June nonfarm payrolls rise 121,000, Unemployment rate steady at 4.6%

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What do you think the avg hours per week does?
It isnt a useless tool, it is a measure of the labor markets in our country.
If it is so useless why do other countries use the same standards?

It's only a part of the measurement of the strength of the economy. It is usually never paired with things like wages or hours per week, and is vastly overrated.

If they arent looking, they dont care about a job and shouldnt be counted.

Well, aren't you a peach. They'd certainly like to care about a job, but since the job market was so barren they became discouraged, and figured that finding other ways to support their family was more important than looking for a job that wasn't there.

 

[zendari]

Liberals always cite the unemployment rate when it is high to discredit the economy and dismiss it when it is low.

 

[Genx87]

It's only a part of the measurement of the strength of the economy. It is usually never paired with things like wages or hours per week, and is vastly overrated

It is a measurement on the employment markets, nobody is saying much of anything about the strength of an economy. I am sure in Hitlers Germany or Stalins Soviet Union they had ultra low unemployment rates, but they were all working for the govt in some form or fashion and not actually creating much wealth.

But it does help in determining if we should be worrying about inflation pressures. A highly employed populous will have more money to spend creating higher demand for products which drive prices up.

Well, aren't you a peach. They'd certainly like to care about a job, but since the job market was so barren they became discouraged, and figured that finding other ways to support their family was more important than looking for a job that wasn't there.

This is a lame excuse and one that doesnt apply to enough of the population to worry about. If a job isnt important to the family and they stop looking, there is no reason to be counted in the unemployment rate.

bte the govt does count something what you are looking for. I believe it is called the "participation" rate. And it has hovered between 63-68% for decades, but nobody uses it for much because all it tells you is there are 32-37% of the population not interested in a job for whatever reason, most likely retirement.

One thing your plan would screw up is retirements, with a large baby boomer population on the verge of retirement. What exactly does counting them retiring and jacking up your unemployment rate tell us about the labor market?

 

[zephyrprime]

Nobody is saying that we should count retirees in the unemployment figures and to pretend that someone is saying that is a red herring.

What Aisengard is getting at is that it is lame to not count people that would like to work but cannot find work. Look at the current numbers. Only 75,000 jobs created which is about half the number required to keep pace with population growth and yet unemployment actually declined slightly. How is that mathematically possible? Because the lbs stopped counting a whole bunch of people that can't find any work and have given up trying.

If it is so useless why do other countries use the same standards?

Other countries don't use the same standards. All countries are free to collect the statistics according to whatever criteria they desire. Some other countries count the unemployed and not actively seeking.

Of course the reason that the US counts unemployment the way it does is obvious. It's to make the numbers look better than the really are! The unemployment rate wasn't always counted this way. It was changed to it's current form over the years to make politicians look better. The same sort of accounting shannigans are used to calculate the inflation rate.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Nobody is saying that we should count retirees in the unenployment figures and to pretend that someone is saying that is a red herring.

What Aisengard is getting at is that it is lame to not count people that would like to work but cannot find work. Look at the current numbers. Only 75,000 jobs created which is about half the number required to keep pace with population growth and yet unemployment actually declined slightly. How is that mathematically possible? Because the lbs stopped counting a whole bunch of people that can't find any work and have given up trying.

If it is so useless why do other countries use the same standards?

Other countries don't use the same standards. All countries are free to collect the statistics according to whatever criteria they desire. Some other countries count the unemployed and not actively seeking.

Of course the reason that the US counts unenployment the way it does is obvious. It's to make the numbers look better than the really are! The unemployment rate wasn't always counted this way. It was changed to it's current form over the years to make politicians look better. The same sort of effect occurs with the inflation rate.

The EU standards are almost the same except they count 15 year olds vs our 16 year olds.

I look at the rules regarding unemployment rates as a better solution than counting the entire population and counting the participation rates. It gets us a better idea of what our employment markets look like.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Why do they use the unemployment numbers? That's only the people looking for work. There are millions more unemployed who have just given up.

I never trust the unemployment numbers, because it's not an indicator of anything.

We have gone over this over and over again. It doesnt make sense to include people not looking for work. It doesnt give you any idea on what the employment market looks like, just that x amount of people arent working.

