Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I think I am upnorthgirl
1610 Followers
ForWeAreMany
1503 Followers
Chris Wick
106 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
This is good news! Lets hope the trend continues!
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
When you examine it from this perspective alone it sure looks like good news, 243,000 hired.
However, when you examine it as a whole it is not:
- "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month"
- "the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7%"
- "the largest absolute jump in 'Persons Not In Labor Force' on record...and biggest percentage jump in 30 years."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-
Is it really good news to have 243,000 hired while 1,200,000 leave the labor force?
Is it really good to have the lowest percentage of the population working in 30 years?
But who cares about objective examination, when you can just look at the part of the picture that is pretty.
autokadFeb 3, 2012
this is still a huge improvement. if the trend keeps up another month we are definitely healing pretty well
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
It would have to improve at this rate for years to recover all the jobs lost over the past 5 years.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
You are correct, here is a chart that verifies this information:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-needs-generate-263700-jobs-monthly-return-pre-depression-employment-end-obama-second-term
Specifically, the trend needs to continue (at a slightly higher level) until 2016 to return to per-depression employment rates.
autokadFeb 3, 2012
2016 is actually not that far away and would actually be a pretty good recovery considering the hit we had. furthermore, the rate im thinking would be healthy is if we bump around 200k+ for a few months and then start moving into the 300ks-400ks. Will it take everyone along with it? no, some that got hurt will never recover. but overall things are getting a lot better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
Not far away relative to? Relative to the start of the crisis, we are roughly halfway to 2016.
What data indicates we are actually on a path towards recovery or more job growth. All the data I have analyzed points to another global credit crises.
What happens if there is yet another crisis before 2016 (assuming we are on track for full recovery by then, which is quite an assumption)?
autokadFeb 4, 2012
2016 - 2012 = 4. not far away from the obvious ... now. the huge flaw in your logic is that you think people only look at one side, but its YOU that only looks at the negative.
what data indicates we are on a path to recovery? you really arnt paying attention to the conversation are you? try to take yourself outside of your own jaded view. jobs for one. the most important indicator for me, is autosales. the long ignored canary in the coal mine has been pretty healthy for a while. but it really dont matter. you can look at this positive point and you will just try to come up with another negative, when the only things that matter are: more and more people are working and more and more people are spending.
will a european recession crash everything? maybe. Will a meteor come from the sky and kill us all? maybe, was the mayans right in 2012? maybe. but that really dont matter, and it makes the recovery we are having no less real. personally, im more woried about the price of energy. if anything is going to derail a recovery its that.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
If which tend keeps up?
I only see one very meaningful trend here, the labor force participation rate declining since ~2000 at fairly high rate on average, a higher rate than declines in BLS unemployment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Participation%20Rate.jpg
243,000 jobs isn't a trend until we see it in consecutive months , but it would definitely be a good thing to see this become a trend.
However, which one has a larger impact on the economy?
The baby boomers are all starting to retire and collect SS & Medicare. Even if hiring becomes a monthly 200,000+ trend, this will still be outweighed by boomers leaving the labor force.
How is a record low percent of the population contributing to social security & medicare going to fund a record high percent of the population drawing?
That's the elephant in the room I don't see anyone talking about.
I see two main ways this could be addressed:
1. lower SS & medicare payments
2. raise SS & medicare taxes
Either option, or a combination of both, results in less spending money for a significant percentage of the population, which is not good for an economy driven by consumerism.
I don't like being pessimistic about the situation, but the facts and numbers warrant it. The longer this elephant is ignored and the can kicked, the less time there is to address and prepare for the issue.
Maybe we will have some extraordinary advances in efficiency, leading to vastly lower costs of living (energy developments, technological, etc...), but I don't feel this is something we can currently bank on.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Too bad they don't actually give the real unemployment numbers. Those are more like 16%.
No one would say that the economy is getting better.
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
At least 10%.
ShovelbabyFeb 5, 2012
You are about right southside http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
southsideirishFeb 6, 2012
I was going by a comment Ron Paul said on the Morning Joe. I was flabbergasted when they said NOTHING about it. They didn't agree or even disagree with him,
So, must have been true.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
You are determined to ruin my good mood arent ya?
