DOL reports 193,000 new jobs in January, below forecast

[papau]

U.S. created 193,000 jobs in January, below forecast, unemployment dips. Friday, February 3, 2006.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2006

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 193,000 in January, and the
unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of
the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Job gains occurred in several
industries, including construction, mining, food services and drinking places,
health care, and financial activities.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons fell to 7.0 million in January, and the
unemployment rate decreased to 4.7 percent, seasonally adjusted. The unemploy-
ment rate had ranged from 4.9 to 5.1 percent during most of 2005. The jobless
rate for adult men declined to 4.0 percent in January. For other major worker
groups--adult women (4.3 percent), teenagers (15.3 percent), whites (4.1 per-
cent), blacks (8.9 percent), and Hispanics (5.8 percent)--unemployment rates
were essentially unchanged. The rate for black teens, which had an unusually
large decline in December, rose to 31.4 percent in January. The unemployment
rate for Asians was 3.2 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)

In January, 16.3 percent of the unemployed had been without a job for 27
weeks or longer, down from 18.2 percent in the prior month. In January 2005,
the proportion was 21.0 percent. (See table A-9.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment continued to trend upward in January. The labor force
participation rate and the employment-population ratio showed little or no
change over the month, at 66.0 and 62.9 percent, respectively. (See
table A-1.)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Establishment and Household Data Changes |
| |
| The establishment survey data in this release have been revised |
| as a result of the annual benchmarking process and the updating of |
| seasonal adjustment factors. See the note beginning on page 5 for |
| more information on the revisions. |
| |
| In addition, household survey data for January 2006 reflect up- |
| dated population controls. See the note on page 6 for more informa- |
| tion. Also, new seasonally adjusted employment data for multiple |
| jobholders have been added to table A-6 of this release. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

About 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally at-
tached to the labor force in January, down from 1.8 million a year earlier.
These were people who wanted and were available for work and had looked for
a job sometime in the prior 12 months but were not counted as unemployed
because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
The number of discouraged workers--a subset of the marginally attached who
were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no
jobs were available for them--was 396,000 in January, a decrease of 119,000
from a year earlier. (See table A-13.)


1 Changes in household data levels are not shown due to the introduction
of updated population controls. See the note on page 6 for more information.
2 Establishment data have been revised to reflect March 2005 benchmark
levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors. See the note on page 5 for
more information.


http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/03/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm

Unemployment rate falls to lowest since 2001
Employers add more jobs than December but less than forecasts, unemployment rate falls to 4.7 percent.
February 3, 2006: 8:35 AM EST


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Employers added more jobs in January, according to a government report Friday, as the latest reading of labor market strength still fell short of Wall Street expectations.

The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, the lowest since before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. Economists had forecast that the rate would remain at 4.9 percent.<snip>

[rfranklin]

1. Are we still in negative job creation under Bush?

I think the unemployment figure once again is just so many people have run out of benefits, given up trying to find work. The job creation comes in 90,000 under estimates and the Larry Kudlows are crowing about the Bush economy--how long will we have to suffer under this Republican fantasy?

[papau]

3. Bush is a couple of million positive over 5 years - but take out pretend

jobs called "birth-death" and there is no jobs growth.

Unemployment rate does not key off of receiving or not receiving benefits - it is from the Household Survey replies.

U-6 is the best indicator - not the 4.7% shown by U-3, and is at 8.4%


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.9
2004 9.9 9.7 9.9 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.3
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.6 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. Everything that comes from this administration is Below Forecast except...

the War Dead.

[Atman]

4. While BushCo's Cabal News Network touts "BEST EMPLOYMENT SINCE 2001!"

Barely enough jobs created to keep pace with population growth, tens of thousands of layoffs announced just the week alone, and similar news virtually every week. Yet "unemployment" is supposedly below 5% and the economy is STRONG!

What island are they living on? Oh, I know...One Percent Island! The economy of Bush's 1% base is STRONG, and only 4.7% of their gardeners and housekeepers are out of work.

