CNBC: Unemployment comes in @ 6.1%, BUT....

[phillybri]

Non-farm payrolls were down 93,000, and the drop in the unemployment rate was due to discouraged workers stopping their job search.

Enjoy your jobless recovery!

[treepig]

1. ha! for the predictions (oops!)

last night, the prediction was . . .

The markets were expected to take their cue from the Labor Dept.'s August U.S. employment report at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. The consensus forecast calls for about 19,000 net new jobs in the U.S. economy while the unemployment rate likely remained at 6.2 percent.

The economy needs to create about 150,000 jobs a month just to absorb the population growth. "Significant improvement in the labor market remains elusive," said Bill Dudley, chief economist at Goldman Sachs. "The labor market is still anemic." See more


http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B41D98B9C%2DF03B%2D4EBC%2D8971%2D804E31E31372%7D&siteid=mktw

[meegbear]

2. Discouraged workers stopping their job search?!?

I've been searching since last November. Damn right I'm discouraged, but I ain't stopping.

Cute "spin" from people who HAVE a job.

[MaryBear]

34. More likely, their UI ran out,

and since "unemployment" is based on Unemployment Insurance stats, they no longer receive UI and so are no longer "unemployed."

[davekriss]

37. Incorrect (as I understand it)

The unemployment rate is not based on UI roles, but soley on surveying (sampling) the workforce. The reason for the drop in the unemployment rate while at the same time we witness further contraction in the number of jobs is because, in the survey, statistically significant numbers of unemployed workers said they have ceased looking for a job.

[sandnsea]

40. In previous 4 weeks

They hadn't looked for a job in the previous 4 weeks. Maybe they're trying to start a business, decided to stay home and raise kids, planning to move somewhere, who knows. But that's what that means and the figure is rising. Real unemployment is at least 7%, not counting part-timers and those who have settled for something less.

[lindashaw]

3. I think the wealthy industrialists took their whopping tax cut...

and went overseas to open another plant.

[davekriss]

38. Bush's last tax cut wasn't called the...

"China Jobs Creation Act" but a number of economists for nothing! Hey, the repukes don't care, as long as they make a profit when they sell their shares!

[phillybri]

4. Bill Sullivan from my firm, Morgan Stanley....

...said that all the traders up at our headquarters said to him, "Don't you dare try to put any lipstick on this pig!"

And of course Larry Kudlow is talking about how great this news is.

And, Labor Secretary Elaine "the Human Dreidel" Chao will be on later to spin the shit out of these numbers!

[HPLeft]

11. Kudlow

We should call him "let 'em eat cake Kudlow". The productivity numbers are up and he got his Dividend and Capital Gains tax cut.

I can't even watch Kudlow and Kramer. If CNBC were interested in balance, they'd replace Kramer with someone like Bob Reich.

[dawg]

14. Amen to that.

I can't watch that stupid show. I'm a guy who is very "into" investing even though I only have small dollars to invest. K & K are so idealogically skewed in their presentation of business news, I think they actually lead people to make poor investing decisions.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Biggest Blowhard On TV

Kudlow is a Ph.D. economist. Whatever school awarded that Ph.D. should have is accredidation revoked!

That guy knows absolutely NOTHING about economics. He can't think beyond two dimensions. All the proof one needs is to listen to him.
The Professor

[phiddle]

31. Make it "Kudlow and Krugman",

and the alliteration still works.

[jab105]

39. YES!!

Oh that would be ideal...heck, I'd get cable to see that one!

[UpInArms]

5. U.S. Aug. non-farm payrolls fall 93,000

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?guid={3BA8C60E-25EB-40EC-9111-04B690AA806D}&siteid=mktw&dist=bnb

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - The U.S. economy lost payroll jobs in August for the seventh month in a row even as the unemployment rate dipped to 6.1 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday. Non-farm payrolls shrank by 93,000, bringing the total job losses to 595,000 since January. The decrease in payrolls was the largest since March.

