Payroll employment rises by 211,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 10:13 AM - Edit history (10)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economic News Release

Employment Situation Summary USDL-15-2292

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 4, 2015

Technical information:
Household data: [phone] • [e-mail] • www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: [phone] • [e-mail] • www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: [phone] • [e-mail]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2015


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 211,000 in November, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in construction, professional and technical services, and health care. Mining and information lost jobs.

Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 7.9 million, was essentially unchanged. Over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons are down by 0.8 percentage point and 1.1 million, respectively. (See table A-1.)
....

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2.1 million in November and has shown little movement since June. In November, these individuals accounted for 25.7 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.5 percent, changed little in November. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.3 percent and has shown little movement since October 2014. (See table A-1.)
....

In November, 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 392,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
....

Establishment Survey Data

....
In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $25.25, following a 9-cent gain in October. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.3 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees, at $21.19, changed little. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +137,000 to +145,000, and the change from October was revised from +271,000 to +298,000. With these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 35,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 218,000 per month.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday, January 8, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

---

[font color="red"]These will be the talking points:

1) This beats the estimate being offered earlier this morning of an increase of 200,000;
2) hourly wages rose by 4 cents;
3) the labor force participation rate was about the same as last month, at 62.5 percent;
4) the increases in employment for September and October were both revised up. September's figure was revised from 137,000 to 145,000. October's figure was revised from 271,000 to 298,000. The combination is an additional 35,000 jobs;
5) the civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,513,000 in October to 94,446,000, a drop of 67,000; and
6) the solid job growth increases the likelihood of a interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve later this month.[/font]

The interest rate in question is the federal funds target rate, if I am not mistaken. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Federal funds rate

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: [phone], Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.


[center]Introduction[/center]

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome our good friends from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so I am absolutely delighted to have you participate in this thread. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.

Full disclosure: I do not work for BLS, nor am I friends with anyone over there. I'm just someone who appreciates the work they do. My sole connection with the agency is that I've been in the building to pick up some publications.

Thank you for being a part of this thread.

If you don't have the time to study the report thoroughly, here is the news in a nutshell:

Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation

It is easy to find one paragraph, or one sentence, or one datum in this report that will support the most outlandish of conclusions, from "the sky is falling" to "we'll have blue skies, nothing but blue skies, from now on." Easy, but disingenuous.

Every month, you can find something in the report that will cause you concern. Take the information in context. Consider not just this month’s data, but the trend.

Please take the time to look at progree's not-to-be-missed thread containing his thoughtful analysis, updated monthly. Here is the latest version:

Economy facts with links to official sources, rev 12/4/15.

This month, he also presented his analysis in the 13th reply in this thread:

Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Thank you so much for that, progree.

Let's begin with a couple of questions:


[center]What Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Why Are They Releasing All These Numbers Every Month?[/center]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the dates of major data releases are scheduled more than a year in advance, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.

Note carefully those words: "accuracy," "quality," and "impartiality."


[center]Household Survey vs. Establishment Survey[/center]

From the February 10, 2011, DOL Newsletter:

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The household survey, or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The establishment survey, or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.

[center][font color="red"]New Section: Complaint Department[/font][/center]

I post this information on a nonpartisan basis. I am not here to make elected officials of any party or persuasion look good. I am certain that the people who compile these data are of the same outlook. They are civil servants. They do not work for a party; they work for you, the American people.

My only contribution is to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the BLS and then, in the commentary, link to some sources that I feel are trustworthy. I hope people come away with a better understanding of the data after reading this thread. Once again, I do not work for BLS, but I will nonetheless try to assist if I can.

If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here:

Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

Affected persons who believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has disseminated information that does not meet its guidelines or those of the Department of Labor or Office of Management and Budget, and who wish to file a formal complaint may send their complaint by mail, e-mail, or fax to:

Division of Management Systems
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4080
Washington, D.C., 20212-0001
E-mail: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

Complainants should:

Identify themselves and indicate where and how they can be reached;
Identify, as specifically as possible, the information in question;
Indicate how they are affected by the information about which they are complaining;
Carefully describe the nature of the complaint, including an explanation of why they believe the information does not comply with OMB, Departmental, or agency-specific guidelines; and
Describe the change requested and the reason why the agency should make the change.

Failure to include this information may result in a complainant not receiving a response to the complaint or greatly reducing the usefulness or timeliness of any response. Complainants should be aware that they bear the burden of establishing that they are affected persons and showing the need and justification for the correction they are seeking, including why the information being complained about does not comply with applicable guidelines.

[center]We Got the Beat.[/center]

November Jobs Report: Everything You Need to Know

7:53 am ET
Dec 4, 2015
Markets



-AP

Yes, it’s that time again, folks. Jobs Friday, when for one ever-so-brief moment the interests of Wall Street, Washington and Main Street are all aligned on one thing: jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to report that the economy added 200,000 jobs in November, with the unemployment rate remaining at 5.0%. In October, the economy added 271,000, and the unemployment rate was 5.0%. It will be the final major piece of economic data for Federal Reserve officials before they decide whether to raise short-term interest rates later this month.

Here at MoneyBeat HQ, we will crunch the numbers, track the markets and compile the commentary before and after the data crosses the wires. Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section. And while you’re here, why don’t you sign up to follow us on Twitter.

Here’s how it all went down:

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

You forgot to say "Enjoy the show." After a brief foray in the "Politics & Policy" section, this blog has returned to the "Markets" section. I do not know what sort of internal intrigue this indicates.

Before we do anything else, let's give credit to the workers behind the MoneyBeat blog:

The MoneyBeat Team:

Stephen Grocer
Editor

Phillipa Leighton-Jones
European Editor

Erik Holm
Deputy Editor

Maureen Farrell
Reporter, New York

Paul Vigna
Reporter, New York

David Cottle
Reporter, London

Kristen Scholer
Reporter, New York

Giles Turner
Reporter, London

MoneyBeat Columnists

Ronald Barusch
Dealpolitik

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Francesco Guerrera
Current Account[/font]

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Alen Mattich[/font]

Jason Zweig
The Intelligent Investor

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Michael J. Casey
Horizons [/font]

E. S. Browning

Paul Vigna had a comment about the labor force participation rate:

8:55 am

Breaking down the participation rate
by Paul Vigna

Here’s what we mean when we talk about the participation rate and employment-population ratio.

