Unemployment lowest since 2008 (2 Viewers)

[jonessed]

I tend to agree with the idea that a four year degree is not carte Blanche for repaying loans and a nice life. College degrees have lost their value not because everyone can get one but because many of them don't prepare the recipient to be a quality employee.

I dont believe the degrees themselves have lost value. The problem is the job market is tougher and the degrees have become absurdly expensive.

 

[Joe T]

update?

 

[collective]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

 

[Joe T]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

yikes.

"welcome to the recovery"

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

yikes.

"welcome to the recovery"

as if on cue

 

[Politician Spock]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

I don't care when or what started the trend. It's a lousy trend regardless.

 

[Joe T]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

 

[Joe T]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

 

[Joe T]

Still not a good report for the "recovery."

 

[Dr Oadi]

953,000 Jobs Created In 2013!!!!!!

731,000 are part time jobs

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and rising very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and falling very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

New to zerohedge/Tyler Durden?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and falling very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

New to zerohedge/Tyler Durden?

No, I've got my own ideas about which one it is.

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and falling very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

New to zerohedge/Tyler Durden?

No, I've got my own ideas about which one it is.

Me too. I remember in Jan 2012 when they did the yearly labor force revisions. All of the people who read that crap were convinced a million people fell out of the labor force during the month.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and falling very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

New to zerohedge/Tyler Durden?

No, I've got my own ideas about which one it is.

Me too. I remember in Jan 2012 when they did the yearly labor force revisions. All of the people who read that crap were convinced a million people fell out of the labor force during the month.

Yeah, I remember that too. Conservatives around here ate it up.

 

[FlapJacks]

5 years in, Obamanomics has clearly failed. The poorest amongst us have been hit the hardest. But some blogger made an error back in January 2012 -- so we have that to "cheer" about...

 

[bosoxs45]

5 years in, Obamanomics has clearly failed. The poorest amongst us have been hit the hardest. But some blogger made an error back in January 2012 -- so we have that to "cheer" about...

Hooray for corporatism!

 

[Mr Two Cents]

On Sept 30 my company will layoff 70 people. On April first of 2014 there will be an additional 45% layoff.

Yeah things are getting better by leaps and bounds.

 

[Slapdash]

5 years in, Obamanomics has clearly failed. The poorest amongst us have been hit the hardest. But some blogger made an error back in January 2012 -- so we have that to "cheer" about...

 

[MaxThreshold]

5 years in, Obamanomics has clearly failed. The poorest amongst us have been hit the hardest. But some blogger made an error back in January 2012 -- so we have that to "cheer" about...

Yeah it has. But at least the left can say they voted for the first black President because that's way more cooler than voting for a guy that actually knows what he's doing.

 

[shader]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and rising very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

Help me understand something. I must be missing something. You say above that using that same report, July 2012-July 2013, 1.6 of 1.9m jobs created were full time. However the zh article clearly states that in 2013 alone, 731,000 part time jobs were created. I honestly don't know if you are accusing zh of twisting the facts or if you aren't adding properly. If 731000 part time jobs were created in 2013 alone, then your 1.6-1.9m statement cannot be true.

 

[the moops]

I like working part time. Full time is for suckers

 

[Dr Oadi]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and rising very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

Help me understand something. I must be missing something. You say above that using that same report, July 2012-July 2013, 1.6 of 1.9m jobs created were full time. However the zh article clearly states that in 2013 alone, 731,000 part time jobs were created. I honestly don't know if you are accusing zh of twisting the facts or if you aren't adding properly. If 731000 part time jobs were created in 2013 alone, then your 1.6-1.9m statement cannot be true.

Stop questioning facts! You also have no fundamental understanding of how seasonal adjustments work!

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-02/obamacare-full-frontal-953000-jobs-created-2013-77-or-731000-are-part-time

As AOD pointed out in another thread, this is a trend that started way before the ACA.

