Slashdot Mirror


April Jobs Report: 211,000 Jobs Added, Unemployment At 4.4 Percent (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares an NPR report: The U.S. economy added 211,000 jobs to nonfarm payrolls in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. Both the unemployment rate, at 4.4 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 7.1 million, saw only incremental changes in April. The new data follow disappointing results from March, when the Labor Department initially said less than 100,000 jobs were created. In April, some of the biggest job gains came in leisure and hospitality, health care and social assistance, financial activities, and mining, the agency says.

32 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Not really news by XXongo · · Score: 2

    So, the unemployment news is "nothing particularly exceptional happened in the jobs and unemployment statistics this month, according to the Labor department".

    1. Re:Not really news by HiThere · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's much worse than that. The unemployment rate is a jiggered number. What's significant is the labor force participation rate. (I'm not sure what it's currently called.) The way unemployment is figured you can have been out of work for a year and not be counted. And if you see the labor force participation rate, try to determine what population that the figure is based on. And who gets counted as participating. (E.g., if an H1B worker is counted as participating, is he also counted as a part of the population used in calculating the rate.)

      Governments play all sorts of tricks with their economic numbers to make them look good. Even when the numbers are honest you can't trust them without looking at the details.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Not really news by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is still mostly Obama economic territory, but that's shifting, and will be affected by the recent budget deal. By October, it will be pretty squarely in Trump's court, especially if a new budget can get passed before then. Presidents don't have a lot of ability to affect the economy upward, but they can do a lot to send it downward.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:Not really news by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not a "trick"... it's exactly how Unemployment is calculated, always: 100 * (# people with jobs) / (# people in the workforce). This is not a number that requires you to look at the details at all, just the most basic understanding of what the hell it actually means.

      To be in the "workforce" you have to be actively looking for a job (it's not just "after a year"). If you spend 3 years actively looking for a job but remain without one, you will still be counted as "in the workforce". If we didn't do this, then "Unemployment" would be calculated much higher than it really is, with all the children, people in school, stay-at-home parents, retirees, etc. who shouldn't be counted as part of the workforce.

      The Labor Participation Rate is a different number, with a different meaning, and is not a "replacement" or "better version" of Unemployment. In the same way GNP is not meant to "replace" GDP, they represent different (albeit related) things.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re:Not really news by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're partially right (you can have been out of work for ten years but if you were actively looking, you're considered to be unemployed), but underemployment numbers have been declining, too. The U-6 number is down to 8.6%, the lowest it's been since November 2007. The lowest it's been on record (going back to 1994) is October 2000, when it reached 6.8%. The unemployment rate (U-3) was 3.9% at that time; most economists consider employment around the 4%-4.5% range to be full without overheating the economy, and the Fed had raised interest rates by about a percentage point since mid-1999.

      Note: U-6 is defined as "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force." Basically, everyone willing to work full time but not getting it. (Full time doesn't mean a single full-time job. If you work two part-time jobs that add up to 35 or more hours per week, you're considered a full-time worker.)

      And if you see the labor force participation rate, try to determine what population that the figure is based on. And who gets counted as participating. (E.g., if an H1B worker is counted as participating, is he also counted as a part of the population used in calculating the rate.)

      The LFPR is pretty clear on who is involved, though you need to understand a few definitions.

      • The LFPR is defined as "the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population."
      • The civilian noninstitutional population is defined as "persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces."
      • The labor force is defined as "all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in [the BLS glossary]."
      • Employed persons are defined as "persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs."
      • Unemployed persons are defined as "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

      I snipped the definitions slightly for space, but they're all at this BLS link if you need more details.

      So the H1B worker is counted as participating, as is the illegal immigrant construction worker. It's all persons, not all citizens or all permanent residents. If you're 93 and retired, but living on your own and not looking for and not wanting a job, you're part of the civilian noninstitutional population, so you factor into the LFPR, but not into the unemployment or underemployment rates. If you're 15 and working a part-time job, you're not counted in the LFPR or employment or unemployment status.

      The LFPR, though, has a great deal of downward pressure on it from retiring Baby Boomers. That will level out eventually, and the LFPR may begin to climb as they die off, but the highest that it ever got was 67.3% in early 2000. Don't expect to see something above 70% unless there's a mass die-off of old people.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  2. Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What about the 92 million unemployed Americans who are waiting for new coal mining jobs?

