222,000 Jobs Added To US Payrolls In June; Unemployment Rate Rises To 4.4 Percent (npr.org) 300
From an NPR report: An estimated 222,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in June, according to the monthly employment report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Friday. "The job gains were better than expected -- most economists had predicted a gain of 180,000 jobs," NPR's Chris Arnold reports for our Newscast unit. The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.4 percent from 4.3 percent -- a 16-year low that was hit in May. "Since January, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed are down by 0.4 percentage point and 658,000, respectively," the BLS says. Previous estimates of job gains in recent months were revised upwards -- from 138,000 to 152,000 in May and from 174,000 to 207,000 in June, for a net gain of 47,000.
unemployment numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
Unemployment numbers don't count those who just straight up gave up on looking for work. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you included working age people on "Social Security Disability". It seems the primary disability here is the lack of ability to find a job and you are too old to go into the military(the other jobs handout program).
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Re:unemployment numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, unemployment numbers count discouraged employees in U4. U4 is currently 4.7. This year, starting in January, it has been 5.2, 5.0, 4.8, 4.7, 4.5, and 4.7. U3 has been 4.7, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.4.
Labor force participation rate (Score:3)
All the U- numbers have certain guesses, models, and biases involved. For raw data just go for the labor force participation rate [bls.gov] which is the least-political measure.
It's slightly improved, but there was clearly no "Obama Recovery" and the US economy hasn't gotten back to pre-crash levels.
"It's the jobs, stupid" as a politician once said.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the peak labor force participation rate was 66.4% in 2007. Adjusting for peak labor force participation rate, our current U3 unemployment rate of 4.7 at 62.8% would be 4.97%. This is versus a peak unemployment rate of 10.0% at 64.4% in October 2009, which would be 10.31% at 66.4% labor participation rate; our current U3 would adjust to 4.82% at 64.4% labor force participation rate.
So if you want to use the labor force participation rate numbers as a normalization, unemployment fell from 10% i
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotally, contractor neighbors of ours moved to the Carolina mountains a couple of years ago. They've got plenty of work up there doing construction, maintenance, etc. - but all their clients, and most people they meet are on disability - not included in U4.
I suppose it makes sense: if you don't need a job, you can move somewhere nice that doesn't have many.
Re: (Score:2)
Disability means you can't work. It should, technically, be U5: you're willing but not able to work. U5 includes single mothers who can't afford daycare and so aren't working because they can't afford to work, for example.
They won't show up in U4.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:unemployment numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
U6 is a bastard number. It measures underemployed, and it peaked at 16%-ish.
I don't like U6 because it's not a good measure of anything. Underemployment means you have 10 people and 5 jobs, so 10 people work half a job (40 hours). They're only underemployed if they desire more working time and work less than full-time. Thing is 10 people working 20 hours each is 10 underemployed; 10 people working 10 hours each is 10 underemployed.
For underemployment, I want new metrics.
The first metric is to measure only the U6 underemployed--they want more hours, but can't get them. Count their hours. Every 40 hours is one job. Give us the number of full-time jobs available as 40 labor-hours per week (2,080 per year) and the number of underemployed. That tells us how many people are fighting over how many jobs.
The second is that, plus people who are content and working less than full time. That gives you an accurate count of all available working hours, excluding any overtime worked. It lets you see how many people are working and content (UN2 persons - UN1 persons) and how many full jobs are available among them.
The third is a full count of all hours including overtime hours. That lets you count the number of full-time jobs against the number of employed plus any UE metric you want. (UN3 jobs)
Now you know precisely how much work is available, how it's distributed, and how our employment market really looks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More employment without printing up more money means less money available per person, and deflation.
Obviously, we're printing or loaning more money into existence. That's where jobs come from: consumers demand (buy) with money they have, and businesses can't keep up with the demand; they hire additional labor (jobs) to increase their capacity to keep up with demand. When capacity no longer increases linearly with labor, you have scarcity (you have to hire 3 people to produce twice the output of 1 person =
Re:"Discouraged" job seekers. (Score:4, Informative)
go to bls.gov
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the IRS has records of every lawful employment payment (and many unlawful). Each one is reported with time period, money earned, and a unique identifier.
