BREAKING: Unemployment rate down to 8.9% in Feb. +192,000 nonfarm payrolls.

[jefferson_dem]

Unemployment rate down to 8.9% in Feb. +192,000 nonfarm payrolls. Unemployment rate was 9% for January.

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-11-0271
until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 4, 2011

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 -- FEBRUARY 2011


Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 8.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics re-
ported today. Job gains occurred in manufacturing, construction, professional and
business services, health care, and transportation and warehousing.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons (13.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.9
percent) changed little in February. The labor force was about unchanged over
the month. The jobless rate was down by 0.9 percentage point since November 2010.
(See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.7 percent),
adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (23.9 percent), whites (8.0 percent), blacks
(15.3 percent), and Hispanics (11.6 percent) showed little or no change in February.
The jobless rate for Asians was 6.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables
A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, at 8.3 million,
continued to trend down in February and has fallen by 1.2 million over the past 12
months. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was 6.0 million and accounted for 43.9 percent of the unemployed. (See tables A-11
and A-12.)

Both the civilian labor force participation rate, at 64.2 percent, and the employ-
ment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, were unchanged in February. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.3 million in
February. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut
back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In February, 2.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, up
from 2.5 million a year earlier. (These 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.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.0 million discouraged workers in February,
a decrease of 184,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no
jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to
the labor force in February had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the sur-
vey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 192,000 in February. Job gains occurred in
manufacturing, construction, and several service-providing industries. Since a recent
low in February 2010, total payroll employment has grown by 1.3 million, or an average
of 106,000 per month. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing employment rose by 33,000 in February. Almost all of the gain occurred
in durable goods industries, including machinery (+9,000) and fabricated metal pro-
ducts (+7,000). Manufacturing has added 195,000 jobs since its most recent trough in
December 2009; durable goods manufacturing added 233,000 jobs during this period.

Construction employment grew by 33,000 in February, following a decline of 22,000 in
January that may have reflected severe winter weather. Within construction, specialty
trade contractors accounted for the bulk of the February job gain (+28,000).

Employment in the service-providing sector continued to expand in February, led by
a gain of 47,000 in professional and business services. Employment services added
29,000 jobs, and employment rose by 7,000 in management and technical consulting.
Within employment services, the number of jobs in temporary help services edged up
over the month.

Health care employment continued to increase in February (+34,000). Over the prior
12 months, health care had added 260,000 jobs, or an average of 22,000 jobs per month.

Transportation and warehousing employment increased by 22,000 in February, with half
of that gain in truck transportation (+11,000).

Employment in both state and local government edged down over the month. Local govern-
ment has lost 377,000 jobs since its peak in September 2008.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
34.2 hours in February. The manufacturing workweek for all employees rose by 0.1 hour
to 40.5 hours, while factory overtime rose by 0.2 hour to 3.3 hours. The average work-
week for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased
by 0.1 hour to 33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
increased by 1 cent to $22.87. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have
increased by 1.7 percent. In February, average hourly earnings of private-sector pro-
duction and nonsupervisory employees were unchanged at $19.33. (See tables B-3 and
B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from +121,000
to +152,000, and the change for January was revised from +36,000 to +63,000.

___________
The Employment Situation for March is scheduled to be released on Friday, April 1, 2011,
at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

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

A good chart to track the trend - http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm

[Badfish]

1. rec for recovery

[eridani]

47. Whoopdedoo. That means that we are looking at 14 straight years of no net job growth--

--instead of 15. Why this fucking bland stupid passive acceptance of the "new normal"?

[high density]

51. Is Obama supposed to go back and change the past, or what?

Improvements have to start from somewhere.

[eridani]

53. Obama is supposed to advocate massive government intervention--

--to deal with this ongoing disaster. He isn't likely to get it, and ought to start blaming the Repukes.

[high density]

55. Government intervention is more tax cuts for the rich

That's all our elected representatives can do. They are too cowardly/stupid/owned to do anything else.

[opihimoimoi]

2. By the time Obama reaches the end of his 2 terms...then rate gonna be 3.5

[Badfish]

4. it will never be below 6.5 ....

EVER ...at any time in the future.

[treestar]

17. Why do you say that?

?

[Badfish]

18. Full employment in the USA is considered ...

to be about 5.5%

[obamafourmore]

8. It won't. At this point the goal is to go under 8% by November 2012

Then it will be much faster.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. Well at this rate, we'll be under 8% by summer...

And that will send the Republicans into a tizzy.

[Lint Head]

3. Obama's doing it.

[flpoljunkie]

5. CNBC's Mark Haines : Unequivocally, a good report. Great, great news!

A total of 222,000 private sector growth jobs.

[Clio the Leo]

10. and with nothing negative to day, Morning Joe moves on to Jesus...

... nothing wrong with talking about Jesus of course, but I remember last time they spent an entire segment bemoaning how bad things were (when the rate dropped dramatically to 9.0)

[bigdarryl]

6. and the rethugs heads are going to EXPLODE!!!!