    1. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the same people who want them to lose their coal mining jobs also want to make sure there's no opportunity for them in these other industries

      Hillary offered a job training program assistance. When George W. signed a similar law after 9/11, I used the $3,000 tax credit to go back to school, get out of my dead end video game testing job and into my career in IT Support.

      The most common remedy the left seems to offer them is for them to hurry up and die.

      That's the Republican healthcare bill.

      I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?

      Trump promised to bring back coal mining jobs. Which he has no plans to do.

    2. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You already made that joke.

      Not for today. And this is a variation of one I've done before.

      How fucking lazy are you?

      I wrote a Python script to scrape my 8,000+ comment history from Slashdot so I can copy and paste the same comment over and over again. Since some asshat complained about my using a CSV file to store comments, I added SQLite database as a save option. Still need to write the HTML, JSON, Markdown and XML save functions.

    3. Re:Just a numbers game... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The we don't give a shit about unemployed miners attitude isn't really working out as a political strategy.

      Speaking hard truths is "giving a shit". The people that really don't give a shit are the politicians exploiting these people for votes by promising to bring back coal mining.

      "Job training" isn't the answer either. Appalachia is a terrible place to locate any business other than resource extraction. The infrastructure is terrible, the schools are substandard, the people are close minded and uneducated.

      By far the best solution is to give these people some financial assistance to pack up and move somewhere else.

      I grew up in a coal mining county in eastern Tennessee. My grandfather died of black lung disease. I have plenty of relatives back there collecting welfare and living in trailer parks. My ticket out was a bus ride to Parris Island after enlisting in the Marines on my 18th birthday. I have other friends and relatives that left, and they are ALL doing far better than those who stayed.

    4. Re:Just a numbers game... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Sooo, Trump is bringing something back.

      The only thing that Trump did in his first 100 days was get a Supreme Court confirmation. Everything else is bluster.

      Yeah, I know it hurts.

      I haven't noticed.

      Don't worry - there's a good chance you have only 7 3/4 years of real economic successes to suffer through before you get to cheer on 8 years of "recovery to nowhere" again.

      After eight years of slow growth under Obama, we're overdue for a recession. There's nothing that Trump can do to stop it.

    5. Re:Just a numbers game... by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      To repeat, since you are a moderate conservative, good luck trying to find someone to vote for, regardless of letters next to names.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Obligatory BLS table of U1-U6 numbers by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

    Yes, unemployment is open to interpretation and yes, there are different ways of presenting the data. The "usual" figure is U4, but for others U6 might be more meaningful. I think U6 is probably a better estimate, but that's just my opinion. What ISN'T my opinion is that no matter what number you use, unemployment is creeping downwards.

    1. Re:Obligatory BLS table of U1-U6 numbers by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 2

      Oops, I meant U3 is the usual or official unemployment rate, not U4.

  4. Please, please, please stop quoting U3 numbers by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    U3 numbers are complete bullshit. Everybody who is paying even the slightest attention knows they are complete bullshit. They are so full of bullshit that they're not even useful for comparative / trending purposes. They have literally only two forms of utility: political propaganda, and targets of mockery. It doesn't matter if it's a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. Even U6 is extremely sketchy: surveys multiplied by guesswork.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  5. Thank you President Trump! by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Funny

    So happy to see these numbers. President Trump is a truly worthy successor to Lincoln and Reagan. Keep up the good work, sir!

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Thank you President Trump! by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty sure you're joking here, but since commenters are already taking you seriously I will just add that you can't put any job figures, good or bad, down to this administration yet. They have currently achieved nothing, no legislation, no budget, nothiiing. Any changes now are leftover from whatever was already happening.

    2. Re:Thank you President Trump! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      President Trump is a truly worthy successor to Lincoln and Reagan. Keep up the good work, sir!

      Be careful, saying anything positive about the Trumpster around here is a good way to lose a lot of karma around here.

      I think it was more likely a reference to the fact that both Lincoln and Reagan were shot.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Thank you President Trump! by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So happy to see these numbers. President Trump is a truly worthy successor to Lincoln...

