April unemployment numbers

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

In April, the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 6.3 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 9.8 million, decreased by 733,000. Both measures had shown little movement over the prior 4 months. Over the year, the unemployment rate a nd the number of unemployed persons declined by 1.2 percentage points and 1.9 million, respectively. (See table A-1.)

The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October. The employment-population ratio showed no change over the month (58.9 percent) and has changed little over the year. (See table A-1.)
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ lol.

The conservative stone silence is strangely deafening.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,531
3,672
126
So 733,000 less people reported as unemployed but 806,000 left the labor pool. This was a surprisingly sharp drop in the labor participation rate given the 1.3 million person difference from March
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
The civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 in April, following an increase of 503,000 in March. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent in April. The participation rate has shown no clear trend in recent months and currently is the same as it was this past October.

See bolded: I've been consistently hearing it it is now the lowest since 1978, not last October:

But much of the change in the unemployment rate is due to labor force participation rate, which fell to 62.8% in April from 63.2% in March.

Bloomberg reports this matches the lowest level since 1978.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1978-2014-5#ixzz30asRurbO

There's also a chart at that link. The October remark doesn't jibe with it.

Fern
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
See bolded: I've been consistently hearing it it is now the lowest since 1978, not last October:



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1978-2014-5#ixzz30asRurbO

There's also a chart at that link. The October remark doesn't jibe with it.

Fern

The topline 288K number indicates likely revisions to the 800K+ drop in labor participation and, most significantly, Mark Zandi at Moody's says this drop is very likely related to the expected inclusion of expired long-term UI benefits from persons who haven't yet decided to self-identify themselves as looking for work despite being able-bodied, and therefore the 800K drop doesn't necessarily portend discouragement in the job market as was the case previously, during the bulk of the last recession. See here if you're still confused.

EDIT: Also, note the nearly 1M drop in the long-term unemployed in the last year, now down to 3.5M total.
 
Last edited:

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
You're seriously spiking the ball on this report? :awe:

Your stupidity is off-putting to say the least.

Weak reply, you're out of your league here, even on P&N. That's saying a lot (or rather, very little, lol).
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
So you're going to choose to look at only the number that supports your exuberance rather than the data in total?

Participation rate is down. Perhaps you missed that.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Nah I mentioned it, a few posts later.

I'll be worried if we find that the participation rate isn't revised and/or related to the long-term UI expiration in the next few BLS reports. Because we've already seen substantial improvement in the long-term unemployed numbers going down, and apparently it can take a little while (few months? I dunno) for the long-term unemployed to show up back in the participation numbers, which intuitively makes sense to me (I've never used UI, but my brother has). I totally jacked much of this analysis from Moody's Analytics, btw.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,769
19,354
146
And how many of those employed people still qualify for some type of government assistance? What type of employment is it?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,769
19,354
146
Raise the minimum wage then, if you don't like it.

I'm really curious.

Raising the minimum wage isn't the end all and be all of solutions. And for those of us that don't make minimum wage, it's effectively a pay decrease.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
I'm really curious.

Raising the minimum wage isn't the end all and be all of solutions. And for those of us that don't make minimum wage, it's effectively a pay decrease.

The idea is that putting more money in the hands of these folks will stimulate the economy b/c they have shown to be guaranteed to put the money back in to the economy to generate activity and in theory benefiting everyone. Money gained at the top is much less likely to be spent. While i'm generally in favor of raising the minimum wage, it's just a band aid to larger drivers of wealth inequality that is harmful to societies and economies.


The jobs report has a great headline number. The LFP is a problem and a million folks left the labor force.... Other problem is that younger age groups are shedding jobs and the 55+ age group is picking them up. Appears like the general baffle em with BS that the BLS is known for. I think the headline number was simply cooked up in order to allow for continued perception that QE can be wound down.

We have less folks working this month than we did last month going by the household survey, but BLS put out a whopper. What's really going on. The UE rate gets passed around like a drunk slut at a fraternity house, not something to hang your hat on if you use it as a sign of success. The Fed doesn't even use it when gauging policy anymore, though it does provide them some cover.


Long food stamps.
 
Last edited:

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Looks worse on the back drop of the disastrous Q1 GDP growth of 0.1% that has got minimal attention.

I think we'll have to keep eviscerating the middle class in private while claiming "recovery!", or "weather :| :| :|" when convenient.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
Nah I mentioned it, a few posts later.

I'll be worried if we find that the participation rate isn't revised and/or related to the long-term UI expiration in the next few BLS reports. Because we've already seen substantial improvement in the long-term unemployed numbers going down, and apparently it can take a little while (few months? I dunno) for the long-term unemployed to show up back in the participation numbers, which intuitively makes sense to me (I've never used UI, but my brother has). I totally jacked much of this analysis from Moody's Analytics, btw.


Until this curve of labor participation rate flattens back out or curves back up, "unemployment" numbers really mean nothing (maybe that's what you were saying).

From Jan of 1990 to Jan 2008 it was 66 - 67%, basically moving in a 1% range for 18 years - and through at least 2 recessions. Then we get a 3.5% drop from 2008-2014.


latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1990_2014_all_period_M04_data.gif
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I'm really curious.

Raising the minimum wage isn't the end all and be all of solutions. And for those of us that don't make minimum wage, it's effectively a pay decrease.

Then don't complain about people working and still needing government assistance.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Until this curve of labor participation rate flattens back out or curves back up, "unemployment" numbers really mean nothing (maybe that's what you were saying).

From Jan of 1990 to Jan 2008 it was 66 - 67%, basically moving in a 1% range for 18 years - and through at least 2 recessions. Then we get a 3.5% drop from 2008-2014.


latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1990_2014_all_period_M04_data.gif

Unemployment numbers certainly still do mean something. It would be odd if the participation rate were always stable given the existence of baby boomers and other demographic realities. Whether you're a conservative economist or a liberal one, all agree that a sizable portion of the participation rate drop is due to baby boomer retirement. We just don't know if it's closer to 1/3rd of the drop (Glenn Hubbard posited as much in the WSJ recently) or if boomers account for 2/3rds of the drop (Paul Krugman in the NYT).

To say the traditional U3 unemployment rate means nothing, though, would be quite inaccurate.
 
Last edited:

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
McDonalds is hiring!

:p

shit mcdonalds in my town has a giant sign up saying hring 9.00 dollars!!

the corporations themselves are going to raise the minimum wage if the wackjob right wing wont allow it.. yep it's that detrimental.


it's not enough still though... 9x28 is 500 biweekly after taxes...... 1br apartment in my town is 650/m




we're still fucked.


and you'll bitch and say blah blah can't have a kid if you're single..........like we live in some socialist pit of hell or something...

but in reality...

that's 1200/m two kids trying to survive............you cant expect them not fuck.. you cant expect them to use birth control.........but if they did...that's..in a town of 500,000.....2 percent chance the birth control fails.. that's 1000 kids!!!!

so best case scenario we have 1000 kids........if the parents were champions of responsibility...... and we still got a single person...not able to survive....a couple... the same......a couple with a kid... and look how fucked it gets.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,769
19,354
146
Then don't complain about people working and still needing government assistance.

I wasn't complaining. The type of employment being offered, created, available matters.

Answer the questions if you feel like replying to me.