Unemployment rate dropped to 8.6

[JoeChalupa]

Unemployment rate dropped to 8.6 percent in Nov., now stands at its lowest level since March 2009:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69613.html

In a surprising development, the unemployment rate dropped to a stunning 8.6 percent in November, as the country’s economy flashed signs of strength amid uneasiness about a broader global downturn.

The unemployment rate drop from 9 percent in October occurred even though the Labor Department reported Friday that just 120,000 jobs were added in November, a figure roughly in line with expectations.

Unemployment now stands at its lowest level since March 2009.

In addition, revisions made by the Labor Department to past month on Friday showing that an additional 92,000 jobs were added in October and September suggest the economy was much stronger than initially believed.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was nonplussed by the drop, saying the possibility of tax hikes has held back the recovery.

“During the holidays, it’s always comforting to see an uptick in seasonal hiring, but far too many people still remain out of work and the economy still faces systemic problems,” he said in a statement. “Unemployment has remained high and economic uncertainty has prevailed because of the constant threat of tax increases from Washington Democrats and the Obama Administration.”



This trends needs to continue to get this Country moving again. Yes we can.

[coyotes_geek]

:tu

Good news.

[Winehole23]

Is 120,000 hires enough to move the needle four-tenths of a point all by itself?

[Winehole23]

The OP is a little short on analysis.

[coyotes_geek]

Better analysis here.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45521793


The rate fell from the previous month's 9.0 percent, a move which in part reflected a drop in those looking for jobs. The participation rate dropped to 64 percent, from 64.2 percent in October.

So, I probably should temper my exhuberance somewhat.

[CosmicCowboy]

Does anyone REALLY have any faith in those employment stats? It seems like they just make some phone calls and then just pull a number out of their ass...

[CosmicCowboy]

And the fact that they can say..."well, we don't count them as unemployed anymore because they have completely given up looking for work"...is total bullshit.

[coyotes_geek]

Does anyone REALLY have any faith in those employment stats? It seems like they just make some phone calls and then just pull a number out of their ass...

I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, there's a degree of subjectiveness to it, especially with determing when someone crosses over the unemployed to no-longer-looking line. But the stats are still useful.

The participation rate seems like a number that would be harder to fudge.

[CosmicCowboy]

From another article...


Unemployment Rate
Revisions to prior reports added a total of 72,000 jobs to payrolls in September and October.
The unemployment rate, derived from a separate survey of households, was forecast to hold at 9 percent. The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.
“You’d like to see the unemployment rate coming down when people are coming into the job market, not disappearing,” James Glassman, senior economist at JP Morgan Chase & Co. in New York, said in an interview on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene. “That’s probably exaggerating the trend in unemployment.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/u-s-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-declines-to-8-6-payrolls-rise-by-120-000.html

[cheguevara]

Does anyone REALLY have any faith in those employment stats? It seems like they just make some phone calls and then just pull a number out of their ass...

you had faith when the #s were double digits

where is your faith now? :lol

[cheguevara]

that niga

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OJkIrjbsD3U/Te9z2JbE-UI/AAAAAAAAQ4M/uVnhRQExihg/s1600/obama-sunglasses.jpg

[boutons_deux]

expect more of the "I quit looking" unemployed to sign up again, and push the badly understated /dishonest number back up.

And what about the people that are finding jobs at 1/3 to 1/2 or less of their previous salary?

and people working "employed" part time who want/NEED full time?

and there are probably still 4 or 5 job seekers for jobs offered.

The Repugs' pro-cyclic deficit cutting/stimulus blocking efforts will certainly intensify and multiply at state/federal levels to keep the rate as high as they can for Nov 2012.

[CosmicCowboy]

you had faith when the #s were double digits

where is your faith now? :lol

You are such a stupid ass. I have consistently said the numbers are bogus. Real unemployment/underemployment is closer to 18% than 9%.

[cheguevara]

You are such a stupid ass. I have consistently said the numbers are bogus. Real unemployment/underemployment is closer to 18% than 9%.

which means what? that would mean even the real unemployment under Reagan, was around 20%. should he have been impeached too :rolleyes

if you accuse Obama's admin job #s to be BS , then all admins must have had BS #s to start with

which makes you a stupid ass

[CosmicCowboy]

which means what? that would mean even the real unemployment under Reagan, was around 20%. should he have been impeached too :rolleyes

if you accuse Obama's admin job #s to be BS , then all admins must have had BS #s to start with

which makes you a stupid ass

I'm just stating facts dummy.

So you HONESTLY believe that only 8.8% of the people in the US are unemployed or underemployed?

:lmao

[cheguevara]

so you honestly believe that only 10% of the people in the US were unenployed or underemployed under Reagan?

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

so you honestly believe that only 10% of the people in the US were unenployed or underemployed under Reagan?

:lmao

You can cram your straw man right up your ass.

[101A]

Was excited about the number until I heard the facts behind it; I work in a business that people hiring means increased revenue for me - without having to add clients.