As long as you don't get too picky arguing about why someone hasn't received another legal paycheck since their unemployment returns ended, you can get a useful number. Reporting it as "no longer looking for work" may not be entirely accurate, but "no longer receiving any reported income" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Re:"Discouraged" job seekers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the IRS has records of every lawful employment payment (and many unlawful). Each one is reported with time period, money earned, and a unique identifier.
These numbers are never used, even though they obviously would give the best data. They can't be manipulated as easily, and it would be too easy to point out that job income per worker has been stagnant or even declined for a generation. GDP has increased tremendously, but it's not showing up in pay packets.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm...they *are* used. On BLS, search for "full-time employed". Then "part-time employed". There's even a distinction between full-time employed with health benefits vs not.
Data is collected and if you even do a cursory amount of legwork, can be collected and interpreted.
Re: (Score:3)
Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. It's all there.
Re: (Score:3)
. . . or you're stuck in an area with low income to start with, and a single industry that's shut down. West Virginia coal-mining towns come to mind, when the mine shuts down, nobody has the cash to move elsewhere.
And, of course, HR types not even considering long-term unemployed compounds the problem. . .
Re: "Discouraged" job seekers. (Score:2)
HR types not being blood-let and piled into trenches is a big part of the problem.
re: WV and coal mining towns (Score:3)
As someone who lives close to some of those former coal mining towns in WV, I'd have to say the core problem comes down to lack of education. The fact that coal mining went away certainly means the primary source of income for people disappeared. But the large percentage of people who still keep trying to do what they've always done, expecting a better/new result is disturbing. If you go out in public in those communities, you see a whole bunch of people who can't spell any words properly if they contain mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, 1980s? That's 25, 35, close to 40 years ago. Pretty sure that most of them are not working now. Quite likely they're all senile or dead by now, or if not at least learned how to read.
Would the next generation be just as illiterate as their parents? Pretty sure seeing Dad have to go to the bank and need someone to sign everything for them was good motivation to learn enough of the "3 Rs" to not have to live like that. We've also seen the creation of the US Department of Education in 1979. I would
Re: (Score:3)
I would be willing to bet the literacy rate of coal mining areas of WV is quite a bit higher than parts of Chicago.
Re: (Score:3)
IQ is strongly correlated with the kinds of jobs you can hold. Right now, there's almost nothing in the US economy if you're IQ is below about 85 (15% of the population, mostly male). At that IQ, you can only really do repetitive work as instructed in detail. There are a few manual labor jobs left, but automation has nearly eliminated all such jobs already.
In the coming wave of automation, that IQ bar is simply moving up. I expect most of the current simplest jobs - say those doable with n IQ of about 9
Re: (Score:2)
Looks more like automation will wipe out middle to upper management first, since it's mostly paper pushing. The folks on top, well, they push the buttons. As for the other 7 billion of us, I don't want to be the one to say.
Re: (Score:3)
Put them all in phone tech support. It will be a step up from having to deal with the same IQ bracket from India.
Re: (Score:3)
That automation is already done on the web, and I for one won't put up with a non human on the phone. I mash zero until I get a human, I can't imagine I'm the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
All statistics can be used to lie, but frankly I don't give much of a fuck about people who become defeated and stop looking for work.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers also don't take into account underemployement - those who used to have good jobs who are now working for drastically reduced wages.
Just look around on the streets and you can see that the economy is crap. I see more homeless in residential areas than I've seen before, more camps under the overpasses, and more people camping in the cars. But then the reports come out saying how great the numbers are!
Reminds me of when I was struggling to find work after college and I'd hear some economist claim
4%? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. The military is not a handout job. Ask anyone who has enlisted, it is a ton of work. Welfare (ignoring the law requiring welfare to work), medicaid, food stamps, and SSD for back pain are handouts (and I suspect at some point these people will be shifted off the rolls which are currently unsustainable). There is zero reason why you can't do a desk job or phone support with a back injury. There is zero reason why you can't flip burgers for $9/h while you are receiving welfare (or go to a trade school
Re: (Score:3)
When jobs are added AND the unemployment rate rises, it means people are entering the workforce. In other words, people who had given up and previously weren't counted, are now looking for work.
