Pretend part time jobs up 195 of the 248 - and part time up 500+ -so full

[papau]

time jobs must have dropped
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm for 248 increase

and

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total -321 115 153 270 195

[NNN0LHI]

1. They never used to count part time jobs as being employed

When did this begin? Anyone know?

Don

[UpInArms]

2. probably when making a burger became

"manufacturing".

[nolabels]

21. "funny and terrifying, Fast Food Nation will make you think"

You are what you eat. But do you really know what you’re eating?

Britain eats more fast food than any other country in Europe. Rates of obesity and food poisoning spiral upwards, but it seems we just can’t get enough of those tasty burgers and fries.

This myth-shattering book tells the story of America and the world’s infatuation with fast food, from its origins in 1950s southern California to the global triumph of a handful of burger and fried chicken chains. In a meticulously researched and powerfully argued account, Eric Schlosser visits the labs where scientists re-create the smell and taste of everything - from cooked meat to fresh strawberries; talks to the workers at abattoirs with some of the worst safety records in the world; explains exactly where the meat comes from and just why the fries taste so good; and looks at the way the fast food industry is transforming not only our diet but our landscape, economy, workforce and culture.

Both funny and terrifying, Fast Food Nation will make you think, but more than that, it might make you realize you don’t want a quick bite after all.

* ‘Fast Food Nation has lifted the polystyrene lid on the global fast food industry … it could even change the way we eat’ Observer

* ‘Not only will it make you think twice before eating your next hamburger … it will also make you think about the fallout that the fast food industry has had on the social and cultural landscape’ The New York Times

* ‘The grisliest description of fast food ever written’ Daily Telegraph
(snip)
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/books/schlosser.html

[Frodo]

5. They have ALWAYS counted PT as being employed.

If not, it began well before I started watching it. And that's been awhile.

[tandot]

3. If we added so many jobs, why is the unemployment rate

essentially unchanged since December 2003?

<snip>
The number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in May, and the unemployment rate held at 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.
<snip>

Or how about this:
<snip>
The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force was 1.5 million in May, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 476,000 discouraged workers in May, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them.
<snip>

[Frodo]

7. The same reason it was going DOWN while jobs were disapeering.

The rate takes into account not just how many people say they have a job, but how many people without a job say they are looking for one.

So a change in the percentage can be caused by cahnges in EITHER number.

Last year we had months with FEWER people employed, but the unemployment rate went down because there were more people "giving up" looking for a job than there were people losing their jobs (net). Now that some people are perceiving an improving labor environment, they have begun looking for work again. If the number of people adding themselves to that pool, you'll see the unemployment rate go UP even while jobs are being "created".


It's counterintuitive, but it is the way it works.

[displacedtexan]

4. Interesting points

Good News For Those Who Desire Temporary Work With Low Wages And No Benefits!

Employment in temporary help services continued to rise
(31,000) and has grown by 299,000 (or 14 percent) since April 2003.

Great Fun Opportunities For Cleaning Out Bed Pans!

Strong employment increases in health care and social assistance continued in May with a gain of 36,000. Over the year, this industry has added 274,000 jobs. Hospitals and ambulatory health care services, such as outpatient care centers, accounted for two-thirds of May's employment gain.

Love Busing Tables And Washing Dishes? Of course, you do!

Within the leisure and hospitality industry, food services added 33,000 jobs over the month. Since the beginning of the year, employment in food services has increased by an average of 32,000 a month, more than double the average monthly increase in 2003

Sorry, Telemarketers! Your Dream Job Has Been Outsourced! Ever Thought Of Cleaning Out Bed Pans?

In the information sector, telecommunications employment was down by 5,000 in May. Since its peak in March 2001, the telecommunications industry has shed 283,000 jobs, a fifth of its total.

[saigon68]

6. GREAT POST !!!!

You are in the running for the saigon68 "Great Post of the Day" award for Friday June 4, 2004

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!

[displacedtexan]

9. I'm honored!

Frankly, the official government material deserves all of the credit!
I just pointed out the obvious.

The title of the jobs report should have been:

Would You Like Fries With Your "Good News About The Job Situation" Report?

[saigon68]

37. THE WINNER FOR JUNE 4, 2003

YOUR AWARD !!!!!

