U.S. Economy Lost Only 11,000 Jobs in November

[madinmaryland]

Source: The New York Times

The United States economy shed 11,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, down from 10.2 percent in October, the Labor Department said Friday.

The government also revised the October number to show that the economy lost 111,000 jobs instead on 190,000.Though pace of job loss has been declining since a peak in January, the November number was surprising. Economists have been expecting a turning point to come in the late spring or summer, with employers finally adding workers as a recovery takes hold. The last time the number was this good was December, 2007, when the economy added 120,000 jobs. “We’re moving toward stability in the labor market and the end of the tremendous firing that has plagued America,” said Allen L. Sinai, the founder of Decision Economics, a research firm. “But it’s going to be bleak for years. While it is going to be better than what we’ve seen, it’s still going to be terrible.”

A large number of employees are working fewer hours than they would like because many companies are operating below capacity and have resisted adding staff until orders turn up and the incipient recovery seems likely to endure. Indeed, a broader measure of unemployment fell in November to 17.2 percent, from 17.5 percent in October. This broader measure covers not only those seeking work but those whose hours have been cut and those too discouraged to look for work.

The number of Americans facing long-term unemployment, which includes people who cannot find work for 27 weeks or more, has been at record highs in recent months, reaching 5.6 million in October. It was more than 5.9 million people in November, or 38.3 of percent of those unemployed. Once hiring resumes, those workers are likely to be among the last to land jobs.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?_r=1&hp

---

That is still 11,000 too many.

[dmallind]

1. This time (in a stunning reverse) I will be the slightly negative one on job numbers

Not that I was ever positive about what they ARE - but I have been more positive than most DUers about the likely eventual uptick.

I suspect the decline in unemployment is temporary and somewhat shadowy (not in the sense of malfeasance - just that it's one of those dig in the details things) and would be surprised if we did not go back up again in the early months of 2010. I could of course be wrong, and indeed hope so, but I suspect the original likely timetable of a job recovery starting in mid 2010 is more likely.

[rfranklin]

2. This is a pause...second wave will hit in a few months...

The unwinding of the debt bubble is only starting.

[dmallind]

4. I am not that pessimistic either. I think we only see 10.5 or so at worst this time around. NT

[jpak]

26. Based on what economic data - I know NONE

Nothing but pathetic doomer wishful thinking

:thumbsdown:

[girl gone mad]

35. An Alternative Read on Today's 'Bullish' Jobs Data

from http://www.financialarmageddon.com/2009/12/an-alternative-read-on-todays-bullish-jobs-data.html">Michael Panzer:

Economists and stock bulls cheered this morning's better-than-expected November employment report. But was the data as good as it seemed? Consider the following:

Temporary jobs

Could the nine-month rally in share prices and the positive spin pouring out of Wall Street and Washington have encouraged some owners and managers, who are seeing little direct evidence of a rebound in the economy, to acquire what might be described as a labor call option -- that is, temporary staff (a key factor in the overall increase)?

Otherwise, temporary employees accounted for 52,400 of the hefty 86,000 jump in the professional and business services category. Might this reflect the fact that firms are temporarily taking on accountants, lawyers, and others who can help them further reduce costs (e.g., labor), restructure operations, and maybe even prepare for bankruptcy?

Long-term unemployed

Today's employment report revealed that the labor force participation rate dropped to 65%, it's lowest level in more than two decades; the number of Americans who are unemployed over 26 weeks fell to a record 3.8% of the civilian workforce; and, the "underemployment" ratio improved only marginally, to 17.2%.

Could this set of statistics be interpreted as a sign that employers don't see enough good opportunities to justify taking risks as far as hiring is concerned? In other words, are they are sticking with the safe option -- the job market's "known quantities" (e.g., those who are currently employed or who haven't been out of work too long)?

Category trends

While much of the focus was on the overall number, the breakdown by category was less reassuring. Those areas of the economy that would naturally be associated with a sustainable rebound in activity, including manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, and construction, are still hemorrhaging jobs.

Moreover, recent developments suggest that two categories which did see respectable gains, education and health care, face major headwinds in the period ahead. With municipal budgets under growing strain, school budgets -- and education-related hiring -- have nowhere to go but down. And with all eyes now focused on the rising cost of health care, the pressure to reign in spending will only increase.

So now you can't say you know of NONE. (I don't agree entirely with this analysis, btw)

[proudohioan]

3. I agree.

The upswing is probably due to temporary Christmas help in retail stores. Nothing to write home about.

