US job growth unexpectedly strong in July (+207,000 jobs; 5.0% UE Rate )

[tritsofme]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. job growth picked up last month as employers added 207,000 workers to their payrolls, a healthy gain that outstripped Wall Street expectations, a government report showed on Friday.

The unemployment rate held steady at the 2-3/4-year low of 5 percent reached in June, the Labor Department said.

While some economists had thought the report might be skewed by Hurricane Dennis, which battered the Florida panhandle in mid-July, the department said the storm appeared to have no discernible impact on the data.

Overall, the report was a bit stronger than Wall Street analysts had expected. Economists had forecast a job gain of 183,000 with the jobless rate steady.

A net upward revision of 42,000 to the job growth figures for May and June contributed to the report's solid tenor. U.S. employers added 166,000 workers in June and 126,000 in May.

<SNIP>
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-08-05T123739Z_01_N04168296_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-ECONOMY-EMPLOYMENT-DC.XML

Overall a good report.

[Raiden]

1. Oh man, I'm ready for them to claim CAFTA is responsible

Wait for it... wait for it

[tanyev]

2. "Would you like fries with that?"

asked the former software designer.

[raccoon]

10. Yep, these articles never say how many are part-time

no benefits McJobs. However many were supposedly created.

[krkaufman]

21. Yeah, those stats don't tell us much.

I'd like to see a weighted statistic, something that incorporates the earnings and benefits of the jobs.

2 jobs at $20k/year and no health bennies != $80k/year w/ bens & 401k

[me b zola]

43. That sums up shrub economics.

"We must bust up your unions to allow you to work for minimum wage w/o bennies. Oh, you are high tech? I 'm quite sure you are tired of that and would greatly appriciate working at Taco Bell instead."


The ownership society. How do you like being one of the owned?

[krkaufman]

45. "...one of the owned?" -- EXACTLY! n/t

[screembloodymurder]

88. They were unexpectedly weak last month.

You didn't hear any crowing then. These guys are like a rooster that wakes up every other day. The economy is weaker than a cricket's piss.

[Psephos]

69. The reason they don't is because they don't count smaller part-time jobs

A job has to provide 25 hours of employment a week to show up in the statistics.

A more useful statistic is total number of hours worked per week by US workers. That has been going up for some time. Some of it is due to overtime, some of it to more jobs.

Peace.

[OhioChick]

34. Ditto.................n/t

[bribri16]

86. Just another big lie. Ask the people who are unemployed.

Unless they are counting illegal working immigrants.

[RDANGELO]

3. How often have we had this.

How many time since we supposedly came out of the recession has the job creation been this high. I don't think its been more than a handful. During the Clinton years we routinely hit at least 250 thousand. Last month was int 140s and the month before that it was 78.
By chance does anyone have the figures.

[tritsofme]

5. May and June were revised upward

to 126k and 166k respectively.

You need 150k just to keep up with population growth.

You can look at historical payroll data here:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

[papau]

4. A bit more data from Dept of Labor - and Bloomberg comment

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

Friday, August 5, 2005.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JULY 2005

Nonfarm employment grew by 207,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was
unchanged at 5.0 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor reported today. Over the month, payroll employment rose in many
service-providing industries.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.5 million, and the unemployment
rate, 5.0 percent, were unchanged in July. A year earlier, the number of
unemployed was 8.2 million and the jobless rate was 5.5 percent.

Establishment Survey Data:

Total nonfarm employment rose by 207,000 in July to 133.8 million, season-
ally adjusted. This followed job gains of 126,000 in May and 166,000 in June
(as revised). In July, there were employment gains in many service-providing
industries, including retail trade, professional and technical services, finan-
cial activities, food services, and health care. (See table B-1.)

Retail trade employment rose by 50,000 in July, following little change in
June. This industry has gained 197,000 jobs over the year. In July, retail
employment gains were widespread, including growth in clothing stores (13,000),
motor vehicle and parts dealers (10,000), and building material and garden
supply stores (7,000).

Employment in professional and technical services increased by 23,000 in
July. Over the year, this industry has added 211,000 jobs. Management and
technical consulting services, as well as architectural and engineering
services, contributed to the July gain.

Employment in financial activities rose by 21,000 over the month, as credit
intermediation and real estate showed continued strength. Since July 2004,
employment in credit intermediation has grown by 93,000, while real estate has
added 54,000 jobs.