There are 251.7 million people in the “civilian noninstitutional population,” according to the BLS (this is all contained in this chart). This is the number of people over age 16 who are not in jail or health-care facilities or the military.

Of that group, 157.3 million comprise the civilian labor force. The ratio of the second group to the first is 62.5%. This is the labor force participation rate, the number of people who could be in the labor force – either working or looking for a job – who are in the labor force.

There are 149.3 million people working. The ratio of that group to the overall civilian population is 59.3%. This the employment-population ratio, the number of people who could be working who actually are working.

Why do these number matter? Well, if you just looked at the raw data, you’d see the numbers rising, more or less, month after month. That’s not because the economy’s so rip-roaring, but because the number of people in the nation keeps rising. So you need the ratios to get a sense of how strong the labor force really is.

The labor-force participation rate remains near multi-decade lows, and whether that’s due to demographics, as in people retiring, or weak job opportunities, or whatever, it points to one sort of unavoidable problem: the economy cannot grow at its full potential if you simply don’t have enough people contributing.

Oh, and for the record, there are 94.4 million people not in the labor force.

[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

[font color="red"]New material: This link might not work for everyone. See progree's tips.[/font] From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from Bregger and Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014


[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 217,000 Jobs in November

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 271,000 in October; jobless rate essentially unchanged (5.0%)

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in October 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 182,000 Jobs in October

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 142,000 in September; unemployment rate remains at 5.1%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 200,000 Jobs in September

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in August 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 173,000 in August; unemployment rate edges down to 5.1%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in August 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 190,000 Jobs in August

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in July 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 215,000 in July; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.3%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in July 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 185,000 Jobs in July

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in June 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 223,000 in June; unemployment rate declines to 5.3%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in June 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 237,000 Jobs in June

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in May 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 280,000 in May; unemployment rate essentially unchanged (5.5%)

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 201,000 Jobs in May

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 223,000 in April; jobless rate essentially unchanged (5.4%)

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 169,000 Jobs in April


[center]Why Won't You Talk About the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)?[/center]

Every month in certain circles, someone will cite the labor force participation rate as a cause for concern. Let's look at that right now.

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] This July 2014 report from the Council of Economic Advisers addresses that:

THE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE SINCE 2007: CAUSES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

(Hat tip, Adrahil: Look deeper.)

[font color="red"]Even newer material:[/font] Here's a Power Point (or equivalent) presentation given by Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, before the National Press Club on August 6, 2015. If you go to the next-to-the-last slide, you'll see that the long-term projected trend is down:

"Trends in Labor Force Participation", 8/6/15

(Hat tip, progree: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010)

[font color="red"]Newest material:[/font] Paul Vigna had a comment about the LFPR in the December 4, 2015, Money Beat column about the November figures:

8:55 am

Breaking down the participation rate
by Paul Vigna

Here’s what we mean when we talk about the participation rate and employment-population ratio.

There are 251.7 million people in the “civilian noninstitutional population,” according to the BLS (this is all contained in this chart). This is the number of people over age 16 who are not in jail or health-care facilities or the military.

Of that group, 157.3 million comprise the civilian labor force. The ratio of the second group to the first is 62.5%. This is the labor force participation rate, the number of people who could be in the labor force – either working or looking for a job – who are in the labor force.

There are 149.3 million people working. The ratio of that group to the overall civilian population is 59.3%. This the employment-population ratio, the number of people who could be working who actually are working.

Why do these number matter? Well, if you just looked at the raw data, you’d see the numbers rising, more or less, month after month. That’s not because the economy’s so rip-roaring, but because the number of people in the nation keeps rising. So you need the ratios to get a sense of how strong the labor force really is.

The labor-force participation rate remains near multi-decade lows, and whether that’s due to demographics, as in people retiring, or weak job opportunities, or whatever, it points to one sort of unavoidable problem: the economy cannot grow at its full potential if you simply don’t have enough people contributing.

Oh, and for the record, there are 94.4 million people not in the labor force.

[font color="red"]Newest material of them all:[/font]

3:12 pm ET
Dec 8, 2015
economics

As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

By Jeffrey Sparshott
[e-mail]
@jeffsparshott

The U.S. labor force is expected to expand only slowly over the coming decade as the country ages and more Americans give up on holding a job, a potential drag on broader economic growth.

The economy is expected to generate 9.8 million new jobs, a 6.5% increase, from 2014 to 2024, the Labor Department said in new projections released Tuesday. While steady, that is a historically slow pace. By comparison, 10-year job creation averaged almost 14% during the 2001-07 expansion and close to 17% during the 1990s.

The slowdown highlights declining participation as baby boomers retire and younger Americans opt out of the workforce. Those two trends are expected to continue to push the labor-force participation rate lower, to 60.9% in 2024 from 62.9% in 2014, Labor estimates. If realized, that would be the lowest level since 1973, when Richard Nixon was president.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen at a congressional hearing last week held out hope the participation rate would hold near current levels as people came off the sidelines and into jobs.

[center]Nattering Nabobs of Negativism[/center]

[font color="red"]Revised material:[/font] Here’s a grim thought:

Fed economists: America’s missing workers are not coming back

Wonkblog

By Max Ehrenfreund September 12 {2014}

A paper by Federal Reserve staff that will be discussed at the Brookings Institution on Friday {September 12, 2014} possibly hints at the central bank's thinking on interest rates and employment in advance of a consequential Fed meeting next week. The findings support [links:http://online.wsj.com/articles/fed-minutes-rate-hike-debate-heating-up-1408557628|hawks] on the Federal Open Market Committee, who feel that the Fed needs to prepare to raise rates sooner than expected, although the results are still being debated and might not persuade the committee's more dovish members.

The paper discusses the number of people who consider themselves part of the workforce -- including both people who have a job and those who are looking for work. It is a measure of the total manpower available in the U.S. economy. This number, the labor force participation rate, has been decreasing steadily since 2000. Americans who can't find work have been leaving the workforce, as have more and more retirees as the population ages.