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
I am determined to objectively analyze current events. If that ruins your mood, I don't know what to say.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Its better to have good, accurate information that you can plan your life around, even if the information is upsetting, rather than wander on pretending everything is fine.
So thank you for all this bad, but useful, news.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
Additionally, we learn that roughly 90% of the jobs added in January were part-time:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/final-nail-todays-nfp-tragicomedy-record-surge-part-time-workers
We also learn that the "gain" in jobs largely results from seasonal adjustments:
"The Labor Department estimated on Friday that the economy gained 243,000 jobs.
The department also estimated that the economy lost 2,689,000 jobs in the month.
The difference in the two numbers is in seasonal adjustment. Employment always falls in January, as temporary Christmas jobs end. So the government applies seasonal adjustment factors in an effort to discern the real trend of the economy apart from seasonal fluctuations. The actual survey showed the big loss in jobs. The seasonal adjustments produced the reported gain of 243,000 jobs."
The good thing is 2 million jobs have been added in the past year:
"Consider the annual change in nonfarm payrolls. Seasonal factors should have no effect there. Over the last 12 months, the economy added nearly two million jobs, more than in any similar period since early 2007."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/wow-but-is-the-number-real/
2 million jobs / 12 months = 166,666 jobs / month
This is surely better than the last year of gains in employment, but still short of the 263,700 jobs / month needed to reach predepression employment levels by 2016.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-needs-generate-263700-jobs-monthly-return-pre-depression-employment-end-obama-second-term
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
Another piece examining the decline in full-time jobs:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/charting-americas-transformation-part-time-worker-society-following-6-straight-months-full-t
pivenFeb 3, 2012
With a labor force of only 63.7% employed [ pulling the economic wagon ] then that means 36.3% are not working [ sitting in the wagon ] .
Includes retirees, children, students, prisoners ...
blydchyldFeb 4, 2012
Getting overtime today eh?
anomaly100Feb 3, 2012
I love good news; it's a rarity. I hope this sticks.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Two people have dugg you down for your post. Thats just f@#king petty. I hope it sticks too.
linuxpersonFeb 3, 2012
Not only do I hope it sticks, I hope it's real and not just phony padded statistics.
agmlauncherFeb 3, 2012
Thankfully we're past the holidays so nobody can attribute these numbers to temporary holiday hirings.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
As I just pointed out in another post...
When you examine it from this perspective alone it sure looks like good news, 243,000 hired.
However, when you examine it as a whole it is not:
- "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month"
- "the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7%"
- "the largest absolute jump in 'Persons Not In Labor Force' on record...and biggest percentage jump in 30 years."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-
Is it really good news to have 243,000 hired while 1,200,000 leave the labor force?
Is it really good to have the lowest percentage of the population working in 30 years?
But who cares about objective examination, when you can just look at the part of the picture that is pretty.
darthoptoFeb 3, 2012
The numbers are padded as they do not include under-employed and those who are no longer actually on the unemployment rolls.
rednipFeb 4, 2012
You guys have been crying about 'phony statistics' for 3 years now. All the time claiming that we're about to 'double dip'.
How does it feel to be wrong? Maybe eventually you'll learn not to bet against America succeeding.
linuxpersonFeb 4, 2012
I've been crying about phony unemployment statistics for like the past 30 years kid. Before you were even born I was raging about this topic.
rednipFeb 4, 2012
Silly troll, I'm in my 40's. I even voted for Reagan.
However, just because you claim to be consistent doesn't make it true.
Oh, yea, so where's that double dip I'm sure you have been talking about for 2 years?
linuxpersonFeb 5, 2012
I see now, it's all beginning to make sense. You are a scum bag Reagan worshipper, a true neocon war mongering drug warrior piece of human filth. The actual living personification of tyranny, corrupt government, and seething hatred for freedom.
