Unemployment fell

[manlymatt83]

Unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent in July. Pace of job loss slowed to 247,000 -- beating analyst expectations.

http://www.cnn.com

Reading this news, I'm wondering - is there anyone still at this point who still feels things could get worse, or we could re-test the lows we saw in the market once again? Most recessions in the past and have had at least two or three "ups and downs", and so far we've only had one down and now climbing back up. If unemployment numbers are getting better, and so are economic indicators (apparently), does that mean we're almost to the point of being past this, or will things turn again?

 

[StageLeft]

Damn, this is surprising. Even if it's an anomaly and a temporary blip I have thought for a long time we'll definitely see 10% unemployment. We still might, but I wouldn't have expected unemployment to flat line or drop yet. I do like being wrong sometimes

 

[dphantom]

Surprising, but good news.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

A slight drop in unemployment numbers for one month doesn't mean the recession is over. In fact, the White House has even said that there will be increasing job losses through at least the end of the year.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Not a surprise. The hiring rate has surpassed the layoff rate for four months straight in the service sector, and for the past two months in the manufacturing sector (which has also seen the highest hiring rate since October of last year).

 

[alphatarget1]

Does summer employment make the figures artificially higher?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
A slight drop in unemployment numbers for one month doesn't mean the recession is over. In fact, the White House has even said that there will be increasing job losses through at least the end of the year.

To be fair, the WH has no damn idea what's happening with unemployment as well proven by Obama's stimulus graph; they have less of an idea about it than Kirstie Alley has about keeping her weight off.

 

[Cuda1447]

I think they take into consideration the seasonal hiring trends, Alpha.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
A slight drop in unemployment numbers for one month doesn't mean the recession is over. In fact, the White House has even said that there will be increasing job losses through at least the end of the year.

To be fair, the WH has no damn idea what's happening with unemployment as well proven by Obama's stimulus graph; they have less of an idea about it than Kirstie Alley has about keeping her weight off.

Perhaps, but I doubt that they would come out and make themselves look bad by saying "unemployment will continue to rise throughout the year" unless they had a good reason for doing so. No politician will come right out and say something that they know could hurt them politically unless they are doing it as a precaution against impending bad news.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Not a surprise. The hiring rate has surpassed the layoff rate for four months straight in the service sector, and for the past two months in the manufacturing sector (which has also seen the highest hiring rate since October of last year).

I thought the numbers reported each month are net job losses (or gains). If that's the case, then how does -243K jobs equate to a dropping unemployment rate? Are the numbers reported not net?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Does summer employment make the figures artificially higher?

I'm more interested in the figures of the number of permanent, full-time jobs VS temporary jobs. Many of the "stimulus" jobs that have been "created" thus far are temporary, with some being extremely short-term and some longer.

If there are a lot of temp jobs accounting for the slight dip in unemployment, then once those jobs end, we're going to see unemployment take a jump again.

Edit: I understand that summer, seasonal jobs are "temporary jobs", but I'm talking about jobs with a span of three months, six months, etc. Longer than "seasonal", but not permanent, full-time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Not a surprise. The hiring rate has surpassed the layoff rate for four months straight in the service sector, and for the past two months in the manufacturing sector (which has also seen the highest hiring rate since October of last year).

I thought the numbers reported each month are net job losses (or gains). If that's the case, then how does -243K jobs equate to a dropping unemployment rate? Are the numbers reported not net?

After I believe 6 weeks if people are not actively looking for work they are dropped from the survey.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Not a surprise. The hiring rate has surpassed the layoff rate for four months straight in the service sector, and for the past two months in the manufacturing sector (which has also seen the highest hiring rate since October of last year).

I thought the numbers reported each month are net job losses (or gains). If that's the case, then how does -243K jobs equate to a dropping unemployment rate? Are the numbers reported not net?

After I believe 6 weeks if people are not actively looking for work they are dropped from the survey.

It's 4 weeks. They're called "marginally attached" and "discouraged workers."

 

[brandonb]

Just because they are falling off the unemployment meter, doesn't mean they are being hired.

Just a smoke screen.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Just because they are falling off the unemployment meter, doesn't mean they are being hired.

Just a smoke screen.

Hiring expectations have been increasing.

 

[alchemize]

I've been explained to numerous times how those numbers are manipulated, so therefore things must be much, much worse


Glad to see we might be hitting bottom.

 

[dphantom]

One worrisome outcome is that as we lost another 230k jobs or so, the drop in umemployment to 9.4% really means many more simply removed themselves from the labor force. In other words, they gave up finding a job thus making the labor force smaller.

It's these folks who are on the margins that will not come back into the labor market for quite some time I suspect.

 

[StageLeft]

It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

 

[CPA]

It's nice to see the government can add 7,000 people to their payroll though.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

If you have looked for work in the previous 4 weeks you are not included in the marginally attached group.

Edit: Here is a good read on unemployment numbers.

 

[MovingTarget]

That is surprising and good news. However, I don't really think that the U3 unemployment rate should be what we look at. The U6 i think is a much more comprehensive set of numbers to look at to see how healthy the job market is.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

How does the government know you are looking for work? What actions constitute "looking for work" and are trackable by the government?

 

[Patranus]

How about we wait for the "revised" numbers...
Nothing quite like a nice little distraction from the health care debate.

The last few months the number has been revised up significantly and there is no doubt in my mind that it will happen again.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It is meaningful that people stopped looking for jobs; they won't thus help the GDP with their earnings, but I always wonder who gives up looking for a job? I mean really, talk about sad. That's just pitiful, even if you've been out of work for 12 months what are you doing then? Just going to eat worms out of the grass or something?

You should read up on the various definitions of "unemployment" the government uses. The essence of it is that, even if you're desperate and you're looking and want a job, they'll still classify you as "marginally attached" or some such bullshit in order to make the U3 ("official unemployment") rate look better.

Here, use this handy flowchart:
http://www.nakedhedgefund.com/...oyment-rate-flowchart/

How does the government know you are looking for work? What actions constitute "looking for work" and are trackable by the government?

During the dot com bubble the goverment mandated that microscopic retinal scanners be installed in all classified newspaper pages to check it against a citizen database.