[Tripmann]

10. Massaging job figures is the oldest trick in the book...

..do you also go by 'seasonally adjusted' figures in the states?

e.g. (in best NBC voice) although the unemployment figures are up for June, when seasonally adjusted they are infact down by .2 of one half percent.

Just wait till they count housewives/homemakers as 'domestic engineers', probably happen a month or so bfore the election LOL

Tripmann

(By the way this is not a smart remark against homemakers!)

[papau]

14. Only 300000 US call center and telemarketing jobs in India at $200/month

rather than $2400 per month formerly paid in US.

At least that was the number at the end of March 2004.

So why do we not have the number for the other Asian outsourced from US call center jobs - I guess only the Indian government is not afraid of publishing it.

[VolcanoJen]

17. My take on the glamorous world of Waiting Tables!

In their "Where The Jobs Are" segment, the idiots at CNN proudly informed Americans that there have been HUGE increases in waitressing/bartending jobs!! They were positively GIDDY about it!

Well, as a waitress/bartending type person, it's not exactly something I'd recommend jumping into at entry-level.

Yes, you too can earn $2.13 per hour, taxed, of course, so your net is about $0.88 per hour! Then, you can hope and pray that your customers are generous enough to tip you the difference and bring you up to minimum wage for the hour! You'd best hope that business is good, good, good at the restaurant which employs you... and you'd best hope that the economy isn't effecting your customers, because they're going to enjoy that nice dinner anyway, but they won't pass the generosity on to you, their server... And, don't forget... no benefits, no paid days off, no holidays. And they can make you clean toilets and mop up puke!! In fact, they probably will.

Did I mention that if you're a full-time waitress who happens to break her leg, you're completely fucked? Nobody's going to help you, you don't have insurance, disability, or anything... Fucked.

In other words... if you're going into the restaurant world entry-level, you might want to consider that Bedpan job instead.

[mhr]

23. Thanks Displaced Texan, Frodo And Others Keep Screaming

that the economy is getting better for those seeking professional employment.

I know that is bullshit since I have been unemployed for 4 years.

I have seen no significant uptick in professional employment in the Dallas area.

Interesting also is that many of the recent college grads I've spoken with say there is nothing happening for them as well. They are having to return to jobs they held in HS or college. That is if they can find them at all.

When an economy is creating primarily low wage part time jobs, is that a recovery?

According to Frodo it is.

Go figure!

8. Maybe France can help?

Daniel Spillane
410 E Denny Way #229
Seattle, WA USA
[phone] [e-mail]

Chancery
US Embassy, The Nation of France
101 Reservoir Road, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20007

June 3, 2004

Chers Messieurs et Madames :

My name is Daniel Spillane, and I am a citizen living in Seattle, Washington, in the United States. I am writing to you because I am very concerned that democracy has all but disappeared in my country, and France represents a wise, honorable and old friend of the US. As you know, long ago, the nation of France gave the Statue of Liberty to the United States in recognition of the strength of US liberty and democracy—the statue stood here proudly as a symbol of unity between “sisters.” But now, I fear, the statue stands not in pride, but in shame--on a foundation that is less of a democracy every day. You see, few things are closer to the foundation of democracy than free and fair elections, conducted under the rule of law. And it is in US elections where, unfortunately, the very foundation of US democracy has fallen into decay.

I am an expert on computer systems, and have applied my experience of over 20 years towards analyzing US voting equipment. Recently, I have had the opportunity to analyze information related to several US voting machine makers, and the legal system involved in conducting US elections. These US elections are claimed to be democratic, and appear to be so—at least on the surface. But below the surface, the laws and regulations that are supposed to ensure free and fair democratic elections are not being observed. In short, the US can no longer claim it is a democracy, given that many recent elections have been conducted without the rule of law.

Unfortunately, I and other citizens--including esteemed experts from US universities such as Stanford--have discovered that in a number of US states, supposedly democratic elections have been conducted without the rule of law. A prime example of an election carried out this way is the US presidential election of 2000. While stories of punch-card voting equipment involving “hanging chads” dominated the US media, few details were offered to the American public. Recently, upon re-addressing the Bush vs. Gore case along with technical details, I determined that election law couldn’t possibly have been met, based on the circumstances and law back then. This is an awful truth to discover, and one that has not been told to US citizens, nor to the rest of the world.