[Statistical]

15. unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.

[OnlinePoker]

5. Lies, Lies, and Statistics

This is a crock. All through the month of November, new job loss claims were over 500,000 a week. They are trying to say that of these 2 million claimants, only 11,000 were unable to find a job? They also, conveniently, deleted 100,000 from the rolls of those looking for a job so instead of dropping 111,000 they can say there were only job losses of 11k. How you can have more people out of work than the previous month and the unemployment rate still drop 0.2% is a wonder of mathematical science.

[FBaggins]

6. The "wonder" is actually quite simple

The two figures are based on different data sets that don't work identically.

BTW - Welcome to DU!

[CoffeeCat]

7. Thanks for your post...

...I have grown really tired of trying to sift through the statistic-twisting that happens regarding the economy.

If our government--through the media--is painting a picture that is rosier than reality--then we need to ask what
is going on.

I saw the same numbers that you did--November new job-loss claims more than 2 million on November. That number seemed
staggering to me. Does that number represent newly unemployed people who were filing for the first time? Doesn't that
number suggest that upward of 2 million people were laid off/fired in November?

Then...how can November job losses be 11,000 for November--per this article?

I don't get it.

[FBaggins]

10. Yes... it suggests that 2 million people were laid off...

The part you're missing is that the layoffs are not a "net" jobs number. This report implies that roughly the same number of people were hired during the month as were fired.

Usually that isn't the case until initial jobless claims falls below 400k/week, so I wouldn't expect it to continue absent continued improvement in the initial filing figure.

[AzNick]

13. Correct, the 11,000 is a bottomline number nt

[proudohioan]

11. Glad it's not just me....

I was wondering the same thing; I figured I must have misheard the numbers on the news.

[Statistical]

18. NET JOB LOSSES.

Say 2 million people are collecting unemployment.

Well some of them are collecting unemployment because they were fired not laid off (i.e position is still open).

1 unemployment check =/= 1 lost job.

Even when job numbers are rising (new jobs being created) people are still filing unemployment benefits for the first time every month.
Number is usually around 200K-250K each week even in economic growth.

So there is no conspiracy just people jumping to conclusions.

Say 2 million people are filing for unemployment. Well about 800K to 1 mil are "normal" unemployment filings. People who's job still exist they were simply fired.

Well that leaves about 1.0 million people whos job likely was lost.

If employers at a bunch of companies laid of 1.2 million people but employers in other companies hired 1.19 million people then NET job losses would be ~10K.

Total new unemployment ~2 million
Approximate GROSS job losses ~1.0 to 1.2 million
Approximate NET job losses (gross job losses - jobs created) = 10K

[Lerkfish]

9. agreed that statistics especially govt. statistics are easily and frequently manipulated

but for anyone to look at this economy and say that only 11,000 jobs are lost is dreaming. Just in Ohio, more jobs than that have been cut due to a handful of major companies, that those are the ones we hear about, the smaller companies that go belly up do not show up in the headlines.

I have been unemployed almost a year now. I imagine everyone here knows of or is related at least two people who have become jobless in the last two years.

its not rocket science. No one is hiring in large enough numbers to offset the massive downsizing. And any new jobs being actively created are in outsourcing to other countries.

[Statistical]

16. 11K doesn't mean only 11K people couldn't find a job.

11K means based on payroll records all employers have employed 11K less people than last month.
Thus 11K jobs were "lost".

People can't find a job because the sum of all those loses (11K this month, 159K last month, 700K in January) is about 7.2 million.

7.2 million jobs have disappeared since recession started.

The math isn't shadowy or a big conspiracy if you actually understand what the numbers mean.

[dmallind]

21. I don't think so

The total employment numbers went UP - quite dramatically. The number of unemployed people went up by 11,000, but the number of employed people went up 227,000. Hence the reason that rate falls even with 11K more unemployed.

[Statistical]

25. No. Number of people employed DECLINED 11K hence 11K net jobs lost

[FBaggins]

28. dmallind is confusing data from the two reports.

The establishment survey shows a decline of 11k net jobs... the household survey says that there were job gains -

but using the household survey as a job-count proxy has both advantages and disadvantages.

More important, however, it to not confuse the two.