Just further proof that zerohedge isn't out for accuracy and is agenda driven.

Only the linked report doesn't even mention the ACA (Obamacare). Just further proof you aren't out for accuracy and are agenda driven.

It doesn't? The title of the report is:

Obamacare Full Frontal: Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time

I was referring to the report itself.

Really what I pointed out in the other thread is that this report is a drastic misrepresentation caused by seasonal smoothing in the BLS reporting. Using the same data set and methodology if you compare July 2012-July 2013 job numbers, you would find that 1.6 M out of 1.9 M jobs created over that 12 month period were full-time positions. The author either has no functional understanding of how seasonal adjustments work, or does and is intentionally misrepresenting the data.

Looking at ratios over time, we have been elevated above the historical average of around 4.76 full-time workers for every part-time worker since 2009. The current ratio has been around 4.16 to 1 and rising very slowing since 2010, and ACA is a possible contributor to the slow pace of that number recovering.

Help me understand something. I must be missing something. You say above that using that same report, July 2012-July 2013, 1.6 of 1.9m jobs created were full time. However the zh article clearly states that in 2013 alone, 731,000 part time jobs were created. I honestly don't know if you are accusing zh of twisting the facts or if you aren't adding properly. If 731000 part time jobs were created in 2013 alone, then your 1.6-1.9m statement cannot be true.

Sure. The main issue with the Zero Hedge article is the way it's taking snapshots of seasonally adjusted data. There are many sharp swings in the labor force that happen annually, and which have a statistically predictable affect on the BLS survey data. What the seasonal adjustments do is smooth out the month to month reporting, so those peaks and valleys during the year are flattened out. So you can't make a statement like "in 2013 alone, 731,000 part time jobs were created" using a seasonally adjusted comparison of Jan and July because what you are largely picking up there is the seasonal accounting. Here are the numbers directly from the Population surveys both adjusted and unadjusted so you can see the comparison:

First with seasonal adjustments (data in 000s)

Jul12 27,864

Jan13 27,467

Jul13 28,233

Jan/Jul Diff: +766

Jul/Jul Diff: +343

and now the unadjusted numbers:

Jul12 26,995

Jan13 27,746

Jul13 27425

Jan/Jul Diff: -321

Jul/Jul Diff: +430

So if you want to look at the actual comparison of jobs between Jan and Jul, there are 321,000 fewer part-time positions estimated from the survey, but the BLS expects to find more part-time workers in Jan on an adjusted basis and less in July so those numbers are reported lower and higher respectively. In the year over year comparison, you can see that the numbers align much more closely because the same seasonal effect is being applied to both Jul12 and Jul13.

Here is the full-time data:

adjusted

Jul12 114,478

Jan13 115,948

Jul13 116,090

Jan/Jul Diff: +172

Jul/Jul Diff: +1,612

unadjusted

Jul12 116,131

Jan13 113,868

Jul13 117,688

Jan/Jul Diff: +3,820

Jul/Jul Diff: +1,557

So again, you see a huge disparity between the adjusted and unadjusted comparison of Jan and Jul because of the different seasonal adjustments, while the Jul-Jul comparison is fairly close.

Does that make it more clear?

 

[Rove!]

These figures are very noisy with the population survey showing almost 800k more job growth than the establishment just a couple of months ago.

Will the payroll survey ever find these 800,000 jobs?

No. Because Pampered Chef, Avon, Creative Memories, et al, don't put their new recruits on payroll. They are all new independent business owners. If they worked a party during the month the population survey counts them as being employed.

now that the election is long over, can we just admit that this 800K number was bull####? Pampered Chef and Avon? That explanation makes no sense and would be unprecendented...c'mon....

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Still not good.

