December 252,000 job added - Unemployment down to 5.6%

[glenn1]

Yes, the charts in the article would be broadly similar, but the headline and literally the entire text of the article would be unsupportable.

The BLS uses both for different ways of looking at employment, but as I have already said twice, the payroll survey is more accurate, particularly for any given month, even more particularly for change from month to month, and this article is about a single month to month change.

It's actually indisputable as per the BLS's own numbers. The article is highlighting a non-significant result. You should be joining me in indicting zerohedge here.

Let's say for sake of argument that you're right, you're still quibbling over the accuracy of the trailing digit in a huge number. With the trendline in place the article will be correct in another month or two anyway. Or instead it might be a 36 year low rather than 38, or be lowest since February 1978 instead of December 1977. Either way the degree of accuracy you're citing is completely irrelevant in a chart where the numbers are trending the way they are.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's say for sake of argument that you're right, you're still quibbling over the accuracy of the trailing digit in a huge number. With the trendline in place the article will be correct in another month or two anyway. Or instead it might be a 36 year low rather than 38, or be lowest since February 1978 instead of December 1977. Either way the degree of accuracy you're citing is completely irrelevant in a chart where the numbers are trending the way they are.

There's nothing wrong with that numeric trend, it's an inescapable fact of changing demographics. It in no way changes that arguing for declines in the labor force as continuing to be the primary driver for reduced unemployment can't be supported from the evidence they put forward, and they appear to have deliberately used nonstandard reporting numbers to try and pump up their point. It's shady.

And it's not like this is a reputable site that just made one slipup, they are basically like naturalnews.com but for finance.

 

[glenn1]

There's nothing wrong with that numeric trend, it's an inescapable fact of changing demographics. It in no way changes that arguing for declines in the labor force as continuing to be the primary driver for reduced unemployment can't be supported from the evidence they put forward, and they appear to have deliberately used nonstandard reporting numbers to try and pump up their point. It's shady.

And it's not like this is a reputable site that just made one slipup, they are basically like naturalnews.com but for finance.

If it's simply "changing demographics" and "nothing wrong" then why are wages not reflecting reduced worker supply?

 

[fskimospy]

If it's simply "changing demographics" and "nothing wrong" then why are wages not reflecting reduced worker supply?

My thought is that they will in the relatively near future, although I will admit there is more continued slack than I anticipated.

A shrinking labor force participant rate should create upward pressure on wages, all else being equal.

 

[glenn1]

My thought is that they will in the relatively near future, although I will admit there is more continued slack than I anticipated.

A shrinking labor force participant rate should create upward pressure on wages, all else being equal.

Either that or Janet Yellen and the Fed will conclude (correctly) that there has a been a structural employment change in the U.S. and those jobs are never coming back, which will allow them to raise rates and end the ridiculous stimulus program you so adore. Good fucking riddance to it as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Either that or Janet Yellen and the Fed will conclude (correctly) that there has a been a structural employment change in the U.S. and those jobs are never coming back, which will allow them to raise rates and end the ridiculous stimulus program you so adore. Good fucking riddance to it as well.

Not anytime soon, most likely. They won't raise rates until we see meaningful inflation, nor should they.

I for one hope that they find themselves in a situation where it makes economic sense to raise rates sooner rather than later, because that means we've started to see some inflation, which means we are finally out of this godforsaken economic trap. Trust me, nobody will be happier than me to see these stimulus programs end, but they need to be ended intelligently.

 

[glenn1]

Not anytime soon, most likely. They won't raise rates until we see meaningful inflation, nor should they.

I for one hope that they find themselves in a situation where it makes economic sense to raise rates sooner rather than later, because that means we've started to see some inflation, which means we are finally out of this godforsaken economic trap. Trust me, nobody will be happier than me to see these stimulus programs end, but they need to be ended intelligently.

BTW, this basically disproves your theory about retired vs. discouraged workers. Not only is the trend up and has been the entire course of the Obama presidency (with one brief pause), but the trend is accelerating upwards now. Just eyeballing it the number appears to be up at least a quarter or third during the Obama admin.

 

[fskimospy]

BTW, this basically disproves your theory about retired vs. discouraged workers. Not only is the trend up and has been the entire course of the Obama presidency (with one brief pause), but the trend is accelerating upwards now. Just eyeballing it the number appears to be up at least a quarter or third during the Obama admin.

No it doesn't. It shows it going way up during the recession and then going up by about 4 million since 2010. The US population has increased by about 12 million during that time, meaning that increase is roughly in line with employment/population ratios. The data is also, as you can see, highly volatile.

How do you think it disproves my theory?

 

[theeedude]

BTW, this basically disproves your theory about retired vs. discouraged workers. Not only is the trend up and has been the entire course of the Obama presidency (with one brief pause), but the trend is accelerating upwards now. Just eyeballing it the number appears to be up at least a quarter or third during the Obama admin.

So much bitterness from the right because unemployment is up and 3M jobs created last year. There used to be a time when GOP's interests were aligned with America's. Now it's just never ending bitterness and negativity, nothing constructive. Mourning again in America.
What does it even mean not in labor force, want a job? If you aren't in the labor force, you aren't looking for a job. You may "want" one, like a little kid "wants" a pony. But you aren't lifting a finger to find one, so let's blame Obama.

