222,000 Jobs Added To US Payrolls In June; Unemployment Rate Rises To 4.4 Percent (npr.org)

From an NPR report: An estimated 222,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in June, according to the monthly employment report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Friday. "The job gains were better than expected -- most economists had predicted a gain of 180,000 jobs," NPR's Chris Arnold reports for our Newscast unit. The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.4 percent from 4.3 percent -- a 16-year low that was hit in May. "Since January, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed are down by 0.4 percentage point and 658,000, respectively," the BLS says. Previous estimates of job gains in recent months were revised upwards -- from 138,000 to 152,000 in May and from 174,000 to 207,000 in June, for a net gain of 47,000.

Comments

unemployment numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Unemployment numbers don't count those who just straight up gave up on looking for work. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you included working age people on "Social Security Disability". It seems the primary disability here is the lack of ability to find a job and you are too old to go into the military(the other jobs handout program).

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Re:unemployment numbers

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, unemployment numbers count discouraged employees in U4. U4 is currently 4.7. This year, starting in January, it has been 5.2, 5.0, 4.8, 4.7, 4.5, and 4.7. U3 has been 4.7, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.4.

Re:unemployment numbers

[Captain Splendid]

But that is pretty much an insane way to look at our work force.

It worked for eight years for Sean Hannity. Until a few months ago, it was a daily ritual for him to mention the 90 million Americans who weren't working in Obama's America.

Re:unemployment numbers

[ranton]

You claim Labor Force Participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working, but then link to a chart which lists the participation rate of everyone 16 and up.

The commonly used participation rate for working adults is the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: 25 to 54 years. It is currently at 81%, which is still lower than it has been in 30 years (not 40). But if you take away the second half of the 90's, where it peaked, our current participation rate is only about 1% lower than the average over the last 30 years. It has also been trending up since 2014.

Those who are physically unable to work, students, stay at home parents, or whatever are all included as part of the 19% in this statistic.

These figures still show around 1-2 million people who would have been working 15 years ago and aren't today, but the problem certainly is "exploding" as you put it. A bigger problem which isn't reflected in this statistic is how stagnant wages have been; mostly as a product of our economy losing $20/hour jobs and replacing them with $12/hour jobs.

Re: Curious...

[Tablizer]

You just can't accept that America is better under Trump.

The GDP numbers are basically the same as they were under O, and the unemployment changes are consistent with a general longer-term trend that has been in place since roughly around 2013. Same with the stock market.

Further, T hasn't signed any legislation or Executive Order that would have notable impact on the economy either way. In short, he hasn't change enough to matter. The economy is on cruse control.

It's only a political issue because he has been bragging about the economy "under" him. I gotta call BS on that one.

What's your point?

[Comboman]

The census reports don't count homeless people as unemployed nor does it count people who have given up looking.

It also doesn't include people who are retired, or children, or stay-at-home parents, or people in prisons/mental institutions/hospitals/etc. Nor should it. Unemployed doesn't mean "not working", it means "ready, able and willing to work but unable to find a job".

Re:Statstics can lie, data omitted in these number

[Tablizer]

Not this issue again. There are multiple ways to measure "unemployment", and each are imperfect for different reasons. Part of the problem is that "unemployed" can be a grey area. Lets say Bob is recently retired. He would take up a job if it paid really well or piqued his interest, but Bob otherwise is happy with retirement and is not actively looking. A house wife* may view the job market similarly. Is that "unemployed"?

The metric typically used by the press has been a de-facto standard yardstick for decades, for good or bad.

Pundits often complain about it based on their bias or desired audience influence angle. There are other published metrics of "unemployment", as a nearby message lists, and pundits often switch to one of these others when it suits them.

If a pundit plays such games without explaining the difference and trade-offs, you know they are either biased, manipulative, or clueless. Granted, just because a pundit bungles one issue doesn't mean they bungle everything, but this one is a yellow flag.

* There's probably a PC way to say it. "Non-paid domestic worker?"

Re:"Discouraged" job seekers.

[BarbaraHudson]

Keep in mind that the IRS has records of every lawful employment payment (and many unlawful). Each one is reported with time period, money earned, and a unique identifier.

These numbers are never used, even though they obviously would give the best data. They can't be manipulated as easily, and it would be too easy to point out that job income per worker has been stagnant or even declined for a generation. GDP has increased tremendously, but it's not showing up in pay packets.