Payroll employment rises by 292,000 in December; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2016, 12:16 PM - Edit history (14)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Payroll employment rises by 292,000 in December; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

Economic News Release

Employment Situation Summary USDL-16-0001

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 8, 2016

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 -- DECEMBER 2015


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 292,000 in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment gains occurred in several industries, led by professional and business services, construction, health care, and food services and drinking places. Mining employment continued to decline.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons, at 7.9 million, was essentially unchanged in December, and the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent for the third month in a row. Over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 0.6 percentage point and 800,000, respectively. (See table A-1.)
....

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.1 million in December and accounted for 26.3 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has shown little movement since June, but was down by 687,000 over the year. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.6 percent, was little changed in December and has shown little movement in recent months. In December, the employment-population ratio, at 59.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
....

In December, 1.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 427,000 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 December, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls, at $25.24, changed little (-1 cent), following an increase of 5 cents in November. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.5 percent. In December, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees, at $21.22, changed little (+2 cents). (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for October was revised from +298,000 to +307,000, and the change for November was revised from +211,000 to +252,000. With these revisions, employment gains in October and November combined were 50,000 higher than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 284,000 per month.

_____________
The Employment Situation for January is scheduled to be released on Friday, February 5, 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) an increase of 292,000 is a lot. Two days ago, ADP® estimated an increase of 257,000. The estimate in the MoneyBeat blog was 210,000;
2) this might put pressure on the Federal Reserve for another rate increase in January;
3) hourly wages fell by 1 cent;
4) "The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for October was revised from +298,000 to +307,000, and the change for November was revised from +211,000 to +252,000. With these revisions, employment gains in October and November combined were 50,000 higher than previously reported.";
5) "The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.6 percent, was little changed...."; and
6) the civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,380,000 in November to 94,103,000 in December, a drop of 277,000. This information is in Table A-1.[/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 1/8/16.

This month, he also presented his analysis in the 62nd 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]

December Jobs Report: Everything You Need to Know

7:53 am ET
Jan 8, 2016
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 210,000 jobs in December, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.9%. In November, the economy added 211,000, and the unemployment rate was 5.0%.

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.

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

You forgot to say "Enjoy the show."

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

Eric Morath had a comment about the employment rate and the labor force participation rate:

8:12 am | Employment rate | by Eric Morath



One thing to watch: the employment rate.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is projected to fall below 5% for the first time since November 2007, the month before the recession began. Dipping below the psychologically significant threshold would mark further evidence of the economy’s recovery. But the rebound comes with caveats: A smaller share of Americans are in the labor force, and wage growth has been tepid.

[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

The following link to Barron's 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 December 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 257,000 Jobs in December

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2015:

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

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


[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, added January 2016:[/font] People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

Beyond the Numbers

December 2015 | Vol. 4 / No. 15

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT

People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

By Steven F. Hipple

People who are neither working nor looking for work are counted as “not in the labor force,” according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2000, the percentage of people in this group has increased. Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and its Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) provide some insight into why people are not in the labor force. The ASEC is conducted in the months of February through April and includes questions about work and other activities in the previous calendar year. For example, data collected in 2015 are for the 2014 calendar year, and data collected in 2005 are for the 2004 calendar year.1 In the ASEC, people who did not work at all in the previous year are asked to give the main reason they did not work. Interviewers categorize survey participants’ verbatim responses into the following categories: ill health or disabled; retired;2 home responsibilities; going to school; could not find work;3 and other reasons.

This Beyond the Numbers article examines data on those who were not in the labor force during 2004 and 2014 and the reasons they gave for not working. The data are limited to people who neither worked nor looked for work during the previous year.

This July 2014 report from the Council of Economic Advisers addresses the LFPR:

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

(Hat tip, Adrahil: Look deeper.)

[font color="red"]New 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"]New 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"]New material, added December 2015:[/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.

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] From July 2013:

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

Commentary

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

More people have left the workforce than got a new job during the recovery—by a factor of nearly three.

By Mortimer Zuckerman
July 15, 2013 7:09 p.m. ET

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.
....

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

[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]

[font color="red"]Revised material, added February 4, 2016:[/font] This article appeared as "Stocks vs. the Economy: Which Ruins Which?"on page C2 of the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. on Tuesday, February 2, 2016.

