News Jobs increase, unemployment lowest in 4 years

[mheslep]

I could spend all day at the BLS playing with their graphs. What fun!

This one is interesting:

...

Or just since 2004:

 

[Vanadium 50]

If the numbers were different, of course it's hard to predict who would be saying exactly what. However, I don't think it's likely that the President would be using this as a campaign issue (as he recently did in Fairfax) if the numbers were worse.

As far as numbers likely to change, here is what the White House itself said on November 4th, 2011: "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into anyone monthly report." Something more or less like this has appeared on the White House site approximately monthly since 2009. I'm a little surprised that agreeing with something that the White House has posted on their website a couple dozen times somehow makes me an anti-Obama partisan.

But don't take my word for it. Look at the history. See how often that there were disagreements in the week-old numbers (often), and see how often they changed over the next few months (often) and see how often the discrepancies were eventually resolved (pretty much always).

Note that I am not saying that the 7.8% number is too high or that it is too low. I am saying that it is in disagreement with the 110,000 number, that these disagreements are normally, and it usually takes a couple months to sort these things out.

 

[OmCheeto]

Or just since 2004:

Which is odd, because if you look at the data by 10 year age groups, all had net increases since January 2010.

The only oddballs in the set appear to be the 45-64 age group. They tended downward all the way to January 2011. Probably too stubborn to flip burgers.

Employment-Population Ratio

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

(ref)

The last graph kind of puts a kink in my retiree theory. They've gone from 10% in the late 80's to around 17.5% of them working now. Though back in the 50's their numbers were around 25%.

You can also kind of interpolate when women started entering the work force from the long term graphs. In the 50's only about 65% of the prime age group worked. That jumped to around 80% for about the last 4 decades.

25-54

 

[SixNein]

The Republican party is no more or less anti-science really than the Democratic party from what I've seen. The left accuses the Republican party of being anti-science in certain ways, while ignoring their own ways of being anti-science. As for being too right-wing, they're both highly partisan. I'd say the Republican party is rather far right-wing, but the Democratic party is too left-wing.

The republican party has become way more anti-science because of its desire to purge moderates from the party. Rockefeller Republicans are becoming extinct, and they were the buffer against far right nonsense; as a result, the republican party is turning into some kind of religious-conservative party.

Anti-science has always been an issue in America throughout history. But in general, the movement has been weak, and it has been mostly on the fringes of either the far right or far left. But what we are seeing today is something altogether different. One can http://www.asanet.org/press/conservatives_trust_has_fallen.cfm it. And there has been nothing but a bombardment of bills to mess with science education in states around America from this group. My own state just recently passed such a bill. Some of the creationist museums are getting funding from states. So there is a significant anti-science movement growing in America that's gaining a great deal of support from conservatives in both parties. But republicans are building a platform out of it.

Basically, I think the hostility against poll numbers and unemployment numbers is born out of this growing anti-science movement.

 

[Astronuc]

The republican party has become way more anti-science because of its desire to purge moderates from the party. Rockefeller Republicans are becoming extinct, and they were the buffer against far right nonsense; as a result, the republican party is turning into some kind of religious-conservative party.

Anti-science has always been an issue in America throughout history. But in general, the movement has been weak, and it has been mostly on the fringes of either the far right or far left. But what we are seeing today is something altogether different. One can http://www.asanet.org/press/conservatives_trust_has_fallen.cfm it. And there has been nothing but a bombardment of bills to mess with science education in states around America from this group. My own state just recently passed such a bill. Some of the creationist museums are getting funding from states. So there is a significant anti-science movement growing in America that's gaining a great deal of support from conservatives in both parties. But republicans are building a platform out of it.

Basically, I think the hostility against poll numbers and unemployment numbers is born out of this growing anti-science movement.

That's some individuals who are members of the GOP.

Please stay on topic, which is the jobs/employment numbers.


Meanwhile - Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate - including a number of Republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/officials-reject-conspiracies-unemployment-rate-070150404--finance.html

 

[SixNein]

That's some individuals who are members of the GOP.

Please stay on topic, which is the jobs/employment numbers.