The only indicators of an improving economy I can see are phony government statistics.
ennFeb 4, 2012
Unfortunately, it is most likely just an artificial boom, caused by easy monetary policy of the Fed, and by the federal stimulus over the last 3 years. It is going to end like in 2007-2008.
southsideirishFeb 3, 2012
Really? This is good news? This is nothing of the sort. The real unemployment is twice, at least, what it is listed here. This isn't good news at all.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
I do too, but don't count your chickens before they hatch!
ferretmanFeb 3, 2012
That's not the *real* unemployment rate, but I'm glad there's some increased hiring. I hope the folks who have given up hop back in.
shark72Feb 3, 2012
Wow, lots of hate in the comments on the CNN article. I expect the same usual suspects to show up here pretty soon, too.
You've noticed that the pattern is this:
- when the unemployment rate falls, the haters are quick to point out that the rate is a fluid number that's affected by people leaving the workforce, and that the actual unemployment rate is higher. The haters are, for the record, correct on this point.
BUT:
- when a report comes out stating that a certain number of jobs have been added -- an actual concrete number, representing actual new hires -- the haters' retort is "yeah but the unemployment rate is still high!"
So, the unemployment rate is either a meaningless figure, or the only number you should care about, depending on what the news is.
No matter. In the January report, the unemployment rate has dropped (to its lowest level in a year), *and* a quarter million jobs were added.
So now, faced with the unavoidable fact that the job is, indeed, getting better, the latest zeitgeist from the haters is that the trend didn't change until the GOP took a majority in congress in November of 2010. You know, with all those job bills they started passing.
Well, but that's not true. The unemployment rate, which started ramping up in May of 2008, began its current downward trend in November of 2009, a year before the elections.
Haters gonna hate.
shark72Feb 3, 2012
"(to its lowest level in a year)"
Whoops, that should have been "to its lowest level in two years."
Hooray for Google:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate
shark72Feb 3, 2012
"Whoops, that should have been "to its lowest level in two years.""
Ugh, when I should have written that it's the lowest level in *three* years.
I'm just going to stop posting now.
crunchdiggFeb 3, 2012
have some coffee ... it might help
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
Ready to come back to reality now? 5 years later and we still have the most unemployed since the great depression. 23 mill +, glad some have found jobs, but statistically, the replacement jobs are no where near the same pay level as before, jobs are still scarce and the best bill for creating jobs, a tax deduction for hiring, was killed by both parties.
72% of CEO'S surveyed say they will not hire until demand comes back.
Not a very Rosy outlook?
shark72Feb 3, 2012
The trend is good -- that much is sure. But you're right, it's going to take lots more strong months like December and January to dig out of this hole.
"72% of CEO'S surveyed say they will not hire until demand comes back."
Sounds about right. This is where supply-side economics fails. Your data calls out the falsehood that business will hire just for the sake of hiring, but only if you lower their taxes (and, conversely, will stop hiring if you raise their taxes). It's *demand* that drives growth, not supply.
linuxpersonFeb 5, 2012
The problem is, demand is curtailed by high taxes. If I have less money to spend in the market because of high taxes, I won't be able to generate the level of demand I otherwise would have.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Welcome to the world of politics my friend. Its a contact sport where reason, logic and honesty have no place.
ferretmanFeb 3, 2012
@shark - I didn't actually see any hate except from the posts that tried to blame the GOP. Interesting.
shark72Feb 3, 2012
Check out the right-wing blog sites, ferretman -- they're climbing all over themselves this morning trying to turn this silk purse into a sow's ear.
Here's just one example:
http://digg.com/news/politics/us_unemployment_rate_at_8_3_in_january_12_8_million_remain_unemployed_worst_recovery_on_record
And here's what Fox News chose to link from their home page coverage of the great numbers:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/03/bad-news-behind-january-jobs-report/
Remember what Limbaugh and McConnell said about wanting the current president to fail and to be a one-term president. To fulfill this mission takes a concerted effort to spin every bit of good news as bad.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
It never hurts to be skeptical of anything that comes out of DC whether from a Dem. or a Rep.
glbernsFeb 4, 2012
You must be blind then.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
Get your facts straight. People who aren't overly-optimistic on the current employment situation, aren't all "haters."
When you examine the employment situation from new hires only, you are only looking at part of the picture.
However, when you examine it as a whole you see the rest of the picture is not so pretty.