Does the Economy Ruin the Stock Market or Does the Stock Market Ruin the Economy?

2:49 pm ET
Feb 1, 2016
Markets

By John Carney

Don’t confuse the market for the economy. Markets have overshot fundamentals. There are no signs of contagion into the real economy. ... Anyone paying attention has heard some version of these sentiments lately. Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that the market has predicted nine of the past five recessions is once again on the lips of the wise men and women of Wall Street.

But what if the stock market is more than just an indicator? What if a stock selloff can actually cause unemployment and recessions? ... That’s exactly what historical data on the stock market and the unemployment rate running back to 1929 seem to suggest. A persistent 10% decline in the stock market pushes unemployment up three percentage points.

That, at least, is the finding of University of California Los Angeles economist Roger Farmer. Currently a Distinguished Professor of Economics at UCLA and a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mr. Farmer has been a fellow at the Bank of England and has won awards for his work on inefficiency in financial markets and self-fullfilling prophecies.

In a pair of academic papers written in the wake of the financial crisis, the first published in 2012 and the second published this year, Mr. Farmer has argued that changes in the value of the stock market cause changes in the unemployment rate. The idea will be expanded upon in Mr. Farmer’s forthcoming book, Prosperity for All.

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"]

[Human101948]

1. Damn that Obama!

Limbaugh Predicts 'Economic Collapse' If Obama Re-elected
Published September 10, 2012
livefyre0 Print

Rush Limbaugh offered bold predictions on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday saying that another four years of President Obama will lead to "economic collapse" in the U.S. and the "end of the Republican Party."

RUSH LIMBAUGH: How long does this country have if Obama wins? We're headed toward an economic collapse and we are the leader of the world. And when it happens to us, there are reverberations all over the world, it's not like some poll dunk little European country collapsing that goes to another poll dunk European country for a bailout. When we collapse, world-wide reverberation. How long is it going to take? I'm asking a serious question. 18 months? You throw ObamaCare on to what we know what we are going to get from Obama, more debt, more spending, the expansion of the welfare state, how long can this go on?

.

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

Later on in the show, Limbaugh elaborated more on his prediction, VIA WND.COM

“If Obama’s re-elected, it will happen. There’s no IF about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut-wrenching, but it will happen. The country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected. I don’t know how long: a year and a half, two years, three years.”

Limbaugh is expecting California to go belly up first, setting off a chain of financial calamities.

“California is going to declare bankruptcy and you know what Obama will do? He’ll go to states like Texas or Arizona, Florida to bail them out. That’s what he’ll do, and that’s gonna precipitate this stuff. California is showing where we’re headed in every which way,” Limbaugh said.


http://nation.foxnews.com/economic-collapse/2012/09/10/limbaugh-predicts-economic-collapse-if-obama-re-elected

[AllTooEasy]

61. Sign of the Times: My company recently doubled its referral bonus

Upper Management is frantically trying to fill +3K jobs that are located all over the country...and these ain't McJobs! We get weekly email warnings that these jobs must be filled or the company will suffer several financially damaging program slips and cancellations.

Check out http://www.generaldynamics.com/careers/job-search To see all postings, just click the Search Jobs button without filling any fields.

You don't know me, so I can't get any bonus money for your employment, but GOOD LUCK! I can offer advice on some postings and work locations. Glad to help fellow DUers.

Also, my wife works for First Solar. Obama gave them $1.46B. They have to spend it. Help them! They are ACTIVELY hiring folks...and these ain't McJobs either! First Solar wants to go beyond solar panels on residential roofs. They are pursuing global efforts to create utility companies that run exclusively off solar panel farms.

[hobbit709]

2. And how many of those 292,000 are still working in Jan. after the holidays?

[JoePhilly]

3. How many months of job growth is that now???

It has to be hard coming up with reasons to dismiss them all every monh.

[hobbit709]

4. that's not the question I asked.

But keep on keeping on.

[JoePhilly]

5. Clearly none of them.

All 292k got fired on jan 4th.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. Hahahahaha. Thanks. I needed that. NT

[whatthehey]

11. Not just that

But the tens of thousands revised up from gains in October and November (you know, those numbers that are always revised down) were also canned.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. How could I have forgotten about them? I feel so guilty.

Good morning to you too. I needed a smile right about now.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. ...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Always the voice of reason! Always!