Let’s follow that with another grim thought:

Why wage growth disparity tells the story of America's half-formed economic recovery

By Chico Harlan November 21, 2014
@chicoharlan
[e-mail]

....
With unemployment down to 5.8 percent, the country’s half-formed recovery is often described with a convenient shorthand: We have jobs but little wage growth. But stagnancy is just an average, and for many Americans, the years since the financial crisis have pushed them farther from the line, according to a detailed analysis of government labor statistics by The Washington Post.
....

Among the winners in this climate: Older workers, women and those with finance and technology jobs. ... Among the losers: Part-timers, the young, men, and those in the health, retail and food industries.
....

Chico Harlan covers personal economics as part of The Post's financial team.

Dissenters, take note:

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate

David Leonhardt
AUG. 26, 2014

The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report has been the subject of some wacky conspiracy theories. None was wackier than the suggestion from Jack Welch, the former General Electric chief executive, that government statisticians were exaggerating job growth during President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Both Republican and Democratic economists dismissed those charges as silly.

But to call the people who compile the jobs report honest, nonpartisan civil servants is not to say that the jobs report is perfect. The report tries to estimate employment in a big country – and to do so quickly, to give policy makers, business executives and everyone else a sense of how the economy is performing. It’s a tough task.

And it has become tougher, because Americans are less willing to respond to surveys than they used to be.

A new academic paper suggests that the unemployment rate appears to have become less accurate over the last two decades, in part because of this rise in nonresponse. In particular, there seems to have been an increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work.

[center]On the Road Again[/center]

The DOL Newsletter - October 6, 2011

DOL Data: There's an App for That
Have an iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone? Now you can access the latest labor data and news from the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment and Training Administration in the palm of your hand. The latest free mobile app displays real-time updates to the unemployment rate, Unemployment Insurance initial claims, the Consumer Price Index, payroll employment, average hourly earnings, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, productivity, the U.S. Import Price Index and the U.S. Export Price Index in real time, as they are published each week, month or quarter. News releases providing context for the data can also be accessed through the app and viewed within a mobile browser or as PDF documents.

US Labor Department launches economic and employment statistics app

Smartphone users gain mobile access to latest labor data and news

WASHINGTON — The most up-to-date employment data and economic news releases from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Employment and Training Administration now can be viewed using a new mobile application.
....

The new app is currently available for the iPhone and iPod Touch as well as Android phones. The Labor Department is working to develop versions for BlackBerry and iPad devices. Visit http://m.dol.gov/apps/ to download this and other mobile apps.

Download the Data, Other Mobile Apps


[center]A Few More Things[/center]

Meet FRED, every wonk’s secret weapon

Storyline ⋅ Meet the wonks

By Todd C. Frankel August 1, 2014

FRED stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data. It serves as an online clearinghouse for a wealth of numbers: unemployment rates, prices of goods, GDP and CPI, things common and obscure. Today, FRED is more than a little bit famous, thanks to the public’s fascination with economic data.

Federal Reserve Economic Data

So how many jobs must be created every month to have an effect on the unemployment rate? There's an app for that:

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jobs Calculator™

(Note new link for Jobs Calculator™. Hat tip, progree.)

Monthly Employment Reports from BLS

The U.S. Census Bureau has its own releases:

U.S. Census Bureau Latest News

U.S. Census Bureau Economic Indicators

For people who need a daily fix:

BLS-Labor Statistics Twitter feed

Read tomorrow's news before it happens. The schedule for all economic reports:

MarketWatch Economic Calendar[font color="red"]

[BumRushDaShow]

1. "October was revised from +271,000 to +298,000"

That was more unexpected then the November rate, given the slight contraction (year over year) that has been going on.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. I added the numbers to the talking points highlights. Thanks.

Good morning to you too.

I think I can take a break from the edits. The charts won't be out for another half-hour. Then I get to add those.

I got into work in the nick of time. I had one of those "if you see something, say something" incidents on the commuter bus this morning. Had it been any other morning, I would have stopped to pass on my concerns. I'm hoping that nothing shows up in LBN this a.m. to make me wish I had taken the time.

Best wishes.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Your effort is definitely appreciated!

And you know Friday's can be. lol Hope your morning experience amounted to nothing though.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Would you mind backing up your claims with some hard facts and credible references?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Sorry, all I have are these fake gummint lies.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. Good morning to you too.

[Doubledee]

3. Posting your dosctoral dissertation perhaps?

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

To say that the unemployment rate is at 5% is simply lacking the phrase that should precede it,"Once upon a time, in fantasyland".

Cooked books much?

Sorry if the reaction to the posting of such voluminous statistics was taken wrong.

Edited to apologize for any unintended insult, and to placate a certain fan of yours as well.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Uh-oh. Now you're in trouble.

YMBNH (you must be new here). Welcome to DU, but expect some replies.

[Doubledee]

15. Political discussions

tend towards the passionate. I do not mind,nor am I affected by vitriolic responses that make both the user of such, and their positions, less credible.

[whatthehey]

16. Speaking of credible

Please explain how these books are cooked, what they should be measuring, how it should be measured and what the results should be.

Demonstrating understanding along the way of what they are measuring, how they are measured and what the current results demonstrate, would be good for credibility too. Just spouting normal RWNJ/DU doomer (their economic news responses are consistently indistinguishable) nonsense is not too constructive, or original.

[Doubledee]

20. I havent a clue

as to why your think a request for my posting of a dissertation is in order, are you perhaps an authoritarian professor?

The referral to cooked books is a reference to the way such statistics are gathered, the way that long term unemployed who have run out of unemployment benefits are not included therein, nor are the numbers who have simply given up on trying to find work as well. If I made an error it was in judging that most everyone already was aware of the deficiencies of those figures and overlooked the desperation of those defending the Obama administration regardless of appropriateness, factuality or even common sense.

These numbers are just another campaign ploy I believe and are not representative at all of the truth. Just like your immediately going for the throat in stating that my words were a defense of anything but the fact.
Cheap shots do not stand up as a substitute for intelligent and rational discussion.

[whatthehey]

22. You see here's the thing

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

I asked because I strongly suspected you were woefully misinformed. I was right.