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession. The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth. The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low:


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 169,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in retail
trade and health care but declined in information.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in August. The jobless rate is down from 8.1 percent a year ago. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (6.3 percent), teenagers (22.7 percent), whites (6.4 percent), blacks (13.0 percent), and Hispanics (9.3 percent) showed little change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals accounted for 37.9 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,
the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 733,000. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, was essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)
At the same time, almost twice as many people left the work force as found new jobs.

On top of that, previous reports were revised downward:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Interestingly, U-6 unemployment dropped from 14.0% to 13.7%, its lowest level in five years, but that has to do with the shrinking workforce, too. In order to be counted in U-6, workers have to be at least marginally attached to the labor force. That’s defined as “ those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.”

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force. It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000, not 312,000. That’s a half-million people who disappeared out of the labor force in a month.

 

[The Commish]

5 years in, Obamanomics has clearly failed. The poorest amongst us have been hit the hardest. But some blogger made an error back in January 2012 -- so we have that to "cheer" about...

Yeah it has. But at least the left can say they voted for the first black President because that's way more cooler than voting for a guy that actually knows what he's doing.

Don't think it's really fair to go this path....the other option was anything but "guy that actually knows what he's doing"

 

[Slapdash]

Still not good.

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession. The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth. The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 169,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in retail

trade and health care but declined in information.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in August. The jobless rate is down from 8.1 percent a year ago. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (6.3 percent), teenagers (22.7 percent), whites (6.4 percent), blacks (13.0 percent), and Hispanics (9.3 percent) showed little change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals accounted for 37.9 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,

the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 733,000. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, was essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)

At the same time, almost twice as many people left the work force as found new jobs.

On top of that, previous reports were revised downward:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Interestingly, U-6 unemployment dropped from 14.0% to 13.7%, its lowest level in five years, but that has to do with the shrinking workforce, too. In order to be counted in U-6, workers have to be at least marginally attached to the labor force. That’s defined as “ those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.”

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force. It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000, not 312,000. That’s a half-million people who disappeared out of the labor force in a month.

Well at least the headline rate went down so the Fed can have cover on lessening its support. That is sure to help things really improve.

 

[jamny]

Still not good.

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession. The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth. The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 169,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in retail

trade and health care but declined in information.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in August. The jobless rate is down from 8.1 percent a year ago. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (6.3 percent), teenagers (22.7 percent), whites (6.4 percent), blacks (13.0 percent), and Hispanics (9.3 percent) showed little change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals accounted for 37.9 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,

the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 733,000. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, was essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)

At the same time, almost twice as many people left the work force as found new jobs.

On top of that, previous reports were revised downward:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Interestingly, U-6 unemployment dropped from 14.0% to 13.7%, its lowest level in five years, but that has to do with the shrinking workforce, too. In order to be counted in U-6, workers have to be at least marginally attached to the labor force. That’s defined as “ those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.”

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force. It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000, not 312,000. That’s a half-million people who disappeared out of the labor force in a month.

Well at least the headline rate went down so the Fed can have cover on lessening its support. That is sure to help things really imporve.

and everyone can continue to point to their 401k and say how great the economy is.

 

[Slapdash]

Still not good.

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession. The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth. The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 169,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in retail

trade and health care but declined in information.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in August. The jobless rate is down from 8.1 percent a year ago. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (6.3 percent), teenagers (22.7 percent), whites (6.4 percent), blacks (13.0 percent), and Hispanics (9.3 percent) showed little change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals accounted for 37.9 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,

the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 733,000. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, was essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)

At the same time, almost twice as many people left the work force as found new jobs.

On top of that, previous reports were revised downward:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Interestingly, U-6 unemployment dropped from 14.0% to 13.7%, its lowest level in five years, but that has to do with the shrinking workforce, too. In order to be counted in U-6, workers have to be at least marginally attached to the labor force. That’s defined as “ those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.”

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force. It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000, not 312,000. That’s a half-million people who disappeared out of the labor force in a month.

Well at least the headline rate went down so the Fed can have cover on lessening its support. That is sure to help things really imporve.

and everyone can continue to point to their 401k and say how great the economy is.