...more...

all I can think when I hear these statistics - during the 2000 campaign, * said "I'm gonna pick up where ma daddy left off" - I remember getting cold all over and knowing that if this thang got into the WH, our country was f***ed :mad:

[treepig]

6. OK, here's the monthly updated statistics

that i post from time to time:

Net job growth based on January of each year (except for Bush2, which is updated monthly), listed chronologically:

Eisenhower (1953-61)

In 50,045,000
Out 53,534,000
Change: +436,125/year (+0.846%/year)

Kennedy/Johnson (1961-69)

In 53,534,000
Out 69,272,000
Change: +1,967,250/year (+3.27%/year)

Nixon/Ford (1969-77)

In 69,272,000
Out 80,517,000
Change: +1,405,625/year (+1.90%/year)

Carter (1977-81)

In 80,517,000
Out 91,003,000
Change: +2,621,500/year (+3.11%/year)

Reagan (1981-89)

In 91,003,000
Out 106,993,000
Change: +1,998,750/year (+2.04/year)

Bush I (1989-93)

In 106,993,000
Out 109,725,000
Change: +683,000/year (+0.632%/year)

Clinton (1993-2001)

In 109,725,000
Out 132,436,000
Change: +2,838,875/year (+2.38%/year)

Bush II (2001 – April 2003)

In 132,436,000
Current 129,777,000
Change: -1,029,290/year (-0.777%/year)


In order of relative job growth (% change per year):

Kennedy/Johnson: (+) 3.27%
Carter: (+) 3.11%
Clinton: (+) 2.38%
Reagan: (+) 2.04%
Nixon/Ford: (+) 1.90%
Eisenhower: (+) 0.846%
Bush I: (+) 0.632%
Bush II: (-) 0.777%

Republican average: 1.27%
Democratic average: 2.88%
Overall average: 1.90%

[phillybri]

7. Thanks for the stats....

Very revealing stuff!

:kick:

[DrDan]

19. this is great data

do you have a source?

[treepig]

23. the numbers are from

the bureau of labor statistics website in the upper right corner of the screen under the national employment link (at http://www.bls.gov) - unfortunately when you do a search, you cannot directly link to the search results (as far as i can figure).

- there's all kinds of different variations (non-farm, seasonally-adjusted, etc) - so depending on the exact statistics you search for, the actual numbers might be slightly different, but the trends are indisputable (note that i calculated the %ages based on the starting employment and then used the time-value-of-money methods)

[TahitiNut]

28. I track this also.

I use the "Total private" (not seasonally adjusted) employment numbers from Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail (in thousands) and get ...

Between Feb 1973 and Feb 1977, the number of jobs increased by 5.6% (3,417,000 people)
Between Feb 1977 and Feb 1981, the number of jobs increased by 13.8% (8,891,000 people)
Between Feb 1981 and Feb 1989, the number of jobs increased by 20.0% (14,660,000 people)
Between Feb 1989 and Feb 1993, the number of jobs increased by 1.6% (1,396,000 people)
Between Feb 1993 and Feb 2001, the number of jobs increased by 22.9% (20,448,000 people)
Between Feb 2001 and Feb 2003, the number of jobs decreased by 2.7% (2,975,000 people)

Because I use the unadjusted numbers, I stick to comparisons using the same month of the year. I also choose 'Total private' rather than 'Total nonfarm' because the latter includes government payrolls, which I feel fails to reflect economic conditions as directly. (YMMV)

FWIW, when one runs the numbers for August, the results are similar.
Between Aug 1973 and Aug 1977, the number of jobs increased by 7.1% (4,511,000 people)
Between Aug 1977 and Aug 1981, the number of jobs increased by 11.3% (7,735,000 people)
Between Aug 1981 and Aug 1989, the number of jobs increased by 19.6% (14,889,000 people)
Between Aug 1989 and Aug 1993, the number of jobs increased by 2.2% (2,010,000 people)
Between Aug 1993 and Aug 2001, the number of jobs increased by 19.9% (18,549,000 people)
Between Aug 2001 and Aug 2003, the number of jobs decreased by 2.1% (2,315,000 people)

[TahitiNut]

29. Here's the chart I maintain ...

It seems pretty clear what Commander Codpiece and his coven have wrought.

[ozone_man]

22. These stats should be made a focus in the election.

Bush will lose by a landslide, because the economy will be getting much worse. I know, the predictions are for a recovery, but that is about as accurate as their prediction of +19,000 jobs this month, while in reality it was -93,000 jobs.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

48. Well done, Treepig! Thanks for posting this.

Very useful information.

[Changenow]

8. What is a discouraged worker?

What do they eat? How do they pay their rent? Is it simply someone whose unemployment benefit has run out? Why do folks who want work not count as unemployed? What is the real unemployment rate when those people are counted? Isn’t it a really bad sign that 100,000 more people have joined the ranks of the desperate?

[TreasonousBastard]

17. It's really difficult to tell.

Some are spouses and there is still an income in the household. Some of them may just say working just isn't worth it any more. Some move in with friends or relatives.

