Multi-Part Unemployment Numbers Topic
MsMorrisine
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)?
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
0
Comments
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.)
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
Worst jobs "recovery" of all recessions since 1948:
"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
"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
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <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?
<< <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.
???
<< <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
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.
????
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?
<< <i>Statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is very revealing, what they conceal is vital. Cheers, RickO >>
True
It's all about what the people want...