BLS Stats - Total Employment Continues Decline

[wwswimming]

Because the US has a wacky method of counting the unemployed (when people give up looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed), the unemployment stats are not accurate barometers of US employment.

The place to look is employment stats - the percentage of the total US population that is
employed.

True unemployment is higher than it was in 2007, 2008, or 2009 - and true unemployment is increasing.

Put another way - fewer people (as a percentage of population) have jobs now than during the height of the "Great Recession" of 2008-2009.

The Great Recession is not over - it is continuing, and it is deepening.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Put another way - fewer people (as a percentage of population) have jobs now than during the height of the "Great Recession" of 2008-2009.

The Great Recession is not over - it is continuing, and it is deepening.

:biggrin:

 

[StageLeft]

I thought "How can a reasonable adult STOP looking for work" Then I read a few blurbs by people on cnn money. I can appreciate after sending in 600 apps and getting 2 interviews you might get a little tired of it.

 

[HumblePie]

I thought "How can a reasonable adult STOP looking for work" Then I read a few blurbs by people on cnn money. I can appreciate after sending in 600 apps and getting 2 interviews you might get a little tired of it.

This. People learn to get by with unemployeement payments, or doing odd jobs and pawning crap out. People cut back and bide their time and wait for when they can get a job again. They move in with relatives or at worst friends.

I was nearly in the same place and that when I was out for about 5 months last year. I ended up finally getting a good job again, but I was putting out tons of apps everywhere and the only interest I ever got back was from scammers.

 

[Special K]

You know something strange is going on with the statistics when we experience a net loss of jobs in January yet U3 falls to 9.7%. As wwswimming said, the only reasonable explanation seems to be that enough people have becomed discouraged and no longer look for a job, which means they are no longer counted as unemployed.

I believe U6 still includes these people, however. Maybe that would be a less deceptive statistic to report.

 

[Hacp]

Because the US has a wacky method of counting the unemployed (when people give up looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed), the unemployment stats are not accurate barometers of US employment.

The place to look is employment stats - the percentage of the total US population that is
employed.

True unemployment is higher than it was in 2007, 2008, or 2009 - and true unemployment is increasing.

Put another way - fewer people (as a percentage of population) have jobs now than during the height of the "Great Recession" of 2008-2009.

The Great Recession is not over - it is continuing, and it is deepening.

2008-2010. Guess what? Democrats controlled congress those years.

 

[dullard]

The words "continues decline" are a bit of a stretch. There have been 2 declines in the last 3 months after 3 straight rises. I would have used words more on the line of "unemployment rate still stable".

Graph of unemployment rate.

 

[soccerballtux]

You know something strange is going on with the statistics when we experience a net loss of jobs in January yet U3 falls to 9.7%. As wwswimming said, the only reasonable explanation seems to be that enough people have becomed discouraged and no longer look for a job, which means they are no longer counted as unemployed.

I believe U6 still includes these people, however. Maybe that would be a less deceptive statistic to report.

It does. U6 trended down a little too though.
More good reads on this, in order of posting:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/employment-report-20k-jobs-lost-97.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/employment-population-ratio-part-time.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/02/unemployed-over-26-weeks-and-seasonal.html

Record over-6-months-employed numbers too.

 

[Blintok]

lol.

BLS

i thot of the other term for that.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bls
see # 2

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Thank you for posting this. I, too, wish that the media would pay more attention to this stat and report it more often. (I don't think the MSM ever mentions it at all.)

What's nice about this stat is that, presumably, it takes population growth into account. When the media reports that the nation gained 30,000 jobs in one month, it always fails to report that because of population growth the nation needed about 150,000 net new jobs merely to keep pace. If the media would instead report the Labor Participation Rate they would have to instead report a decrease for that very same month, reflecting the "loss" of the 120,000 additional new jobs that were needed to keep pace.

 

[wwswimming]

that's why i recommend John Williams' website, ShadowStats.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

he noticed when he worked for the government as an economist that they kept moving the goalposts in terms of the way they measured unemployment.

now, if you're working with something like an Anritsu or Agilent microwave open, short, or load, you're using something that's traced back to the National Bureau of Standards and is a precision measuring device. 50 ohms is 50 ohms, 1 watt @ 2 GHz is 1 watt @ 2 GHz. wouldn't be so easy if they kept changing the definition of what a watt is. I mention this because i used to work in the microwave components lab at Wiltron (before Anritsu bought it).

anyway, John Williams got a little pissed off and started his consulting firm. i can't afford the $350 subscription fee, but he does do the occasional interview, e.g. with Financial Sense @
http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.php

he knows the unemployment stat methods used by BLS upside down left right & sideways. recently his interviews have not been full of good news, but i'd rather have honest reporting than fake good news.

long story short, he puts the current unemployment in the US - using techniques used to measure the unemployment in the late '70's/ early '80's, when we were supposed to have the last major recession - in the high teens/ low 20's (i.e., 18% to 22% unemployment).

in other words ... this little piece of history that we all have a seat on the 50 yard line of ... is history-in-the-making. AKA Second Great Depression.

the problem being ... in the first Depression, which i got to experience a little from the memories of my grandparents & mother, the US -
* was a net producer of oil - the world's #1 oil producer.
* had a country full of farmland & farmers. so even if people lost their jobs, they could get access to land.

+ there's something about farming that is therapeutic, or at least wears you out.

now the US imports its oil, so we depend on other nations to take our printed money, backed by nothing, in exchange.

and we have a bunch of people waiting for government checks so they can go buy food at the store.

what happens when the government checks stop coming ?

 

[Robor]

2008-2010. Guess what? Democrats controlled congress those years.

Guess what? That's when the bubble burst. Who controlled everything while the bubble inflated? Please continue to point fingers.

 

[nonameo]

I was watching the news the other day that mentioned this. They also noted that, while more people are unemployed, overtime hours are going up. Shouldn't employers be hiring if they need more workers, instead of working people overtime?

 

[Robor]

I was watching the news the other day that mentioned this. They also noted that, while more people are unemployed, overtime hours are going up. Shouldn't employers be hiring if they need more workers, instead of working people overtime?

Adding a full time salary + benefits is often more expensive than adding some overtime to current employees.