My economy is doing great, just got a nice raise...it is the permanent un/under-employed class I am worried about.

 

[Rich Conway]

Still not good.

The August jobs report from BLS offers yet another installment on the four-year stagnation period after the Great Recession. The US economy added 169,000 jobs, just above the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth. The U-3 jobless rate edged downward to 7.3%, but that’s because the labor force participation rate hit another 35-year low:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 169,000 in August, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in retail

trade and health care but declined in information.

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in August. The jobless rate is down from 8.1 percent a year ago. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult women (6.3 percent), teenagers (22.7 percent), whites (6.4 percent), blacks (13.0 percent), and Hispanics (9.3 percent) showed little change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals accounted for 37.9 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,

the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 733,000. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate edged down to 63.2 percent in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, was essentially unchanged. (See table A-1.)

At the same time, almost twice as many people left the work force as found new jobs.

On top of that, previous reports were revised downward:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 74,000 less than previously reported.

Interestingly, U-6 unemployment dropped from 14.0% to 13.7%, its lowest level in five years, but that has to do with the shrinking workforce, too. In order to be counted in U-6, workers have to be at least marginally attached to the labor force. That’s defined as “ those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.”

In the Household survey, the figures are even worse for those not in the labor force. It rose from 89.957 million in July to 90.473 million in August, a new high — and a jump of 516,000, not 312,000. That’s a half-million people who disappeared out of the labor force in a month.

Well at least the headline rate went down so the Fed can have cover on lessening its support. That is sure to help things really imporve.

and everyone can continue to point to their 401k and say how great the economy is.

My economy is doing great, just got a nice raise...it is the permanent un/under-employed class I am worried about.

Can we please, please, pretty please ditch most of our social safety nets and institute a B.I.G. instead?

 

[stbugs]

For the dropping out of the labor force, are there statistics on who? I only ask because I think it is going to keep happening. There were 76.4 million (3-4+ million a year born) baby boomers born from 1946-1964, so between 67 and 49 years old. That is a significant chunk of our population that is starting to retire in force. Also, these people were 23-41 when the stock market crashed in 1987, so just at the start of the stock market boom. The S&P 500 is around 7-8 times what it was after the crash in 1987 and over 5 times what it was before the crash. They own houses probably is sizable amounts.

Are these people factored in? We are probably looking at 2-3+ million retiring every year for the next almost 20 years.

Start looking for legislation in the upcoming years about estate taxes because there is a ton of wealth that will be getting transferred to adult children over the next couple decades.

 

[snogger]

For the dropping out of the labor force, are there statistics on who? I only ask because I think it is going to keep happening. There were 76.4 million (3-4+ million a year born) baby boomers born from 1946-1964, so between 67 and 49 years old. That is a significant chunk of our population that is starting to retire in force. Also, these people were 23-41 when the stock market crashed in 1987, so just at the start of the stock market boom. The S&P 500 is around 7-8 times what it was after the crash in 1987 and over 5 times what it was before the crash. They own houses probably is sizable amounts.

Are these people factored in? We are probably looking at 2-3+ million retiring every year for the next almost 20 years.

Start looking for legislation in the upcoming years about estate taxes because there is a ton of wealth that will be getting transferred to adult children over the next couple decades.

The biggest drop-off has come among young workers.

 

[FlapJacks]

All of this amidst an energy boom that the politicians keep looking for ways to squelch

 

[Politician Spock]

5 years in, Obamanomics has clearly failed. The poorest amongst us have been hit the hardest. But some blogger made an error back in January 2012 -- so we have that to "cheer" about...

Yeah it has. But at least the left can say they voted for the first black President because that's way more cooler than voting for a guy that actually knows what he's doing.

Don't think it's really fair to go this path....the other option was anything but "guy that actually knows what he's doing"

The failures we are experiencing are systemic. It doesn't who is put in place to run the system. The system will still fail.