Elsewhere in the service-providing sector, employment in food services and
drinking places rose by 30,000 over the month. This industry has added 262,000
jobs over the year. The health care industry continued to grow in July, adding
29,000 jobs. Ambulatory health care services (which includes doctors' offices
and outpatient clinics), hospitals, and nursing and residential care facilities
all contributed to the employment gain. Temporary help services employment was
flat in July and has shown little net change since April.

In the goods-producing sector, construction employment continued to trend
up. Thus far this year, job gains in construction have averaged 21,000 per
month, about in line with the average monthly increase for 2004. In July, manu-
facturing employment was about unchanged. The motor vehicle and parts industry
shed 11,000 jobs, reflecting larger-than-usual shutdowns for annual retooling.
Employment in wood products fell by 4,000. These losses were partly offset
by small increases in several other manufacturing industries. Mining employ-
ment remained about the same over the month.

2005 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total
-280 100 179 257 207 184 -76 - the -76 for July compares to last years -80




http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aapeRJJSaXso&refer=home

U.S. July Payrolls Rise 207,000; Jobless Rate at 5% (Update1)
Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. employers added 207,000 workers in July, more than forecast, suggesting companies are gaining confidence as the economy picks up steam in the second half. The jobless rate held at 5 percent, matching an almost four-year low.

The increase in payrolls exceeded the median estimate of a 180,000 rise and reflected more jobs at retailers, auto dealers and financial services firms. Employment rose by 166,000 jobs in June, more than previously reported, the Labor Department said today in Washington. <snip>


Central bankers are forecast to raise the benchmark interest rate a quarter percentage point to 3.5 percent at their Aug. 9 meeting to help contain inflation, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey. <snip>

After today's report, economists at Lehman Brothers said the Fed would raise the federal funds target to 4.5 percent at the February 2006 meeting. Before the report, they were forecasting a 4 percent rate at the end of the first quarter. They were considering a change in their forecast prior to the July employment report. <snip>

[MetaTrope]

6. "More jobs at financial services firms"

Those being payday loan places, repossession agents and credit card default collectors, I presume?

[papau]

11. Actually Housing sales jobs are up - & processing the paperwork!

:-)

[bananas]

8. Birth/Death Adjustment

The mysterious birth/death adjustment swamps the totals:
May: 126k jobs created, 207k of them "birth/death"
June: 166k jobs created, 184k of them "birth/death"
July: 207k jobs created, -76k of them "birth/death"

[papau]

13. As folks go on the payroll tax system you'd think that "birth/death"

would drop (only 1% of Clinton's 23 million jobs were birth/death vs perhaps 200% of Bush's jobs - Bush actually has lost jobs year to date if you exclude birth/death - but note that the birth/death system was just getting started under Clinton)

For the life of me I do not understand why Birth/death grows the employed worker numbers every year under Bush - it is as if the working at home crowd never pays the payroll tax.

[tritsofme]

23. Are you still saying this?

The Net Birth/Death number is not seasonally adjusted and cannot be compared to the seasonally adjusted payroll number.

[papau]

54. "cannot be compared" is a con game as it is part of non-seasonally

adjusted before adjustment and therefore increases the seasonally adjusted.

Why do these non-payroll tax folks never make a major decrease in the birth/death adjustment as they go on the payroll tax system? How can the net adjustment grow over the last 4 years to 3 million new- not seasonally adjusted - jobs - obviously much more than the actual increase in the non-seasonally adjusted without the birth/death guess since that number is negative - Bush has lost jobs over 5 years without the birth/death guess being added on..

Or are we to agree with Cheney that us "liberal" math/econ types just do not appreciate the new Bush jobs such as the 400,000 EBAY sellers as new classes of "worker"?

[Jane Doe]

62. Comments on the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Inflation

Thank you for posting analysis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This gives people the opportunity to dig deeper for more information at the source.

If one visits the site, they will see that retail and food service jobs make up approximate 1/4 of the new jobs. They will see that manufacturing and information technology jobs are down. They will see that alternative unemployment figures show an unemployment rate closer to 8.5% when factoring in the actual unemployed, the marginally unemployed, the part-time employed, etc.

Close to the alternative 8.5% unemployment rate is what the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston chief economist came up with in a study published in July 2005. An 8.5% unemployment rate indicates slack in the economy and explains why wages are rebounding so slowly from the recession of 2001.