Retired people would weight against your unemployment rate under your plan.

It makes a lot of sense to include people who can't find a job because the market is so poor there.

It's a bogus, antiquated figure that people pay WAY too much attention to.

They do, anybody who is looking for a job and cant find one is part of the 4.6%

Remember that unemployment usually rises during an economic boom, and falls during recession, and "Employed" simply means you worked at least one day out of the week the poll was conducted. If ten people worked the same job, one day a week, they would not be counted as 'unemployed', even though their work can't support their individual cost of living.

Considering that, it's a pretty useless tool for measuring the strength of the economy.

What do you think the avg hours per week does?
It isnt a useless tool, it is a measure of the labor markets in our country.
If it is so useless why do other countries use the same standards?

And the people who have given up after four weeks because not enough jobs are created are suddenly dropped out of the labor pool, even though they'd like to be looking for a job but have a family to look after.

If they arent looking, they dont care about a job and shouldnt be counted.

QFT

 

[conjur]

1/2 of needed jobs last month and below equilibrium level yet again this month.

U.S. June nonfarm payrolls rise 121,000; rate stays at 4.6%
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/S...e1693030191&siteid=mktw&dist=MorePulse

Job growth increased modestly in June, the Labor Department said Friday. Nonfarm payrolls expanded by 121,000 in June lower than the 174,000 expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch. Payroll growth is clearly moderating. In the second quarter, payroll employment growth averaged 108,000, down from 176,000 in the first quarter. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.6%, in line with forecasts. Average hourly earnings increased 8 cents, or 0.5% to $16.70. Economists had been expecting a 0.3% gain. Earnings are up 3.9% in the past year.

~160,000 new jobs are needed each month in order to maintain equilibrium. Just a bit more proof that the unemployment number offered up is based on crap.

BTW, lots of egg on lots of faces at ADP!
http://today.reuters.com/investing/fina..._0_ECONOMY-EMPLOYMENT-ADP-UPDATE-1.XML

There are no miscalculations in the ADP National Employment Report for June, ADP's partner Macroeconomic Advisers said on Thursday, dismissing market rumors of a calculation error in the survey of U.S. private sector employment.

"There is no basis to the rumor. There is no error. We stand by the original number," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, which co-produces the report with ADP. He was speaking for both ADP and Macroeconomic Advisers.

Speculation circulated in financial markets on Thursday that the ADP may have miscalculated its June report, after news that the Institute for Supply Management's employment index fell to 52 in June from 58 in May.

ADP released a report on Wednesday estimating U.S. private-sector job growth of 368,000 in June, prompting several investment houses to revise upwards their overall U.S. employment forecasts for June.

But, "there is no error".

:laugh:

 

[conjur]

(in thousands)

Net jobs 2001-2006: 2743
Equilibrium jobs (160k/mo): 10560
Shortage: -7817

Net jobs since 2003 Q4: 5332
Equilibrium jobs (160k/mo): 5280
Gain: 52


Job Growth Since Q3 2004

 

[BBond]

"Would you like fries with your order?"

"Super-size it"?

"Welcome to WalMart."

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: BBond
"Would you like fries with your order?"

"Super-size it"?

"Welcome to WalMart."

I'm assuming you are trying to say these new jobs are in low paying areas. Do you have any proof of that?

I've read this months new job growth was mainly in small business jobs.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: BBond
"Would you like fries with your order?"

"Super-size it"?

"Welcome to WalMart."

I'm assuming you are trying to say these new jobs are in low paying areas. Do you have any proof of that?

I've read this months new job growth was mainly in small business jobs.

I've read that full details on the "job growth" are due out on Tuesday. Want to be that these new "jobs" AREN'T high paying manufacturing jobs?

 

[PrinceofWands]

That's great and all, but then there's ground level reality.

Cowlitz County WA has a population of about 100k.
Per capita income is about 19k.
Unemployment (which is, as most people know, a highly misleading statistic bordering on useless information) is hovering around 8%.
Of the 83 jobs advertised within the county right now (using papers and employment security office), 51 provide pay information. Of the 51, 11 are above $15/hr.

So what's my point? Merely that generalized statistics are useless and don't represent individual realities within a country.