Unemployment at 8.6%

[the DRIZZLE]

September: 158,000 -> 210,000
October: 80,000->100,000

I think the September increase is more than slight. It's not that common to have revisions of over 50K in either direction.

We need to start putting up numbers in the 350,000+ range to have any meaningful recovery in employment. After the 1982 recession we added almost 4 million jobs per year for two years and the total labor force was much smaller then. With the size of the labor force today that would about 6 million jobs per year or 500k per month.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

8.6% is fairy tale numbers, we're no better off than a year ago.

I always laugh when people get non confirming evidence in their face and cry.

 

[rudder]

I always laugh when people get non confirming evidence in their face and cry.

The labor department does not consider people who are no longer looking for work as unemployed when determining this percentage. In November 2011, 487,000 people left the job market and were not counted towards unemployment numbers.

I do not get a laugh about people laughing about people who understand what the 8.6% actually represents.

In case you do not believe me...
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

 

[woolfe9999]

We need to start putting up numbers in the 350,000+ range to have any meaningful recovery in employment. After the 1982 recession we added almost 4 million jobs per year for two years and the total labor force was much smaller then. With the size of the labor force today that would about 6 million jobs per year or 500k per month.

That's probably about right. However, given the magnitude of this decline and the reasons for it, it wasn't likely that it would jump from monthly losses to large monthly gains. It was always more likely to go from bigs losses -> smaller losses -> flat -> small gains - >moderate gains, before kicking into higher gains. The important thing here is the trend line. That said, you're quite correct that it can't stay like this forever.

 

[bfdd]

I always laugh when people get non confirming evidence in their face and cry.

The numbers they spit out have conditions for what equals unemployed. I know at least 5 people who are unemployed, but would not meet any of the conditions required to be counted as "unemployed" by their measurements. They have been doing this for well over a decade do a little research on actual unemployment numbers and you'll see they have improved significantly at hiding actual unemployment numbers. We're still probably closer to 15%.

 

[feralkid]

The numbers they spit out have conditions for what equals unemployed. I know at least 5 people who are unemployed, but would not meet any of the conditions required to be counted as "unemployed" by their measurements. They have been doing this for well over a decade do a little research on actual unemployment numbers and you'll see they have improved significantly at hiding actual unemployment numbers. We're still probably closer to 15%.

So you're saying the net gain is the same, since the conditions have remained the same for the last 10 years?

Makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

The numbers they spit out have conditions for what equals unemployed. I know at least 5 people who are unemployed, but would not meet any of the conditions required to be counted as "unemployed" by their measurements. They have been doing this for well over a decade do a little research on actual unemployment numbers and you'll see they have improved significantly at hiding actual unemployment numbers. We're still probably closer to 15%.

They are hiding nothing. Go read about U1 through U6.

 

[bfdd]

So you're saying the net gain is the same, since the conditions have remained the same for the last 10 years?

Makes sense.

there may have been a gain, but the current number of 8.6% is a fairy tale number regardless. it doesn't represent reality.

 

[woolfe9999]

The numbers they spit out have conditions for what equals unemployed. I know at least 5 people who are unemployed, but would not meet any of the conditions required to be counted as "unemployed" by their measurements. They have been doing this for well over a decade do a little research on actual unemployment numbers and you'll see they have improved significantly at hiding actual unemployment numbers. We're still probably closer to 15%.

You're not making a logical argument here. Your original post was saying that we aren't any better off than we were a year ago. The point about unemployment figures is not whether they actually capture everyone who is unemployed. It's what the vector/tendline shows over time, assuming the method of calculating it remains constant. You said we're no better off than last year, and now you're saying the calculation method doesn't capture the whole picture, yet the same method was used a year ago. You may be correct that the method doesn't capture all the unemployed, but that in no way supports your original assertion.

 

[TalonStrike]

Bust out the champagne! Between this and record-breaking black friday sales, it looks like America is in recovery mode!

 

[spidey07]

Bust out the champagne! Between this and record-breaking black friday sales, it looks like America is in recovery mode!