If a close to 8.5% unemployment rate is correct, one would wonder why the Federal Reserve Bank would continue to raise short-term rates to alleviate concerns about inflation. However, fuel and housing costs definitely contribute to inflation but they are not reflected in the inflation index.

Interesting thoughts to ponder.

[chknltl]

75. Welcome to the Democratic Underground Jane Doe N/T

[raccoon]

87. Great post. Welcome to DU. nt

[nolabels]

92. They raise short term interest rates to keep foreign capital from leaving

Which is a way of lowering living standards here. Produce more or you won't have a job. They have been sucking everybody into vortex for awhile and it's going to hit harder when it does let go. Housing is teetering on a precipice plus the cost of energy (fuel) will get filtered down into the inflation rate soon enough.

[Theres-a]

7. Bullshit! **storms off*

[shantipriya]

9. Job Numbers

I don't believe in any of the data produced by this lying administration.

[belab13]

12. excuse me for being skeptical but these numbers do not

add up, especially in light of all the recent corporate announcements of mass layoffs... Kimberly Clark, HP, etc...



more economic propaganda

[SleeplessinSoCal]

38. I see more people in the stores

[Barkley]

55. Its really the Fed that manages the business cycle not the President

So the growth rates in jobs and housing particularly refect relatively low (but slowly rising) interest rates.

[second edition]

14. I'm not ready to declare we have a booming job market just yet.

Bush's job numbers have been so bad for so long that any number above 1000,000 looks good. Also, as someone pointed out, what kind of jobs are we referring to? They mention retail and we know retail is always part time with no benefits. Health care- possibly some good jobs there, but the jobs could also be orderly type and service related part time help also. Oh, and they mention construction. This is usually always seasonal and offers no benefits.
Factory jobs are on the decline, I guess we can all surmise why that is, can't we?
All and all this looks like an attempt to exploit a couple of decent monthly figures in an attempt to claim Bush's corporate tax incentives are working a his economic plans are exceeding expectations. I will remain skeptical until "real jobs" are created that offer living wages and benefits.

[Deja Q]

15. What TYPE OF JOBS? High paying ones or shit retail types?

These damn things don't bother to tell a damn deail.

Okay, wow, they did specify some details for once. Not as much as we, the people, deserve, but at least it isn't more glib claptrap.

[ProudDad]

49. If the last 20 years are any judge

shit-jobs...

Low wage, part time, "service" jobs to replace the factory and industry jobs that have fled.

[Judi Lynn]

16. US jobs growth at five-month high

Last Updated: Friday, 5 August 2005, 15:03 GMT 16:03 UK


US jobs growth at five-month high

Despite the growth in jobs, US factories are shedding workers
The US economy created 207,000 new jobs in July, the biggest gain in five months, according to official figures.
At the same time, US unemployment remained steady at 5% for the second month in a row, continuing at a four-year low.

New positions were created in retailing, education, health services, finance and construction, the US Labor Department said.

By contrast, factories shed jobs for the second straight month.
(snip)

Similarly, the length of time people remain unemployed is at a level last seen in the early 1990s.
(snip/)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4749347.stm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. This will get revised in two weeks

but it will be all the blather on the news today

[tritsofme]

24. Just like they revised May and June today...

Upward.....

[HockeyMom]

18. WalMart, Home Depot, PETCO

are all hiring! LOL

[redqueen]

19. Do other countries skew their numbers like we do? It's really 8.9%

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

Check line U-6

[tritsofme]

26. Really? So you're willing to say that Clinton's UE never got under 7%?

Because that's the story if you use U6.

This study by Cornell might interest you:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=key_workplace

It determines international unemployment rates using US concepts.

[papau]

56. Yes - indeed that 7% was a major achievement of Clinton's 8 yrs

and compares well to the 9% to 15% in other industrialized countries that have an honest count.

[mbperrin]

20. Yeah, right.

Look around.

All I have to say...

[Halliburton]

22. yeah

the window washing job at Best Western is really sustaining America's economy.

[Robeson]

25. Don't high schoolers and college students flood the job market during...

...the summer months? Perhaps that would have something to do with the numbers.

[tritsofme]

27. Payroll numbers are seasonally adjusted

to account for things like this.

[applegrove]

28. When a government is paying Trillions for war - that ups employment.

But they could have spent that much on education & the like that are actual investments in people. And they have not paid for the trillions. It is a false perpetual market based on War spending & going into debt.

Meant to "starve the beast" and hog-tie Democratic President's in the future.

