographics, making it a lousy economic indicator, you dishonestly assume a nonexistent "constant LPR rate" for Obama but not for Bush's UE rate. The LPR has been declining since 2000, and during the Bush Regime it fell from 67.2% to 65.7%, so if the LPR stayed the same for Bush his 7.6% would have been 8.6%.

 

[edthecynic]

Where do I find the numbers of those not participating in the labor force at the BLS then?

@Publius1787

The link to the historical data is at the bottom of every monthly report. That link will take you to the specific link that breaks down the "not in labor force" into its component parts.

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

As you can see the number of "not in labor force" who have "dropped out" (discouraged workers in BLS terms) is recorded by the BLS. If you take the time to examine the data you will see that your Right-wing sources have been lying to you, but for that very reason you probably will not click on the link!