[paparush]

7. I work for my county govt. 10% budget cuts across the board this year.

We just lost 3 people from my dept. The jobs eliminated.

Board of commissioners just voted not to give us a 1.5% COLA this year. In all fairness, they did vote to cut their own compensation too.

Our governor, Bev Perdue, recently released a perky YouTube video announcing that the state doesn't have the $3.1B budget shortfall that was originally thought. The shortfall is only $2.1B. YAY!!!

[Clio the Leo]

9. dandy! nt

[young but wise]

11. Awesome news.

[JoePhilly]

12. When it hits 8.7%, it will have returned to where it was the first full month

after the stimulus passed back in 2009.

And that will be a "big F'in Deal!!!"

The unemployment curve will have turned.

[bigwillq]

13. A K and R for good news.

Let's hope the trend continues.

[tekisui]

14. Great psychological mark to be below 9%.

[obamafourmore]

15. Yep. Especially since we were so close to 10% only a couple of months back

[vroomvroom]

16. So the Lesson is Welfare to Wallstreet and other SuperRich is how you Save us?

Timmy Geitner and Barnanke are smoking their cigars right now saying "i told you so".
Giving to the super rich and watch it eventually trickle down.

[ClarkUSA]

19. It's the lowest since April 2009 - this is a top Yahoo! News headline

This news pales in importance to Matt Damon's disappointment, though.

:sarcasm:

[GSLevel9]

20. Gallup has UE up .5% in Feb (now 10.3%)

The fed numbers are cooked.

[jefferson_dem]

22. Cooked, I tell ya!

EmploymentBookCookers Unite!

Hell...the BLS has only been in business since the civil "fucking" war!

[WolfoftheWild]

23. I made up my own poll where UE is 50%. Obama sucks, we get it.

[obamafourmore]

29. Just 50%??? Cooked!

[pinqy]

24. Right....

It couldn't possibly be all the differences in methodology and sampling and time frame and seasonal adjustment that makes the difference.

your knee-jerking could hurt someone.

I started to write all the differences in methodology and why the 2 surveys actually do overlap, but I think it would be more fun to let you do it. Since your claiming the BLS numbers are cooked, you obviously must already be familiar with the differences and have judged the Gallup poll to be more accurate. So go ahead and explain why.

Except you won't.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Really? Explain why and offer proof of your claim.

Go into detail. You're saying the BLS numbers are cooked, so you obviously must have the methodology differences as well as the sampling, time frame and seasonal adjustments mapped out and ready to show me, right?

I'm not the only one who's waiting to hear it, so get to it!

[obamafourmore]

27. Gallup had unemployment at 8% two months back

That was not cooked at all, right?

[stevenleser]

31. That is not the Gallup jobs measurement that most people talk about.

This one is http://www.gallup.com/poll/110134/Gallup-Daily-US-Job-Market.aspx and it is a much better measurement of how the economy is doing with regards to jobs. Better in fact than the federal numbers and it shows the economy at two year highs.

[pinqy]

34. It's more timely, but not more accurate

Gallup's hiring measure reports the percentage of employed Americans who, based on what they know or have seen, report that their company or employer is hiring new people and expanding the size of its workforce, not changing the size of its workforce, or letting people go and reducing the size of its workforce. Results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,600 working adults; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.

The comparable government survey is the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) which surveys 16,000 establishments every month. So 16,000 reports using company records, or 1,600 reports of what people's impressions are...which do you consider the better measurement?

The advantage of the Gallup polls is timeliness..they use a smaller sample with less detailed questions and don't seasonally adjust, so they can put out their numbers a lot quicker.

[stevenleser]

36. It depends what you mean by accurate. If one really want to know what was going on in the job market

at a given point in time going back since Gallup started doing this survey, you have to go with this kind of a measurement, either Gallup or JOLTS (thanks for that one).

If you try to figure out what is going on in the economy using BLS info, it is very difficult except using larger increments of time (your timely comment).

[pinqy]

37. Oh, I agree...

Net changes are only useful so far, which is why BLS started the JOLTS program. But the BLS data is more accurate (more detailed construction and smaller error) when it is available.

Also available as an experimental series are Labor status current flows which shows Unemployment flows of Employed, Unemployed and Not in the Labor Force. Historical data is HERE

[MadBadger]

33. You do realize Gallup is a poll while the other is real numbers?

Polls can be trustworthy in the place of real numbers.

[pinqy]

41. It's not "real numbers"

Assuming you mean a full count, not an estimate based on a sample. The BLS numbers are from a monthly survey of 60,000 households.

And with larger numbers, a statistical estimate from a sample can be more accurate than an actual count. Counting introduces errors as well.

[WolfoftheWild]

21. Winning!

[ClarkUSA]

38. lol!