 

[theeedude]

More bad news for Republican nihilists and cynics.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-13/the-american-worker-just-got-a-bunch-of-good-news

The first is the NFIB Small Business Optimism survey (PDF). It showed that 17 percent of small businesses plan to hike wages in the next three months. That's the best level since the economic crisis struck. There was also a jump in the number of companies that identified "labor quality" as their top business problem, indicating that companies are having a harder time finding workers. That should translate into higher pay.

The second report that came out was the November JOLTS report, which measures the number of job openings in the country. As of November, there were 4.97 million job openings, up from 4.83 million in October. The reading was also nicely above the 4.85 million that economists were expecting.

This tells the same story as the NFIB survey. It's getting harder and harder for employers to fill jobs. In this environment, the balance of power should begin to tip more toward workers.

 

[glenn1]

More bad news for Republican nihilists and cynics.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-13/the-american-worker-just-got-a-bunch-of-good-news

This isn't bad news at all, if anything it's reason to laugh in your face when you suggest idiotic things like extending unemployment benefits again or that Keynesian stimulus should be maintained.

 

[theeedude]

This isn't bad news at all, if anything it's reason to laugh in your face when you suggest idiotic things like extending unemployment benefits again or that Keynesian stimulus should be maintained.

You are aware that tax cuts are a Keynesian stimulus as well?

 

[glenn1]

You are aware that tax cuts are a Keynesian stimulus as well?

I haven't called for tax cuts, so what other pointless observations do you have to make?

 

[theeedude]

I haven't called for tax cuts, so what other pointless observations do you have to make?

OK, we can raise taxes now then, don't need that Keynesian stimulus anymore.

 

[theeedude]

Once we are close to full employment, we should not have Keynesian stimulus anymore. I never said we should. The point is that Republicans wanted to stop stimulus when we were bordering a second Great Depression with high unemployment. That's just idiotic economic policy, as we are seeing it play out in Europe.

 

[Bowfinger]

No it doesn't. It shows it going way up during the recession and then going up by about 4 million since 2010. The US population has increased by about 12 million during that time, meaning that increase is roughly in line with employment/population ratios. The data is also, as you can see, highly volatile.

How do you think it disproves my theory?

One of us isn't reading that graph correctly. To me, it appears that the number increased from approximately 5.6 million to about 6.5 million under Obama, an increase of perhaps one million. Where do you get four million?

Of course, either way it is far, far less than Glenn1's "up at least a quarter or third."

 

[glenn1]

OK, we can raise taxes now then, don't need that Keynesian stimulus anymore.

You're welcome to try, but with a GOP run Congress I doubt you'll get far. Luckily all you blue states typically have Dem led governments and you can raise state and city taxes to your heart's content so knock yourself out.

 

[fskimospy]

One of us isn't reading that graph correctly. To me, it appears that the number increased from approximately 5.6 million to about 6.5 million under Obama, an increase of perhaps one million. Where do you get four million?

Of course, either way it is far, far less than Glenn1's "up at least a quarter or third."

I suck at math and reading graphs apparently, haha.

 

[theeedude]

You're welcome to try, but with a GOP run Congress I doubt you'll get far. Luckily all you blue states typically have Dem led governments and you can raise state and city taxes to your heart's content so knock yourself out.

So even the GOP lead Congress is for Keynesian stimulus you are railing so hard against.

 

[glenn1]

So even the GOP lead Congress is for Keynesian stimulus you are railing so hard against.

No, I'm saying I don't give a fuck what you progressive people do to yourselves. Knock yourselves out with 99% tax rates for all I care so long as you keep the stupidity within your own borders.

 

[Matt1970]

So much bitterness from the right because unemployment is up and 3M jobs created last year. There used to be a time when GOP's interests were aligned with America's. Now it's just never ending bitterness and negativity, nothing constructive. Mourning again in America.
What does it even mean not in labor force, want a job? If you aren't in the labor force, you aren't looking for a job. You may "want" one, like a little kid "wants" a pony. But you aren't lifting a finger to find one, so let's blame Obama.

Claiming there were 3 million jobs created when the population grew by 3 million people is like saying you have $300 extra this month when you forgot to pay your $300 heating bill. There is no bitterness, there are just cold hard facts.

 

[piasabird]

The government has no clue what the real unemployment rate is. They are afraid to tell you real facts and figures like the ratio of working adults to the adult population is????

 

[fskimospy]

The government has no clue what the real unemployment rate is. They are afraid to tell you real facts and figures like the ratio of working adults to the adult population is????

Clearly:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

 

[theeedude]

Claiming there were 3 million jobs created when the population grew by 3 million people is like saying you have $300 extra this month when you forgot to pay your $300 heating bill. There is no bitterness, there are just cold hard facts.

Wow, that's real weak sauce, even for a conservative. You do realize that creating 3M jobs even if population grew by 3M means 100% employment for newly added population, which is a good thing? Bitter much?

 

[Bowfinger]

Claiming there were 3 million jobs created when the population grew by 3 million people is like saying you have $300 extra this month when you forgot to pay your $300 heating bill. There is no bitterness, there are just cold hard facts.

No. You're forgetting the participation rate is well under 100%. Not everyone chooses to/needs to work, and people leave the workforce for various reasons.