Still, good news, especially if it gets spun that way. Add to that decreased debt of Americans, and a pretty good start to the holiday shopping season.....get that consumer confidence up, and the engine starts building some momentum.

[cheguevara]

You can cram your straw man right up your ass.

so can you :lol

[101A]

Oh, and if the good numbers mean 4 more years of Obama, and we don't get any of the rehashed has been politicians the Republicans are trotting up as the "conservative" alternative?

So be it.

[boutons_deux]

Labor Force's Share Of Income Plunges To Lowest Recorded Level

The labor force's share of income has plunged to its lowest level since the measure was first recorded.

The labor force's share of income -- or the percentage of national income -- fell to a nearly 60-year-low last quarter, according to data from the Federal Reserve bank of St. Louis. The share dropped to 57.1 percent, according to economist Nouriel Roubini, compared to an average of nearly 65 percent percent before the year 2000.

The low-level of national income that the labor force is taking home signals that though employers may be experiencing a growth in productivity, the rise in income is going towards company profits, not workers. The figures are just one measure indicating that income inequality is on the rise. The top one percent of earners saw their incomes grow by 275 percent between 1979 and 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the bottom fifth of earners experienced a 20 percent rise in income during the same period.

And though the economy is technically in recovery, that doesn't mean Americans' wallets are seeing a boost. The U.S. median income dropped in 2010 for the second year in a row to $26,364. Meanwhile, millionaires control nearly 40 percent of global wealth, according to an October report from Credit Suisse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/labor-forces-share-of-income_n_1124189.html

====

Combined with corporate profits and cash-on-hand at record or near-record levels, easy to see how the VRWC war on employees is essentially over. Human-Americans are fucked and unfuckable, OWS won't elect enough, if anybody at all, to even try to unfuck H-As.

[boutons_deux]

Americans to lose $34.3 billion in lost vacation

U.S. workers are set to lose 226 million vacation days this year, and according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, it equates to about $34.3 billion

CNN cites a survey that found many American workers are increasingly weary of asking their bosses for a vacation these days.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/clockingin/2011/12/americans-to-lose-34-3-million-in-lost-vacation/

[boutons_deux]

Overworked, Older Americans Not Using Up Allotted Vacation Days

By year's end, the average American worker will have accumulated more than a week's worth of unused vacation days.

According to a recent American Travel Behavior Survey, commissioned by the discount travel website Hotwire.com, older Americans tend to have a disproportionate share of unused vacation time.

In particular, for workers ages 55 and older, the survey found that nearly 30 percent have between five and 10 vacation days left over at the end of each year. Further, it found that only a quarter of workers 55 and older had used up all of their allotted vacation time by year's end.

"For some people, when they're present and working, they think they're showing their boss their value," Avramidis said. "They fear that when they're on vacation, their manager will see that the company not only does fine without them, but that they might eliminate their position as a result."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/overworked-americans-vacation-days_n_1110095.html

[Trainwreck2100]

Seasonal Employment may also have something to do with it

[Winehole23]

Better analysis here.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45521793.Thanks, CG.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Does anyone REALLY have any faith in those employment stats? It seems like they just make some phone calls and then just pull a number out of their ass...

Just because thats what you do when you need to come to a conclusion does not mean that the department of labor does it. I know how the numbers are figured and they are seasonally adjusted which seems to be oblivious to ST posters and GOP reps alike.

[Winehole23]

I know how the numbers are figured and they are seasonally adjusted which seems to be oblivious to ST posters and GOP reps alike.Please do share with us, then, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported figure.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please do share with us, then, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported figure.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/lauseas.htm

[CosmicCowboy]

Just because thats what you do when you need to come to a conclusion does not mean that the department of labor does it. I know how the numbers are figured and they are seasonally adjusted which seems to be oblivious to ST posters and GOP reps alike.

:lmao

The DOL admits that their numbers are just semi-educated guesses...why do you want to deny it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

The DOL admits that their numbers are just semi-educated guesses...why do you want to deny it?

Link? i attribute this to you once again making shit up with at best incomplete knowledge and filling in the rest. You do that constantly.

[Winehole23]

http://www.bls.gov/lau/lauseas.htmThat's not an answer to my question. You said you knew. Please explain to us, in your own words, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported number, and to what degree.

[CosmicCowboy]

Link? i attribute this to you once again making shit up with at best incomplete knowledge and filling in the rest. You do that constantly.

The sample size is 60,000 out of 300 million. What do you call that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not an answer to my question. You said you knew. Please explain to us, in your own words, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported number, and to what degree.

The article talks about series. How do you normalize a series? You come up with a cofactor to compensate. I don't know about the specifics of their methodology but a better question would be do you think that winter retail hirings would be significant enough to be recognized when analyzing the past series of employment figures?

Its pretty simple. Things like increased demand due to harvest and holiday retail shows up annually. Every year there is a cofactor before the function that attempts to translate or normalize that out. You trend the numbers down versus numbers in the middle of winter when construction and the like is dormant across much of the country they normalize upwards.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The sample size is 60,000 out of 300 million. What do you call that?