The problem is there is no way to seamlessly migrate to a new system. Thus the transistion to the new system will be one of great crisis. It will be painful for everyone, but to varying degrees.

The questions that need to be answered are: 1) who gets to experience the most of the pain/least of the pain?; and 2) how much longer can we delay the crisis?

 

[Andrew74]

For the dropping out of the labor force, are there statistics on who? I only ask because I think it is going to keep happening. There were 76.4 million (3-4+ million a year born) baby boomers born from 1946-1964, so between 67 and 49 years old. That is a significant chunk of our population that is starting to retire in force. Also, these people were 23-41 when the stock market crashed in 1987, so just at the start of the stock market boom. The S&P 500 is around 7-8 times what it was after the crash in 1987 and over 5 times what it was before the crash. They own houses probably is sizable amounts.

Are these people factored in? We are probably looking at 2-3+ million retiring every year for the next almost 20 years.

Start looking for legislation in the upcoming years about estate taxes because there is a ton of wealth that will be getting transferred to adult children over the next couple decades.

Participation rate is impacted by Baby Boomers' retirement; however, once you factor in the expected retirement path of the Boomers, the participation rate is still well below what would be expected. Besides the large drop in participation by the young (as posted above), we've seen a significant decline in participation by males.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report

By John Crudele

November 18, 2013 | 8:06pm

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.

Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.

Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.

“It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.

Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.

Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.

Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.

By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.

Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.

But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.

Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.

“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”

Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.

In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”

On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.

With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.

I’ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.

During the 2010 Census report — an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year — I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.

I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs — commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)

Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor’s inspector general.

I’m waiting to hear back from Labor.

I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.

To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.

So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.

 

[Sarnoff]

I don't like the numbers so they are lies. Doesn't matter if it's the polls, the jobs report or the weather report everyone is in the tank. You guys need to grow up a bit.

Well....

 

[shader]

I'm not surprised.

 

[Dr Oadi]

I don't like the numbers so they are lies. Doesn't matter if it's the polls, the jobs report or the weather report everyone is in the tank. You guys need to grow up a bit.

Well....

 

[Jutz]

I don't like the numbers so they are lies. Doesn't matter if it's the polls, the jobs report or the weather report everyone is in the tank. You guys need to grow up a bit.

Well....

 

[Quez]

So what happens now that all of this stimulus money has failed to stimulate anything, has put us in more debt, and we are continuing to borrow more money?

 

[Sarnoff]

The administration lied about Benghazi, lied about Obamacare, and now fakes the statistics that make up the economy. No better than Pravda and the old Soviets.

 

[Statorama]

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs reportBy John CrudeleNovember 18, 2013 | 8:06pmIn the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.“It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?”On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.I’ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.During the 2010 Census report — an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year — I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs — commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor’s inspector general.I’m waiting to hear back from Labor.I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.

SON OF A #####

 

[Quez]

The administration lied about Benghazi, lied about Obamacare, and now fakes the statistics that make up the economy. No better than Pravda and the old Soviets.

You forgot to also mention the IRS and the Fast & Furious scandals.

 

[Statorama]

Hey, remember when the GOP made a big stink about Obama moving the Census under perview of the White House three weeks into his term?

Good times

 

[Sarnoff]

The administration lied about Benghazi, lied about Obamacare, and now fakes the statistics that make up the economy. No better than Pravda and the old Soviets.

You forgot to also mention the IRS and the Fast & Furious scandals.

Using government as a weapon against one's enemies and one's own people is certainly Stalin-esque.

 

[Jutz]

The administration lied about Benghazi, lied about Obamacare, and now fakes the statistics that make up the economy. No better than Pravda and the old Soviets.

You forgot to also mention the IRS and the Fast & Furious scandals.

Using government as a weapon against one's enemies and one's own people is certainly Stalin-esque.

I call it... Barakavellian.