Home Precious Metals

Multi-Part Unemployment Numbers Topic

MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
here is the start of the conundrum.

a headline from the washington post:

U.S. hiring slowed sharply in March;
unemployment fell to 8.2%



What?


There are some things I'd like to point out

I don't necessarily think the Unemployment number is fiction like I do the inflation numbers, because I'd think the states would know if it were fiction based off their individual reports and populations.


The headline appears incomplete.

job creation down, unemployment down, ___________

the blank is == how is this happening??




But I'm confused.

We've only been creating about 200k jobs on average for the last 4 months, which have been over the magic number no one seems to agree upon required for new people entering the workforce which is in the upper 100k range, supposedly.

Unemployment has been falling since Aug. 2011, but we've been adding fewer than 200k jobs every month.



I am saying these numbers don't add up.



Mistake? Fiction?


Isn't the real headline that there are not enough jobs for the new workforce, yet miraculously the unemployment rate falls??

and here is the BLS saying:
The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.2 percent) were both little changed in March. (See table A-1.)

Let's look at Table A:
Feb: Civilian Labor Force -- 154,871,000
Mar: Civilian Labor Force -- 154,707,000 (smaller labor force)

Feb: Employed -- 142,065,000
Feb: Unemployed -- 12,806,000
Mar: Employed -- 142,034,000 (slightly smaller employed)
Mar: Unemployed -- 12,073,000 (much lower unemployed)


These people apparently did not move from the "unemployed" to the "employed"

where did they go?

Feb: Not in labor force -- 87,564,000
Mar: Not in labor force -- 87,897,000 (jump up)



Retirees? Given up?

I don't know,

but part 2 of this is:

Why are we celebrating 8.2% and not asking nor hearing why the "Not in Labor Force" number is going up?


300k retirees??? 120k new jobs, 170k smaller labor force (why?), and 300k moved out of labor force.


Where are these people going that are helping us to lower unemployment???? Is it good news (retirement) or bad(given up)?
Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions

Comments

  • RedTigerRedTiger Posts: 5,608
    As to where did they go, you guessed at one place, retirement. Many more become discouraged workers and are not counted in either group A or B (employed or unemployed) if they are no longer actively looking for work. A few folks go back to school and become full time students. A few folks go on disability. With all that, the biggest group is the discouraged. I am tempted to start into political remarks as to why so many are discouraged, but will refrain.

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
    the red flag goes up when you hear 175k (?) new jobs are needed every month for new job seekers, but we have declining unemployment and aren't really averaging that.

    Why is no news outlet picking up on this?


    and a cursuory examination shows why it went down this month on 120k jobs. fewer in the employment market. that simple.


    But the other quizzical part of all this is: they go to some lengths to address the employed part of the statistics, but make no mention of the "not employable(??)" part mentioned above.


    Is This VooDoo Unemployment calculations? Fuzzy Unemployment?


    The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was essentially unchanged
    at 5.3 million in March. These individuals accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April
    2010, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million. (See table A-12.)

    The civilian labor force participation rate (63.8 percent) and the employment-population ratio (58.5
    percent) were little changed in March. (See table A-1.)
    The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
    involuntary part-time workers) fell from 8.1 to 7.7 million over the month. These individuals were
    working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
    job. (See table A-8.)

    In March, 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged
    from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
    wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
    were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
    survey. (See table A-16.)

    Among the marginally attached, there were 865,000 discouraged workers in March, about the same as
    a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
    looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.5 million persons
    marginally attached to the labor force in March had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
    survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
    PS I know how to make the unemployment rate 6% in a few months time.

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • secondrepublicsecondrepublic Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭
    Mish's blog has a good discussion of this.
    "Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
  • gsa1fangsa1fan Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭
    Low Unemployment=every ones 99 weeks are running and or have ran out. The new "jobs bill" WTF that going to create? imageimageimage
    Avid collector of GSA's.
  • leothelyonleothelyon Posts: 8,459 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was thinking about this earlier in the day and this thought crossed my mind;

    What party are the majority of those out of work and drawing unemployment?

