Unemployment down to 6 year low @ 5.9%. 248,000 jobs added Sept. July/Aug. revised

[PokerGuy]

Looks like good news to me. Why are people trying so hard to find a downside to everything ?

It looks on the surface to be good news (which is why the media will trumpet it as such), because the general public uses the unemployment level as a general proxy for "how are things going?" -- lower number means good, higher number is bad.

The reality of course is not that simple. The number going up or down in itself means nothing. You have to look at the underlying numbers to see what's going on, good or bad.

 

[alcoholbob]

Yep there are structural reasons the participation rate is lower than the recent average. It will probably continue to decline as the boomers retire in ever increasing numbers over the next decade.

Probably although the current reason for the decline isn't boomers retiring but boomers staying in the work force. Its the 20-35 age demo that has all time high unemployment while boomers are the ones who are increasing workforce participation by delaying retirement or returning to the workforce.

 

[khon]

It looks on the surface to be good news (which is why the media will trumpet it as such), because the general public uses the unemployment level as a general proxy for "how are things going?" -- lower number means good, higher number is bad.

The reality of course is not that simple. The number going up or down in itself means nothing. You have to look at the underlying numbers to see what's going on, good or bad.

The number going up or down does have meaning by itself, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. It may not be the full story, but it certainly is part of the story.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yeah, but you can't connect this to anything Obama did,..

However, when it comes to an increase in unemployment, he is clearly responsible.

 

[Engineer]

The number going up or down does have meaning by itself, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. It may not be the full story, but it certainly is part of the story.

Yep, replacing millions of good paying middle class jobs with full benefits with tens of millions of McService jobs does indeed tell a story. Probably not a fairytale ending though.

 

[Knowing]

Probably although the current reason for the decline isn't boomers retiring but boomers staying in the work force. Its the 20-35 age demo that has all time high unemployment while boomers are the ones who are increasing workforce participation by delaying retirement or returning to the workforce.

Which begs the question who's dropping out of the job market and how are they paying for food, utilities and rent?

 

[Engineer]

Which begs the question who's dropping out of the job market and how are they paying for food, utilities and rent?

35 and under crowd and they are moving in with their parents?

 

[Knowing]

35 and under crowd and they are moving in with their parents?

I thought everyone had already done that, after they went to college (incurred some more debt) and maybe got a degree.

 

[rudder]

Looks like good news to me. Why are people trying so hard to find a downside to everything ?

Because of LBD. The voters end up getting the same shit if they do not know the truth. Yes, it is good there were more jobs created but two issues still remain. Labor participation is down and wages are flat. But let's all jump for joy.

 

[senseamp]

I don't know what all this doom and gloom is all about. I got a double digit percent raise last year, and another one this year. The main issue for me is that economy is doing too well, and housing prices are out of control and financial assets are overpriced. Se we got first world problems from where I am sitting.

 

[Engineer]

I don't know what all this doom and gloom is all about. I got a double digit percent raise last year, and another one this year. The main issue for me is that economy is doing too well, and housing prices are out of control and financial assets are overpriced. Se we got first world problems from where I am sitting.

Well that settles it then. Everything for the ENTIRE country is rosy!

/thread

 

[LTC8K6]

Apparently 230K were people aged 55-69

Must be having to get jobs?

EDIT: that data doesn't seem right.

 

[senseamp]

Well that settles it then. Everything for the ENTIRE country is rosy!

/thread

Unemployment rate is down for the entire country. Housing prices are up for the entire country. Whiners will always find something to whine about it.

 

[Engineer]

Unemployment rate is down for the entire country. Housing prices are up for the entire country. Whiners will always find something to whine about it.

So you don't think there is a systemic problem with the types of jobs leaving vs the jobs that are replacing them? Last I saw, all jobs aren't equal and the ones that we are getting take 2 to 3 to make up for a 'good one' lost. If you think I'm whining, more power to you. We are reaping what we sow and the garden looks like shit right now.

 

[rudder]

Unemployment rate is down for the entire country. Housing prices are up for the entire country. Whiners will always find something to whine about it.

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

Ignored by MSM.

 

[ivwshane]

It sounds like the worst generation, thanks to their poor planning, the horrible policies and the horrible politicians they supported, continue to make things shit for everyone else.

I can't wait till they start dying off. Jobs will open up, crap politicians will become scarcer and our policies and focus will change and become more reasonable.