Polling and you not having a clue how its done.

[CosmicCowboy]

Polling a small statistical sample is called an educated guess.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Polling a small statistical sample is called an educated guess.

It just varies the degree of error. Like I said you have no clue. You just don't like any improvement in economic numbers leading up to the election.

[DMX7]

And the fact that they can say..."well, we don't count them as unemployed anymore because they have completely given up looking for work"...is total bullshit.

Well... it's been that way for a long time.

... and the U.S. workforce is not 300 million.

[Drachen]

My question here (as it always is when people bring up this subject) is "Do you think that they change the approach from month to month when calculating unemployment figures?"

Because if you don't, then generally, a decrease in the percentage (especially one of this magnitude) is a good thing.

[Winehole23]

I don't know about the specifics of their methodology but a better question would be do you think that winter retail hirings would be significant enough to be recognized when analyzing the past series of employment figures?Probably, I would guess.

How significant? You don't seem to know, either.

[Winehole23]

If your point was to point out a commonplace you thought was overlooked, thanks, but I would hazard a guess that most of the posters in this thread have heard of seasonal adjustments before.

[Winehole23]

Without more detailed info, you're just making an educated guess.

[CosmicCowboy]

It just varies the degree of error. Like I said you have no clue. You just don't like any improvement in economic numbers leading up to the election.

You fucking idiot. You are trying to imply motive when I am clearly ONLY talking about the lack of reliability of the DOL statistics. They are equally unreliable whether they say it's 10 or 8. Why do you think they always come back and "adjust" them a few weeks later?

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually their website doesn't say anything about adjusting for Christmas hiring but it DOES specifically say they adjust for winter weather keeping people from working outside...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Probably, I would guess.

How significant? You don't seem to know, either.

So we should ignore that its done then?

The point is that they consider the issue. Its been widely talked about and it was a big issue 5 years ago.

You can try this pseudo-Chump socratic method if you like. I am not afraid of having my idea scrutinized and I am not afraid of being wrong as long as the truth is the final outcome.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You fucking idiot. You are trying to imply motive when I am clearly ONLY talking about the lack of reliability of the DOL statistics. They are equally unreliable whether they say it's 10 or 8. Why do you think they always come back and "adjust" them a few weeks later?

What basis do you have for this? Just doesn't feel right to you? And its a running adjustment. When the cofactor is dependent on previous values its constantly being adjusted. At least I got you to actually look rather then just confirm what you already thought and move on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If your point was to point out a commonplace you thought was overlooked, thanks, but I would hazard a guess that most of the posters in this thread have heard of seasonal adjustments before.

Their comments did not reflect it; most specifically the GOP politician initially quoted.

[Winehole23]

So we should ignore that its done then?Who said so?

[Winehole23]

Their comments did not reflect it; most specifically the GOP politician initially quoted.So then kindly direct your animus to the quoted politician instead of making broad ascriptions of ignorance based on very limited info.

It's just possible some of us were already aware, in a very general way -- like you -- that the government adjusts the number to reflect seasonal patterns of activity.

[cheguevara]

:lol ppl here think the DOL started using this jobs formula as soon as Barack came to power

truth is the same formula has been used for decades and the # is just to reference it historically, which is the correct way to use it.

no it is not the real # of the unemployed today :lol nobody is claiming it is

[Winehole23]

:lol ppl here think the DOL started using this jobs formula as soon as Barack came to powerWho said so, Che'?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is 120,000 hires enough to move the needle four-tenths of a point all by itself?

Sure, if you pretend (like they did) that 315,000 people "quit looking for work" at the same time.

You want employment at 7%? Lets just pretend that a couple million of those lazy bastards quit looking for work...

Viola! 7% unemployment!!!!! Hooray!!!!!

[Winehole23]

Their comments did not reflect ithttp://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5489927&postcount=24

[boutons_deux]

employment rates I've seen sometimes as "seasonally adjusted", as in more outdoor/manual employment in good weather months, more retail employment Thanksgiving-to-Christmas.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol ppl here think the DOL started using this jobs formula as soon as Barack came to power

truth is the same formula has been used for decades and the # is just to reference it historically, which is the correct way to use it.

no it is not the real # of the unemployed today :lol nobody is claiming it is

Actually, the formula has continually been adjusted over the years.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who said so?

The people that talk about seasonal changes as if they are not at least accounted for in some way which is from the quote that I initially replied to.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, if you pretend (like they did) that 315,000 people "quit looking for work" at the same time.

You want employment at 7%? Lets just pretend that a couple million of those lazy bastards quit looking for work...

Viola! 7% unemployment!!!!! Hooray!!!!!

So you advocate counting those not looking for work anyway?

[cheguevara]

Who said so, Che'?

there is someone here that said the #s are bogus. which I agree. But that person refused to awknowledge that the same formula has been used throughout history which means compared historically it is a good way of telling how the jobs situation is.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you advocate counting those not looking for work anyway?