- "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month"
- "the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7%"
- "the largest absolute jump in 'Persons Not In Labor Force' on record...and biggest percentage jump in 30 years."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-
Is it really good news to have 243,000 hired while 1,200,000 leave the labor force?
Is it really good to have the lowest percentage of the population working in 30 years?
One thing that you complete ignore, which is one of the most important questions on this subject is....
How are the baby boomers retirements (SS & Medicare) going to be funded with a record low percent of the population working? Record low percent of the population working means record low percent of the population paying for SS & Medicare.
But who cares about objective examination, when you can just look at the part of the picture that is pretty and call those who look at the whole picture "haters".
ect5150Feb 3, 2012
You'll most likely get down since you posted this information roughly 3 times...
People don't go through and look at how the calculation are done (in this case a simple division), this is apparent by all the "let's hope the trend continues" comments we're likely to see. They just see the number and think it's a good trend and don't realize how much strain in will put on the future items you've mentioned.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
"They just see the number and think it's a good trend and don't realize how much strain in will put on the future items you've mentioned."
That's why I posted it three times, personalized for each post I was replying to, so these people can get the complete picture.
I know many of them just want to inhale some more hopium, but that's their loss. At least they weren't left in the dark and got a chance to examine the whole picture.
shark72Feb 3, 2012
"But who cares about objective examination, when you can just look at the part of the picture that is pretty and call those who look at the whole picture "haters"."
On the contrary. In fact, posts like yours are exactly why I love Digg; educated responses that look at the stories behind the stories. "Haters" is a nuanced term, perhaps best described as folks who are negative for the sake of negativity, and driven more by passion than reason. It refers to a small subset of the negative reactions; I certainly wouldn't classify you in that group.
sheopleherderFeb 3, 2012
Believing in unemployment numbers is like buying an extra ticket for your friend to board the Titanic. Sure you look like a nice guy, but your both gonna drown.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Mother Nature, I hope I have been wrong about all of my doomsday predictions about an economic collapse and the zombie appocolypse!
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
Mother nature has nothing to do with it. The ongoing and escalating global economic crises (from EU to Asia to US), resulting from the biggest debt bubble in history, is man made.
Zombie apocalypse, while not true, is a good metaphor.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Your harshing my buzz dude. But its because youre probably correct.
bluenose2Feb 3, 2012
Meanwhile, back in Canada, the rate goes up.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
Really? I see 7.6% for January, what's the estimated real rate? or do ya'll actually calculate it correctly, unlike the US.
bluenose2Feb 8, 2012
Unemployment in the US was catching up with Canada falling to 8.3 %, its lowest rate since February 2009.
novenatorFeb 3, 2012
Let's hope this trend continues. This has been the mother of all economic recessions. The Great Recession is actually the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and I guaranf**kingtee that a New Deal 2.0 would fix this the quickest. In particular, direct spending on JOBS programs, particularly on Green Energy projects.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Novenator, I would be inclined to agree with you on the government spending to help juice the economy IF...IF...we werent already 15.3 trillion dollars in the hole with the hole getting deeper by the day.
So, we can spend more and excacerbate the debt problem with serious long term negative consequences or we can cut spending dramatically and exacerbate the unemployment problem we currently have. We are, in effect, damned if we do and damned if we dont because of decades of poor, reckless, criminal fiscal policy by the US government and both democrats and republicans are at fault.
But Im really glad employment is improving. The only way out is to get people working and generate more wealth. Of course our government will just waste the new wealth we create and we will be right back to where we are now. But thats another topic.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
That hole is actually well over $50 trillion deep.
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
if we're making up numbers why not say 100 Gazillion dollars!
or as GWBush would say "A Brazillian Dollars!!!11!!1!!"
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
It's not quite made up:
http://usdebtclock.org/
particleman420Feb 3, 2012
with all of those sources, how could i doubt that!
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
I think Brazillian dollars are sexy. They are smooth and wear thongs.
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
Yes, 36,000 people view the site each day to check up on made-up numbers.
http://www.freewebsitereport.org/www.usdebtclock.org
And yes, each bubble has a cited source.
ageofmasteryFeb 3, 2012
Millions of people tune in to pro wrestling to watch fake fighting. So 36K people checking out bogus stats would be nothing...