[Zynx]

7. These numbers are seasonally adjusted for the typical pattern.

There is a statistical filter that adjusts for that sort of movement.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. You'll have to buy a ticket to the sequel. Release date: February 5, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (EST). NT

[moose65]

32. The data is seasonally adjusted

To account for the holidays. Do you really think that all 292,000 jobs were temporary?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. It will take an hour for the WSJ. and the BLS to get their charts up.

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll post those links when I can.

Meanwhile, I'm going to have a cup of coffee.

Keep the comments coming.

[Galileo126]

10. *yawn*

More "service" jobs.

Would you like fries with this report, sir?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted

Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted

[whatthehey]

16. Fool! Only those 8.2MM factory concrete walkers are REAL jobs

Engineers, accountants, programmers, lawyers, and the like don't count.

[Galileo126]

17. Thanks for the link, but it doesn't include me

nor my profession.

Again, would you like fries with this report, sir?

[stevenleser]

18. Why do you find it necessary to ignore the facts to insist on attacking the improvements? nt

[Galileo126]

21. Would you like fries with this report, sir?

I'm not attacking the report, just the contents.

It has no bearing on my life, nor profession. (And before you say "Choose another profession!" - by golly, I won't.)

USA! USA! Land of Cheetos and 99-cent stores. Enjoy your report...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

23. Dare I ask, what might that be? NT

[whatthehey]

24. Why, exactly and with data,

do you conclude that the increase in jobs is slanted towards low pay McJobs, when all the data provided show otherwise?

You DO have reason and data backing your opinion, right? Because any other option is willful irrationality and a voluntary admission of living in a dream world.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

20. Stress Reduction Kit. Bang Head Here.

[leftynyc]

26. Where is your proof that

those are 292,000 are service jobs? Or are you just downplaying good news just for fun? And yes, since you're asking, I would like fries with your answer.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Nooo... It's Obama's fault!

[Ace Rothstein]

15. Only 37k of these jobs were in food services.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Obama will destroy our economy!

He's a 'muslin'.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Thanks for posting

and taking the hit as the messenger!

Interesting potential talking point about interest rate increase pressure. I doubt the fed would do anything related to that any time soon - or at least not until 3rd quarter.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. "... taking the hit as the messenger!"

Thank you.

Getting this one thread in makes my whole month. I thoroughly enjoy doing this, but it does take a lot of preparation.

I make sure to get out of the house on time the first Friday of the month and not miss the bus. At work, I have to start about 20-30 minutes ahead of the BLS release time to transfer the template/boilerplate information from the previous month's thread. I also have to get the MoneyBeat blog linked.

At 8:30, I start hitting "refresh" at the BLS website. When the release shows up, I add enough info from it to make my post. Then I go back and start editing for the next half-hour to get the quoted material in place.

After that, I can rest -- until the graphs come out, when I start posting those links and that material.

For the next few days, I'll be making edits.

If the numbers were lousy, I'd go ahead and post that too. The news is the news. It goes up whether people like it or not. Like the people at BLS who put the release together, I do this because I consider it my job.

The payoff is that there is a fact-based thread about the employment numbers that people can rely upon. Unlike this:

U.S. Economy Added 292,000 Jobs in December; Unemployment Rate at 5%

Please enjoy your day. I am delighted to get such a response to this thread.

Happy New Year.

[whatthehey]

25. Christ if only

The payoff is that there is a fact-based thread about the employment numbers that people can rely upon


Not your doing of course, and I should note in passing to add my own appreciation that I personally no longer bother looking for monthly source data because I know you will put all the links in one place (I'm lazy; sue me) but Jesus I pretty much dream of the day this thread comes out without any (fuck I'd setle for without most) of these usual bullshit fallacies:

People who don't get benefits aren't counted (utter bullsit - not even asked)

The participation rate means people just gave up (actually almost always that they retired, are disabled, are in school or are running a household)

All the jobs are part time (even though a chart showing overwhelming FT is provided and hours worked are at decent levels)

All the jobs are low pay (even though median hourly pay and, more specifically, average production and nonsupervisory pay, show steady year over year gains

It's bullshit because the factory at the end of my street is closing and/or there are no openings for underwater welders in Boise (while appeals to the difference between anecdoters and data should suffice for rational people, the only real first-hand cure for this spectacular cluelessness I have ever witnessed was when I took a near cross-country drive with one such, my own father I confess, and at the end asked him how relevant the hometown factory was to the scope of employment and economic activity he witnessed in those 2500 miles)

[BumRushDaShow]

55. "At 8:30, I start hitting "refresh" at the BLS website."