[HughBeaumont]

5. I am simply NOT understanding how this UR continues to fall.

Do we not take in account TEMP jobs? People who have TWO jobs? There is no way you're going to tell me that with three major corporations (Kraft, Ford, GM) announcing all of these layoffs and when I look around I see "FOR RENT", "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs, a shrunken classified section peppered with crap jobs at crap salaries, etc, that the middle class has this low of a UR. That CANNOT be right. CAN'T. I will not accept it.

[AllegroRondo]

7. They play with the numbers

The UR is determined by a simple phone survey. Every week, they call 60,000 people. Quesion one "did you work last week?" If so, you count as employed. Question two "did you look for work last week?" If so, you count as unemployed. If you are not one of these two, you are 'not part of the workforce', and dont count toward the unemployment number.

BUT - its just a phone survey. People who are unemployed long term or poor usually do not have a phone.
Also, around 2003 they started changing the way some people are counted. Previously, if you were disabled and receiving disablility, you counted as "not in the workforce". Now you count as "employed". They used to not count active duty military as part of the work force. Now they do.
They used to have a minimum of 20 hours per week worked to count as employed. Now it is only 10.

And it doesnt even begin to touch the problem of underemployment. People with degrees and work experience who must take a job below their experience level just to survive. The laid off IT guys who now stock shelves at Home Depot, for example.

[HughBeaumont]

8. Taking all of this into account, isn't the real number somewhere around 8%

[papau]

9. U-6 is at 8.4%

Bush is a couple of million positive over 5 years - but take out pretend
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 08:45 AM by papau

Remove the estimate jobs adjustment called "birth-death" and there is no jobs growth.


U-6 is the best indicator IMHO - not the 4.7% shown by U-3, and is at 8.4%


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.9
2004 9.9 9.7 9.9 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.3
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.6 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4

[Yavin4]

10. You Are Exactly Correct! People Are Settling For Less and Less

Today, instead of holding out for a great job, people are willing to take the one-day temp assignment which pushes them into the category of "employed". Also, people are living on the re-financing of their homes. They are taking out equity from their homes and using it as income.

The employment metrics are out of whack. The U3 rate is a political number designed to boost the current administration.

[AllegroRondo]

11. 11,000 people applied for 350 jobs at a new Wal-Mart

in the Chicago area. that really says something about the state of our economy.

[Tempest]

12. It was 24,500 people who applied

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html

[barb162]

32. I think it was 25,000

and these people were "glowing" that they got the jobs. They were so happy.

[AX10]

13. That's right. The REAL number is near 9%.

[barb162]

31. They only count a person as unemployed if that person

gets an unemployment check. They keep changing and restricting who qualifies for unemployment too. And employers are playing games when they call in to the state unemployment bureaus that they fired somebody rather than they laid the person off. That way they pay no unemployment. Voila, no unemployment

[bluedog]

6. Another REVISED number

ever notice......every number about ANYTHING ...is always revised....do you believe your government...........hell NO

[DeepModem Mom]

14. CNNMoney: Unemployment rate lowest since 2001

Unemployment rate lowest since 2001
Employers add 193,000 jobs in January as unemployment dips unexpectedly, wages up more than forecasts.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 3, 2006


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in nearly five years in January, the government reported Friday, as employers added a respectable 193,000 jobs to payrolls and paychecks increased more than expected.

The Labor Department said the unemployment rate dipped to 4.7 percent from 4.9 in December, the lowest since 4.6 percent in July 2001, just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Economists had forecast that the rate would remain unchanged from December.

The drop in unemployment was the latest sign of a tightening labor market, which could put upward pressure on wages and prices in the months ahead.

On Wall Street, stocks fell and Treasury bond prices dipped, raising long-term yields, on the expectation that the report makes further interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve more likely.

The department said average hourly wage rose 7 cents to $16.41, a 0.4 percent increase that was slightly more than the 0.3 percent gain forecast by economists. Over the last 12 months, average wages are up 3.3 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis, the biggest 12-month change in nearly three years....


http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/03/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm?cnn=yes

[hobbit709]

15. What a crock

If unemployment is really that low where's the jobs? They're not listed in the paper, no one I know that's looking has found one and the ones that are out there ain't paying shit.