I love how people are completely forgetting this was released just yesterday. The only reason the rate went down is because people unemployed weren't counted in figure.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/01/news/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.htm

The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits rose again last week to their highest level in a month.

There were 402,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Nov. 26, the Labor Department said Thursday. That was up 6,000 from the week before and marked the highest level since the week of Oct. 22.

Economists typically look for the initial claims number to fall below the 400,000 level to signal job growth is strong enough for the unemployment rate to come down.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's probably about right. However, given the magnitude of this decline and the reasons for it, it wasn't likely that it would jump from monthly losses to large monthly gains. It was always more likely to go from bigs losses -> smaller losses -> flat -> small gains - >moderate gains, before kicking into higher gains. The important thing here is the trend line. That said, you're quite correct that it can't stay like this forever.

In 1982 the losses were just as steep as in 2008, but the recovery that followed was steep as well. So there there was some basis to hope for for a V shaped recovery but that clearly hasn't happened.

 

[Carmen813]

We need more to keep up with the birthrate. But this is a good sign.

 

[Carmen813]

I love how people are completely forgetting this was released just yesterday. The only reason the rate went down is because people unemployed weren't counted in figure.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/01/news/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.htm

Did you read the last sentence in your own quote? We're basically there. Jobless claims aren't necessarily always bad either, especially if it means people are in transition.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You're not making a logical argument here. Your original post was saying that we aren't any better off than we were a year ago. The point about unemployment figures is not whether they actually capture everyone who is unemployed. It's what the vector/tendline shows over time, assuming the method of calculating it remains constant. You said we're no better off than last year, and now you're saying the calculation method doesn't capture the whole picture, yet the same method was used a year ago. You may be correct that the method doesn't capture all the unemployed, but that in no way supports your original assertion.

You are correct that it's the vector or derivative that's important but the unemployment rates are not best way to get that information. They payroll data directly tells you that information without all the complicating factors that are inherent in the unemployment report. Honestly, I wish they would stop publishing the unemployment report or the media would stop covering it. It's so widely misinterpreted by the public that it does more harm than good.

 

[fskimospy]

In 1982 the losses were just as steep as in 2008, but the recovery that followed was steep as well. So there there was some basis to hope for for a V shaped recovery but that clearly hasn't happened.

There really wasn't much basis for hope for a V shaped recovery. The recession of the early 1980's was in large part because the prime interest rate was as high as 21%. It was cut in half over the next few years, and shockingly enough economic growth boomed. When this recession started interest rates had almost nowhere down to go, so monetary stimulus the type of which was aggressively used before was not possible.

 

[bfdd]

You're not making a logical argument here. Your original post was saying that we aren't any better off than we were a year ago. The point about unemployment figures is not whether they actually capture everyone who is unemployed. It's what the vector/tendline shows over time, assuming the method of calculating it remains constant. You said we're no better off than last year, and now you're saying the calculation method doesn't capture the whole picture, yet the same method was used a year ago. You may be correct that the method doesn't capture all the unemployed, but that in no way supports your original assertion.

Sure it does, if more people fell off. If 3,000,000 people are no longer being counted then that's 1% of our population and would drop it from 9.6% to 8.6% and show "growth" in the system. I do not believe that there has been growth, just sideways movement at best and we're being given fairy tale numbers. (obviously that math is bogus and doesn't represent real shit, just an example)

woolfe, do you believe these numbers? Did you believe them 6 months ago? How about a year ago? 2 years before that? We haven't had REAL unemployment figures posted by the government in over a decade.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The majority of Republican voters are more than likely seniors and more than likely WHITE. Two demographics that are not growing in this country.

Long term trends don't look good for the R's. They picked the wrong horse to back in the long run, whilst the Democrats all but have the minority vote locked up. Hispanics are going to play an increasingly larger figure in American politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure it does, if more people fell off. If 3,000,000 people are no longer being counted then that's 1% of our population and would drop it from 9.6% to 8.6% and show "growth" in the system. I do not believe that there has been growth, just sideways movement at best and we're being given fairy tale numbers. (obviously that math is bogus and doesn't represent real shit, just an example)

woolfe, do you believe these numbers? Did you believe them 6 months ago? How about a year ago? 2 years before that? We haven't had REAL unemployment figures posted by the government in over a decade.