Meanwhile - Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate - including a number of Republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/officials-reject-conspiracies-unemployment-rate-070150404--finance.html

Mainstream GOP would be a better description. I'm not making arguments based upon outliers of the republican party. Their views reflect the 46% of Americans who believe the Earth is less than 10k years old, and the Majority of Republicans Are Creationists.

Quite frankly I think it adds context to the unemployment rate conspiracies and new found scrutiny about the numbers. The unemployment numbers disagreed with their world view, so they reject the unemployment numbers.

But I'll cease this route of argumentation.

 

[Pythagorean]

Their views don't reflect the 46%. A large fraction of democrats are in there too. But more importantly, what does it have to do with unemployment?

 

[SixNein]

Their views don't reflect the 46%. A large fraction of democrats are in there too. But more importantly, what does it have to do with unemployment?

Your right. I was following the skepticism and rejection of employment numbers rather then the OP.

-> back on topic...

 

[CAC1001]

The republican party has become way more anti-science because of its desire to purge moderates from the party. Rockefeller Republicans are becoming extinct, and they were the buffer against far right nonsense; as a result, the republican party is turning into some kind of religious-conservative party.

Anti-science has always been an issue in America throughout history. But in general, the movement has been weak, and it has been mostly on the fringes of either the far right or far left. But what we are seeing today is something altogether different. One can http://www.asanet.org/press/conservatives_trust_has_fallen.cfm it. And there has been nothing but a bombardment of bills to mess with science education in states around America from this group. My own state just recently passed such a bill. Some of the creationist museums are getting funding from states. So there is a significant anti-science movement growing in America that's gaining a great deal of support from conservatives in both parties. But republicans are building a platform out of it.

Basically, I think the hostility against poll numbers and unemployment numbers is born out of this growing anti-science movement.

While I agree with you about the anti-science aspects of Republicans, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on some of the other parts.

 

[Oltz]

I just want to point out that the 873,000 number would be the largest 1 month gain since June 1983 when the economy was actually rebounding and happens to put the total employment number just barely above what it was prior to Obama's inauguration.

By the way Evo criticizing the employment metric is not new and we always have it is not suddenly a bad metric now that it shows some improvement. I prefer the metrics that include underemployment and people of working age that are not disabled or incarcerated but not looking for work as a more accurate measure of employment status.

This is known as the U-6 category of unemployment statistics.

Go here and take a look http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

This shows that nearly all the gains were part time jobs that people would work full time if they could but they are part time positions for economic reasons. So even if 873,00 people did find work the percent that are fully employed did not change.

This table shows 582,000 job gains as part time for economic reasons for September.

go to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln
and check the box for Persons At Work Part Time for Economic Reasons - LNS12032194

 

[OmCheeto]

You can also kind of interpolate when women started entering the work force from the long term graphs. In the 50's only about 65% of the prime age group worked. That jumped to around 80% for about the last 4 decades.

25-54

girls

Wow. You've come a long way babies.

and...

boys

hmmm... girls have been catching up for the last 60 years, but this latest recovery seems to be boy dominated.

Are girls less good at ditch digging, or just brighter?

 

[Astronuc]

Yet - The 'Real' Unemployment Rate Is Still Really Lousy
http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemployment-rate-still-really-lousy-211815397.html

 

[Evo]

Yet - The 'Real' Unemployment Rate Is Still Really Lousy
http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemployment-rate-still-really-lousy-211815397.html

Everything started tanking the beginning of 2008, during Bush's last year, and was already down to the current rate when Obama took office, Obama inherited a sinking ship. If we're going to blame the President for what happens with jobs, then we need to give credit for the good.

From your article

Romney and his fellow Republicans may blame Obama for this tattered portion of the work force, but it's not necessarily Obama's fault. Some economists think a growing wave of retirements among baby boomers account for part of the shift from full-time to part-time work. The twin revolutions of globalization and the advent of digital technology are also shaking up the workforce, regardless of who's in the White House.