Don't know how many times I have done that ahead of a timed release and the feeling of relief when the page finally updates!

[Sanity Claws]

28. That must mean an increase in the people returning to the job market, right?

If we had a large jump in jobs yet no decrease in the unemployment rate, that must mean more people entered the job market. I hope some are people who were previously discouraged and had stopped looking for work.

[Ace Rothstein]

29. The Labor Force Participation Rate has gone up the last two months.

So this is probably an accurate theory, people are re-entering the workforce.

[Historic NY]

33. Lots of good things in there...

signaling a turn around

[Bernin]

34. The bulk of these

are McJobs.
So, not really cause for celebration.

[whatthehey]

36. Education health and construction are McJobs?

(was confused by small print initially) Why are IT consultants and headhunters McJobs either?

So pray tell what has this McJob ecplosion/ "real" job implosion had on median pay? It must surely be a massive decline.....

[Bernin]

39. Construction

is the good silver lining here.
Health and education mostly taxpayer funded.
As for your question.
Hourly wages did decline.

[whatthehey]

41. This month only. By 1c. How's the trend?

Good to see your opinion of nurses and teachers as equivalent to fast food workers on full display. Shows the true doomer mentality.

[Bernin]

44. I certainly appreciate

teachers and nurses.

guess you missed the rest of the chart.

Also, you may want to look at what the stock market has been up to this year before you paint everything rose colored.

Oh, and thinks for assuming, incorrectly I might add, my opinion.

[whatthehey]

47. So the top categories are ok, but it's all McJobs? How does that work out?

[Bernin]

49. You seem to

confuse the term "the bulk of these" with the word "all".

Believe it or not. If you treat others with respect. You usually get respect in return.

[whatthehey]

51. Then define bulk cos I ain't seeing anything like a majority in any McJob category

Beliieve it or not, use valid data and express reasonable inferences and you'll usually get respect from others who do

[whatthehey]

50. Stock market this year eh?

Well I didn't mention it at all, or say everything is rosy, but let's make this interesting since you brought it up.

Yep it's been a rough 4 whole days of this year. Bugger. That 11% CAGR decades of history just got pissed away based on 4 days Sino-panic right?

How much would you like to bet, held in escrow, that 16 finishes higher than it started?

DJIA, SP500, NASDAQ. Your pick. Money meets mouth yes or no?

[Bernin]

53. hrmmm,

I'm not a doomsayer and the economy, historically does much better under Democratic administrations so not really inclined to take that bet.

However, other factors are at play. Specifically the destabilization of Europe and further chaos in the oil rich middle east. So, anything is possible.

Still not a taker on that bet though as the dollar is strengthening. As it always does under Democratic administrations.

Personally I see the Sino demise as an opportunity for US investors.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

37. Source: Zerohedge

http:// www.zerohedge.com /sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/01/jobs%20by%20industry%20december.jpg

[whatthehey]

38. But even from a laughable doomer source (where is that vermin stew guys?)

I wonder how teachers, professors, nurses, therapists, carpenters and roofers are seen as McJobs?

[Bernin]

40. It's a financial blog

and this is a financial subject.

[whatthehey]

43. And Stormfront is social commentary too I guess.

[Bernin]

45. Dunno.

Never been there.
But, sounds like you have.

[whatthehey]

46. Ah, elementary school wit. Never been to the North Pole but I know it's cold.

[Bernin]

48. Actually,

it's not recently.

BTW, you'll catch more flies with honey not vinegar.

Act childish get childish responses.
Pretty sure there was no reason for your hostile posts. I did not address you that way.

[whatthehey]

52. The average January high is -20F. That's cold

Children play fast and loose with facts, and people who do likewise deserve being treated likewise.

[Bernin]

54. Children also assume a lot.

And we all know how to spell assume...

[AllTooEasy]

58. Which categories do you define as McJobs?

Not an attack...I'm just trying to understand your paradigm.