Are they employed or unemployed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are they employed or unemployed?

They do not count housewives and students either for the same reason. Should we count those?

[Winehole23]

It just varies the degree of error. Like I said you have no clue. You just don't like any improvement in economic numbers leading up to the election.My question related to analysis. What realities does the number reflect?

If the drop more reflects that a large number people have given up looking for work, than new hires and seasonal adjustment -- as has happened at least once this year, I believe -- then it's not good news.

[Winehole23]

The people that talk about seasonal changes as if they are not at least accounted for in some way which is from the quote that I initially replied to.Ah then, we're not all ignorant dolts. Who did you mean then?

[Winehole23]

there is someone here that said the #s are bogus. which I agree. But that person refused to awknowledge that the same formula has been used throughout history which means compared historically it is a good way of telling how the jobs situation is.So then, you contend that the way the number is arrived at has not significantly changed over the years?

[CosmicCowboy]

there is someone here that said the #s are bogus. which I agree. But that person refused to awknowledge that the same formula has been used throughout history which means compared historically it is a good way of telling how the jobs situation is.

The BLS has not always removed "discouraged workers" from the unemployment numbers. This is a fairly recent development so your premise is incorrect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My question related to analysis. What realities does the number reflect?

If the drop more reflects that a large number people have given up looking for work, than new hires and seasonal adjustment -- as has happened at least once this year, I believe -- then it's not good news. Although admittedly, people sometimes simplemindedly assume it is.

That quote was certainly not directed at you. i know you are not intellectually lazy, Wine. You have proven that. There are some that do not have such inspection.

You can lump yourself with CC for the martyr pose if you like though.

[cheguevara]

So then, you contend that the way the number is arrived at has not significantly changed over the years?

not significantly in the last 20 years no. Unless you have proof it has, then I will retract.

[Winehole23]

@FL: You made a careless generalization. Pointing it out doesn't make me a martyr.

[boutons_deux]

Another reason not to get excited about the drop in unemployment rate. There's plenty ongoing, no-end-in-sight, worsening info to offset it.

Job openings closed to the unemployed

Among recent job postings placed by Anderson Staffing, a San Francisco "full service staffing boutique that specializes in the placement of attorneys and legal personnel," was the following:

"Two openings for Corporate/Transactional Legal Secretaries in the Finance/Real Estate departments." Salary: $70,000-$80,000 a year. "We are also looking for a Legal Sec/EA (executive assistant) to Managing Partner." Salary: $80,000-$90,000 a year.

Among the must-have qualifications for the positions: "solid large law firm experience," "very flex for overtime," "friendly, polished and team player," "take charge type of person - large presence ... not meek."

Oh, and one other, as posted on CareerBuilder.com and HotSanFranciscoJobs.com: applicants must be "currently employed."

In New Jersey, such a posting would be illegal. A law signed by the state's Republican governor in March expressly prohibits posting a job ad that "knowingly or purposely" states that "qualifications for a job include current employment" - or that lack of same is an automatic disqualifier.

But not, as yet, in California, where the unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, or anywhere else in the nation.

"When I first found out about this, I thought, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, who said he will introduce legislation similar to the New Jersey law soon after Sacramento reopens for business in the new year.

"Being unemployed in this economy is stigma enough," he said. "But the fact that you can eliminate an entire class of people from competing for a job is unacceptable."

It's not surprising, in a highly competitive job market, that companies might prefer applicants who are already gainfully employed over those who have been out of work and may have lost their skills. "Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance," said University of Colorado law Professor Helen Norton, testifying at a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing in February.

The practice first came to light last year, when it was reported that mobile phone manufacturer Sony Ericsson had added "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all" language to a job posting at its Atlanta headquarters. Since then, the practice appears to have spread.

Norton said companies and employment agencies have applied the "no unemployed allowed" sticker on jobs ranging from electronic engineers to restaurant managers and mortgage underwriters (oh, the irony!).

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41685/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=mlIloEfz&full=true#display

[CosmicCowboy]

They do not count housewives and students either for the same reason. Should we count those?

Do you know what a "discouraged worker" is? Do your homework, dude.

[CosmicCowboy]

not significantly in the last 20 years no. Unless you have proof it has, then I will retract.

It was substantially re-written in 1994.

[Winehole23]

not significantly in the last 20 years no. Unless you have proof it has, then I will retract.Thanks for the clarification. Originally you suggested the methodology hadn't changed "throughout history."

[Winehole23]

looks like CC nailed you on that one.

[cheguevara]

It was substantially re-written in 1994.

when were "discouraged workers" removed? (I've been looking for this)

thanks

[CosmicCowboy]

at that time...'94

The problem is, defining "discouraged worker" is a subjective decision and is not arrived at through objective statistical measure...and it appears to me that this category is currently being abused to skew the numbers...

[cheguevara]

here is a good link I found including all types

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[Winehole23]

Which figure best reflects the reality of unemployment, in your opinion?