Many take part-time and pickup jobs to bring in some money. Some more go into the underground economy. And others may start small businesses.

Some go back to their "old" jobs as contractors, not employees.

There's savings, and selling the house.

And there's homelessness and starvation.

[InkAddict]

45. The Screeching of the Blackboard is Heard in the Land

no nerves left!

Backstabbed on that good raise pre 9/11 - instead cut to FT60 hrs post 9/11 but general/seasonal slowdowns made those 60 hours tough to fill in with work; in reality probably only did average of 50 hours but small business owner's vacation/personal time off cut into that - my work is dependent on the boss's.

IT spouse rolled off last month; now doing PT $8.50 outside his field - no benes/withholdings - so we gotta do the math and hide it in the cookie jar; guess we got our tax cut (based on income loss) all right! No healthcare but physically healthy for now, thank you very much--not too sure about mental health anymore and can't afford pills or a shrink. 401s gone; but they got theirs. Even w/credit (HA,HA,HA) "arrangements," those lousy collector thugs still call a million times daily even when you pay as agreed! Credit score must be crashing; I don't want to know. Don't say get rid of phone, how will potential employers call for that "Charles Manson" teaser phone interview. Besides, father-in-law is chronically ill so need communication with the outside world. Holding onto hope seems as untrustworthy as our voting process.

We flush twice daily except for bowel movements - and using lots of bulk bleach in the bowl;raw chemicals are cheap. Ongoing major water conservation - the lawn/flowers are dying, but hey it will soon be winter anyway; still sure glad it's cooler - NO air conditioning and trimming other utilities to minimum. No personal grooming at the salon; wash hair in re-cycled or fresh rain when possible - always a bad hair day! Short cold showers makes Spartan-like strength, no? Old-time remedies for dental care; Arm&Hammer to the rescue for lots of things or just a sip of that medicinal Jack Daniels kills the germs on contact. Stretching non-edibles through non-use unless absolutely necessary, and changing clothes less often. Coffee only breakfast/lunch gets eaten when a rep brings it or when a co-worker brings in something to share/dinner is bean chili, pot pie, or maybe peanut butter/chicken salad on wheat sanwiches ad nauseum or when kids spring for it or sometimes downing a multi-vitamin or meal replacement drink from the back of the cupboard and making sun tea; no snacks/sodas. A treat is one handful of M&Ms. Not exactly a healthy balanced diet happening here. Pets on diet/not protected from summer bugs. No Sunday drives to the park or trips other than to work and back. The sense of ownership/control over our lives has been successfully shattered with downsizing, merging, cost containment, contract follow-on failures, handshake deals, outsourcing...

My computer keeps me on this side of insanity - news,weather for planning when to hang out the clothes and park the car in the drive for a free wash,free electronic bill-paying saves stamps,support system for raging emotions always a keystroke away (A BIG THANKS to DUers). Just awaiting the next catastrophe!

[HPLeft]

9. Those Numbers Really Understate the Problem

Official numbers in NYC are above 8% unemployed, not counting the long-term unemployed. I believe the numbers are equally bad in Seattle and San Francisco.

[tsipple]

10. Looking at U-6...

"U-6" is the most complete definition of unemployment that the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles, and that fell from 10.5 to 10.0 percent. Yet there are mounting job losses. I'm not sure I can reconcile these numbers yet. Still thinking about how that combination can happen. One way is if workers drop out completely -- not just "discouraged" but "out."

Interesting how information technology is in a deepening depression, with over half a million jobs lost in that sector. (BLS doesn't report "IT" precisely, but that looks about right in reading their comments.)

[UpInArms]

12. IIRC - are the numbers compiled

only of the people that file with the "employment commission"?

after unemployment benefits run out, a lot of people don't go back to the EC and re-register - many use private employment searches - those people would not be counted in the unemployed.

How many people fall into that category?

Are those people what they call "discouraged"?

[treepig]

15. the numbers are compiled from telephone surveys

of ~40,000 people/month

it's more likely that their are people who are just 'out' of the labor force, if you go to the www.bls.gov website and search for "Labor Force Participation Rate" (the %age of people over 16 who are either employed or unemployed, i.e., in the labor market), this value was fairly steady at between 57.6 to 60% until the mid 1960's when a gradual, but fairly steady, increase began that peaked at about 67.5% in the year 2000 (meaning the 'real' unemployement rate was actually 33.5%?). In any event, this value has been decreasing and is not barely above 66% - meaning that about 2 million people are just out of the labor force now.