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
@ageofmastery, Bogus stats? Scared of the truth are you? or just doesn't fit in with your political leanings. Either way, people like you ignoring the facts are why the country is screwed up in the first place. Which convention do you work for again?
njdoo7Feb 3, 2012
"In other words, health care programs will require nearly five times the level of funding than Social Security. Adding this to the national debt and other federal obligations would bring total obligations to nearly $62 trillion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Unfunded_obligations_excluded
They made it up too.
breadfredFeb 4, 2012
It is easy to see medical costs as costs. They are not They are an investment. You seem to think that repairing a broken arm to get someone back to work quicker is a waste of resources.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Feb 3, 2012
"we werent already 15.3 trillion dollars in the hole with the hole getting deeper by the day."
Grow the economy, put taxes back to where they were in 90's (when they clearly and demonstratively were still on the productive side of the Laffer curve) and the debt goes away. Seriously. Taking people from collecting unemployment and medicaid and putting them into paying income taxes makes a HUGE swing in the annual deficit. Sunset the war waste, then let the Bush/Obama (they're his fault too now) tax cuts expire and the budget snaps into balance. Sprinkling in inflation is just gravy.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Do you have any idea how easy it would be for congress and the current or next president to screw up your cafefully laid plans?
jhw539Feb 4, 2012
If they do nothing, it happens. Done.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/04/the_donothing_plan.html
Do you think they can manage to do nothing?
linuxpersonFeb 4, 2012
"Grow the economy, put taxes back to where they were in 90's"
Raise taxes on the middle class so that it then gets further diminished by significantly higher tax rates during what we can only hope, at best, to be a slow but steady recovery?
Sounds BRILLIANT! I think you're ready to be a politician.
jhw539Feb 4, 2012
Taxes are too low to support a first world nation and it can't call come from the (really undertaxed) rich.
America did just fine with slightly higher taxes on the middle class back for the last 80 years (before Bush cuts), we'll do fine with them high enough to pay our bills for the next 80.
linuxpersonFeb 4, 2012
The problem with your argument is that you are only taking into account Federal income taxes. Overall the middle class is being robbed.
jhw539Feb 4, 2012
"Overall the middle class is being robbed."
Citation please. But linuxperson doesn't really care about the real facts, do you? Libertarianism has turned into a religion. Facts and real data don't matter.
http://innovationandgrowth.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/average-u-s-tax-burden-at-40-year-low/
jhw539Feb 3, 2012
"direct spending on JOBS programs, particularly on Green Energy projects."
You don't buy an interview suit when you're still walking around barefoot. I'd love to see green energy projects get goosed, and it makes long term sense, BUT - money should be dumped in boring 'ol infrastructure first. Railroads, bridges, dams, interstate transmission grid. Foundations first, and ours is piss poor.
Green energy projects just have to wait until we have the basics built and the economy moving again. And once the economy is back to healthy, I personally believe an energy tax is all that is needed to get the invisible hand working to get green energy built out - if we finally get the true external costs of a btu/kWh into what the consumer pays, the market is quite up to doing the job.
sheopleherderFeb 3, 2012
I can guarantee that if we borrow the money that New Deal 2.0 would require we would see hyper inflation and we would have to use Peso's to pay each other. And so far the government's investment into the Green Energy has been less than dismal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Govt has no business "investing" in private business.
jhw539Feb 4, 2012
"Govt has no business "investing" in private business."
Says the clueless kasha34 while using the internet, which was created by the government and developed by the government investing in private businesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
The internet was not developed by the govt investing in private business. It was defense research. Turned out to have wider uses.
You can't think that's at all the same as investing in a business.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Feb 4, 2012
Didn't bother to read the link did you?
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
I already know the story. But why don't you excerpt the sentence or two that you believe contradicts what I said?
jhw539Feb 4, 2012
"I can guarantee that if we borrow the money that New Deal 2.0 would require we would see hyper inflation"
Another hyper inflation chicken little. After all these years of ranting about the coming hyperinflation, people aren't just ignoring you now. They're laughing at you.
