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.
That's because these numbers don't include the people who have given up looking for jobs.
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at. So Obama didn't really "fix" anything. Here's an article from CNBC where they explain the differences in the various measures of unemployment and why the number mentioned in the OP isn't terribly meaningful.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02...
It is a noisy metric. It usually adjusted in the opposite direction of political expedience about 2-3 months after announced. The big hacker there is CA.
It is a bad metric - there are a hundred ways to look at unemployment, and the rate of new people who can get unemployment insurance is exactly at odds with the #1 and #2 employers in the US: Wal-mart and temp-agencies.
It would be nice if actual math and actual science could come first, and politics would be driven by them instead of junk like this.
If you tried to run a real-world production process using this crappy of a metric, you would go out of business, much like the US is putting itself out of being a super-power in the global economy.
-engr
So Obama didn't really "fix" anything
Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.
Likewise if things get only a little bit better in the US, but the world economy gets a lot better, then the president has done a poor job even if things have improved.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89."
It's not really as rosy as the headline makes it seem. Cherry picking numbers works for both sides in DC.
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
As it never has. So you're interested in comparing apples to oranges now?
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.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
They don't have a choice but to lie, because otherwise they have to admit Obama's eight years were eight years of generally positive economic growth, and that means they elected a buffoon who was simply inventing nonsense claims about America's economic woes. When people rationalize away facts, they are emotionally incapable of admitting that in many cases, so will simple ignore anything that confirms those much hated facts.
The statistics don't matter to the Trump supporters. The statistics can't matter to Trump supporters. They are not emotionally equipped to deal with the statistics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment
Actually, it's nowhere near that simple. For example, my wife is a "stay-at-home mom". Thus she's on the "bad" side of the labor force participation rate. She's doing this because 1) we think it's better for our younger-than-school-age kids, and 2) she can't make enough to pay for the daycare we would have to buy.
When the BLS measures the "unemployment rate", they actually produce several different statistics. These statistics are produced by surveying households, not just people receiving unemployment benefits. The number printed in newspaper headlines is U3. The people you are talking about when you say "actual unemployment rate" are in U6. Here's a graph of U6.
If you're going to claim a low employment/population ratio always demonstrates an awful economy, you're going to have to explain why the 1950s/1960s "boom" had a lower employment/population ratio than we have today.
You mean like how he gave Carrier $7M in tax breaks and now they're building a factory for the 1300 jobs they shipped south of the border?
That kind of great?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Good point; but I didn't know that Walmart needed that many greeters with optional engineering backgrounds for the War on Christmas Season.
The US baby boom occurred between 1946 and 1964.
Add 18-25 years, and a baby boom becomes a 'employee boom'.
Add 60-65 years, and a baby boom becomes a 'retiree boom'.
The workforce participation graph is just a chart of the lifecycle of 'baby boomers'. It really has fuck all to do with who's siting in the oval office.
Furthermore, it's a good sign for the economy that labor participation is falling. It means that 'boomers' are choosing to retire and leave jobs for younger workers to fill, as demonstrated by the falling U3 unemployment rate. The downside is that those retirees are putting more burden on the Social Security and Medicare programs, but we've known that would happen for the past fifty years.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
And your point is? Obama did not become President until January 2009. U6 rose sharply during 2008.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Isn't the number of people who are not working a more important number? Last I looked that number was up to 95 million people.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
The unemployment rate is just a distraction.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.
People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
Actually, only 800 jobs are staying.
And if Hillary did the *exact* same deal, she would have been ripped for weeks on tax breaks and 1300 jobs going to Mexico.
But Trump, who apparently likes government to pick winners (while complaining when Obama did same), crows about it all day long.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Let's consider just one statistic - workforce participation as a percentage of the population. Around the year 2000 it was about 67%, it has been fairly steadily declining since 2008 from about 67% to 63%...
In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.
I'll just mention in passing things like the majority of newly-created jobs being part-time, wages being stagnant for the last 8 years, and a national debt that has increased from an "unpatriotic" $11 Trillion under President Bush to nearly $20 Trillion after 8 years of President Obama...
That is what passes for "generally positive economic growth"?
Ken
Compare it to inflation adjusted salaries, though, and you'll see that in the 50's and 60's, married women weren't working, because men's salaries could feed a household. That's not a relevant comparison to today, with real salaries significantly smaller and most households requiring 2 jobs to achieve that standard of living. ... and those numbers don't include the induced cost of childcare from lower salaries and both adults working.
Why people like to compare past households with present day households to suggest the economy was better in the 50's, 60's is incomprehensible. They're apples and oranges. The economy was not better, the standard of living was lower. At no time in the history of the United States has there been a time when the average citizen has been as materially wealthy as they are now. We don't build 1000sq. ft. mid-century modest homes, we build 2000+ sq. ft. McMansions. We don't drive those unreliable, antiquated tanks on wheels, nor is there just one per family. Today the average passenger car would be seen as fit for the 1/10th of the 1% back then. Today the average person owns vastly more cloths and of that those of materials that would have been exclusive to the elite. Imagine sitting down in the evening to a 15" manual-tune grayscale VHF tube TV the size of a significant chest of drawers today. People back then couldn't even comprehend the existence of the personal electronics the average person owns today let alone possessing them themselves. The quality and kinds of food readily available and affordable today would be seen as scandalously extravagant. The service industry of which everyone presently avails themselves was bit a tiny mote of what it is today. These comparisons can be made for nearly all facets of life with great similarity of result.
To suggest that people would be better off with the economy of the 50's and 60's is preposterous. If we lived now as we did then, then Walmart would absolutely be the employer of bourgeoisie.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I know it's true that you do, but I still find it hard to grasp that people like you exist. You'll believe and repeat everything you hear from your favorite talking heads with no regard for how much it defies logic. How is an interest bearing loan repaid in full a taxpayer handout while a tax break which is to say, they get to put fewer dollars into the government coffers, not a handout?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
That's not a relevant comparison to today, with real salaries significantly smaller and most households requiring 2 jobs to achieve that standard of living
Actually, the point is people focusing on employment/population ratio alone are missing an enormous number of confounding factors. Employment/population ratio is only a useful statistic when combined with a whole lot of other statistics to try and tease out whatever it is you are attempting to analyze.
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
Currently we need 215-220K per month growth to remain even with population growth. Everything else is a loss, and the lies are covered up with the "discouraged worker" nonsense.
Don't be played for a fool by official propaganda - the math will set you free. Once you understand that this drain on the economy is the real cost of endless war, it starts to make quite a bit more sense (and it's also much more depressing). But, "hey, the unemployment rate is down*!" so go back to soda pop and television. #include officerbarbrady
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)