      How dare you compare Trump to a loser who couldn't even stop the Civil War! Sad! You need to compare him to a real winner like Andrew Jackson, a man so great that he was able to motivate people and get them moving all across the country!

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Thank you President Trump! by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Obama was in office for 2922 days (if my calculations are right), Trump for about 100. If Syria used chemical weapons 29 times while Obama was in office, and once when Trump was, they're on almost exactly the same schedule. You suspect that Syria won't use them again, but that's not actually evidence of anything other than your mental state. The difference is that Trump launched an expensive and ineffectual strike against a Syrian airfield, which is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. There was something to be said for taking the airfield out entirely (which is not saying that's a good idea), but none for firing dozens of expensive missiles to put it out of action for a few hours. Some people say that Obama looked weak because he didn't resort to military action there, but Trump looks like he couldn't do anything if he tried.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. U3 Unemployment is a Complete and Utter Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We really need to stop with this U3 garbage. It is a meaningless number. It was contrived for the sole purpose of LYING to the American People about the health of the economy. Here are some economical chickens that Trump is going to bring home to roost:

    #1 It is being projected that there will be more than 8,000 retail store closings in the United States in 2017, and that will far surpass the former peak of 6,163 store closings that we witnessed in 2008.

    #2 The number of retailers that have filed for bankruptcy so far in 2017 has already surpassed the total for the entire year of 2016.

    #3 So far in 2017, an astounding 49 million square feet of retail space has closed down in the United States. At this pace, approximately 147 million square feet will be shut down by the end of the year, and that would absolutely shatter the all-time record of 115 million square feet that was shut down in 2001.

    #4 The Atlanta Fedâ(TM)s GDP Now model is projecting that U.S. economic growth for the first quarter of 2017 will come in at just 0.5 percent. If that pace continues for the rest of the year, it will be the worst year for U.S. economic growth since the last recession.

    #5 Restaurants are experiencing their toughest stretch since the last recession, and in March things continued to get even worse: Foot traffic at chain restaurants in March dropped 3.4% from a year ago. Menu prices couldn't be increased enough to make up for it, and same-store sales fell 1.1%. The least bad region was the Western US, where sales inched up 1.2% year-over-year and traffic fell only 1.7%, according to TDn2K's Restaurant Industry Snapshot. The worst was the NY-NJ Region, where sales plunged 4.6% and foot traffic 6.3%.

    This comes after a dismal February, when foot traffic had dropped 5% year-over-year, and same-store sales 3.7%.

    #6 In March, U.S. factory output declined at the fastest pace in more than two years.

    #7 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not a single person is employed in nearly one out of every five U.S. families.

    #8 U.S. government revenues just suffered their biggest drop since the last recession.

    #9 Nearly all of the big automakers reported disappointing sales in March, and dealer inventories have now risen to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.

    #10 Used vehicle prices are absolutely crashing, and subprime auto loan losses have shot up to the highest level that we have seen since the last recession.

    #11 At this point, most U.S. consumers are completely tapped out. According to CNN, almost six out of every ten Americans do not have enough money saved to even cover a $500 emergency expense.

    The US Economy is NOT ok

  7. Re:As unemployment gets lower, so will job growth. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Too many people work without paying taxes, therefore count as unemployed or they are too comfortable living with mommy, daddy or sugar daddy.

    You got too many alternative facts mixed up in that statement. Just focus on one. No need to do three at a time.

  8. What bugs me about this by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is Obama got the blame for post-Bush recession (which to be fair was caused by deregulation started by Clinton) and now Trump gets the credit for Obama's work fixing things.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What bugs me about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah - as a Trump voter these numbers suck just as they did under the Obama administration.

      It's just funny watching the Obama voters on here suddenly agree.

    2. Re:What bugs me about this by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Obama legitimately was in charge all through the turn-around of the economy. That wasn't residual Bush-administration policy causing the Great Recession to clean itself up; it was either the economy fixing itself or the Obama administration fixing it.

      Trump's administration is setting themselves up, though. These UE numbers are too low. There's a bubble somewhere here, and Trump's policies don't work toward market stability; the bubble's going to pop, and pop hard, and he's claiming responsibility now for the current market. Whether you want to blame the bubble on Obama or on the market players, Trump's loudly taking responsibility for it right now, and he's doing nothing to keep it from eventually bursting and bursting hard.