[karynnj]

36. True - and the magnitude of the 7.2 number shows why it will be tough for

a very long time. Even when there is essentially full employment, there has to be a positive net jobs to keep employment at that level as there are almost always more new people entering the labor market than those intentionally leaving it. The fact is that we need job creation big enough to employ both that 7.2 million pool plus that net number. This means that even robust job creation - which we are nowhere near - will not correct the problem quickly.

[jpak]

27. Sorry - no DOOM for you!

:rofl:

[Yupster]

37. The math works if you

take a bunch of workers out of the pool of workers.

For instance instead of having 90 people working out of 100, you have 89 woking out of 98. Now you only have nine out of work instead of 10.

Of course the question is what happened to those other two workers that aren't workers anymore?

If they got classified as discouraged workers no longer looking for a job, it's nothing to celebrate.

[New Dawn]

39. Read this link for further details about US government unemployment statistics:

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/employment

[Skittles]

8. ? I read it was 169,000

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125976024281472767.html

[FBaggins]

12. That's the ADP figure.

That survey is comparatively new and (IMO) has a terrible track record. They are regularly WAY off... and it could be in either direction. We've had months where things improved after they predicted a big decline... and visa-versa.

One caveat to keep in mind is that the ADP figure represents private-sector employment and doesn't include the government. I haven't dug into the jobs report yet this morning, so it's at least possible that ADP was accurate if there were a bunch of new government jobs.

[AzNick]

14. I could tell the economy is bouncing back

My company hired a few temps and they all are temp to permanent, they have to prove their worth (usually they always do).

I also realized that I had to leave much earlier from home and from work to beat the traffic. Over the last year I could leave at 5pm and be fine, now I have to leave at 4:30, and my commute is North Scottsdale to East Mesa.

[Doctor_J]

17. Boner is going to be pissed

he was on TV yesterday celebrating the higher unemployment. This should throw some cold water on his party

[sabra]

24. here's his response:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/04/two-very-different-takes-on-the-jobs-report/

<snip>

A very different message this morning from one of the top Republicans in Congress.

"After yet another month of job losses, it's clear that one question President Obama is sure to get on his 'listening tour' is: 'Where are the jobs'?" says House Minority Leader John Boehner, in a statement.

While the Republican from Ohio says the decrease in the unemployment rate is encouraging, he says "anyone who views today's report as cause for celebration is out of touch with the American people, especially when Washington Democrats' policies – whether it's a government takeover of health care, a national energy tax, or 'card check' – are already costing jobs and will pile even more debt on our kids and grandkids."

[Doctor_J]

29. I knew it. Yesterday he was cheering job losses. Today's he pissed that things are better

Repukes hate Americans.

[SpartanDem]

33. He's not much different than some people on DU

[bluestateguy]

19. V

[HopeHoops]

20. Can we get around to ADDING jobs?

That would be a refreshing change!

[dmallind]

22. The employed number did indeed go up.

[FBaggins]

23. The IMPLIED employed number went up.

The figure more closely based on an actual count still went down.

[JonQ]

34. Defeatist

the fundamentals of our economy are strong, so don't worry citizen, just mind your place.

[JonQ]

30. We could have lost over a million jobs last month

so that's more than 990,000 jobs created/saved! This is a miracle!

Heh.

I look forward to the days when "only losing 11,000 jobs" is not seen as good news.

[madinmaryland]

31. I remember the "good old days" of the Clinton years when

we gained more than 10 million jobs.

:wow:

[JonQ]

32. One benefit of this

is that we now have a handy term, created/saved, to attach to any economic climate to portray good news.

[tomhayes]

38. I'm one of those 11,000

You're welcome

[fasttense]

40. What I find interesting and confusing is the number of people on extended unemployment.

According to BLS data, the number of people unemployed:
for less than 5 weeks is 2.806 million, this has declined for 10 months from a high of over 3.5 million.
for 5 to 14 weeks is 3.526 million, this has declined for 3 months from a high of over 4.1 million.
for over 15 weeks is 9.050 million, has continually increased with NO sign of a decline.
for over 27 weeks is 5.887 million, this has continually increased with NO sign of a decline.

The average and median number of weeks unemployed is also increasing, with NO sign of a decline.

I would think all the numbers would be declining if the number of unemployed each month was getting smaller. The people who have been unemployed for over 27 weeks don't have to wait for those unemployed for 5 weeks to get job. Usually it does take a little longer to get a job if you have been unemployed for a long time but you should still be seeing some kind of a decline in long term unemployment yet you are NOT.

I wonder why?