[InkAddict]

46. Just who the Heck do they call?

I've never been polled for that in 35 years! They probably only call the centurnarians. Can't wait to be called by Ass-croft's outsourced telemarketing for the Patriot Act; hah, I get it, somehow I got on the EAVESDROP ONLY BUT DO NOT CALL (EVER) LIST! No wonder!

[ozone_man]

27. Yes, if this person is no longer in contact with the unemployment office,

then I think he becomes "marginally attached", a subset of which are "discouraged workers". Even though this person is still looking on his own, as far as the unemployment office is concerned, you aren't and are labeled "marginally attached".

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For further information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

[ozone_man]

24. These are not seasonally adjusted.

There is an average 0.5% drop in U6 from July to August, so if a seasonally adjusted figure were available, it would show no change (IMO).

[ferg]

42. look at the year-to-year numbers

It went up from 9.5% total unemployment last August to 10.0% this August.

For month-to-month you would need to try to figure things like the start of school, summer vacations or the christmas rush, etc. It's far too complicated to get right.

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

[tsipple]

13. Stock Market Futures Down

Ahead of the market open, the futures are down, meaning the bets are for a pullback. In a few more minutes that should be reality...

[scarface2004]

16. next month unemployment will be zero!!!

as carl roeve will decide that anyone not working has retired!!

[Maeve]

18. Add in the Census report that 1.4 million more in poverty than in 2001

And you get a feel for just how much Dubya has done to us, as opposed to "for us."
See article and discussion here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=95447

[Beetwasher]

20. This will quietly be revised upward

Just you watch...

[robbedvoter]

21. Here's the chart to check - with historical perspective too:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm
go to the last index on the chart and compare W's and Clinton's

[Cocoa]

25. Bush is a miserable failure

yet more proof right there.

[sandnsea]

41. Just a miserable failure

It's incomprehensible. :-)

[Snellius]

30. What would unemployment be without 9/11 and Iraq?

Bu**sh** keeps insisting that the recession is largely due to the war on terrorism, but without the huge increase in military spending and new war-related jobs, these unemployment figures would be disasterous. These trends, as Bush himself admits, were well in process BEFORE 9/11. In the past, many historians contend that what brought America out of the Great Depression was really World War II. Bush's only job's creation program was Iraq.

[villageidiot]

32. Another important addendum to this

The average hours per work week is down, which means companies won't be hiring any time soon. They still have a sizeable buffer of "time" they can use with existing employees.

It's interesting how Captain Segway has changed his economy spin. Before his tax cuts were going to create 2 million jobs, now his tax cuts have saved 1.5 million jobs. Okay, I get it now. The "Jobs Package" wasn't about creating jobs, it was about saving jobs.

Fuck that miserable prick!!

[TahitiNut]

36. "Casual Overtime"

One of the ways 'productivity' is raised is when people work "off the clock" (sometimes called "casual overtime"). This will also be reflected in the 'average hours per week' figures. Thus, the "buffer of time" isn't necessarily as large as otherwise thought.

[JackSwift]

33. And no one in the Bush family has lost a job due to the economy

for the 200th consecutive quarter, since records started being kept.

[AmericaInWonderland]

35. i am looking forward to a whole bunch of layoffs

in 2004.

[peacetalksforall]

43. Isn't September the month when the unemployment per cent

ALWAYS GOES DOWN ANYWAY as younger workers go back to school?

[TahitiNut]

44. The figures released today were for August.

As for September, yes the 'unadjusted' figures go down as both students and teachers go back to school. That's part of why they have 'seasonally adjusted' figures in the first place. I suspect, as schools gradually have opened earlier and earlier into August, the adjustment factors have not kept apace. Thus, the August figures are slightly lower than they would be if the adjustment factors were updated. But that's only a guess. :shrug:

[BuckIGirl]

47. What they do...

and don't do are two differnt things.

The US Dept. of Labor really should enact provisions for the the unemployed. I not just talking about the financial provision that they allow, but I think that there really needs to provisions for the unemployed that can justify their job search in writing, that you are releived of that years federal tax return. Not that this would happen, but in the event that they could do this, it would make them responsible for keeping the public working.

Also I think that there needs to be provisions, just like for Soldier and Saliors, that corporations can not pursue legal proceedings for the unemployed as well as must drop the finance changes and interest rate for the unemployed.

We may never see this, certainly not from this adminstration, but what a campaign platform that would be.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

49. Welcome to DU, BuckIGirl!

The idea that corporations will cut into profits to give lower level employees benefits they aren't required to is a joke. You make a good point.