My paradigm: I define minimum wage and slightly above minimum jobs as McJobs. This includes some/half of the jobs in the Leisure & Hospitality(i.e. room cleaners), most Wholesale Trade jobs, and arguably all Temp Help Services. On the other hand, many contract IT jobs are considered Temp Help Services. I once made $45/hour with one of these job during C++ coding. Lots of these jobs in the Phx area. I don't know what Other Services means.

Anyway, looking forward to your input.

[Bernin]

63. Sorry for the delay

in responding to you. I have been very sick all week and had to lay down for awhile.
Also, I appreciate your politeness. I don't understand why some feel they have to act like a teenage smart aleck in here. I thought we are all on the same team in the end.

As for your question. I am under the impression that leisure/hospitality is more of a 90% low/minimum wage scenario.

[whatthehey]

35. It's in the links above, but I'd like to highlight this LFPR resource

A fantastic document which in mostly easily accessible language (pp 17-22 ish need a bit of stats insight but nothing horrible) lays out all anybody who really cares about these participation rate data needs to know.

TLDR highlights.

- This was all predicted, with startling accuracy, well before the great recession
- Over half of the change is explained by a retirement bubble echoing the baby boom
- Next but far less impactful is the cyclical nature that shows participation lags a decrease in unemployment, especially long term unemployment rates
- Women drove the huge LFPR gains from the 50s to the 90s (no LFPR doomer ever refers back to before the late 70s because this trend had not yet pushed the rate above currentr norms before then) but the high-population cohort that drove that is now retiring
- Male participation has been steadily declining at an almost constant rate for over 50 years little affected by economic boom and bust as female has increased
- Of the remaing categories the largest components are:
- - the biggest drop in participation rates by age is among 16-24 year olds and is driven by education participation
- - the biggest drop by demographics is among black males, driven by the double whammy of their lower college participation in a market increasingly seeking well educated workers and the institutional racism inherent in both the judicial system that makes them more likely to be convicts and bias in hiring that makes them less likely to be hired after they have been convicted. Young black men's issues are essentially the most intractable of the LFPR concerns
- - the increase in SSDI receipts especially among lower educated males as the income differential between labor needs that no longer value them as highly and disability payments incentivizes the latter

The maximum that can plausibly be left for any voluntary non-structural non-participation is 0.5 percent.

ETA I forgot the damn link!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/labor_force_participation_report.pdf

[Ace Rothstein]

56. Nobody gave a fuck about the Labor Force Participation Rate until the unemployment rate fell.

Then the right started using it to attack Obama.

[whatthehey]

57. Once again, a far pithier summary than I could manage and a true one to boot

I like details and all that, but essentially yep that's the deal. It's just not only the right who do it now. The doomer left are effective water carriers for ODS.

[AllTooEasy]

60. What's the Retirement Rate?

Can we finally exclude these people from the labor participation rate? The people are dead to the workforce. They're gone, they're willfully not coming back, but they're still breathing and counting against Obama labor record. Please remove them from the labor statistics.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. The graphs are up; plus, another link.

December Jobs Report, by the Numbers

8:55 am EST Jan 8, 2016
By Harriet Torry

Friday’s job report showed employers capped last year with impressive job growth in December. Here are the highlights.

The December Jobs Report in 14 Charts

9:53 am ET
Jan 8, 2016
Business Cycles

By Nick Timiraos and Josh Zumbrun
@NickTimiraos
@JoshZumbrun

The U.S. economy added 292,000 jobs in December to close out the year with the strongest three-month hiring stretch since January 2015, and the unemployment rate held steady at 5%. The jobs report offers far more than these headline numbers. Here’s a visual run-through the highlights of Friday’s employment survey.

December’s job haul means the U.S added 2.65 million jobs last year, which was below the 3.12 million jobs added in 2014, but good enough for the second-best year of job growth since 1999.

https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

See our interactive graphics on today’s #JobsReport

[climber3986]

59. rwnj heads exploding in 3 2 1 nt

[progree]

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

Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 05:01 PM - Edit history (2)

Here are some summary tables of the key December 2015 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on January 8, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

