Slashdot Mirror
US Economy Added 178,000 Jobs in November; Unemployment Rate Drops To 4.6 Percent (washingtonpost.com)
The U.S. economy added 178,000 jobs in November, while the unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent from 4.9 percent the previous month, according to new government data released (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) Friday morning. From a report on the Washington Post: Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected U.S. employers to create 180,000 new jobs last month -- roughly in line with the average number added in the first 11 months of the year. The first release after a contentious election in which the candidates disputed the health and direction of the economy, the data showed a job market that is continuing to steadily strengthen from the recession. The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89. The decrease pared back large gains seen in October, but over the year average hourly earnings are still up 2.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.
Actually, in 2013, it's estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
People who stop looking are in UE4, which includes discouraged workers. U4 is 5.0.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
In what world?
Want to use U-6 unemployment? Nope, not that one either.
Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office
Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.
The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".
Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.
By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The average income doesn't represent income as buying power
Average income went down, and inflation is not negative. Therefore, "buying power" did not go up.
The numbers of "stay-at-home moms" includes women who are doing it because they cannot find work.
That is the difference between employment/population ratio and U6.
Stay-at-home moms who want to be stay at home moms are in the employment/population ratio. They are not included in U6.
Stay-at-home moms who would work if they could find a job are in the employment/population ratio. They are included in U6.
You are not understanding the statistics you are looking at, and then attempting to draw conclusions that fit your personal beliefs.
Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number?
No. Because there are some people who are not "working" and do not want a job. The retired, independently wealthy, people caring for their children or elderly family members, etc.
When the BLS runs their survey for "unemployment", they produce several different statistics. The one that gets printed in headlines is called U3.
People who would work if they could find a job, or are working fewer hours than they would like, are included in U6. Here's U6.
You are talking about the employment/population ratio. A high employment/population ratio is not necessarily a "good" economy, and a low one is not necessarily a "bad" economy. Here's the employment/population ratio. You'll note that during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s, the employment/population ratio was lower than it is today.
During Obama's term, 20 million more people have been added to the labor force.
And U6, which includes those who are 'no longer considered' has gone down a lot under Obama as well.
It's not that hard to look up..
http://portalseven.com/employm...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
In stark contrast, Obama bailed out GM, kept all 1.5 million jobs, got them to pay back the loans. With interest.
But yay for Carrier not shipping ALL their jobs to Mexico and providing a blueprint for every other company to milk the 'conservative' new government. Can Apple get a $1T tax break?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
* presuming (as I do) that GW is real, but not solely attributable to AGW, no one is willing to give a percentage breakdown on cause
OT, but I'll have a go. Generally what we have over the last century or so is a secular warming trend (from greenhouse gasses) with fluctuations from various other factors including volcanoes, aerosols, solar output, internal variability, etc. That secular warming trend is strong enough now that studies find most, (or possibly more than all)) of the warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to greenhouse gasses. See for example Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, Wigley and Santer 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.
Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason. Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength.
When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care.
To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie. Those decisions are directly correlated to the economy. Gad school admissions stats are directly tied to unemployment. Our friends with stay at home parents have similar reasons to us: child care costs more than the one parent would earn so they stay home. My sister in law seriously considered quitting her job for a while due to the costs of child care. She was barely breaking even. My sons preschool teacher just quit so she could stay home and take care of a relative. People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay.
And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years?
In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
Nope. There are 6 unemployment statistics. The one that shows up in newspaper headlines is U3. U6 covers people who would take a job if they could find one, or want to work more hours than they already are. Here's U6. You'll note it is also down.
To get a better idea of just how misleading that headline from Zerohedge is, here's the employment/population ratio for the last few decades. That is down from it's peak, but well above where it was during the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s. You'll also note we have never gotten remotely close to 100%, yet the breathless story from Zerohedge implies something is wrong with less than 100%.
There are lots of reasons someone does not have a paid job. Some of the most common are retirement, going to school, and caring for a loved one. And they are all "not in the labor force".