Re: unemployment numbers (Score:3, Informative)
Because the only jobs are for robots, Indians, or don't pay a livable wage?
Re: (Score:3)
The skilled trade job market is booming and not finding many applicants.
Everyone wants to go to college and work at a desk. No one wants to weld on a pipe line in North Dakota despite the fact it pays more than a desk job.
Re: (Score:3)
It may pay more than that desk job but it's more likely than not going to be a long-term job. That's a tough situation for anyone with a family; you'll be leaving the family behind to work on another short-term welding job. Then another and another. Not everyone can take that for long.
As for everyone wanting to go to college... I know one car rental company that--at least at one time--wanted their employees to have a college education just to stand behind the counter and help customers fill out rental form
Re: (Score:3)
Crime, leaching off of others, politics, managment. Though the last 2 are redundent.
Re: (Score:3)
a non-livable wage is more money than zero money from not working
And takes away all your useful hours you could otherwise use to find a livable wage.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
4.4% unemployment where? The job market in San Francisco has very little to do with the job market in say, Charleston, WV or Bismark, ND. If you've ever been to some of the more rural areas, there just aren't any decent jobs at all. Just a complete lack of economic activity. The smart people who can find employment elsewhere leave, that whole brain drain effect.
That leaves behind people without much in the way of economic prospects or marketable job skills. Then we wonder why those same people get ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you look for work when unemployment was 4.4%? Should be pretty easy to find a job
Which is likely why the number of jobs increased and the unemployment rate increased. The labor market is good enough that it is enticing people who previously were not looking for work into doing so. Effectively moving people from the U-6 or U-4 pool into U-3.
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump says he is going to save a trillion dollars by using technology to increase the efficiency of the government. Even though unemployment is low he wants to eliminate Obamacare taxes on the rich since he calls them job killing taxes. So even though he is going to save a trillion dollars and unemployment is already low he has to take away a trillion dollars from people's health care. Only Republicans will think that is logical.
Re: unemployment numbers (Score:2)
Obamacare taxes the whole economy in myriad ways. That you can't see this reflects more on the propaganda your Masters feed you than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
So does war. And the call for NATO to increase defense spending to 2%. To counter that, Russia and China will increase their defense spending. So next you'll be crying for a large increase in US defense spending. And Russia and China will also have to increase theirs to counter it.
How far before the economy is just working for the benefit of defense contractors and nobody else?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair....Defense IS one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Govt. by the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
U definitions [wikipedia.org]; U6 is most of the people who want to work but cannot find a job, cannot find a full time job (underemployment) and thus still need assistance, or who have given up.
ShadowStats [shadowstats.com] also factors in those who have permanently left the work force but are still in the 19-64 age range. It's no secret that permanent disability [ssa.gov] and permanent Medicaid status [statista.com] have both exploded since 2008. ShadowStats factors those people into their own unemployment rate, as it appears the Federal Government moved a p
Re:unemployment numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
You claim Labor Force Participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working, but then link to a chart which lists the participation rate of everyone 16 and up.
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years [stlouisfed.org]. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40). But if you take away the second half of the 90's, where it peaked, our current participation rate is only about 1% lower than the average over the last 30 years. It has also been trending up since 2014.
Those who are physically unable to work, students, stay at home parents, or whatever are all included as part of the 19% in this statistic.
These figures still show around 1-2 million people who would have been working 15 years ago and aren't today, but the problem certainly is "exploding" as you put it. A bigger problem which isn't reflected in this statistic is how stagnant wages have been; mostly as a product of our economy losing $20/hour jobs and replacing them with $12/hour jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40).
According to social security, retirement age is 66, and will soon go up to 67. So that rate is bullshit, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40).
According to social security, retirement age is 66, and will soon go up to 67. So that rate is bullshit, too.
And people can work before the age of 25 too, but it does a good job of removing teachers and the many occupations with pensions that kick in before the age of 66 (like teachers). Changing demographics (people getting older) and changing education (more people in college longer) skew the statistics if you include those who are close to schooling age or close to retirement age. Not everyone ends college at 22 and retires at 67.