Until then, we will have crappy job growth where those that should be retired continue to stick around leaving younger workers out in the cold.


/rant

 

[PokerGuy]

The number going up or down does have meaning by itself, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise.

Sorry, that's plain wrong. It does not mean anything by itself. In fact, if I tell you the number went down, or went up, without looking at the other information, can you tell if it's a good thing or bad thing? The answer is "no", you can not. The number itself is ONLY useful in the sense that it's a shortcut for those who are not willing/able to delve further into the details.

If unemployment went down significantly because a bunch of people simply gave up and left the pool of those actively looking, is that a good thing? If the number went up because fewer people were in jail (people in jail are not counted), is that a bad thing? The answer to both is "probably not". Just to illustrate that the unemployment percentage most widely reported (U1) is not a particularly good indicator of anything by itself.

 

[First]

Engineer, the professional, healthcare and construction jobs in this report accounted for the majority of the 248K gained in September. By definition those aren't McService jobs, certainly not in the wages sense. Wages also went up 2% in the last 12 months, which isn't great but outstrips inflation by a percent. It's pretty typical recovery from a financial-centered recession. Full time jobs far outstripped part time jobs as well.

Professional and business services added the most positions, with 81,000, while retail rose 35,000. Food and beverage contributed 20,000, due mostly to what the BLS described as "employment disruptions at a grocery store chain in New England," an apparent reference to the Market Basket impasse in the Boston area. Health care grew by 23,000, while construction added 16,000.

The job creation was tilted heavily toward full-time positions, which surged by 671,000. Part-time jobs actually fell by 384,000.

 

[Engineer]

Engineer, the professional, healthcare and construction jobs in this report accounted for the majority of the 248K gained in September. By definition those aren't McService jobs, certainly not in the wages sense. Wages also went up 2% in the last 12 months, which isn't great but outstrips inflation by a percent. It's pretty typical recovery from a financial-centered recession. Full time jobs far outstripped part time jobs as well.

If that's the case (as it appears), I guess I should back off my previous statements and quit watching CNBC (I rarely have a day off to do that anyway). They listed Retail along with Leisure and Hospitality as the top job gainers this morning with construction coming in a distant third). There was no mention of business services or health care and they also stated manufacturing had stagnated. With that said, is that a one month hit wonder or a new trend? As you know, our trend since the recession has been to grow mostly McService jobs replacing once good paying, high benefit middle class jobs like manufacturing, etc.

Thanks for the update.

The job creation was tilted heavily toward full-time positions, which surged by 671,000. Part-time jobs actually fell by 384,000.

I find the above interesting (in the face of the ongoing campaign to destroy Obamacare and the idea that it destroys full time jobs in lieu of part time jobs). Seems to be reversing itself nicely.

 

[senseamp]

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

Ignored by MSM.

Now change the "From" field to 1948, and you'll see it's just returning to historical norms:

Baby boom came, baby boom went.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

You can always look at the data yourself.

 

[senseamp]

If that's the case (as it appears), I guess I should back off my previous statements and quit watching CNBC (I rarely have a day off to do that anyway). They listed Retail along with Leisure and Hospitality as the top job gainers this morning with construction coming in a distant third). There was no mention of business services or health care and they also stated manufacturing had stagnated. With that said, is that a one month hit wonder or a new trend? As you know, our trend since the recession has been to grow mostly McService jobs replacing once good paying, high benefit middle class jobs like manufacturing, etc.
Thanks for the update.
I find the above interesting (in the face of the ongoing campaign to destroy Obamacare and the idea that it destroys full time jobs in lieu of part time jobs). Seems to be reversing itself nicely.

Stop watching TV, especially CNBC. If you are going to watch a business channel, at least make it Bloomberg.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Now imagine where we would be if each party was willing to work with each other.

 

[Engineer]

Stop watching TV, especially CNBC. If you are going to watch a business channel, at least make it Bloomberg.

Don't have Bloomberg and I already said that I would stop watching CNBC (I rarely do anyway).

 

[First]

^ CNBC is pretty good, but most of the hosts/guests/contributors are businessmen/women, they're not economists or gov't officials so they generally don't give two shits about public policy. They're focused on their industries and sectors, not on how to broadly grow the economy. Many of them think what's good for their industry must be good for the broader markets, and there's just all sorts of fail in that extrapolation.

Bloomberg on the other hand is quite fantastic, very fair.