Specifically, a 1989 Florida law clearly states that after 1993, all Florida voting systems used in elections had to meet standards. As it turns out, those standards clearly state voting punch-card machines used after 1993 required “features to ensure that chad is completely removed.” However, the widespread existence of hanging chads, as publicized world-wide, clearly shows that the Florida election did not meet that law--and proves the 2000 election was conducted in contempt of the law. Remarkably, in the Bush vs. Gore US Supreme Court decision, no mention is made of the applicable “chad removed” standard, nor that the law was ignored. Furthermore, the responsible election official, Katherine Harris, was never held accountable--but was instead “rewarded” with a promotion into the US House of Representatives. And the American public was blindsided on the true nature of the law—consequently, the problem of Florida 2000 was never fixed. Indeed it was never even properly identified.

But US problems with democracy aren’t limited to just one election. It has since been discovered that a number of US States have since been conducting elections outside the rule of law—just like in Florida 2000--including the State of California, and my own State of Washington. And the problem isn’t one of punch cards, but of many US election systems, including the new electronic ones. In recent cases, mysterious changes to election results remain unexplained, including those in the states of Georgia and Alabama—yet these, like 2000, appear to be the result of lawless, non-democratic circumstances. Clearly in these cases, nothing had been done to fix the problems, which led to Florida 2000 and still persist. In fact, since 2000, a US Federal Committee was appointed to fix US voting, but was delayed by President Bush--and then funding was cut.

Yet, more recently, problems with democracy in the US seem to have spread well beyond just elections. Recently, the US invaded Iraq based on contrived evidence; several members under the Bush administration have resigned. And now, the US President is part of a criminal investigation, involving retaliation against his own government agents. So I am even more worried: lawless elections, lawless wars, and lawless presidencies are signs of tyrannical regimes--not of democracies. Even the US Supreme Court and Congress have failed to protect the American people from falsehood and treachery.

With all these things happening, I am hoping the nation of France can remember why it gave the Statue of Liberty to the US; and I am hoping France can see how the statue stands here in shame. I urge France to send representatives and observers to see evidence of problems in US elections and democracy; also, I urge France to raise the problems concerning US elections and un-democratic behavior to the United Nations.

I sincerely hope that France may aid America in the return to democracy. And for my part, I can no longer accept the gift of the Statue of Liberty--I urge you to consider the return of it. The statue rightly belongs in the hands of those who provide an example of democracy for the world to see. Once again, thank you for the statue, but it is now time to call on Old Europe to help bring honor back to where the statue stands. As an American citizen whose family fought in World War I and II, I beg France, and the rest of Europe for help--please help bring democracy back to the US.

I beg you to send help.

Sincerely,



Daniel Spillane
Seattle, WA USA
June 03, 2004

[Frodo]

11. I think the unemployment rate in France is almost 10% now.

[NNN0LHI]

12. That is because everyone who is not employed collects unemployment

Here in the US after your 6 months of unemployment benefits run out you are no longer classified as unemployed. You are classified as a discouraged worker and are no longer counted in the unemployment figures.

Don

[Frodo]

13. Ummm no.

That's simply not true.

You get "counted" as unemployed if you answer the question "did you work last week/month" with "no" and "did you LOOK for work last month?" with "yes".


The only way you get counted as "discouraged" is if you say you did NOT look for work because "there are no jobs out there" or "nobody would hire ME, I have no skills".

[NNN0LHI]

15. What question are you talking about?

And who is asking that question? I have been on unemployment before and the only time that I was ever asked that question was while I was eligible to collect unemployment. It was never asked after my benefits ran out.

Don

[Frodo]

18. Sorry, my fault.

The "question" I'm talking about is from the survey that is run each month to produce this report. It's based on a poll of 60,000 households done every month.

So you personally may or may not get asked anything (even at 60,000 households we're all unlikely to ever be in the survey), but someone who statistically represents you is being polled.

Nothing in the survey data is impacted by whether or not you receive unemployment. In fact, fewer than half of the reported 5.6% unemployed are getting any benefits at all. A significant percentage of them are not eleigible for beenfits because they are ENTERING the workforce as opposed to being laid off.