[cheguevara]

this one is pretty good: (I'd pick the gray one)

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1322845209

[Winehole23]

The Shadow Government alternate seems to be trending up.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps they adjust for the long term unemployed who drop off the rolls.

[Winehole23]

Just curious, Che', why do you prefer the U-6 measurement?

[boutons_deux]

Study: Unemployment Added 9.3 Million Adults To The Rolls Of The Uninsured

In yet another example of the problem with linking insurance coverage to employment, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that “a one percentage point increase in the state unemployment rate is associated with a 1.67 percentage point (2.12%) reduction in the probability that men have health insurance.” “This effect is strongest among college-educated, white, and older (50-64 year old) men,” the research concluded. Similarly a “one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.37 percentage point (4.69%) higher probability that a child is covered by public health insurance.” And so based on those estimates, 9.3 million adults lost insurance “due to a higher unemployment rate alone during the 2007-09 recession.” The Affordable Care Act will mitigate this trend, as individuals, families, small businesses (and eventually larger businesses) will be able to find coverage in the exchanges.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/02/381098/study-unemployment-added-93-million-adults-to-the-rolls-of-the-uninsured/

===

Yet another reason why working Americans STFU and are intimidated by the prospect loss of job.

[JoeChalupa]

When jobs really start coming back, unemployment rate will temporarily rise again as discouraged workers start looking for jobs again. - Ezra Klein

[Winehole23]

very good point

[Winehole23]

a rise in unemployment can be good news, just as a fall can reflect something bad

[boutons_deux]

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/12/employment-summary-part-time-workers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+ Risk%29

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rH9rQB-RsRE/TtjpUaKICvI/AAAAAAAALfM/kXRItngpFHo/s1600/EmployRecessAlignedNov2011.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Just another predatory thrust in the UCA War on Employees

“Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit From the Nest Eggs of American Workers”


With slick accounting tricks, Schultz writes, corporate America has funneled billions of dollars out of pension funds. Many companies used the money to pay for downsizing—covering early-retirement buyouts, which are considered voluntary, instead of imposing a layoff and cash severance. Some funds were simply terminated, and the money was used to offset operating expenses. And so, company by company, a great surplus dwindled.

To replenish the pension funds, companies cut benefits, Schultz writes. Their gains were immediate: Earnings got a boost. The companies’ obligations were cut. Their bottom lines were bolstered. It took much longer for workers’ losses to register: In many of the cases Schultz cites, workers realized the damage only once they were old and sick and had little in the way of resources to embark on a protracted legal battle.

It’s utterly depressing, and that’s just the start. Having plundered the pensions, companies exploited 401(k) plans to borrow money cheaply. With pensions underfunded or frozen, they dug into retiree health plans. The trend of tying executive pay to performance only made matters worse, Schultz explains, leading, for instance, to the death-benefit bamboozle, whereby companies take out life insurance policies on their employees. When a worker dies, even if he’s long since found other work or retired, the company cashes in on the death benefit, tax-free. In many of these cases, the payout to the company dwarfs whatever benefit might go to the next of kin.

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/corporate_wolf_eats_grandmother_alive_20111201/

[Winehole23]

Thanks for sharing the tricks of the trade, boss man. You're a goldmine of information (for your fellow corporate-Americans) on how to screw over your employees. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone REALLY have any faith in those employment stats? It seems like they just make some phone calls and then just pull a number out of their ass...
No.

Remember, this is also temporary X-Mas hiring.

[Wild Cobra]

And the fact that they can say..."well, we don't count them as unemployed anymore because they have completely given up looking for work"...is total bullshit.
True, but that is the standard used. There are different numbers available, but that is the official one.

[boutons_deux]

Trends Show Women Losing Access to Jobs

The employment rate for women is down 0.7 percentage points from its year-ago level.

The Labor Department reported a decline of 315,000 people in the labor market in October. This was the main factor driving a drop of 0.4 percentage points in the unemployment rate to 8.6 percent. The establishment survey showed a weaker-than-expected 120,000 job gain for the month; although this bad news was largely offset by upward revisions of 72,000 to the job growth numbers for the prior two months.

The drop in participation was entirely among women and especially black women. (Among married women, employment rose by 194,000, so this was not a case of women as second earners dropping out of the labor force.) Participation numbers among white women fell by 199,000, a decline of 0.2 percentage points. The drop among black women was 164,000, a drop of 1.2 percentage points. These monthly numbers are highly erratic, and it is likely that at least part of this drop will be reversed in future months. Nonetheless there had been a trend of declining participation rates among both white and black women even prior to the November plunge. This suggests that there is a real issue of women losing access to jobs; although the December figures may show some reversal.

http://www.truth-out.org/declining-labor-force-participation-leads-sharp-drop-unemployment/1322855116

[EVAY]

Trends Show Women Losing Access to Jobs

The employment rate for women is down 0.7 percentage points from its year-ago level.