[craigmatic]

26. the repigs will reverse this just give them time. nt

[ClarkUSA]

28. Not only them. Someone has already tried on this thread. We're waiting on proof.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=622434&mesg_id=622542

[pinqy]

30. I'm not really waiting....

He won't reply, at least not with anything showing actual research.

I'm just taking bets with myself as to whether he's just ignoring the responses, or actually tried to look up the differences and didn't understand the explanations.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GSLevel9]

44. this is going to be a REALLY short response

so you can understand it clearly.

The reported unemployed "number" we hear every month is referred to as the "U3 Measure"

Basically the U3 measure that the BLS has used for decades isn't a clear measure of Americans who desire a job that don't HAVE a job.

U4 is U3 PLUS unemployed people who've "given up" from frustration.

U5 is U4 PLUS unemployed people who'd LIKE to work but haven't looked for work in a while.

and finally U6 is U5 PLUS people who lost their job as a carpenter and now flips burgers.

So in REALITY... real unemployment is probably between U4-U6 numbers.

So the summary for you...

The U3 measure is an incomplete measure of unemployment and this number is spoon fed to pablum consumers. I don't care if it were Clinton's U3 numbers, ShrubCos' or Obama's.

Lesson over.

[pinqy]

46. Nice try, but still a fail

You cited the Gallup poll and claimed the BLS numbers were "cooked."

I asked you to tell us the DIFFERENCES in methodology and why you consider the Gallup poll more accurate.

And you respond with BLS definitions and simply say you don't agree with the official definition??????

Gallup uses the U-3 definition for their poll. It's differences in sampling groups, time frames, seasonal adjustment, margins of error etc that account for the differences.

And that you don't agree with the official definition does not make yours the "real one" or the appropriate one, and it doesn't make the numbers cooked.

[GSLevel9]

50. whatever. nt

[amandabeech]

56. I thought that U6 included U5 plus people working part time who would like to work full time.

I don't think that there is any survey that tries to measure underemployment, like your example of a construction worker forced to flip burgers.

I think that U6 would only pick up a part time burger flipper who wanted to work full time somewhere, and somewhere could be anywhere.

[pinqy]

59. You are correct

Though to be precise, it's part time for economic reasons, meaning either cut hours or available for but cannot find full time work.

Wanting full time work but working part time because you have to look after the kids doesn't count for BLS, though it does for Gallup. But then again, BLS defines part time as less than 35 hours and Gallup as less than 30.

[waterproof mp3]

39. Thats great news

The decrease in unemployment means more power to our economy and people will start buying once again. I hope that this trend will continue for many more months to come.

[Lorien]

40. And up 10.2 percent according to an article just yesterday

Millions of unemployed are falling off the rolls as well. Real unemployment is far, far higher than is being reported by the corporate cronie press. And does Obama speak of jobs?? FUCK NO! He's touring my State with Jebby, planning on killing what's left of the teaching profession: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/education/18classrooms.html?_r=1

[StarburstClock]

43. Nice try but this isn't about reality, it's about reciting cooked numbers

and pretending like they're some kind of political victory.

[Scurrilous]

42. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Uta]

48. Woo Hoo! ....I'm rich!

Rich beyond my wildest dreams!
Tomorrow, I'm going to buy myself a shiny Cadillac!
....and some caviar!
...with the 8.50 an hour I make on my 20 hour a week job.

Maybe I'll hold back on the Caddy, the Caviar, and...food, and stuff. I think I'll be using most of my splendid largess filling my gas tank so I can continue to work part time for poor wages.
Yippie.
I wish I could share your enthusiasm for these bright hopeful times we live in, but I'm just too fucking hungry and cold to spare the excess energy.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. Republican job killers must be sick that the President is producing jobs

[WolfoftheWild]

52. kick

[BobbyBoring]

54. Let"s see

1600 people are surveyed and we determine this? Oh and they average $22.87 per hour? MUUUHAAWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAA

What a fucking crock. I guess if it makes one feel better to believe though, that's OK

[amandabeech]

57. I always find the details of the household survey instructive,

Here's the link:

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

I'm afraid that I'm not so hot at posting charts.

But the line I always look at is the one giving the number of people actually employed at that time. There has been little or no improvement in the past year or the past month.

When that number improves significantly, I'll be more optimistic.

Remember, the economy must generate approximately 130,000 jobs every month for new workers entering the workforce. Only jobs over that number really cut into unemployment.

[pinqy]

60. And it went up 147,000 last month

So things are starting to improve if that continues.

[amandabeech]

61. We really need much stronger growth than that.

Eight million people lost their jobs during the Great Recession. I don't know how many more are making much less doing something at a lower skill or experience level.

Since about 135,000 of those jobs are needed for people coming into the labor force for the first time, that leaves about 17,000 for the extremely large number of people who would like to be working or would like to be full time.

That 147,000 needs to come up quite a bit to really get folks back to work.

I know that the hemorrhaging has stopped, well I hope, but the patient is still in critical condition in the ICU.

[great white snark]

58. Kick.