The unemplyment rate was 5.0 in January 2008, it was 7.8 in January 2009 when Obama took office. Not Bush's fault, companies started laying off employees in unprecedented numbers, some due to mergers, some due to sending jobs offshore, and companies realizing they needed to get leaner to increase profits, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

...
boys

hmmm... girls have been catching up for the last 60 years, but this latest recovery seems to be boy dominated.

Are girls less good at ditch digging, or just brighter?

I'm fairly sure the decline in male-only employment-population ratio overwhelmingly comes from decline in the blue collar, trades work, per Murray's Coming Apart and the like. If there was an education level metric in the BLS data I think that would show up dramatically.

 

[BobG]

It's not the unemployment rate that's objectionable as a measurement - it's using a two-month snapshot of data to show motion.

Still, unemployment was 10% in Oct 2009 and it's had a slow, but steady decrease to 7.8% in 3 years. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln (I doubt this will go directly to the unemployment rates, but you can click on unemployment rates and submit if it doesn't. Edit: in fact, it doesn't. You can't link directly to the output tables you select).

It also puts into perspective what 7.8% unemployment means. It's bad. Under 6% is good.

To put this into perspective, one could compare to the 1980 timeframe when Reagan inherited a bad economy from Carter. In May 1980, unemployment passed 7% in May 1980 and didn't drop below 7% until Jan 1986. The unemployment rate went above 8% in Nov 1981 and didn't drop below 8% until Jan 1984. Unemployment was above 9% from Mar 1982 to Sep 1983.

During the current job crises, unemployment passed 7% in Dec 2008 and still hasn't dropped back below 7%. But if drops below 7% sometime in 2014, then jobs will have recovered about as fast as they did under Reagan.

During the current job crises, unemployment passed 8% in Feb 2009 and didn't drop below 8% until Sep 2012. That's longer than it took under Reagan by quite a bit (43 months vs 26 months).

During the current, unemployment passed 9% in May 2009 and drop below 9% until Sep 2011 (28 months vs 18 months).

But it is two separate recessions with different causes and using only two examples doesn't make for a great example. But, if the economy had rebounded the same way as it did in the 80's, then Obama would have this election locked up, regardless of who the Republicans nominated (which is what I would have predicted back in 2009).

 

[Oltz]

The reason Obama gets some blame was that "stimulus" that we keep getting told worked was supposed to bring unemployment down to 5.5% by now and prevent it from going over 8 at all. From where I sit it looks like we borrowed Trillions from my daughters generation for nothing except campaign kick backs.

So you can't have it both ways it can not be BUsh's fault unless you say the stimulus was a failure and a mistake. If the stimulus worked in your eyes then the economy good and bad is on Obama.

Take your pick.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm fairly sure the decline in male-only employment-population ratio overwhelmingly comes from decline in the blue collar, trades work, per Murray's Coming Apart and the like. If there was an education level metric in the BLS data I think that would show up dramatically.

There is.

But the data only goes back to 1992, and only for the 25+ demographic.

The comparison of Employment-population ratio to Unemployment rate over the last two years for men and women with Bachelors degrees or better is food for more research.

I'd post the graphs, but I'm late for work.

 

[OmCheeto]

There is.

But the data only goes back to 1992, and only for the 25+ demographic.

The comparison of Employment-population ratio to Unemployment rate over the last two years for men and women with Bachelors degrees or better is food for more research.

I'd post the graphs, but I'm late for work.

Gads! How can I be so busy?

I was discussing this thread with my bartender just 3 days ago, and he echoed the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html

He's a recently graduated chemist, and is now working, or should I say, volunteering, in a bio-research lab.

But anyways, the unemployment rate for BS+ edumatated people is pretty low.

I would recommend that recent college grads hang in there. The other numbers don't look quite that good.

 

[SixNein]

The reason Obama gets some blame was that "stimulus" that we keep getting told worked was supposed to bring unemployment down to 5.5% by now and prevent it from going over 8 at all. From where I sit it looks like we borrowed Trillions from my daughters generation for nothing except campaign kick backs.

So you can't have it both ways it can not be BUsh's fault unless you say the stimulus was a failure and a mistake. If the stimulus worked in your eyes then the economy good and bad is on Obama.

Take your pick.