The Labor Department reported a decline of 315,000 people in the labor market in October. This was the main factor driving a drop of 0.4 percentage points in the unemployment rate to 8.6 percent. The establishment survey showed a weaker-than-expected 120,000 job gain for the month; although this bad news was largely offset by upward revisions of 72,000 to the job growth numbers for the prior two months.

The drop in participation was entirely among women and especially black women. (Among married women, employment rose by 194,000, so this was not a case of women as second earners dropping out of the labor force.) Participation numbers among white women fell by 199,000, a decline of 0.2 percentage points. The drop among black women was 164,000, a drop of 1.2 percentage points. These monthly numbers are highly erratic, and it is likely that at least part of this drop will be reversed in future months. Nonetheless there had been a trend of declining participation rates among both white and black women even prior to the November plunge. This suggests that there is a real issue of women losing access to jobs; although the December figures may show some reversal.

http://www.truth-out.org/declining-labor-force-participation-leads-sharp-drop-unemployment/1322855116


I read somewhere (don't remember where...please don't ask me to link it...I can't...) that the unemployment rate among women was going to go up as the recessionary influences hit state and local government jobs. In other words, it was reporting that women were NOT among those who lost their jobs first in the recession, because they were not employed in the private sector in the same proportions as men.

As the recession forced state and local governments to rein in spending due to lower tax revenues, however, women were the primary folks hit.

I think that's likely the explanation for the women thing.

I can't figure out why you guys are screaming at each other about methodologies here though. God grief!!

[Winehole23]

I recall reading that too. It may have been posted here somewhere...

[Winehole23]

Screaming?

???

[Winehole23]

Seemed like a regular conversation to me...

[Winehole23]

Hard to unpack the significance of the figure without, you know, unpacking it a little.

[Wild Cobra]

Hard to unpack the significance of the figure without, you know, unpacking it a little.
Myself, I simply get tired of the race and gender cards being used when ever possible.

[EVAY]

Seemed like a regular conversation to me...

okay perhaps not screaming, but, sorry, it sure seemed to me to go and on and on and on with some sort of 'passive aggressive' screaming.

Didn't mean to offend...just struck me as...goofy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

@FL: You made a careless generalization. Pointing it out doesn't make me a martyr.

No you assumed my comments to be universal. You should know me better to think that when it comes to human behavior, i will not make such comments.

OTOH, CC has a propensity to make a conclusion and then insert logic after the fact to fit those conclusions. That where the discussion from me came from.

You have decided to include yourself in my statements when i have told you point blank that is not the case. I may have misspoke at some point but my intention is never to claim that there is some sort of universal human behavior.

Keep up the martyr routine though its somewhat amusing if unfounded.

[Winehole23]

okay perhaps not screaming, but, sorry, it sure seemed to me to go and on and on and on with some sort of 'passive aggressive' screaming.

Didn't mean to offend...just struck me as...goofy.goofy for sure

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you know what a "discouraged worker" is? Do your homework, dude.

i know exactly what that is but the question is "are you looking for work." They fall under that category that answers no. If you have some data that demonstrates that is a significant trend over and above what its been for the last several months then by all means link the data.

My only contention is that the data normalizes for monthly variations in response to what the majority leader claimed.

[Winehole23]

No you assumed my comments to be universal.You did not qualify "ST posters"
I know how the numbers are figured and they are seasonally adjusted which seems to be oblivious to ST posters and GOP reps alike.
Not global, but still pretty sweeping, as stated.

[Winehole23]

OTOH, CC has a propensity to make a conclusion and then insert logic after the fact to fit those conclusions. That where the discussion from me came from.You sometimes do the very same, though perhaps you don't realize it. It's human.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps I overread. I accept your restatements, but my quibble was understandable. I'm no better at reading minds than anyone else.

[Winehole23]

You should know me better to think that when it comes to human behavior, i will not make such comments. You seem to have no problem making them about religious devotion -- a human behavior.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You sometimes do the very same, though perhaps you don't realize it. It's human.

Then by all means then point it out and I will adjust my reasoning because that is something i guard against. I do not just give lip service. I also don't really buy into the notion of 'human behavior.'

BTW, put the word 'some' in front of ST posters and you take my meaning better. I don't buy into a priori so blanket statements about humans are not what i am about. Certain cultural demographics otoh.....

You occasionally go into this arbiter mode. Better you than most i guess but it just is what it is.

[Winehole23]

see above

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You seem to have no problem making them about religious devotion -- a human behavior.

I never said it was a universal behavior. I can comment on a particular behavior and not attribute it to all. You aren't even arguing the efficacy in particular just in general anyway.

[Winehole23]

If you take care to say what you really mean, people will understand you better.

[Winehole23]

Anyway, everyone's an arbiter here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you take care to say what you really mean, people will understand you better.

If you take care to not overgeneralize as a matter of course you will understand better. That being said i have explained myself and apologize for any confusion.

