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.
Didn't take long, now he's been mentioned.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That's because these numbers don't include the people who have given up looking for jobs.
the GOP saved us from the Anti-Christ Obama, who was sure to appoint himself President-for-Life, and who, unchecked, would have stripped religion, freedom, free enterprise, free speech, free beer, whiteness, and fast food from our great land. Obviously this good news has to do with our optimism about President Trump, who has vowed to preserve our most sacred traditions and Make America Great Again, Like It Used To Be, Before Obama Took All The Jobs, you know?
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.
Are you saying we should be on a toddler-based economy?
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
I notice you produce not even a link to your 'strong evidence'. Apparently you don't think it is all that strong?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations. We have a bit of a paradox at the moment - he gets away with the a lot of stuff we would never let any other person say, and we accept his lack of policy, on the basis that he's inexperienced, or not a normal politician. However, at the very same time, people seem to have rather unreal standards for him - not only is he supposed to be everything that a normal president is supposed to be, classy and in tune with what's happening, but he's supposed to exceed on every metric - bring outstanding improvements to the economy, make the United States a world power (without diplomacy), and construct vast infrastructure improvements while curb stomping taxes for everyone. I honestly wonder what'll happen with his supporters when these two collide - many of them do seem to genuinely expect him to pull this off, and if he fails, they don't have anybody else to blame. 2020 might be a rather interesting election year...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
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.
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.
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
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
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 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?
That's true. It's actually a 2,600 job net change. -1300 for US, +1300 for Mexico. +$7m for carrier in tax breaks, -$2m for Carrier to build factory in MX.
USA! USA! USA!
Lock her up! Wait, what?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Are you kidding? The War on Christmas hasn't been going well for us under Baraq Hussein Soetoro. We need the smartest men and women in greeter positions to use their technical expertise to strategically deploy Santas, pine trees, striped poles, the virgin goddess, and the other holy pagan symbols of Reichsführer Jesus! Only Walmart greeters have the boots-on-the-ground experience to prevent the gay Mooooooooslims from outlawing Christmas with their highly sophisticated containment strategies based on the latest engineering advancements!
They'll keep fighting, and they'll win!
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
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 $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.
That's not a relevant comparison to today, with real salaries significantly smaller and most households requiring 2 jobs to achieve that standard of living
Actually, the point is people focusing on employment/population ratio alone are missing an enormous number of confounding factors. Employment/population ratio is only a useful statistic when combined with a whole lot of other statistics to try and tease out whatever it is you are attempting to analyze.
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
Currently we need 215-220K per month growth to remain even with population growth. Everything else is a loss, and the lies are covered up with the "discouraged worker" nonsense.
Don't be played for a fool by official propaganda - the math will set you free. Once you understand that this drain on the economy is the real cost of endless war, it starts to make quite a bit more sense (and it's also much more depressing). But, "hey, the unemployment rate is down*!" so go back to soda pop and television. #include officerbarbrady
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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".