And then..your children will have to pay for that debt. And those on SS.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. "Overall a good report"?? Only if you're chugging the NeoCon Kool-Aid.

[tritsofme]

31. I don't know how to classify it any differently...

207k jobs is a good report...

Its not all roses in the labor market, and hasn't been for awhile.

But that doesn't mean this report isn't good...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

68. On first blush, looks good, although if you remove the war driven jobs

Looks like we're in the toilet.

BTW, most are low paying, and the wages have gone up 16 cents an hour this month.

Don't spend it all in one place. MKJ

[leftofthedial]

30. At the risk of sounding like Novakula . . . Bullshit

no frigging way is the Unemployment Rate 5%.

It is 25% if it is 1%.

[Rambis]

32. They quit counting...

people that exhausted their 18 months of unemployment benefits and the people that have just quit looking for work in the past 3 years.

[tritsofme]

33. You're only half right.

Exhausting your unemployment benefits has no effect on whether the BLS through the CPS determines that you are unemployed.

However you not counted as unemployed if you are no longer actively seeking a job.

You can see alternate measures of unemployment here:

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

[leftofthedial]

36. I work in a pretty public profession

And meet hundreds of people a week. Many of them have become friends over a period of years whom I see fairly often.

Out of, say, a hundred people I know, in 2000 essentially all of them were employed. If anyone was unemployed, it was a very temporary situation. Now, at least a third are unemployed and at least half the rest are grossly underemployed, working two or three jobs and making less than they used to working one job. No more than a quarter have health insurance unless they pay for it in full for themselves.

And this is in a state that Forbes claims is booming.

[area51]

82. I agree.

I'll bet you're right, and that 25% unemployment figure has been my estimation too. All hail emperor GW Hoover's depression-era economy. :mad:

[plasticsundance]

35. Go to this BLS Link

Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see that the birth/death model amounted to about half of the job growth last year. I think the percentage is 48 percent.

CES Net Birth/Death Model

It's all smoke and mirrors.

[tritsofme]

46. If you read some of the things at that link, you would know

That the numbers given in the Net Birth/Death Model are not comparable to seasonally adjusted payroll numbers.

[bdot]

37. Yet still no one is hiring. ugh...

[SleeplessinSoCal]

39. I notice an uptick in Seniors working in stores

[lumpy]

41. Seniors have a hard time keeping up

with inflation, higher medical costs, insurance costs and of course 'keeping food on your family'. Seniors are also willing to work at or below minimum wages.

[lumpy]

40. Part time summer help raises

the numbers. As always figures lie and liars figure.

[tritsofme]

47. Except for the fact that the numbers are seasonally adjusted.

Do we have to rip down every bit of good news?

I'd like to hope that after four years, the economy is finally starting to do better, despite Bush doing the best he could to fuck it up.

[Nexus7]

65. Getting better... is it now?

Quote:
>>Do we have to rip down every bit of good news?
...
economy getting better ***
<<

You're one insufferable *$#%(@*, aren't you? You've been posting one liner replies to every followup that imply that you have the faintest, but no where do you compare any of these numbers to what they are in a *good* economy. Somebody already posted that the real unemployment rate is something like 8.5%. In any event, the job growth in this administration has been all over the map, sometimes much better than expected, sometimes much less, and always less than Clinton's average number. The numbers are also revised heavily for past months every month, and are close to useless for any practical purpose. They're good only for politics and to keep some people employed in the financial houses. If as you state job growth is enough to determine the state of the economy, these characteristics say that the economy is very variable and worse than under Clinton.

Of course, job growth is just one measure of the economy. What do prices look like? I'm looking here at gas at 2.5X Clinton, and everything else dearer too. Massive private debt, and the libertarian ideologue Greenspan printing money as fast as he can, and a possible hard landing in store when the credit dries up. We're $300B into Iraq and no honorable end in sight yet.

How's the industrial expansion? As another poster has stated above, industrial jobs are down, and we also know about the layouts in multiples of 10k being announced in the SP500 and increasingly Dow30 firms. I could go on, but I only wanted to point out that you not only have an irritating style, but you're pretty clueless to be making grand pronouncements about the economy.

Man, you sound like republican-lite.

[annabanana]

84. Welcome to DU! and you're right....

until he replies to you..he's peeing into the wind as far as I'm concerned!

[napi21]

42. I keep seeing all this great job news, but everyone is still not able

to find a decent job. Now, I don't really care about what the numbers say. Numbers can be made to support ANYTHING! (I'm an accountant, believe me, I know!)