Re:unemployment numbers (Score:5, Informative)
It worked for eight years for Sean Hannity. Until a few months ago, it was a daily ritual for him to mention the 90 million Americans who weren't working in Obama's America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a holdover from my days in sales. You can never do too much oppo research.
That's interesting. I didn't know sales did so much of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of your political leanings...
You gotta admit, that Fox News always seems to have the best stable of "News Chicks"....wow, great looking and usually quite smart.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the unemployment rate actually went up a notch indicates that more people are getting back into the job market.
Yep (Score:4, Interesting)
The number of jobs increased, and unemployment rose a bit, a clear sign that people are starting to look again... but it will take a while to unwind from the real 10%+ unemployment rate we actually have.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that master's degree came in handy, then
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"shows a remarkable lack of initiative and common sense"
Why would you immediately jump to placing all of the blame on this kid who's trying but can't find a job? Frankly, my experience has been that the lack of initiative and common sense has been entirely with the organization and its rotten "leadership." I cannot tell you how many places put everything but the kitchen sink on their job descriptions and then fight you to the ends of the earth if you ever try to do anything.
This entire industry is stuck i
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe college graduation impacts June numbers too (or are they not counted until July?)
Re: What is true unemployment. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Curious... (Score:2)
Under the Obama Administration, large number of people got added but the unemployment number barely budge downward.
Under the Trump Administration, large number of people get added but the unemployment number goes upward.
Looks like the "Trump bump" is bumping the wrong set of numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are beginning to re-enter the workforce and are counted in the unemployment number.
That started happening in the last six months of 2016 under Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good citation. Basically, labor force participation has been flat since the end of 2013, falling in the years before.
What I find amusing is how the press report includes "better than expected". It became a running joke during the Obama administration [washingtonexaminer.com] how frequently every piece of economic bad news was unexpected. Now it seems the reverse might start to be true, every piece of good economic news during the Trump administration will now become unexpected!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like when you tell us muscle weighs more than fat but then tell us about your flat ass.
I carry my excess weight above my waist. My ass and legs are well-toned from riding a bike for 20 years. According to the experts on Slashdot, I have an "apple-shaped" body. The experts on Slashdot can never be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Rectangular, with rounded corners?
Re: (Score:2)
Must have cost you a fortune. iBodies are not cheap.
Saving up for the younger version of The Arnold (T-800 model).
Re: (Score:3)
You just can't accept that America is better under Trump.
The economic numbers say otherwise.
It's tough when reality stands in the way of your political views.
What political views are those?
Re: Curious... (Score:5, Informative)
The GDP numbers are basically the same as they were under O, and the unemployment changes are consistent with a general longer-term trend that has been in place since roughly around 2013. Same with the stock market.
Further, T hasn't signed any legislation or Executive Order that would have notable impact on the economy either way. In short, he hasn't change enough to matter. The economy is on cruse control.
It's only a political issue because he has been bragging about the economy "under" him. I gotta call BS on that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The echo is strong within you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you get the 'didn't budge' bit from.
Last six months of 2016.
Is that the flag? (Score:2)
Can't be. It's early. Inflection was Sep, 2015; I'm looking at Aug, 2017 to Mar, 2018 to see the next recession.
I need more time, dammit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a continuing pattern. Our economic system isn't yet stable; I'm trying to improve on that, but it's difficult politically.
In high-school economics, they talk about the business cycle, with peaks and troughs. It'd be nice if the world was like that--I think I can achieve that, actually. The problem is we actually get most of our "good times" battered and bleeding, in a bad economy, recovering from a recession; there's a very short low point where the economy's stable, and then it sharply drives it
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to normalize Trump, creimer, but it just makes you sound retarded when you say such things in public.
If I wrote "Trump Recession" instead, would that have made me sound more intelligent?
Re: (Score:2)
"If I wrote "Trump Recession" instead, would that have made me sound more intelligent?"
To 48% of the population, yes.
Most of them watch CNN. The rest can't bear the reality that their worldview isn't the dominant one and rail against all others because they are just damned right, damn it, and most of those just want you to give it a chance, for once.
That small sliver who just want a chance? They know their plans don;t work. They just want power.
8% can't make yup their minds.