The stimulus wasn't a mistake, and it did work. The problem was that state governments were hemorrhaging jobs through their austerity measures; as a result, the federal stimulus was neutralized.

 

[russ_watters]

...here's something you'll get first from me: I predict that next month either this blip gets corrected away or corrects itself via a -573,000 job creation month (giving a +150,00 average between the two) and unemployment goes back up to 8.1%.

The economy added 171,000 jobs in October, and unemployment inched up to 7.9%, from 7.8% in September, the Labor Department said Friday...

The number of positions added in August and September were revised sharply higher, adding a combined 84,000 more jobs than first thought.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/news/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

So:
1. The August and September job creation numbers were revised up.
2. The October job creation number was higher than the September revised number.
3. Unemployment went up.

So unemployment didn't go up by as much as I predicted, but it did go up, despite what is actually a fairly decent job creation number and better numbers for the previous months.

Analysis to follow, but please don't hold back on giving me my props!

 

[russ_watters]

Some analysis:

The civilian labor force rose by 578,000 to 155.6 million in October, and the labor
force participation rate edged up to 63.8 percent. Total employment rose by 410,000
over the month. The employment-population ratio was essentially unchanged at 58.8
percent, following an increase of 0.4 percentage point in September. (See table A-1.)

Based on what I said before, I had expected the total employment to drop to offset the unusually large increase last month. Instead, it had another big gain, but the labor force participation rate had a bigger gain, which is why the unemployment rate went up. It appears to me that these two numbers are chasing each other, going up and down together as part of the normal statistical fluctuations due to sampling. Still, there was a significant component that did correct a blip from last month:

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 269,000 to 8.3 million in October, partially
offsetting an increase of 582,000 in September.

Not quite where I thought the blip was, but it is the concept I was discussing.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

For the political implications of this: [crickets chirp] Last month, the surprising drop was newsworthy to post in PF, by an Obama supporter. This month, a Romney supporter (me) brings it back. I had thought that last month's report would be the last before the election, but it was still significant for passing the round-number of 8%. This month's numbers show a continuing decent but unspectacular recovery (recall again that about 1250,000 is the zero-point for job creation). Improvements are good, but this improvement is much too slow to fully recover in one economic cycle. It is a touch slower than the so-called "jobless recover" that Bush endured, even with Bush getting a second hit to the economy due to 9/11: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...report-jobs-added-but-unemployment-rate-rises

 

[SixNein]

Some analysis:
Based on what I said before, I had expected the total employment to drop to offset the unusually large increase last month. Instead, it had another big gain, but the labor force participation rate had a bigger gain, which is why the unemployment rate went up. It appears to me that these two numbers are chasing each other, going up and down together as part of the normal statistical fluctuations due to sampling. Still, there was a significant component that did correct a blip from last month: Not quite where I thought the blip was, but it is the concept I was discussing.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

For the political implications of this: [crickets chirp] Last month, the surprising drop was newsworthy to post in PF, by an Obama supporter. This month, a Romney supporter (me) brings it back. I had thought that last month's report would be the last before the election, but it was still significant for passing the round-number of 8%. This month's numbers show a continuing decent but unspectacular recovery (recall again that about 1250,000 is the zero-point for job creation). Improvements are good, but this improvement is much too slow to fully recover in one economic cycle. It is a touch slower than the so-called "jobless recover" that Bush endured, even with Bush getting a second hit to the economy due to 9/11: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...report-jobs-added-but-unemployment-rate-rises

I'm not expecting us to recover in one cycle. The fact that our economy is doing as good as it is despite the fiscal cliff is amazing.

How are companies responding? “We’re not hiring,” says Mr Cote. He is far from alone. J.P. Morgan, an investment bank, reports that 61% of its American clients say the fiscal cliff is affecting their hiring plans. That is one reason why unemployment is so high. Durable-goods orders plunged 13.2% in August, partly because companies are too scared to invest their cash mountains to expand production.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564241

 

[Astronuc]

There seems to be a big disconnect here. Almost 3.6 million jobs not being filled!
I would like to how well those jobs pay.