The word on the street is what is real, and there are still far too many people saying they can't find a decent job, or having to take two jobs at $6-$7/hr each just to survive.

Then there's the addition of gas prices, food, heating/air conditioning costs, etc...ALL GOING UP, but wages are going down!

Thos numbers are a smoke screen!

[Straight Shooter]

44. NPR was discussing the jobs report this morning. Here's the kicker:

They reported that businesses are happy with the increase in jobs, but they don't think they can sustain it unless wages stay down.

In other words, big business refuses to recognize that people need more than the current minimum wage, needless to mention the benefits. If people start demanding more wages for their labor, guess what? Business will cut back on available jobs.

Having their cake and eating it, too. Throwing us the crumbs and telling us to be happy because UE is supposedly at 5%. It's a gross miscarriage of justice for the American worker.

[ProudDad]

48. There was a time when 4% unemployment rate

was "optimal"...

[tritsofme]

51. The average unemployment rate over the past 50 years is 5.85%

A peacetime unemployment rate of 4% or less like we saw in the late 1990s is quite a rarity.

[ProudDad]

66. I was talking about classic Kensyian economics

I seem to remember back in the 50's and 60's when the unemployment rate was discussed an optimum rate of 4% was mentioned.

We've rarely had it because the rich are too damn greedy, I guess.

[Psephos]

70. No disrespect intended, but there is another reason.

Economists of both the left and right have generally and long agreed that getting unemployment below approximately 4% ignores the reality of the "structural unemployed." (Some say it's more like 3%.) These are the people who for a number of reasons are difficult or impossible to employ. The structurally unemployed are a constant feature of human societies, and are predicted by class theories of social hierarchy. Just as there will always be a class of poor people (there always have been), there will always be some be some people who either can't or won't hold a job. No blame or fault implied; just making a neutral observation.

In the real world, getting a hundred percent of anything is impossible, unless you are Saddam and counting the votes in the presidential election. Come to think of it, he only claimed 99%.

Peace.

[pinniped]

50. Before the (s)election there were a lot of bogus numbers released.

.

[Lecky]

52. Actually, it's nice to hear some good news for a change

[papau]

57. I agree - but then the National Debt rose from $5.7 T by $2 T which should

buy us a few months of good economic news, given the theft from our kids that is the increase in the National Debt, given the fact that Social Programs like Social Security/Medicare have greater funding problems because of today's borrowing, and given that if you can't stimulate the economy with $2 trillion,.....

the government may as well give up on the concept of "stimulus" ... packages regardless of whether the package is made up of extra spending or is made up of tax cuts for the rich.

[MadisonProgressive]

53. I keep hearing that it takes 250K jobs/month just to break even

So why is this proof of such a goddam stong economy???

[papau]

58. Corporate earnings are great with fewer workers, meaning "productivity"

via India/China is up -

now is that not a good thing????


In any case the breakeven number is more like 150,000 - so we are growing - maybe - if the pretend birth/death numbers do not totally screw up the trend line.

[bluestateguy]

59. There are plenty of jobs

Stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, pumping gas at Mobil, waiting tables at Denny's, being a day laborer, temp agency work and being a motel maid.

Conservatives think that should be good enough for any American, thank you, and that they should just shut up and be grateful to the all mighty employer that they have a job. Those of us with advanced education, skills and the aspiration to make something better for ourselves and our families are dismissed as whiners if we complain about the job market.

[Xipe Totec]

60. Stand Back! He's got a calculator!

Let's examine some numbers, shall we?

The USA's population on July 1, 2004 was 293.7 million, up 1% from July 1, 2003. If the rate held steady at 1%, there were 296.7 people by July 1, 2005. An increase of 2.937 million people for the year or about 244,750 new people each month. That means we need that many new jobs just to stay up with population grouth. But only 207,000 jobs were created, a net deficit of 37,750 jobs for the month.

So tell me why this is such a fantastic number of new jobs again?

:shrug:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2004-12-22-sun-belt_x.htm

[tritsofme]

63. It is generally accepted that 150,000 new jobs

will keep pace with population growth.

Not all of the growth in the USA's population are in the labor force.

