U.S. economy created 169k jobs in August, jobless rate dips

[ProSense]

U.S. economy created 169k jobs in August, jobless rate dips

By Steve Benen



The jobs reports are starting to get a little predictable, by virtue of the fact that over the last several months, they're effectively the same.

The new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the U.S. economy added 169,000 jobs in August, which is roughly in line with expectations. After years of public-sector layoffs serving as a drag on the overall economy, we're starting to see a slight turnaround -- the private sector added 152,000 jobs last month, while the public sector added 17,000 jobs. That may seem like a fairly modest number, but it's the most in recent memory.

The overall unemployment rate dropped to 7.3%, which is the lowest it's been in nearly five years, but it's not evidence of good news -- it ticked down largely because of people leaving the workforce.

Indeed, while the 169,000 jobs added in August isn't an awful preliminary report, on the whole, this morning's figures are quite discouraging. The key is the revisions -- June totals were revised down from 188,000 to 172,000, while July's totals were revised down from 162,000 to 104,000. Combined, that's a whopping 74,000 jobs we thought were created, but weren't.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/06/20356891-us-economy-created-169k-jobs-in-august-jobless-rate-dips

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Jobless rate dips: largely because of people leaving the workforce.

The overall unemployment rate dropped to 7.3%, which is the lowest it's been in nearly five years, but it's not evidence of good news -- it ticked down largely because of people leaving the workforce.


Indeed, while the 169,000 jobs added in August isn't an awful preliminary report, on the whole, this morning's figures are quite discouraging. The key is the revisions -- June totals were revised down from 188,000 to 172,000, while July's totals were revised down from 162,000 to 104,000. Combined, that's a whopping 74,000 jobs we thought were created, but weren't.

BTW: How many many of these jobs are retail, contractual-short term and/or part time gigs?

[bhikkhu]

2. From the bls numbers - "Part time for economic reasons"

those who wanted full time jobs but could only find part time jobs, declined by 334,000.

Combined with the overall gain of 162,000 that's a shift of 500,000 from part time to full time work. I know last month the "its all part time" meme was looked at as bad news among the good, where here there is a pretty encouraging rebound. Worth noting.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. I'm not knocking the *POTUS on this, BTW, but until

we can verify that there are some well-paying jobs flowing into back into this economy I will continue to question the numbers and whether those full time jobs amount to much.

Also, viewing the past few months, do you want to wager that the 162,000 figure goes gown?


The scumbag GOP and any other politician that either stymies job growth at home or lets jobs bleed away to other countries are to blame.

[bhikkhu]

6. That's all in the BLS summary as well

...and if you're interested in the topic, it really is good primary material to become familiar with. They publish a summary every month like this: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So, if you are interested in whether full time work is being replaced by part time, there are the raw numbers of total jobs to look at, and they break out how many of those total jobs are part time. You can also look at the average work week for all jobs, which is currently 34.5 hours, up slightly, which is in agreement with the increase in full time jobs.

If you are interested in whether pay is increasing or decreasing, you can look at average compensation for all non-farm jobs, which is $24.05 per hour, up 2% or so this year.

If you are interested in how many people are ignored by those numbers and have given up, there are a few things to consider, but the labor participation rate is the most inclusive number. That is improved slightly this month, at 63.2%.

I was listening to an economist the other day who called this the "Plowhorse Economy", which just keeps soldiering on at its own steady pace; solid and imperturbable so far, but not especially fast. Its a pretty apt term, I think.

[econoclast]

4. Assumes facts not in evidence

Nothing in the BLS report suggests that those 300k who left part-time status actually "shifted to full-time work"

In fact, since the labor force declined by 500k, the much more likely scenario is that they shifted from part-time to not-in-the-labor-force.

And please dont tell me they are retired. Because the percent of people 55 and over still in the labor force is up up up and has been for a good while.

[bhikkhu]

5. The "total employed" number, which includes part time workersgoes went up by 163k

while the number of part time employed (included in that total) declined by 234k. This can only be by an increase in full time workers. My pre-coffee morning math was that this was a 500k difference in total, of course 400k is more the number.

So either a large number of part time jobs transitioned to full time, or a bunch of full time jobs were created, while a lesser number of part time employees were eliminated. Or any combination of the above.

The numbers are total figures for actual jobs, so the number of people looking or abandoning the search or retiring doesn't figure in.