Do you have any more umbrage to my contention that the religious right has promoted a very poor view of academia and intellectuals? Or are you satisfied withy our 'its not universal' red herring?

lol worng thread. i just got home. Anyway. They normalize for monthly trends and its obvious that comments by more than one source did not consider that.

[Winehole23]

Do you have any more umbrage to my contention that the religious right has promoted a very poor view of academia and intellectuals?I had none to begin with, and that isn't what you said. You said "Christianity," not "the religious right."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I had none to begin with, and that isn't what you said. You said "Christianity," not "the religious right."

the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Winehole23]

One is not equivalent to the other. Christians are all over the board politically.

[Winehole23]

Here’s what you need to worry about:

First, this rate of job growth is barely enough to keep up with the growth in the working-age population. So we’re not making progress on the backlog of more than 13 million jobless Americans, and another 11 million working part-time who’d rather have full-time jobs.


Second, retail jobs constituted a third of new private-sector employment in November. Retail jobs tend to be unstable, temporary, and low-paying. Although the BLS is supposed to adjust for seasonal employment (i.e. Christmas), it doesn’t take account of the fact that more and more Americans have been pushing up their Christmas buying to before Thanksgiving. So some of these jobs may not be around very long.


Third, the jobless rate fell partly because around 315,000 people who had been looking for jobs dropped out of the job market in November. Remember: If you’re not actively looking, you’re not counted as unemployed on the household survey.


Fourth, hourly earnings are down, as are real wages. So to some extent Americans have been substituting lower wages for lost jobs – either by accepting lower wages at their current place of employment, or getting the boot and settling for lower wages elsewhere. A job is better than no job, of course, but a job with a lower wage isn’t nearly as good as a job with at the same or better wage.


Fifth, another reason for November’s job growth is that American consumers – whose spending accounts for about 70 percent of the economy – increased their spending. But this can’t continue because, as noted, wages are dropping. They spent more by cutting into their meager savings. Don’t expect this to last.
http://robertreich.org/post/13638321932

[Winehole23]

The Labor Department said (http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm)Thursday that new claims rose a seasonally-adjusted 6,000 to 402,000, well above the drop of 3,000 claims expected according to a survey for Reuters by FactSet. It was the second straight week that claims had risen after several weeks of declines.

The 4-week moving average, considered a more accurate gauge of labor market trends, was 395,750, an increase of 500 from the previous week's revised average of 395,250, the Labor Department said.

Still, the four-week moving average remains below 400,000, a level that economists consider a significant signpost for the health of the job market.

"The overall trend in claims is still friendly," said Jennifer Lee, an economist at BMO Capital Markets in a note to clients. "Don't be too overly concerned with the ups and downs of each week as this is a volatile report."

The report covered the Thanksgiving holiday week, when applications usually fall sharply. That can make seasonal adjustment of the figures difficult.

Applications would need to stay below 375,000 consistently to push down the unemployment rate significantly. They haven't been at that level since February.
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/01/9138979-big-jump-in-jobless-claims-signals-weak-market

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One is not equivalent to the other. Christians are all over the board politically.

This is the wrong thread but my point is that Christianity by virtue of its dogma being absolutely at odds with what logic demands from an intellectual approach is going to trend towards anti-intellectualism.

For example, when you begin to understand processes like meiosis, combustion, flight,and respiration many of the main tenants within the Christian faith do not jive. Many simply try to mentally ignore the incongruency but it is there always nonetheless.

The reason why Aquinas position was flawed was because when push came to shove the two are incompatible.

As such people coming to the realization that the dogma is not true leads to a decline in membership and that is undesirable to any organization.

Now I agree that the Catholic Church, Episcopalians and countless individuals are Christian and not part of the religious right but as a whole they all have a long and storied tradition of Luddism.

Its just that mega-churches which comprise the Christian right for the most part have been politically active since the 1980s and have there own storied past when it comes to stunting the search for the truth.

[Winehole23]

More glittering generalities. You can keep them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

More glittering generalities. You can keep them.

When the shoe fits the demographic foot....

Its only the history of Western civilization.

[Winehole23]

Cliche' and glibness. Impressive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cliche' and glibness. Impressive.

And all you have given is saying that all i have generalities as a blanket dismissal. this is the wrong thread but what started the discussion was why the GOP puts out dumb candidates.

Thats not impressive. Its sad. of course you cannot say that about any individual but as a group the shoe fits. Sorry if you find the truth repugnant. i find dogma replacing sense repugnant.

[Winehole23]

And all you have given is saying that all i have generalities as a blanket dismissal.That is false. I tried to discuss neo-Thomism. You waved it away peremptorily, without clearly articulating your objection to it. Indeed, you only waved at it, too.
of course you cannot say that about any individual but as a group the shoe fits.When logic fails there's always rhetoric. Too bad you're terrible at it.

Sorry if you find the truth repugnant.That truth, as expoused by you, is laughably trite. Mile wide and an inch deep.

[boutons_deux]

Unemployment Drops Following Decline in Labor Force

According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report, 315,000 people left the labor market in October. This move pushed the unemployment rate down by 0.4 percentage points to 8.6 percent.