What would you consider a 'real' unemployment figure? As in, what would it take into account?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

There really wasn't much basis for hope for a V shaped recovery. The recession of the early 1980's was in large part because the prime interest rate was as high as 21%. It was cut in half over the next few years, and shockingly enough economic growth boomed. When this recession started interest rates had almost nowhere down to go, so monetary stimulus the type of which was aggressively used before was not possible.

If you go to 2008 there were reasonable arguments on both sides for what type of recovery we would have. I think the single biggest issue that has prevented a rapid recovery is the pain of the deleveraging process, followed by the uncertainty caused by this administration.

My point is that I don't understand how people are calling these good numbers. They are terrible compared with past recoveries and are barely keeping up with the population increase.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sure it does, if more people fell off. If 3,000,000 people are no longer being counted then that's 1% of our population and would drop it from 9.6% to 8.6% and show "growth" in the system. I do not believe that there has been growth, just sideways movement at best and we're being given fairy tale numbers. (obviously that math is bogus and doesn't represent real shit, just an example)

woolfe, do you believe these numbers? Did you believe them 6 months ago? How about a year ago? 2 years before that? We haven't had REAL unemployment figures posted by the government in over a decade.

What do you mean, do I "believe" them? I don't think there is a conspiracy to manipulate them, no. There's no evidence of any such conspiracy. Do I "believe" they give a true state of all unemployment? No, but then they aren't designed to.

As to your first point, that people "fell off," that would be because they exited the job market and when surveyed by the BLS, they said they weren't looking for a job and hence didn't get counted as "unemployed." It's totally fair to point that out, and the BLS report does exactly that. It provides you with the participation rate and tells you how many people entered or left the job market. This data is then reported in the press along with the unemployment rate. Go ahead, read any MSM article out today about this report. They all tell you about the number of people leaving the job market, and they all caution the reader to take this into consideration. Nothing is being hidden here. No one is trying to flim flam you.

What I'm getting from your posts is that you're going to believe whatever your "gut" tells you about the economy. That's fine, but it's essentially worthless for intelligent discussion of the macro-economy. The macro-economy can only be assessed with statistics. If you're telling me not to "believe" any of the statistics, then there is zero to discuss about the economy, because personal hunches and anecdotal stories are irrelevant and so that leaves no admissible evidence whatsoever.

- wolf

 

[Darwin333]

Question: How can there be a reduction in the number of people unemployed while the Labor Force Participation number is the 2nd lowest in 10 years?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

If the numbers are accurate then, as a percentage of the population, less people are in the workforce then a year ago yet the official unemployment numbers are better? How does that work?

 

[Vic Vega]

Cancel the half a trillion dollar jobs bill, we don't need it!

 

[Vic Vega]

Question: How can there be a reduction in the number of people unemployed while the Labor Force Participation number is the 2nd lowest in 10 years?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

If the numbers are accurate then, as a percentage of the population, less people are in the workforce then a year ago yet the official unemployment numbers are better? How does that work?

Easy. It's a lie.

 

[woolfe9999]

Question: How can there be a reduction in the number of people unemployed while the Labor Force Participation number is the 2nd lowest in 10 years?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

If the numbers are accurate then, as a percentage of the population, less people are in the workforce then a year ago yet the official unemployment numbers are better? How does that work?

"Participation rate" is actually influenced by a number of different factors besides just people giving up looking for work in a bad economy. If I'm not mistaken, the participation rate is the percentage of non-instutionalized people 16 years of age and older who are working or actively seeking employment. So, for example, increased lifespans mean retired people live longer, yet retired people (those not institutionalized) count as non-participating. With increases in lifespan, you should therefore expect a slow decline of participation over time. That, however, is only one of many variables that affect participation rate.