[NNN0LHI]

25. That "phone survey" you speak of is inaccurate

When my unemployment benefits ran out I could no longer afford to own a phone so therefore I would not have been eligible to participate in any phone survey. I suspect that many other unemployed people like myself also found themselves concluding that food on the table and a roof over our families head took priority over such luxuries such as a telephone. I also suspect that is the reason why my former employer did not attempt to contact their laid off employees by telephone to recall them back to work. They always used Mail-grams to contact us to inform us to return to work. Thus a phone survey would tend to locate mostly people who are already employed and can afford telephone service. See what I mean?

Don

[Frodo]

27. Nice theory, but wrong.

It isn't a "phone survey". There are over 1500 professionals who visit these families every month and each family stays on for (I think) a rotating four month period (15,000 new families each month) and then again the following year.


On edit - Oh, it IS "innacurate" for quite a few uses. But the numbers are not impacted by receipt of benefits.

[NNN0LHI]

34. I have looked all over for a link to the home visits method you suggest

I have been unable to find a link to how these surveys are done? Thanks in advance if you know of where I can find one.

Don

[Frodo]

38. My pleasure - sorry for the delay.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Each month, 1,500 highly trained and experienced Census Bureau employees interview persons in the 60,000 sample households for information on the labor force activities (jobholding and jobseeking) or non-labor force status of the members of these households during the week that includes the 12th of the month (the reference week). This information, relating to all household members 16 years of age and over, is entered by the interviewers into laptop computers; at the end of each day's interviewing, the data collected are transmitted to the Census Bureau's central computer in Washington, D.C. In addition, a portion of the sample is interviewed by phone through two central data collection facilities. (Prior to 1994, the interviews were conducted using a paper questionnaire which had to be mailed in by the interviewers each month.)

--- snip ---

All interviews must follow the same procedures to obtain comparable results. Because of the crucial role interviewers have in the household survey, a great amount of time and effort is spent maintaining the quality of their work. Interviewers are given intensive training, including classroom lectures, discussion, practice, observation, home-study materials, and on-the-job training. At least once a year, they convene for day-long training and review sessions, and, also at least once a year, they are accompanied by a supervisor during a full day of interviewing to determine how well they carry out their assignments.

This is a fairly lengthly process. Each census taker only calls on an average of forty households in a month. That's an average of two a day. This is not simply a "how many people are in your house?" + "Anybody got a job?"

[NNN0LHI]

39. It appears that my "theory" was not a theory after all

The word "portion" indicates that the the amount of this survey being done by telephone could very well be 5%, 10%, or even 95% seeing they do not say what that portion actually is. Am I correct? So it sounds to me like your statement in post #27 was closer to being theory than mine was. Doesn't it?

And by the way. No problem for the delay. I just got home from the tavern. I wasn't around here anyway until just now.

Don

[Frodo]

40. I'm afraid not

But I'm happy to agree to disagree. lol.

Boy wouldn't THAT be a cushy job? You only need to contact 40 people in a month? And most of it by phone?

Where does one sign up?

Of course, being a supervisor, I can't imagine why I would tail along on a home visit to evaluate my people if the bulk of their work is done on the phone. But whatever.

Truthfully, it's mostly follow-up calls when a household member was out. In either case, it isn't true that not having a phone affects the numbers. Unless you want to argue that you lost your job, and phone AND became homeless and unreachable.

It certainly happens occasionaly.

[NNN0LHI]

41. Lets look at your original theory again from above

>>>It isn't a "phone survey". There are over 1500 professionals who visit these families every month and each family stays on for (I think) a rotating four month period (15,000 new families each month) and then again the following year.<<<

Notice these words from your previous post? You denied that any phones were used in the survey.

"It isn't a "phone survey".

There see that? Then after that you posted the truth which said that a portion of this survey is done by phone?

You don't see a little problem there? I know some find it difficult to admit when they are in error, but your verbal gymnastics are downright intriguing.

Don

[Frodo]

42. lol.

Remember that the idea was offered to demonstrate that when you lose your phone they can't reach you? Does that represent reality?

It isn't a "phone survey". A "phone survey" is one conducted by phone. Not by personal visits and the occasional phone call. The weight of the piece demonstrates that these ARE personal visits. I'd even venture to submit that the telephone may be their first attempt at contact and household visits are not the majority of total calls (I only speculate for argument, I haven't seen that). It STILL isn't a "telephone survey" for purposes of your argument which was that the lack of a phone being more likely among the unemployed would slant the statistics in favor of the employed. It does not.