The referral to cooked books is a reference to the way such statistics are gathered, the way that long term unemployed who have run out of unemployment benefits are not included therein

Utterly and completely false. None of the U rates derived from the Household survey even ask about benefits, You can have never worked a day in your life, or run out of benefits decades ago, or never tried to get them, and the survey will include you as unemployed if you say you lack a job and have looked for one.


, nor are the numbers who have simply given up on trying to find work as well.

This is a definitional issue. What is the difference between a person who does not want to work, and one who has not looked in a year? The latter is all you need to be to be included in the U rates (4 weeks for U3 and below). I have yet to hear a convincing reason why someone who can work but has not tried, just once, in an entire year, to find work, can be said to want a job. And the survey must exclude those who don't want to work otherwise you get a rate of "unemployment" that includes every voluntary stay at home parent, every person who does not need to work due to wealth or family support, every retiree and so on. Where would you draw the line?


If I made an error it was in judging that most everyone already was aware of the deficiencies of those figures and overlooked the desperation of those defending the Obama administration regardless of appropriateness, factuality or even common sense

The irony burns.

These numbers are just another campaign ploy I believe and are not representative at all of the truth. Just like your immediately going for the throat in stating that my words were a defense of anything but the fact.

I am simply tired of those who do what you did - attack the numbers without knowing what they measure and how, and can recognize them instantly. I mean for chrissake the OP links to the explanations every damn time and still the bogus attacks from ignorance keep coming.


Cheap shots do not stand up as a substitute for intelligent and rational discussion.

The irony burns again. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself at the BLS site if you want to actually discuss these numbers, then you won't embarrass yourself with silly claims about benefit expiry and the like. We've all had to do it, the people who actually give a shit about facts. There is no shame in not knowing, only in pretending that you do.

[Doubledee]

25. Pomposity is no substitute for honesty

Not a single link to your suppositions....

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

There are many such links available, some going into greater detail as to why government unemployment figures are inaccurate. These numbers are politically motivated to favor the administration and not to accurately reflect the actual numbers of jobless.

You may display all the angst you wish at my opinion, all that does is make you out to be even more pompous, arrogant and agendized.

[progree]

27. Unemployment rates

[font color = blue]>>the way that long term unemployed who have run out of unemployment benefits are not included therein<<[/font]

The count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official national unemployment rate statistics (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). Rather, the national unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. Over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance&quot

I see you read ShadowStats -- I sure hope he isn't peddling this hooey too.

Whatever, I'm always amazed that people would believe that the BLS is so stupid as to report the unemployed as only a count of those receiving benefits. And I'm amazed that people would spread something so fantastical-sounding like that -- without a little bit of digging and checking to see if it is true or not.

Please see the section in "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439
and the myths in http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2 (search the post for "Myth:" including the colon)

As for not counting the long-term unemployed in general ....

No matter how long someone has been out of work, he or she is counted as unemployed in the official unemployment rate (U-3) statistic if he has looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks. Or in the U-4 through U-6 statistics if she has looked for work, even just once, in the past year.

I agree that the official unemployment rate (U-3) is pretty tight (but it's been measured that way since 1948 or so, despite some bullcrap some may feed you that Clinton radically changed it -- the change they made actually INCREASED the official unemployment rate by about 0.2 percentage points.).

I also agree with Fed Chair Janet Yellen who say the current jobs situation is not as good as a 5.0% unemployment rate might indicate, in particular that the jobs situation in previous recoveries when it hit the 5.0% unemployment rate was considerably better than today's. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141198332#post19 . I am inclined to say the economy still sucks despite what the pretty good unemployment rate would lead one to think.

As for not counting those who have given up looking for work ...

There are a number of posts in this thread that talk about that, along the lines that if someone hasn't looked for work even just once in the past year, he or she probably doesn't want to work all that badly.

But I don't doubt that there are people who want a job but have given up, along the lines mentioned in post #24 (with particular emphasis on problematical resumes, criminal record no matter how long ago, lack of good references, etc.).

Some are going back for more education / retraining that takes more than a year, e.g. ex-manufacturing employees being obvious examples.

Some people would take a big financial hit in relocating because their house is underwater, mortgage-wise.

If you count EVERYONE who says they want a job (no matter how long it is has been since they looked for work), including part-timers who want full-time work -- the unemployment rate is about 12.1% -- See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141222552#post21 , and #post23.

I don't know how one can possibly come up with a broader and more lenient definition of unemployment than that.

And yes, that's an uncomfortably high number. For one comparison, that number was 11.8% in August 1996 under Clinton, when the official unemployment rate was very similar to today, at 5.1%.

If someone tells you that the "real unemployment rate" is 23%, they are pulling your leg. Especially if they want you to pay $89 in order to see how they come up with that number.

[font color = blue]>>25. Pomposity is no substitute for honesty ... You may display all the angst you wish at my opinion, all that does is make you out to be even more pompous, arrogant and agendized. <<[/font]

You started it in your post #3. That was uncalled for. MahatmaKaneJeeves puts an enormous amount of time into this every month (among other economic reports), and I can assure you with metaphysical certainty that he doesn’t think he is peddling "fantasyland". (He includes a section on the U4-U6 alternate unemployment rates, which I think are pretty broad, among other sections that introduce alternative analyses and concerns about the official stats).

[Doubledee]

28. Aside from your seeming affirmation

of my point, that government figures on unemployment are misleading and politically motivated, you are correct in that my sarcastic response was uncalled for, and I apologize for it.

The point remains that those numbers are not to be relied upon.

[progree]

29. I don't think so

[font color = blue]Aside from your affirmation of my point, that government figures on unemployment are misleading and politically motivated, [/font]

Not sure about politically motivated. As for the U-3 unemployment rate, the unemployed are those jobless that are CURRENTLY seeking work (currently defined as in the past 4 weeks), and this has been the definition since 1948. And they provide statistics (U-4 through U-6) that extend that to a year. They don't hide any of this or the defintions. I think the media reporting on unemployment rates could be a lot better, however.