    If anyone can grasp what I'm suggesting, is it possible?


    The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

    My Jefferson Nickel Collection

  • derrybderryb Posts: 36,792 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Current recession jobs report card

    Worst jobs "recovery" of all recessions since 1948:

    image

    "Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey

  • epcjimi1epcjimi1 Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭
    Check out this explanation of why with only 120,000 jobs added last month (vs. 240,000 per month typically previously), the unemployment rate fell from 8.3 to 8.2% -

    "Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.2% as the labor force shrank by 164,000 workers, mostly due to white women leaving the job market."

    Source? CNN (who else?)

    March jobs report: Hiring slows, Unemployment falls
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    At one point, a widely used term was 'voodoo economics'. It would seem we have that in abundance right now. Cheers, RickO
  • cohodkcohodk Posts: 19,100 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The labor participation rate will continue to drop for another 15 years as the baby boomers retire. Nothing voodoo about it. Once age demographics flatten out the US economy will be the envy of the world.
    Excuses are tools of the ignorant

    Knowledge is the enemy of fear

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I was thinking about this earlier in the day and this thought crossed my mind;

    What party are the majority of those out of work and drawing unemployment?

    If anyone can grasp what I'm suggesting, is it possible? >>




    what party are the workers in the BLS?

    At least in the Greater DC area they are Democrats. This is a heavily blue area. MD suburbs-DC-N. VA suburbs all blue.


    Can anyone grasp the wild speculation I'm throwing?

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>The labor participation rate will continue to drop for another 15 years as the baby boomers retire. Nothing voodoo about it. Once age demographics flatten out the US economy will be the envy of the world. >>




    but the net is supposed to be like high 100k new jobs needed each month.


    ???
    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Check out this explanation of why with only 120,000 jobs added last month (vs. 240,000 per month typically previously), the unemployment rate fell from 8.3 to 8.2% -

    "Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.2% as the labor force shrank by 164,000 workers, mostly due to white women leaving the job market."

    Source? CNN (who else?)

    March jobs report: Hiring slows, Unemployment falls >>




    the BLS report has some demographic stuff in there, bu I'm half "just posting" and "half roll searching" right now. I'll have to look at the report later to see if the report backs the CNN story.


    Link to this most recent BLS report

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
    here goes

    Caveat #1, and it is important, these are "labor force changes" which do not directly translate into "not in labor force" changes, because there are also population changes to consider.



    table A-2, pdf page 12 of 38

    White men 20 and over --- dropped 90k from labor force.
    White women 20 and over -- dropped 136k from labor force.
    both sexes 16-19 -- up 92k


    black or Af. Am. men 20+ -- 44k up
    black or Af. Am. women 20+ -- 63k up
    both sexes 16-19 -- 42k drop


    asians - no seasonally adjusted numbers given, just raw numbers.
    up 100k total raw.
    white march adj. was .4% up, black march adj. was .48%, both are less than 1% so the adjustment still yields
    up 100k


    latino - grouped, no sex breakout and 16+ -- 78k drop




    check my work.


    these add up to a 50k drop, not 164k drop.



    ????
    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 33,014 ✭✭✭✭✭
    oh.


    part of the 333k (~300k whatever) are new population growth. Births. Immigrants?

    But there is no doubt, our workforce shrank 164k (~170k whatever) month over month.



    why?


    and should we be celebrating a decrease in unemployment on the back of a shrinking labor force? Are they retiring or giving up? If you are settled with "retiring" then why did the black workforce numbers increase instead of dropping a similar percentage?

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • epcjimi1epcjimi1 Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭
    Huh. I thought it was CNN BS. Guess it's BLS BS. Doesn't matter. It's BS.
  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is very revealing, what they conceal is vital. Cheers, RickO
  • LukeMarshallLukeMarshall Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is very revealing, what they conceal is vital. Cheers, RickO >>



    image

    True

    It's all about what the people want...

Sign In or Register to comment.