[quiet.american]

20. -- right -- and they always neglect to mention they're not counting --

-- those whose employment benefits have run out, and yet they still are unable to find work. A very scary place to be when you have $0.00 income, and dependents to support. I've been there - it's terrifying. :scared:

[merh]

16. How the hell can these numbers be correct?

Thousands are still homeless, displaced and out of work thanks to Katrina!

This report just goes to show you that their "reporting" system if flawed.

Do you fall off their count when you have used up all the unemployment allowed?

They fuck with the truth on a daily basis. x(

Smoke & Mirrors, the truth is what I tell you it is. :argh:

[papau]

17. I would like an honest media when discussing economic numbers.

We all know that the unemployment rate does not key off of receiving or not receiving a unemployment benefits check. It is calculated from the Household Survey replies. Different definitions of employment/unemployment lead to 6 different UE rates each month, where U-6 is the best indicator in my opinion and is at 8.4%, but our media reports the more restrictive U-3 rate of 4.7%.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.9
2004 9.9 9.7 9.9 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.3
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.6 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4


Now the Unemployment rate is going down the last few years under Bush and one wonders why. Just as in the old days, they still ask each week via phone calls to 60,000 the question "Did you work last week?" with yes meaning employed, followed by the question "Did you look for work last week?" with yes meaning you are part of the work force and if not working last week, you count as part of the unemployed. And the old problem of unemployed long term or poor not having a telephone has not increased or decreased under Bush.

BUT what has changed are the "rules." The new Bush Rules lower the unemployment rate relative to what would be calculated under Clinton rules. Around 2003 they changed the way some people are counted. In the Clinton days if you were disabled and receiving disability, you counted as "not in the workforce" - but now under Bush you count as "employed". Under Clinton they did not count active duty military as part of the work force, but now they do. Indeed under Clinton we had to have a minimum of 20 hours per week worked to count as employed, But under Bush it is now only 10.

Why does the media not explain the above when they gush over the Bush low unemployment rate?

It not like we are asking for a discussion of the problem of underemployment where smart folks with degrees and work experience must take a job below their experience level just to survive, as in all the computer folks one meets as they now stock shelves. And we are not asking for a discussion of the Bush reasoning for sending more jobs in America to non-Americans via the Bush request for more H1b visa's that give companies the ability to replace those computer folks now at Home Depot with computer folks from other countries - as our "education president" reduces jobs for America's educated workforce.

But I would like an honest media when discussing economic numbers.

[unblock]

22. also, total hours worked has declined

perhaps more people have jobs, but more people aren't working full time, so that the wal-marts of america can chince on benefits.

[papau]

26. That is shocking until you realize pretend "birth/death" jobs report few

hours worked!

:-)

[unblock]

18. shrub doesn't look that bad when you only compare him to ... himself.

[wryter2000]

27. Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner.

Those numbers are pathetic compared to Clinton.

[dave29]

19. 190,000 of those jobs were for "Government Prosecutors"

apparantly there is a need

[bluestateguy]

21. I give props to the data manipulators at the BLS

Good job, folks.

[calico1]

23. Well, if you lost your job at Ford or GM that

paid you $35/hour plus benefits, and now you are flipping burgers at a fast food joint making minimum wage with no benefits, guess what? You are emloyed! :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. nt

[unblock]

28. liars, damned liars, and banana republicans.

[sarcasmo]

25. I guess they left Michigan out of this equation. What a JOKE.

Average hourly wage $16.41 my ASS. One Million Walmart jobs at $7.00 an Hour would bring any wage down drastically. What a bunch of lies.

[brentspeak]

29. There should be a law

that restricts Labor Dept. employment statistics to full-time, permanent jobs only. That is the only way to come close to an accurate picture of the nation's employment status.

Anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[barb162]

30. you got that straight