[font color = blue]you have mistaken to whom that post#3 was directed. Please look again and see that MahatmaKaneJeeves was not the person to whom that response was directed.[/font]

It sure looks like it to me. If it's not directed at him, why your snarky post in response to his? By the way, what's a dosctoral dissertation? Anyway, if it isn't a swipe at MKJ, maybe you'd like to edit your #3 to make that clear, because it sure as heck isn't clear to anyone else here.

[Doubledee]

30. If you will look

you will note that I already edited said post and apologized as well.

I do not wish to prolong this exchange but when one assumes to speak for all more questions arise....

[progree]

31. This is your #3 that I scraped just now

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

3. Posting your dosctoral dissertation perhaps?

To say that the unemployment rate is at 5% is simply lacking the phrase that should precede it,"Once upon a time, in fantasyland".

Cooked books much?

Where's the edit / apology?

Speaking of fantasyland. Wow :facepalm"

On edit: I see you've finally edited it (see excerpt in the gray box below). We all appreciate that, even despite the snarky crap about placating a certain fan of his.

On edit: well, on 2nd read, its more like a non-apology sort of apology. Apologizing that people might have misinterpreted it, somehow.

3. Posting your dosctoral dissertation perhaps?

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

To say that the unemployment rate is at 5% is simply lacking the phrase that should precede it,"Once upon a time, in fantasyland".

Cooked books much?

Sorry if the reaction to the posting of such voluminous statistics was taken wrong.

Edited to apologize for any unintended insult, and to placate a certain fan of yours as well.

[Doubledee]

32. Dont take this the wrong way

but please go away. You begin to seem creepy indeed with your insistence that you know the thoughts of everyone else.

[progree]

33. Speaking of creepy, WOW, you should talk! :facepalm:

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

And it wasn't just me that took your #3 "wrong", judging from MKJ's #5 (which you described as a "vitriolic response&quot . Or whatthehey's #16.

[font color = blue]>>but please go away.<< [/font]

I'd get my post hidden if I responded where I think you should go. So I'll respond in kind, please go away yourself.

[whatthehey]

34. Doubling down on bullshit? OK I'll do your homework for you

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm


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


Now can you tell me why somebody who can work but hasn't made one phone call, sent one application, responded to one job ad in an entire fucking year SHOULD be counted as being in the work force?


Remember I know what the different U rates are and how calculated. I also know that they are all on a downward trend showing overall improvement. You're just spouting falsehoods and CT nonsense.

[fasttense]

7. Double that unemployment rate number

And you get what use to be called the U6, Another rate of unemployment.

Why are there soooo many numbers? Why is asking a simple question like how many people do NOT have a job in the US gets such a complicated answer? The BLS web page is like a maze.

The same reason that laws and treaties get so complicated is why the numbers are so complicated - they are trying to hide something.

[Blue_Adept]

8. No, it's because it's not a black and white simplistic world

There's context, variables and a whole lot of complexity to it. Not everything can be broken down to such black and white things. Hell, most things can't when you really get down to it. And exploring the actual details of it all is what makes the understanding of it better in the long run.

[pinqy]

10. The reason for different measures

..is that different people want to look at different aspects.
U-1: Percent of those working or looking for work who have been out of work 15 weeks or longer.
U-2: Percent of those working or looking for work who are involuntarily out of work.
U-3: Percent of those working or looking for work who are not working (official rate)
U-4: Percent of those working, looking for work, or recently looked and want and can work but stopped due to discouragement who are not working.
U-5: Percent of those working, looking for work, or recently looked and want and can work but stopped due to any reason who are not working.
U-6: Percent of those working, looking for work, or recently looked and want and can work but stopped due to any reason who are not working or working part time due to slow business or can't find a job.

They all answer different questions.

[whatthehey]

12. u6 is still measured/reported, also declining in general trend, and includes plenty who are working

About the "best" DU doomer measure is U5, which counts you in the workforce if you've looked just once in the last year. I have yet to hear an even vaguely convincing reason for why somebody who can work and wants to work can't get off their ass (or even stay on their ass and click a mouse a few times) and look once in 365 days. It doesn't include PT workers, who are at worst under- rather than un-employed, like U6.

The trouble from their POV is that U5 is also declining, at a relatively non-scary 6.1%, and doesn't fit the chicken little nightmare they are pushing. So instead they look to Trump/Zerohedge utter nonsense and fixate on the CLFPR, which is and always has been an utterly worthless measure of unemployment, for the obvious reason that's not what it was designed or what professionals use it to measure.

To think the CLFPR tells us anything about full time unemployment, you have to think the 40-odd million folks over 65 (and 20-odd million over 75!) can, should be and want to be employed full time. That the 11-12 million people in the last two years of high school should drop out and work; that the 22 million higher education students should say I've learned enough it's ditch-digging time for me; that there should be absolutely no stay at home parents; that people should work regardless of disability (little known fun fact - that 62.5% participation rate is 68.9% for the able bodied); that there should be no trust fund independently wealthy or trophy spuses/SOs (might have a point there, but small potatoes). It's absolutely asinine to conflate a measure that says "how many of our population could conceivably and legally be available for any kind of work" with one that says "of the people that want a job, how many have one".

[fasttense]

17. So which measure would compare to Spain or Greece? n/t

[mathematic]

21. European unemployment numbers are U3

U3 and it's European equivalent are based off of an international standard for measuring unemployment. So that 25%-30% Spain & Greece unemployment is measuring what our 5% unemployment measures.

I know that doesn't fit in well with the conspiracy theory that the US government is cooking the books by changing the definition of unemployment so regular, honest folk can't understand it.

[whatthehey]

23. Eurostat will help here

Essentially similar to ours. You have to be looking for a job yo be unemployed.

Basically CLFPR is to tell you how big your potential workforce is compared to your population and UE is to tell you how much of your labor force is working.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Youth_unemployment

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. The charts are out.

The BLS releases them via links to their Twitter feed. The format preferred by the BLS does not encourage cutting and pasting. The Wall Street Journal. picks up the charts and puts them in a format that does permit cutting and pasting.

If the BLS is trying to hide something, such an effort is not evident to me.

Charting the labor market: Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) December 4, 2015

Employment Statistics Highlights November 2015

The November Jobs Report in 14 Charts

9:52 am ET
Dec 4, 2015
U.S.

