Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses The Almighty Buck

222,000 Jobs Added To US Payrolls In June; Unemployment Rate Rises To 4.4 Percent (npr.org) 300

Posted by msmash from the where-things-are dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

222,000 Jobs Added To US Payrolls In June; Unemployment Rate Rises To 4.4 Percent More

222,000 Jobs Added To US Payrolls In June; Unemployment Rate Rises To 4.4 Percent

Comments Filter:

  • unemployment numbers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07, 2017 @10:42AM (#54763527)

    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)

      by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Friday July 07, 2017 @10:47AM (#54763565) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • Thanks for the info; the alternative unemployment numbers are all available here. [bls.gov] The classic non-participation rate (if I understand correctly) is U6, or 8.6% seasonally adjusted, down from 9.6% a year ago.

        • Re:unemployment numbers (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Friday July 07, 2017 @02:48PM (#54765473) Homepage Journal

          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.

      • All of the unemployment numbers have been looking really good lately. According to one theory of the economy, low unemployment (full utilization of labor resources) will lead to inflation. So according to that theory, we should see a huge jump in inflation soon.

        • 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 =

    • 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.

    • 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)

      by p51d007 ( 656414 )
      The ACTUAL unemployment rate since the 2007/08 recession/depression is around 12-14% but, the government BOTH SIDES of the political isle, will use numbers associated only with those that actually WANT to work, not those that have given up, gone on government assistance, etc, which knocks the rate down to 4-5%. With all of the shuddered businesses, how could any SANE person think everything has been "great" since around 2010?

    • 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

    • 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.

  • 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.

    • Under the Obama administration, large numbers of people left the workforce and weren't counted in the unemployment number. Now they are beginning to re-enter the workforce and are counted in the unemployment number.

      • 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.

        • False. [bls.gov] The labor force participation rate fell for the first 7 years of the Obama Administration, and has held steady since then. If people would re-enter the workforce the labor force participation rate would increase. It has not.

          • 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!

    • Obama moved millions to permanently out of the workforce [bls.gov] . The biggest way was via moving 2 million unemployed to permanent disability [ssa.gov], which resulted in a nice shaving of unemployment by 3% or so.

  • 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!

    • The Hillary Recession is just around the corner.

      • 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

  • The census reports don't count homeless people as unemployed nor does it count people who have given up looking. It's a funny system. So these number are, shall we say, conservative if you are looking for real numbers as opposed to number sugar coated for the media/public.

    • What's your point? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Friday July 07, 2017 @11:57AM (#54764147)

      The census reports don't count homeless people as unemployed nor does it count people who have given up looking.

      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)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday July 07, 2017 @11:58AM (#54764149) Journal

      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)

        by moeinvt ( 851793 )

        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

    • "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.


  • 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.
  • was 2.5 % so let's not get to excited.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close