[Xipe Totec]

67. 150,000 Only if you want to maintain 5.5% unemployment rate

The unemployment rate was 4% when Clinton left office. The additional 1.5% unemployment translates to a deficit of 2,200,000 jobs. To make up the job deficit between now and the next general election (15 months), you need to create 147,400 additional jobs on top of the minimum 150,000 needed to keep unemployment steady at 5.5%

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

[tritsofme]

72. The link doesn't work

But its hard to compare data between the CES and the CPS because they are different surveys with different variables.

Even though Bush has a small net gain of payrolls in his term, he is still far behind if you account for population growth.

All things equal, adding 150,000 payrolls each month should keep the unemployment rate steady.

However a change in the unemployment rate, in either direction could be a good or a bad thing.

It could be good for the economy if the unemployment rate ticked up because of discouraged workers rejoining the labor force.

And it can be bad for it to go down when its only going down because of workers leaving the labor force. And I don't dispute that some of the reason U3 unemployment is down is because of workers leaving the labor force.

[Xipe Totec]

85. I've retested the link

from two different locations and it is working for me. It is an ftp rather than an html link. That may be the source of the problem for you. Here is the link to the request page, try that:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

At any rate it is a link to the Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date, from the bureau of labor statistics.

Whether something is good or bad for the economy, or for the invisible hand up the market doesn't really mater to the guy that does not have a job. Any job.

Yes the numbers can be manipulated and they are being manipulated by this administration. My point is that even giving them the benefit of a doubt, the numbers do not look good. After all, 150,000 new jobs created each month is what you would expect to happen if you took no action. So why are these extra 50,000 jobs created this particular month being talked up as if it was proof that * is some kind of economic genius?


(edit) on the link go down about a third of the page, to the EMPLOYMENT STATUS box, and chose option 1"

"Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date"

[superconnected]

76. in Sept 2003 the gov pulled back a 50k job loss to report a 200k job gain

they started reporting part-time jobs as full time. Which made the difference.

Therefore unless the clinton statistics are being reported with the same math the bush statistics post aug 2003 are, there is no comparrison between unemployment rates.

What Bush is reporting as %5 could easily be %15 unemployment in the calculation we were all used to.

[regnaD kciN]

77. That's correct...

Comparing pre-Bush-refiguring unemployment figures to current ones is a matter of apples to oranges.

[tritsofme]

81. That doesn't sound right

I don't remember a time when a distinction was made in the final number between part-time and full-time.

As long as I can remember, you were considered to be employed by the BLS if you had worked at least 1 hour during that month.

I don't remember the initial revisions from August 2003, but the final revisions as posted now are +2k for August 2003 and +94k for September 2003.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

[superconnected]

95. actually

You can look it up in news broadcasts. I've had to look it up 4 times now over the years to show people. It's buried but it's there.
They reported part time jobs are part time before, now they report them as full time. Also that same year(spring) when the Bush Admin put it before congress, congress voted it down. The Bush Admin invoked it anyway in September. It made news because they had pulled back the numbers for the loss and reported the sudden big gain. They never announced they changed the reporting. Instead when questioned by reporters they defended part time jobs being reported as full time now. It kept coming back up and they kept answering to reporting them that way. Even though like I said, congress voted the change down.

[tritsofme]

97. It just doesn't make sense to me, Table A5 in the

Employment Situation Report:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm

Shows workers who are part-time, and the reasons for their working that job.

Nevertheless, this is calculated through the Current Population Survey (CPS) from which the unemployment rate is derived.

The Current Establishment Survey (CES) shows the growth in payrolls each month.

They are seperate surveys and not related, and I don't see how being classified as full-time or part-time in the CES would make a difference in the final number reported.

Even so, during Clinton's terms, you were certaintly not counted as unemployed when you only held a part-time job.

Also, I don't see any big gains in August or September 2003's final revisions, as reported they are quite anemic, but I do seem to recall that was around the time we stopped hemorrhaging jobs.

[Auntie Bush]

61. We have a new GAP store in our town. They hired 75 new workers and

EVERY SINGLE JOB IS PART TIME! Not a single worker in the place got a FULL TIME position. NO ONE gets any health insurance!!!!! What kind of a country do we live in? No wonder there are so many new jobs!!!! And bush* claims it's due to all his tax cuts. I'm so damn mad I could spit. How can anyone afford a house and health Insurance on a part time job? I could go on and on but I'll stop now because I don't want my head to explode.

[Daphne08]

98. What kind of a country do we live in?

One in which corporations no longer give a damn about American workers!

I never thought I'd live to see the day. :(

[Not_Giving_Up]

64. Funny....

I've applied for about a million jobs, but haven't gotten one of them.