By Nick Timiraos and A.D. Pruitt

Employers added 211,000 jobs in the U.S. last month, and revisions to earlier employment reports showed 35,000 more jobs in September and October than previously estimated. The latest report from the Labor Department offered a snapshot of the health of the domestic economy. Here’s a look at the highlights:

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 5% in November, though a broader rate of underemployment rose to 9.9% from 9.8% in October.
....

As the recovery has progressed, a shrinking share of the unemployed are jobless because of permanent layoffs. A growing share are new entrants (think first-time job hunters) or re-entrants (people returning to the labor market, perhaps after returning to school, taking time to raise a child or renewing a job hunt after having given up).



....
The economy has now added more than 8 million full-time jobs since the recession officially ended in June 2009. Almost all of the jobs added over the last 6½ years have been full-time positions.

[progree]

13. Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

12/4/15 - Fairly good jobs report this month 211,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in November. September and October were revised up by a combined 35,000. So we have 246,000 more payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 211 + 35 = 246 ).

Over the past 3 months, payroll employment gains have averaged 2,637,000 per month. Over the past year, payroll employment has increased by 2,637,000 (an average of 220,000/month). And since the jobs recovery began in March 2010, payroll employment increased by 13,251,000.

While the payroll jobs numbers this month are very good (the +211,000 number), the Household Survey numbers were rather mixed (see below). That's why I called this month's jobs report just "fairly good".

The numbers in the below paragraphs come from the Household Survey, which is different from the Establishment Survey that produces the payroll employment number.

(Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "good" months and in "bad" months. However, over longer periods of time like a year or more, the monthly zigs and zags will have somewhat averaged out and a more statistically valid trend will emerge.

In particular, year-over-year (12 months) figures should be much better statistically because the current month is being compared to the same month last year, e.g. November vs. November of a year before, and therefore there should be much less error in the seasonal adjustment process -- as both will be adjusted by the same seasonal adjustment factor, and so will cancel out in the comparison. )

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

Some Household Survey numbers were good or improved in November

As always, Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. However, people insist in discussing these monthly changes, so here goes....

The labor force increased by 273,000 -- consisting of 244,000 more employed and 29,000 more unemployed. The labor force is the sum of the employed and the unemployed. (Remember the official definition of unemployed is jobless people who have looked for work over the past 4 weeks; its not all jobless people who want a job). Over the past 12 months the labor force has grown by 899,000. (LNS11000000). No, that's not very good, that's only a 74,900 / month average increase.

The Employed Increased 244,000 in November. (LNS12000000) (Remember this is the Household Survey, a separate survey from the Establishment survey that produced the +211,000 payroll employment figure. The Household Survey is much more volatile than the Establishment survey, due to its much smaller sample size). The Employed has increase by 2,033,000 over the last 12 months.

As for the unemployed increasing by 29,000 -- no, that's not good of course. But on net what happened is that more people entered the labor force (got employed or began looking for work in the past 4 weeks), 273,000, than got employed, 244,000. The difference in these two figures is the unemployed.

The 244,000 who got employed is a very good number. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta jobs calculator -- https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx -- only 114,000 net new jobs per month on average are needed to keep up with the growth in the working age population who want a job.

Another good number this month is that the number of people who want a job but who are not officially counted as unemployed -- the Not In The Labor Force but Wants Job -- declined by 416,000. These are people who have not looked for work in the past 4 weeks, but say they want a job.

Some people make an enormous hoo hah about the 94.446 million who are not in the labor force. However, most are retired or in school, not wailing in despair because they don't have a job and have given up trying to find one.

What matters is the people who are Not In The Labor Force but Wants Job, which is 5.636 million, or 6.0% of those not in the labor force.

Add them to the 7.937 million who are officially unemployed, and you arrive at 13.57 million jobless people who say they want a job. That's a big number, but its nowhere near 94 million.

Paul Solman's "U7" unemployment rate -- which counts every jobless person who says they want a job, regardless of how long it has been since they looked for one -- and also counts part-time workers who want a full time job as unemployed -- is around 12.07% per my calculation (which is usually 0.04% to 0.06% higher than his).

It usually takes a day for him to produce this number, which is why I am presenting my calculated number rather than his. It is down a tiny 0.03% from October.

And as always, remember not to take any discussion of month-to-month Household Survey changes too seriously, as they are mostly statistical noise.

Some numbers were flat in November

The unemployment rate (5.0%) was unchanged. Despite the labor force going up by 273,000.

The employment to population ratio was unchanged in November. Over the past 12 months it has increased by 0.1%. And since the jobs recovery began, it has increased by 0.8%.

Some Household Survey numbers were bad in November

Part-time workers who want full time work (aka Part Time For Economic Reasons, Table A-8) increased by 319,000, which of course is horrible, and you are certain to be hearing about this on the right-wing websites. (This, like all the Household Survey statistics, is very volatile from month to month).

However, part-time workers who want full-time work has fallen by 765,000 over the past 12 months -- and from 4.7% of the Employed to 4.1% of the Employed.

BLS's broadest measure of unemployment -- U-6 -- increased by 0.1% to 9.9%. It includes in its version of the "labor force" everyone who has looked for a job in the last 12 months (even if just once). And it includes part-timers wanting full-time work. (Unlike the official unemployment rate -- which counts only those who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks as unemployed, and counts all part-time workers as "employed&quot .

The increase in U-6 was driven by the 319,000 increase in part-time workers who want full time work. However, over the past year, the U-6 unemployment rate has dropped by 1.5%, from 11.4% to 9.9%

Full-time workers increased by a pathetic 3,000 in November (compared to total employed which increased by 244,000). This is a volatile data series. You are very likely to see the rightwinger websites make an enormous hoo hah about this, as they always do when this number is anemic or negative, and lead you to believe that the Obama economy is the part-time jobs economy.

They of course, never post about full-time workers in months when there are big gains, like May (+630,000), July (+536,000), or August (+435,000). I post about it every frickin month regardless of whether it goes up, down, or sideways.

Over the past 12 months, full-time workers increased by 2,520,000 (210,000/mo average). And since the jobs recovery began, it has increased by 11,249,000.