A 2007 hyperinflation nut
http://www.rense.com/general77/ben.htm
One from 2008
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Ruff/ruff_apr212008.html
A review of a book from 1989 on how to survive hyperinflation "once the Federal Reserve's destruction of the U.S. dollar enters its terminal stage."
www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund9.html
johnnr2Feb 3, 2012
Imagine where we could be if not for GOP obstruction.
ghengiskhan1Feb 3, 2012
Excactly where we are now because it doesnt really matter who is in charge because there is a systemic virus that has ruined the system.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
It's called living well beyond our means for decades and corruption. More spending will not fix that.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
We'd be even deeper in debt. That's where.
ferretmanFeb 3, 2012
@john - MUCH worse.
Thank Odin for the GOP reigning in Pelosi and Reid somewhat. Not enough, but a little bit.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
You mean Democrat obstruction. Govt make-work can't fix an economy.
It's the Dems who block us drilling for our own oil. Dems who block the pipeline. Dems who burden us with unending regulations and drive business away.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
glbernsFeb 4, 2012
For all these haters in here.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/private_sector_jobs_looking_mu034559.php
MunroeMotorsFeb 3, 2012
We are going to be hiring soon, finally.
ennFeb 4, 2012
Beginning of another boom-bust cycle, caused by easy monetary policies.
Bernanke money printing is working its way through the system: NASDAQ Hits 11 Year High
http://digg.com/news/politics/bernanke_money_printing_is_working_its_way_through_the_system_nasdaq_hits_11_year_high
johnnr2Feb 4, 2012
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - MLK Jr.
33percentgodFeb 4, 2012
It's not unemployment I worry about, it's UNDER employment. Meaning people with 3 jobs because they can't get more than 10 hours at one place.
ren1999Feb 3, 2012
Underemployment (people looking for jobs but not collecting benefits) is up 18.7% according to Solman and Shell of PBS News. That's nothing to cheer at. But, construction is up thanks to the weather and Obama. That is very good news. The U.S. needs to do more. 8.3% unemployment should not be the new normal. We want 5% unemployment and underemployment. NO MORE HIDING NUMBERS.
ren1999Feb 3, 2012
underemployment == people looking for jobs but not getting benefits. Benefits determine the unemployment rate.
batfishyFeb 3, 2012
No, benefits do not determine the unemployment rate.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where
auditortuxFeb 4, 2012
Does no one look at the other reason unemployment rates might fall? 1.2 million people left the labor force... Heck, we could get it down to zero if everyone who didn't have a job just gave up!
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Feels good, huh.
You know, if you called your wife and told her you'd won twenty million in the lottery, that would feel good too.
Until the truth came out.
nekokittayFeb 3, 2012
And people said it would drop off a cliff again after seasonal holiday hiring. Ha!
crunchdiggFeb 3, 2012
Those claims were astoundingly uneducated for 2 reasons: the numbers are seasonally adjusted AND December is a period of low employment because construction and outdoor job losses far outweigh the gain in temp jobs at the mall.
mitchellkFeb 3, 2012
It did fall off a cliff. Therre are, however, 1.2 million people who had their unemployment benefits expired this month who are no longer counted in the statistics, which makes the numbers look better.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
You are correct, these people should stop listening to the news and look at the facts.
austinjameshereFeb 3, 2012
What a wonderful way to start out the year - things are really starting to improve.
pc25Feb 3, 2012
wrong. Millions dropped out of the work force.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/03/2012 08:51 -0500
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics Unemployment Withholding taxes
A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.
Chart below shows it all - that jump is not a fat finger!
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/People%20Not%20In%20Labor%20Force.jpg
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Participation%20Rate.jpg
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/01/20120202_notinlabor_0.png
kcast985Feb 3, 2012
Democrat or Republican everyone should like this news even though there are number of real reasons why the jump in employment occurred
norman619Feb 3, 2012
I can't since I know they fiddle with the numbers to make things appear better than they actually are. If I want fantasy I'll got the movies.
pivenFeb 4, 2012
A government that is out of control and knee deep into manipulation and blatant propanda efforts will stop at nothing.