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, (vv) indicates very bad, (v ) indicates bad, (0 ) indicates neutral, (^ ) indicates good, (^^) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(^^) +292,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )
== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(^^) +466,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
(^^) +485,000 Employed
(^ ) -20,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
(^ ) +0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.5%)
(0 ) +0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (at 62.6%)
` ` ` I rate as neutral because though it went up (good), it is only 0.2% 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 ) +0.0% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.9%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
(vv) +249,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
(^ ) -63,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
(0 ) +27,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9).
(^^) +504,000 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 = magenta]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010[/font]

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,650,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.54% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru November because no CPI data for December yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+1,691,000 Labor Force
+2,490,000 Employed
-800,000 Unemployed
+0.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
-0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.6% Unemployment rate
-1.3% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-521,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-764,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-86,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,604,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate shows a 0.1% DEcrease. Interesting though that there was a 0.3% 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 70 months thru December 31, 2015: 12'15 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru Dec. 31, 2015)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+13,593,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+4.59% 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 ====
+4,139,000 Labor Force
+11,348,000 Employed
-7,209,000 Unemployed
+1.0% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.3% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.8% Unemployment rate
-7.1% U-6 unemployment rate
-212,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-2,914,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-268,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+11,825,000 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;"]Dec'14 Sep'15 Nov'15 Dec'15
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.6% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0%
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]


A graph of part-time and full-time workers (this is through November 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

What kind of Wages?

INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average Weekly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010

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/2016/01/08/employment-situation-december . (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 December}

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/10141307286

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"][font size=4 color=blue] Detailed Discussion[/font]



1/8/16 - Excellent jobs report this month 292,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in December. October and November were revised up by a combined 50,000. So we have 342,000 more payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 292 + 50 = 342 ).

Over the past 3 months, payroll employment gains have averaged 284,000 per month. Over the past year, payroll employment has increased by 2,650,000 (an average of 221,000/month). And since the jobs recovery began in March 2010, payroll employment increased by 13,593,000.

While the payroll jobs numbers this month are very good (the +292,000 number), the Household Survey numbers ranged from flat to quite 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. December vs. December 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 December

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 466,000 -- consisting of 485,000 more employed and 20,000 fewer 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 1,691,000. (LNS11000000).

The Employed increased 485,000 in December. (LNS12000000) (Remember this is the Household Survey, a separate survey from the Establishment survey that produced the +292,000 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 2,490,000 over the last 12 months.

As for the unemployed decreasing by only 20,000 -- no, that's not good of course. But on net what happened is that almost as many people entered the labor force (got employed or began looking for work in the past 4 weeks), 466,000, than got employed, 485,000. The difference in these two figures is the change in the unemployed.

The 485,000 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.

Part-time workers who want full time work (aka Part Time For Economic Reasons, Table A-8) decreased by 63,000. Their numbers have fallen by 764,000 over the past 12 months -- from 4.6% of the Employed to 4.0% of the Employed.

Full-time workers increased by a huge 504,000 in December (compared to total employed which increased by 485,000). This is a volatile data series. (It increased by a trivial 3,000 in November).

Over the past 12 months, full-time workers increased by 2,604,000 (217,000/mo average). And since the jobs recovery began, it has increased by 11,825,000.

The labor force participation rate edged up by 0.1% to 62.6% (the positive change is of course good), but that's just 0.2% above September'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 )

The employment to population ratio was edged up 0.1% in December. Over the past 12 months it has increased by 0.3%. And since the jobs recovery began, it has increased by 1.0%.

Some numbers were flat in December

The unemployment rate (5.0%) was unchanged. Thanks to the labor force going up by a huge 466,000 while 485,000 more were employed, thus reducing the unemployed by a mere 20,000.

BLS's broadest measure of unemployment -- U-6 -- remain unchanged at 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 .

However, over the past 12 months, the U-6 unemployment rate has dropped by 1.3%, from 11.2% to 9.9%


Some Household Survey numbers were bad in December

A bad number this month is that the number of people who say they want a job but who are not officially counted as unemployed -- the Not In The Labor Force but Wants Job -- increased by 249,000. These are people who have not looked for work in the past 4 weeks, but say they want a job. (In November, this figure declined by 416,000, and in the past 12 months it has declined by 521,000. This is a very volatile data series)

Some people make an enormous hoo hah about the 94.103 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 5.886 million, or 6.3% of those not in the labor force.

Add them to the 7.904 million who are officially unemployed, and you arrive at 13.79 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 12.10% 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 UP a tiny 0.05% from November. (wrong direction!)

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