The labor force participation rate increased by 0.1% to 62.5% (the positive change is of course good), but that's just 0.1% above last month's 62.4% multi-decade low, which was its lowest level since the mid-1970's. ( LNS11300000 ) (The last official explanation I've seen is that half the drop in this rate from 2000 is due to boomer retirements, 1/4 of the drop is due to the still poor economy -- that analysis was written about a year ago -- and 1/4 of the drop is a puzzler).

Here's something recent (August 6), I haven't looked at it yet: "Trends in Labor Force Participation", 8/6/15

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/20150806_labor_force_participation_retirement_research_consortium.pdf )

===========================================

Some key numbers from the Household Survey (note the Household Survey is different from the Establishment Survey that produces the payroll employment of the first paragraph). See below, and see Table A-1 for the main Household Survey numbers - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Exception: the payroll employment numbers and the inflation-adjusted weekly earnings come from the Establishment Survey. I don't include the over-the-last-month figure for inflation-adjusted weekly earnings, because the CPI data needed for the inflation adjustment is not available until later in the month; but I do include them for the longer periods (over the last year and since the payroll employment recovery began)

In the below tables, all "%" ones are percentage point changes, *not* percent increases or decreases. FOR EXAMPLE, when you see something like this:

+0.1% Unemployment rate

It means that the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (this EXAMPLE is from May 2015 when the unemployment rate rose from 5.4% to 5.5%). This is an increase of 0.1 percentage points, *not* a 0.1% increase. The corresponding percent increase is (5.5-5.4)/5.4 X 100% = +1.9%, i.e. a 1.9% increase. So in summary, IN THIS EXAMPLE, the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points, and also increased 1.9%.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Before each item, (v ) indicates bad, (vv) indicates very bad, (0 ) indicates neutral, (^ ) indicates good, (^^) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(^^) +211,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )
== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(^^) +273,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
(^^) +244,000 Employed
(vv) +29,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
(0 ) +0.0% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.3%)
(0 ) +0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (at 62.5%)
` ` ` I rate as neutral because though it went up (good), it is only 0.1% above a multi-decade low
(0 ) +0.0% Unemployment rate (it's at 5.0%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
(v ) +0.1% U-6 unemployment rate (to 9.9%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
(^^) -416,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
(vv) +319,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
(v ) +137,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9).
(vv) +3,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

^--Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "bad" months and in "good" months

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,637,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.66% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru October because no CPI data for November yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+899,000 Labor Force
+2,033,000 Employed
-1,134,000 Unemployed
+0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
-0.4% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.8% Unemployment rate
-1.5% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-920,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-765,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-455,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,520,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for November yet for the Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for November is not yet available.

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate shows a 0.4% DEcrease. Interesting though that there was a 0.1% percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians.

Seems to me that there is too much discussion in the media of the Labor Force Participation Rate (the employed plus the jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, all divided by the population), and not enough attention to what seemingly matters more -- the Employment to Population Ratio. Why aren't we celebrating the increase in the percentage of the population that is employed (the employment to population ratio)-- a figure that has been slowly moving up since the job market bottom, despite the growing wave of baby boomer retirements?

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 69 months thru November 30, 2015: 11'15 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru Nov. 30, 2015)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+13,251,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+4.48% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru Oct. 2015 because no CPI data for Nov. yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+3,697,000 Labor Force
+10,783,000 Employed
-7,176,000 Unemployed
+0.8% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.4% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.8% Unemployment rate
-7.1% U-6 unemployment rate
-462,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-2,850,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-307,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+11,249,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

[font color=blue]Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]Nov'14 Aug'15 Oct'15 Nov'15
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.7% 4.3% 3.9% 4.1%


A graph of part-time and full-time workers (this is through June 2015)

CLARIFICATION: in the above, these are part-time workers and full-time workers, not part-time jobs and full-time jobs.

This excellent post from early July show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post12


The links to the data above
# Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/04/employment-situation-november . (find this at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in November}

Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141279269

==================================================
Many more economic numbers at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. K&R! Thanks for all the information and the hard work.

[fasttense]

18. So you give me all this information trying to convince me the economy is great.

If the economy is so great why are all the jobs gone? I use to put out my resume and get interviews for practically all of them. I use to always get the job if I landed the interview. Now, I go to interviews and never get called back. I send out hundreds of resumes and rarely get hits. The best deal I've gotten is to work at Office Depot over the Christmas holidays. I have a bachelors degree, some graduate training and 20 years of work experience and all they want me to do is be a sales clerk.

Ok, so I'm just the wrong person, with the wrong experience, with the wrong education in the wrong location to expect to get a decent job but all my relatives (and I have 6 brothers and sisters) have been laid off in the last 3 years (some have started their own businesses and found other jobs). All my friends have lost jobs and gotten worse paying jobs. And even my 20 something children can't find decent work.

So the economy is definitely NOT all roses and sunshine. It's pretty sucky and awful and most people are hanging on by their fingernails. But you tell me how wonderful the economy is and I have to wonder why your numbers do NOT match my reality.

[Recursion]

19. The biggest reason is probably where you live

(Caveat, I have no idea where you live, but if I had to guess, that would be it.)

There geographic distribution of economic growth has been very, very uneven for a while now. This is why the rust belt keeps emptying out and the sun belt keeps growing, in broad strokes.

[whatthehey]

24. I'm not sure that's the idea

But aggregate numbers ARE the best measure of society as a whole, far better than "fasttense's (or indeed whatthehey's) circle of friends" and they ARE improving. "Improving" is not a synonym of either "great" or "roses and sunshine".

I remember vividly driving to work in the late 90s with UE rates far lower than this, well under 4%, and passing the same guy with a "will work for food" sign. Good labor pictures, even truly great ones, are not universally great ever.

Your own picture is obviously something about which I am entirely ignorant. Please note my comments are generalities not individually directed even when using the generic "you", but when I come across folks saying there are no jobs, it's impossible to find one, etc, it usually on examination falls into one of three categories.