The drop in labor force participation was entirely among women, especially black women. Participation numbers among white women fell by 0.2 percentage points to 199,000. The drop among black women was 164,000, a drop of 1.2 percentage points. These monthly numbers are highly erratic, and it is likely that at least part of this drop will be reversed in future months. Nonetheless there had been a trend of declining participation rates among both white and black women even prior to the November plunge. This suggests that there is a real issue of women losing access to jobs;

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/unemployment-drops-following-decline-in-labor-force?utm_source=CEPR+feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cepr+%28CEPR%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

=========

Like with the climate, the picture is always complex but complexity doesn't mean the picture is deniable.

[mingus]

Strip away the different belief systems, and anti-religious fanatics and religious fanatics are both fanatics. A lot in common.

[boutons_deux]

fanatics aren't by definition bad, just in what they're fanatics about.

US needs 10s of Ms of fanatics in the 99% to regain control of the country from the 1%.

[spursncowboys]

While the stat is obscure and volatile, it isn’t the only thing saying the job market is better than it seems. Revisions released today show the economy added 72,000 more jobs in September and October than was originally reported. And the temporary help services sector, seen as a leading indicator of permanent job growth, showed strong growth over the month.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/12/02/did-economy-really-create-nearly-500000-jobs-in-november/

[boutons_deux]

WSJ pimping the confidence fairy.

[Winehole23]

what's that number?

[spursncowboys]

Although the w ay they measure actual not government new jobs are sketchy. that would be the number(s)
I would focus on, Not so much unemployment.

[Winehole23]

what number?

[Winehole23]

point of clarification, times two

[boutons_deux]

Who the fuck pays attention to unemployment during the holiday season anyway? underemployment.

Ever heard of "seasonally adjusted"?

[boutons_deux]

The Ranks of the Underemployed Continue to Grow

In September, the number of underemployed workers rose for the third consecutive month


Almost 9.3 million Americans are considered underemployed, defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as working part-time for economic reasons, such as unfavorable business conditions or seasonal declines in demand. That's up from just over 8 million in July, but down from a peak of about 9.5 million in September 2010. In addition, about 2.5 million individuals are considered "marginally attached to the labor force," meaning they were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. (They are not counted as unemployed because they had not looked for a job in the past four weeks prior to the survey.)

http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2011/10/19/the-ranks-of-the-underemployed-continue-to-grow

U.S. Underemployment at 18.6% in August

Underemployment, as measured by Gallup, was 18.6% in August, up from 18.4% at the end of July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to break below 18.3% this year

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fwsa8c_sweyk_mk9yljuga.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142835/underemployment-august.aspx

Youth Underemployment: An Overlooked Epidemic

a continuously weak economy youth unemployment has now reached 18.1% on a record low 59.5% participation rate. Even these numbers can be considered conservative as many recent graduates have kicked the can of the job market through either graduate school or do not apply for unemployment because they do not have a previous job to make them eligible for benefits. This issue has flown under the radar, but long-term high youth unemployment has significant negative consequences for the macroeconomy

http://seekingalpha.com/article/299103-youth-underemployment-an-overlooked-epidemic

[The Reckoning]

oh noes younger peeps need to better qualify themselves in preparation for the real world. this is doomed to lead towards shitty work output and inhibited macro growth.

doomed. youre all doomed! :bike:



k3CaYYEkGXI

[mavs>spurs]

Ever heard of "seasonally adjusted"?

Ever heard of manipulation? Take it all with a grain of salt..

[Winehole23]

@boutons: thanks for posting the underemployment figures others said were notable, but did not note

[boutons_deux]

gfy

[Winehole23]

good morning, sir

[Winehole23]

wet and cold. the weather's wonderful!

[Winehole23]

(in central and south central Texas)

[Winehole23]

been here long?

[Winehole23]

A decline in unemployment and pickup in manufacturing point to accelerating U.S. growth. Some economists say the numbers may not be as good as they look.



One reason: the severity of the economy’s plunge in late 2008 and early 2009 after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed threw a wrench into models used to smooth the data for seasonal changes, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Nomura Securities International Inc.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/goldman-sachs-says-u-s-performance-may-appear-better-than-it-is-economy.html

[CosmicCowboy]

The main reason that the unemployment number dropped was that they are counting fewer people as "looking for work". It's all smoke and mirrors.

[Winehole23]

yep. I thought the recession throwing off seasonal smoothing models was an interesting footnote.

[CosmicCowboy]

I was reading the other day that if they used the same number of people looking for work as they did in 2009 then the unemployment number would be 11%.

I'll look for the link.

[CosmicCowboy]

Didn't find the link yet but here is a good article with some interesting graphs...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/unemployment-lowest-since-may-2009-as-fewer-look-for-jobs/69046/

The third chart of discouraged workers seems to bear out that 11% claim...

[Winehole23]

I think there's a shadow stats chart somewhere to the same effect upstream.