When they say 500,000 jobs lost, is that net?

[Muse]

I've been curious about this for a long time, but never seen or heard anything to make this clear to me. They have been saying typically that there were around 500,000 jobs lost in the prior month. Do they mean that there are 500,000 fewer in the workforce in the USA than a month previous?

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: Muse
I've been curious about this for a long time, but never seen or heard anything to make this clear to me. They have been saying typically that there were around 500,000 jobs lost in the prior month. Do they mean that there are 500,000 fewer in the workforce in the USA than a month previous?

Yes

 

[cubby1223]

It's "new jobless claims" and does not include the number who have found new jobs. But, the number finding jobs is still much much less than the number filing jobless claims.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
It's "new jobless claims" and does not include the number who have found new jobs. But, the number finding jobs is still much much less than the number filing jobless claims.

no, its a net figure

 

[cubby1223]

Well then there are different numbers different news outlets report. I usually see "new jobless claims" reported, which do not include people finding jobs.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Well then there are different numbers different news outlets report. I usually see "new jobless claims" reported, which do not include people finding jobs.

New jobless claims have been around ~600k per week while jobs lost (net) has been around ~600k per month. Both numbers are reported, but jobs lost gets more attention.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
It's "new jobless claims" and does not include the number who have found new jobs. But, the number finding jobs is still much much less than the number filing jobless claims.

Right, so this is why there's always a BIG ? in my mind when I hear these things and I hear them all the time.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Well then there are different numbers different news outlets report. I usually see "new jobless claims" reported, which do not include people finding jobs.

New jobless claims have been around ~600k per week while jobs lost (net) has been around ~600k per month. Both numbers are reported, but jobs lost gets more attention.

Ah, OK, this explains it. Jobs lost is net. Are these figures reasonably accurate?

 

[ElFenix]

un/employment figures when talking about jobs added/lost are almost always net (otherwise there is little context or meaning). when the economy is booming jobs are being lost in the millions per quarter, it's just that there are that many more being added. even now there are still millions of people getting new jobs, there's just that many more being lost.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
un/employment figures when talking about jobs added/lost are almost always net (otherwise there is little context or meaning). when the economy is booming jobs are being lost in the millions per quarter, it's just that there are that many more being added. even now there are still millions of people getting new jobs, there's just that many more being lost.

/thread

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Well then there are different numbers different news outlets report. I usually see "new jobless claims" reported, which do not include people finding jobs.

New jobless claims have been around ~600k per week while jobs lost (net) has been around ~600k per month. Both numbers are reported, but jobs lost gets more attention.

Ah, OK, this explains it. Jobs lost is net. Are these figures reasonably accurate?

eehhhhh --- hhhhhh --- hhhhhh --- hhhhhh ... They are accurate but don't really paint a complete picture. That's what makes it fun.

It doesn't account for folks being paid 'under the table' or others who may be considered 'under-employed'.

How do you factor people who work 2 jobs? Or the need for job growth (130k per month ?) to keep up with population growth, teen summer jobs, grads entering the workforce, etc.

And then you have to factor folks who are incapable of holding a job and the slackers who don't want to work ...