Who’s Hiring? An Inside Out View of High Unemployment
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/hiring-inside-view-high-unemployment-172424938.html

While the headlines might make you think there aren't any jobs to be had, quite the opposite is true. According to government data there are more than 3.6 million unfilled jobs across the country right now. This is the highest level of job vacancies in nearly four years, and if just half of those jobs were filled, the unemployment rate would fall to 6.5%.

. . . .

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that no less than 4 of the 10 broad industries it tracks are not only hiring right now, but actually struggling to do so.

. . . .

Economic Shock From Fiscal Cliff Will Last Over a Decade: U.S. Manufacturers
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/brea...l-cliff-last-over-decade-warns-181646611.html

The next (or current) president-to-be needs to work with Congress to resolve this looming crisis.


The Unemployment Rate Is a Farce That Needs Fixing: Rep. Duncan Hunter
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/brea...needs-fixing-rep-duncan-hunter-113437674.html

It's a problem that he and a growing number of lawmakers want to fix, and it's why the California Republican has sponsored the Real Unemployment Calculation Act — a legislative fix that would require the Department of Labor to get real about what it tells the American people.

In fact, unbeknownst to most people, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tabulates not one but six different unemployment rates, ranging from U-1 to U6 (4.2% to 14.9%).

Hunter's bill would make the U5 result the new official unemployment rate through what he calls "a little magic along with the math." According to the BLS website, the U-5 rate includes "discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force." . . . .

I agree with Hunter.

 

[russ_watters]

There seems to be a big disconnect here. Almost 3.6 million jobs not being filled!

What's the disconnect? Vs the unemployment rate? The fact that that's the highest in 4 years implies to me that the number isn't at all out of the ordinary. I would expect the number to increase as the employment situation improves: It takes time to fill vacancies and the lower the unemployment rate is, the harder it will be to find qualified applicants.

The Unemployment Rate Is a Farce That Needs Fixing: Rep. Duncan Hunter

I agree with Hunter.

Meh. The Unemployment Rate is just the number that people most commonly cite. You can't change that with legislation. The BLS collects a huge number of statistics and people can slice and dice them however they want. A full picture of the employment situation is more complicated than one number, no matter what the number is.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not expecting us to recover in one cycle. The fact that our economy is doing as good as it is despite the fiscal cliff is amazing.



http://www.economist.com/node/21564241

And what should be done to remedy the 'fiscal cliff'? Who has proposed remedies?

 

[D H]

And what should be done to remedy the 'fiscal cliff'? Who has proposed remedies?

We have a lame duck session starting soon. Compromise has been an extremely dirty word this election cycle. It won't be such a dirty word the day after tomorrow. I suspect Congress will find some way to legislate that fiscal cliff into a fiscal double black diamond. Problem solved -- Until the next Congress comes along and finds out that they don't even know how to ski down the bunny slope.

 

[ParticleGrl]

And what should be done to remedy the 'fiscal cliff'? Who has proposed remedies?

The thing I don't understand is that the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who were constantly going on about the deficit being a huge problem are NOW screaming about the fiscal cliff, which is just the deficit being reduced too quickly. If the deficit is a huge problem, you should embrace the 'fiscal cliff'.

Personally, I think that the deficit isn't a short term problem, and tax hikes and spending cuts aren't a great idea until we hit full employment. But I don't understand why deficit hawks are now screaming about the fiscal cliff.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really like the mix of plans, but I do like the deficit reduction.

 

[SixNein]

The thing I don't understand is that the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who were constantly going on about the deficit being a huge problem are NOW screaming about the fiscal cliff, which is just the deficit being reduced too quickly. If the deficit is a huge problem, you should embrace the 'fiscal cliff'.

Personally, I think that the deficit isn't a short term problem, and tax hikes and spending cuts aren't a great idea until we hit full employment. But I don't understand why deficit hawks are now screaming about the fiscal cliff.

The fiscal cliff would be economic suicide even assuming a 1to1. And we have no clue about what the multipliers are for those deep spending cuts.

But that's not why their screaming about it. Their screaming because it contains tax hikes. Remember, they want to cut the debt without ever raising taxes.

Of course, that makes absolutely no economic sense... But the whole fiasco last year didn't make sense.