      Both Bush and Clinton were warned about the housing and dot-com bubbles. I don't see anyone warning Obama or Trump about what's happening right now.

    3. Re:What bugs me about this by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      I don't see anyone warning Obama or Trump about what's happening right now.

      We're overdue for a recession by traditional economic measures. Since Hillary lost the election, it won't be called the Hillary and/or Obama Recession.

    4. Re:What bugs me about this by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      ok, so I read your post, and it is really odd that every economic policy you don't like is Republican, and every economic policy you do like is Democrat. What are the odds of that?

      Most likely, you have internal bias, which was compounded by mainly reading things you agree with. Seek out things you disagree with and read them. Your cognitive biases will disappear.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. Re:Real numbers? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    U-6 is not "the true unemployment"; it's a measure including people who are underemployed, who are unable to get jobs because of their economic situation (e.g. single mothers who couldn't take a job if you begged them, because they can't afford daycare and you're not willing to pay enough), and so forth.

    Each unemployment measure has its uses. We're used to U-3 largely because it tells us how much competition is out there for a job of any sort; U-4 tells you how many people are out there actually unemployed, though. Underemployment (included in U-6) is another important statistic nobody looks at. The U-5 addition (people who can't take a job even if offered one, but wish they could) is fairly-unimportant in terms of unemployment measures.

    U-6 still doesn't tell you about a few interesting things, like how much employment is actually available versus your participating labor force. Unemployment includes the people in U-5 because those people are interested in working, thus are part of the participating labor force. Because of that, U-6 plus employed persons equates to all participating labor force. Thing is, U-6 includes underemployment; that doesn't tell you about whole jobs.

    If you have three underemployed working 20, 15, and 23 hours per week, you have 58 hours or 1.45 whole jobs between three people. A measure of whole jobs is useful; also useful is a measure of whole jobs counting part-time employment of people who want to be part-time employed as "whole jobs" (that is: if a working spouse has a 12-hour weekend job, that's a whole job because said person neither needs nor desires 40 hours of employment).

    So that gives you three whole-employment indicators we don't track: WE-1 (number of whole jobs, including all full-time workers plus the fraction of full-time hours worked by hourly-paid part-time workers); WE-2 (WE-1, plus part-time workers not seeking full-time jobs are counted as whole jobs instead of partial jobs); and WE-3 (WE-2, plus full-time workers and workers with multiple jobs exceeding full-time hours have their total hours counted and fractioned, such that a person working 60 hours per week counts as 1.5 whole jobs).

  10. 211000 new Jobs? by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    I didn't realize cloning has become so effective....

    Now the only question is can we make enough black turtlenecks to keep up with demand?

  11. Re:Real numbers? by Archtech · · Score: 2

    'As new discouraged workers move regularly from U.3 into U.6 unemployment accounting, those who have been “discouraged” for one year also are dropped from the U.6 measure'.
    http://www.shadowstats.com/art...

    So there are many people out there who are not counted, even in U.6.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  12. Jobs? Or something more substancial? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Creating 200k jobs is easy. Destroy 100k jobs that can actually sustain a family and create two separate jobs that can't. Presto job creation. Now pit the people who need those pittance jobs to make ends meet against each other and watch the race to the bottom unfold.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Best since 2008. by XXongo · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's the lowest unemployment rate since before the Great Recession. That's pretty exceptional in my book.

    That might be exceptional, but it isn't true. It is the lowest level in a decade. Here's a graph of the unemployment rate since the 1960s:
    http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
    where you can see the rate dropped below 4.4% many times.

    Here's a graph (from six months ago) looking just at the last 15 years:
    http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
    and you can see the rate was below 4.4% right until the 2008 economic crash hit. You can also see that 4.4% is nothing exceptional, simply the continuation of the trend.

    I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'

    Since he's only been in office a hundred days, it's unlikely that any economic effects of his presidency have hit yet. From the graph, I'd say that this unemployment news is "more of the same, nothing exceptional."

    1. Re:Best since 2008. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do know that the lowest unemployment level in a decade is saying the same thing as 'the lowest unemployment rate since the Great Recession" right?

      You literally said 'it isn't true' and then said the same thing while talking about the 1960s and things that were before the collapse, which is way out of scope for anything being talked about.

      Great Recession not Great Depression.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.