And the rest, the 42%? They know
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the outrage is being queued. If you are outraged (or outrageous), please queue up.
Re: Is that the flag? (Score:2)
And you're moving on...
Statstics can lie, data omitted in these numbers (Score:2)
What's your point? (Score:5, Insightful)
It also doesn't include people who are retired, or children, or stay-at-home parents, or people in prisons/mental institutions/hospitals/etc. Nor should it. Unemployed doesn't mean "not working", it means "ready, able and willing to work but unable to find a job".
Re:Statstics can lie, data omitted in these number (Score:4, Insightful)
Not this issue again. There are multiple ways to measure "unemployment", and each are imperfect for different reasons. Part of the problem is that "unemployed" can be a grey area. Lets say Bob is recently retired. He would take up a job if it paid really well or piqued his interest, but Bob otherwise is happy with retirement and is not actively looking. A house wife* may view the job market similarly. Is that "unemployed"?
The metric typically used by the press has been a de-facto standard yardstick for decades, for good or bad.
Pundits often complain about it based on their bias or desired audience influence angle. There are other published metrics of "unemployment", as a nearby message lists, and pundits often switch to one of these others when it suits them.
If a pundit plays such games without explaining the difference and trade-offs, you know they are either biased, manipulative, or clueless. Granted, just because a pundit bungles one issue doesn't mean they bungle everything, but this one is a yellow flag.
* There's probably a PC way to say it. "Non-paid domestic worker?"
Re: (Score:2)
The enormous "grey area" in this oft-quoted unemployment rate is the definition and determination of the "work force". That number seems rather arbitrary and very difficult to estimate accurately. A person's unemployment benefits expire and they are suddenly no longer in the "work force"? Even though UE typically requires people to be actively looking for work? It doesn't make any sense. Unemployment goes down? Great. Does that mean the economy is getting better, or are we in a prolonged recession in
Re: (Score:2)
"The census reports don't count..."
Yeah, Reagan changed the way unemp was calced, and how the dems howled! Well, we're stuck with it now. Until another prez decides he needs to change the calcs to make himself look better.
Bullshit figures, fake news. (Score:2)
Many people have told me that there are already 2.4 million new jobs filled by people working in all the new coal mines. Many people. These are the best jobs.
Wage growth (Score:2)
Re:I have a suggestion... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a criminal record.. I have never gone more than a week without work unwillingly. Even in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW I rent to people like you. They pay on time and don't cause trouble. Mostly. The troublemakers are surprisingly easy to get rid of, I got people for that. They wear uniforms and everything. Very efficient, and affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
/sarc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2... [theblaze.com]
In Alabama, the state government began to require this year that able-bodied adults without dependents in 13 of its counties either have a job or go through a work training program while receiving benefits. The result has been a staggering 85 percent decrease in the number of food stamp beneficiaries in those counties.
And
Re: (Score:2)
More like dish washer or cleaning tables at restaurants, dead-end jobs that end up earning less than minimum wage for the majority of workers such as how to cut hair, etc. Anything that is simple but can be padded out to take what looks like a decent course in terms of time, and will give employers cheap or free labour during the obligatory "apprentice" period.
If your transportation and child care expenses to attend these courses which never lead to a job anyway are more than the value of benefits, you can
Re: (Score:2)
Yet Alabama leads the country in hunger, so their solution is to cut off food assistance.
Good job Alabama.
Well, given time it will work.
Gut off assistance.
Crime rate goes up
Build more for-profit prisons - PROFIT
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought unemployment is when you don't have a job. ...am I wrong?
To quote the infallible Ronald Reagan: "A recession is when your neighbor is unemployed. A depression is when you're unemployed."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
and big increases in taxes on the ultra-rich.
It seems to me that whenever we get you pro-tax-increase folks to define what your jealousy-fueled bullshit terms are (like "ultra-rich") I find out that either the median income folks are included in your "ultra-rich" group, or that you grossly over-estimated (multiple orders of magnitude) how much money can be gotten out of the "ultra-rich."
For instance we were told that the "Bush Tax Cuts" were tax cuts for the "ultra-rich" but amazingly it was median incomes that got the biggest tax break. Obama made