1) A very narrow range of jobs they can accept either by nature, location, or hours. My standard example is often taken as hyperbole but it's actually a very real one. I personally knew a man making this claim who was an underwater welder living in Boise who would seek no other work or location. An extreme example of course, but it applies in nature if not in scope to financial analysts in Seattle or forklift drivers in Phoenix. Same goes for those who must drop off kids at 9 and pick them up at 3 every day and so on. The reasons may very well be perfectly valid, but not being able to find a job coupled to narrow limits does not mean jobs outside those limits are not available. Essentially if you cannot work typical shifts and don't have some location flexibility, you start off at a massive disadvantage that is not the fault of a poor jobs economy nationally, but your situation.

2) An extremely poor and offputting CV. Yes people have tough breaks. Yes they have to take care of things outside work and yes not every job needs a squeaky clean PhD, but even during times of hyper-low UE the more of the following you have the less attractive you will be. Criminal records, low educational attainment, unstable work history with short tenures and poor reasons for termination, terrible or lack of references. Please note I say this as a twice-fired 7yr max job hopper with a criminal conviction on file.

3) An inflated sense of worth and job appeal. Machinists are in short supply and have been for a while. I can pretty much make a few calls and get any decent journeyman machinist who is mobile a job within days absent a Capone-like record, but if you have skill in a limited range of equipment, no CNC experience, and can't ever work overtime, then only apply for lead roles in sophisticated 24/7 shops paying $45/hr min, you won't have much luck. IT folks tend to fall into this group, obviously analogously, a lot too.

Is that everyone who cannot find a job? Obviously not. You? Not a damn clue. Large number? Yep.

Might be worth mentioning scope of applications too. I am by no means a perfect job seeker, or the most industrious. I mention my experience to bring up a data point not a paragon. In recounting it before I've heard retorts of both my laziness and my impossible effort, so what this tells me is there is wide ranging opinion on what job searches should be.

My longest period of unemployment was nine months, not by any stretch near the top end but well into the official long term designation. I am nationally mobile with a wide range of industries and job titles that are suitable and have excellent qualifications and credentials. On the negative side though I've moved jobs more than most and as I said have a couple of invols and a misdemeanor to explain. I kept track of my search. I sent out a serendipitous NRN 400 applications, either resume or website apps. I got 36 calls, 20 follow up calls, 8 in person interviews and as you'd expect one offer. It's easy to get discouraged with a less than 1/10 response rate and 2% face to face, and I won't pretend I was always whistling a happy tune. But I knew at the worst there would be plenty more opportunities and it only takes one. Obviously job type plays a large role. A retail worker can probably get a far higher face to face rate than a middle/upper Ops Mgmt in manufacturing like me for example, but may have to do many more than 8 to get the right offer. Just a datum.

[fasttense]

26. I appreciate you responding in so much detail

It may take me awhile to process it all.

But let me assure you me and my 6 brothers and sisters are located all over the country. From LA to Minneapolis to Florida, Baltimore, and Pennsylvania and Connecticut, we are there. And we represent diverse fields of expertise, from doctors to IT techs to hotel management to farming and business consulting. Some of my relatives are in the movie industry to the advertisement industry to the medical industry. We are a hard working bunch.

Though none of us are starving, we certainly are NOT doing as well as we did before the crash, not even close. In fact several of us are carefully living off of what we earned before the crash. Two of my siblings have started their own businesses. But none of them are making the kind of money they use to. And it's not just them. I see it in my friends and their children. Engineers who use to make good money, are taking small consulting jobs to make ends meet.

I'm not saying they are going to file bankruptcy tomorrow but they can't afford to buy a new car anymore. They can't go on vacation like they use to and they are eating hamburgers and not steak. Before the crash, they never worried about saving for a car or vacation. They didn't worry about paying their medical bills. And here is the kicker, every single relative has lost the job they had before the crash. Every single one. So if you include spouses and grown children, that's 20 people. And those that have found half decent employment are making a lot less.

No, this country has yet to recover and somehow these numbers are NOT capturing the misery out there. Why do you think white men have a decreasing life expectancy? Why do we have an increasing mortality rate for mothers? Why do you think so many crazies are committing mass murder? The economy has a whole lot to do with it. Bad economic times kills people.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

35. More about the labor force participation rate

This is a forecast of the next ten years. It is not really LBN.

Also posted in the Economy Forum: As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

3:12 pm ET
Dec 8, 2015
economics

As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

By Jeffrey Sparshott
[e-mail]
@jeffsparshott

The U.S. labor force is expected to expand only slowly over the coming decade as the country ages and more Americans give up on holding a job, a potential drag on broader economic growth.

The economy is expected to generate 9.8 million new jobs, a 6.5% increase, from 2014 to 2024, the Labor Department said in new projections released Tuesday. While steady, that is a historically slow pace. By comparison, 10-year job creation averaged almost 14% during the 2001-07 expansion and close to 17% during the 1990s.

The slowdown highlights declining participation as baby boomers retire and younger Americans opt out of the workforce. Those two trends are expected to continue to push the labor-force participation rate lower, to 60.9% in 2024 from 62.9% in 2014, Labor estimates. If realized, that would be the lowest level since 1973, when Richard Nixon was president.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen at a congressional hearing last week held out hope the participation rate would hold near current levels as people came off the sidelines and into jobs.

Healthcare industries are projected to become the largest employer in 2024

Economic News Release USDL-15-2327

Employment Projections: 2014-24 Summary

For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Technical information: [phone] • [e-mail] • www.bls.gov/emp
Media contact: [phone] • [e-mail]


EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS -- 2014-24


Healthcare occupations and industries are expected to have the fastest employment growth and to add the most jobs between 2014 and 2024, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. With the increase in the proportion of the population in older age groups, more people in the labor force will be entering prime retirement age. As a result, the labor force participation rate is projected to decrease and labor force growth to slow. This slowdown of labor force growth is expected, in turn, to lead to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 2.2 percent annually over the decade. This economic growth is projected to generate 9.8 million new jobs--a 6.5-percent increase between 2014 and 2024.

The projections are predicated on assumptions including a 5.2 percent unemployment rate in 2024 and labor productivity growth of 1.8 percent annually over the projected period. Highlights of the BLS projections for the labor force and macroeconomy, industry employment, and occupational employment are included below.