Get ready
pivenFeb 3, 2012
Actual jobs, not seasonally adjusted by US federal Government bean counters pressured during an election year to paint an overly optimistic picture , are down 2.9 million over the past two months
http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/trimtabs_explains_why_today_s_very_very_suspicious_nfp_number_is_really_down_2_9_million_in_past_2_months
pc25Feb 4, 2012
the books are cooked
norman619Feb 3, 2012
I'd now like to know the REAL unemployment rate.
mafiaxFeb 3, 2012
Me too, it's funny that after you are unemployed for 6 months, they stop counting you. The actual unemployment rate is probably much higher.
FrankLuskaFeb 3, 2012
No one counts them by design, to make things appear better than they really are. est 23 million +, 16 - 28 percent, but no one really knows.
pivenFeb 3, 2012
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly - Fake - headline number .
The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ broader unemployment measure, including those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. - over 15 percent.
If one includes * discouraged workers * [ those who have given up and who are Not counted by the Federal bean counters ] - well over 20 percent unemployed.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
angrycat70Feb 3, 2012
blatant lies to prop up the worst American president EVER.
peppermintpigFeb 4, 2012
There were worse. Worst since Bush, and perhaps worse than Bush.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
The number of diggers here eager to swallow the BS unemployment rate reports from our government is sad. What's more pathetic is the number of people who seem to think the way to get out of the hole our country is in is to make the hole even deeper. We are doomed if the stupidity being displayed here is representative of the average American.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pplwmarithsFeb 4, 2012
http://715664p363hinu4amjw8zkfrae.hop.clickbank.net/
pivenFeb 3, 2012
Look at the participation in the civilian workforce
an actual and ongoing collapse in the US labor force, despite the crooning on the lame media disinformation channels.
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS11300000_93839_1328279741059.gifComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
footbag01Feb 3, 2012
The Baby Boomer generation began in 1946. That means it began 65 years ago. 65 years of age tends to be the average retirement age. That would mean that in 2011, you would begin to see the largest drop in employment participation in over a hundred years. That is exactly what we are seeing right now.
As a compounding factor, many people of pre-retirement age lost a lot of money in the stock market crash of the late 2000's. They likely chopse to stay in the job market longer then they would've otherwise. At this point, they have earned their money back or have chosen to retire with that diminished return.
Ok let's test this hypotheses. If this was true, then any previous jump in birth rates should have a corresponding drop in employment participation roughly 65 years later. The birthrate peaking in 1914 was higher then it was during the Baby Boomers. So if we take that 1914 and add 65 years to it, we get 1979. The last time we had seen such a participation drop, 1981.
autokadFeb 3, 2012
for some reason, people rarely take demographics into account
kingpFeb 3, 2012
this is nothing new. Most companies hire people in January, because that is when their fiscal year starts over, and they have cash...that doesn't mean they'll maintain that person, or keep from firing someone else later in the year.
This statistic means nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shark72Feb 3, 2012
Thus the practice of seasonal adjustment. It's more than accommodating for industries which hire in January; you also have to look at industries which lay off in January -- the retail sector -- and which don't hire in January -- the construction industry, among others. It's more complex than you think, but the bottom line is that this is an extraordinary number for January.
njdoo7 -- this is what I mean.
kingpFeb 3, 2012
I just think it's a bit early for the "yay the ecomony doesn't suck anymoar!" posts...it's only January. We have a long 11 more months to go.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
This is the Dems trying to build up something they can credit Obama with even though it's pure fantasy.
youngskim07Feb 4, 2012
Thats good to hear. Optimism!
peppermintpigFeb 4, 2012
Irrational exuberance. ;)
bagtreekFeb 4, 2012
http://www.bagtreeok.com/goods-2900.html
user2837Feb 4, 2012
This seems like good news but I wonder how this article accounts for part time workers and seasonal workers.
pivenFeb 4, 2012
Under-employment * U-6 * includes the part time workers and seasonal workers... at over 15 percent.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Add the * discouraged * that the federal Government bean counters ignore - over 20 percent unemployed