[AtomicKitten]

71. The unemployment figure is fuzzy math.

Unemployement benefits expire after 13 weeks and then people just fall off the rolls - just the way the Republicans like it. They don't extend benefits and it gives the illusion of a low figure.

[tritsofme]

74. The unemployment rate is determined through the Current Population Survey

Not by state unemployment benefits.

[AtomicKitten]

78. True - - Yabut

What you have said is true, however, not the end in the final analysis (see below). The truth is the Repubs have not extended unemployment benefits for people and the Dems stopped asking.



Barons: Economists say Job Market Far Worse than Data Suggest, Real Unemployment 9.4%


Barons: " rate is ... mathematical sleight of hand. he actual number may be closer to 6.4, 7.2 or 9.4%. The reason the unemployment rate has stayed so low, these economists argue, is not due to improvements in hiring trends. Instead, people are 'dropping out' of the labor force. early two million additional unemployed people who are not showing up in the unemployment rate data. ISI Group's Tom Gallagher noted that 'if the participation rate was at the older, higher level, then the unemployment rate would be around 7.2%. Even using a 10-year average of participation rate yields a 6.4% unemployment rate.' If that sounds bad, consider what happens when we add the 'so-called marginally attached workers and part-timers who really want to be working full time.' Barron's Alan Abelson unemployment rate 9.4% 'we're now 9.3 million jobs below where we'd be in a 'normal' recovery.'"

[tritsofme]

79. Two different scenarios

This is much different from what your other post described.

You're unemployment benefits could have run out years ago, but if you are still actively seeking employment, you are considered to be unemployed and in the labor market.

I suppose you could actually still be receiving unemployment benefits, and not be considered unemployed or in the labor market if you were not actively seeking work.

You can see alternate measures of unemployment here:
http://bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

[annabanana]

83. reply to #65...

or get off the pot!

[tritsofme]

91. I don't respond to attacks.

I'll talk to anyone who is reasonable.

[drdtroit]

73. Totally Bullshit!!!

Unemployment failing to take into account the 15-20% whose benefits have run out.
These asshats live in a seperate reality having nothing to do with the real world!!!

[AtomicKitten]

80. Whatever.

And monkeys might fly out my butt.

Fuzzy math.

I still have to sell an organ to fill my car with gas.

[JuniperLea]

89. we all know the numbers aren't to be trusted

and we know there is a great effort to divide the haves and the have nots even further. what i don't understand is how will all that money benefit the haves and have mores when there are no goods or services left to buy with all those ill gotten gains. think about it. think down the road. no jobs, no production... nothing to buy. all those have mores will have to eat their money to survive.

[Chi]

90. Unemployment rate should be around 9.9%?

" every credible scientific measure indicates the Bush job loss record is dead real. After a 'disappointing' addition of just 96,000 jobs in September, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the economy has still shed 1.6 million private sector jobs and 821,000 jobs overall since the president took office.""
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Unemployment

So, let's do some math.....
48 months X 150k = 7,200,000 (This is the new people coming into the work force monthly, for Bush's 1st 4 yrs)

Now add 1,600,000 jobs shed (acording to above article).

Which gives us 8,800,000 jobs in the red, since shrub took office

The size of the U.S. work force (Dec 2004) is 148,203,000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics).

So the unemployment rate should have increased by (8,800,000 / 1,482,030) 5.94%

Since the unemployment rate before Clinton left office was 4.0% (Dec 1999, Bureau of Labor Statistics)
the current Unemployment rate should be around 9.9%

I will concede right off the bat this is sloppy numbers, but should get the point across.

[brentspeak]

93. This report doesn't say much

How many of these are part-time, temporary jobs; and how many are permanent, full-time positions with benefits?

The latter is all that really matters. Everything else is window dressing.

[superconnected]

96. All part time jobs are being reported as full time jobs now.

The Clinton Admin didn't do that so their numbers are true for full time and part-time jobs. The Bush Admin started it in Sept of 2003. That's why the Clinton rate isn't applicable to the Bush rate. When you look at unemployment with the formula it was calculated with pre Sept 2003, unemployment is far higher than the Bush Admin is reporting.

[Maggie_May]

94. Confused

I don't know about all the numbers all I know is that I am working longer for less money than I did in the 90s. I am paying higher energy cost my food is higher and my health care is costing me more. I wonder if anyone els feels the same way I do???