But well played nevertheless. :-)

[NNN0LHI]

46. Yoo hoo. Mr. Frodo. What does this mean?

http://stats.bls.gov/ces/cesmetho.htm#15

(14) What is the birth/death adjustment? Why is it used?

To derive a complete count of total nonfarm employment, a two-part estimator is required. First, a sample-based estimate of the over-the-month employment change is made using the CES sample, which represents about 400,000 business establishments. The sample is drawn from the population of all employers who have filed Unemployment Insurance tax returns. The sample does not include employers who have recently formed new businesses but who have not yet been added to the Unemployment Insurance tax files. Business births occur every month, and failure to include an estimate for these units would result in a consistent underestimation of employment totals, that is, a downward bias. Therefore, BLS utilizes a model-based technique to estimate for this part of the population.

In a dynamic economy, firms are continually opening and closing. These two occurrences offset each other to some extent. That is, firms that are born replace firms that die. CES uses this fact to account for a large proportion of the employment associated with business births. This is accomplished by excluding such business death units from the matched sample definition. Effectively, business deaths are not included in the sample-based link portion of the estimate, and the implicit imputation of their previous month’s employment is assumed to offset a portion of the employment associated with births.

There is an operational advantage associated with this approach as well. Most firms will not report that they have gone out of business; rather, they simply cease reporting and are excluded from the link, as are all other nonrespondents. As a result, extensive follow-up with monthly nonrespondents to determine whether a company is out-of-business or simply did not respond is not required.

Employment associated with business births will not exactly equal that associated with business deaths. The amount by which it differs varies by month and by industry. As a result, the residual component of the birth/death offset must be accounted for by using a model-based approach.

(15) How are the birth/death adjustment amounts calculated?

During the net birth/death modeling process, simulated monthly probability estimates containing continuous and imputed employment over a 5-year period are created and compared with population employment levels that contain actual business births and deaths along with the continuous units. Moving from a simulated benchmark, the differences between the series across time represent a cumulative error component. Those residuals are converted to month-to-month differences and are used as input series to the modeling process.

Models are fit using X-12 ARIMA. Outliers, level shifts, and temporary ramps are automatically identified. Seven models are tested, and the model exhibiting the lowest average forecast error is selected for each series.

[leftofthedial]

43. this is true

if you are neither employed nor collecting unemployment, you no longer exist.

What do you suppose the *real* unemplyment rate is in the US?

What if we counted part-time employment as partial employment? In other words, if you are unemplyed you count as zero; if you are fully employed, you count as one; if you work 20 hours a week, you count as one-half.

Actual unemployment among my friends is higher than it has ever been. I am middle-aged and lived through the Reagan unemployment era and the first Bush recession.

[Tripmann]

16. So basically....

A long term unemployed person who would be discouraged and answers honestly that they did not look for work because they don't see the point doesn't even show up on the register??

No wonder the unemployment figures are falling, four years of Buskco would be enough to make any long term unemployed person give up trying

Tripmann

[Frodo]

20. I may not have explained that well.

If they WANT to work and are ABLE to work (not seriously disabled etc) but are not looking BECAUSE they believe there is nothing out there for them then they fall off of the "top line" unemployment figure (and always have - and they do in France too) called by economists "U3". They are, however, picked up by other measures. Today's report, for instance, lists how many people fall into that category.


But yes, to be "counted" as "unemployed" you have to be looking for work. It's the same definition just about every country uses. If I choose to stay home with the kids, I'm not "unemployed".

[papau]

19. I Need a little help with the numbers

The non-seasonal jump in employment over the past year has been 130975 less 130520 - or an increase of 204224.

The seasonal adjusted jump in employment over the past year (12 months) is 131224 less 129873 is 1,351,000.

Now 12 months of the birth death model have a net of 787,000 new jobs.

So can one say that the seasonal adjusted employment over the past year has increase by 1351000 less 787000 - or 564000 over 12 months - before pretend jobs are added?

47000 per month?

and is it 17019 per month before the increases due to the Bush new seasonal adjustment factors are added?

I don't think 17000 jobs per month over the past year is a great political statement -

Indeed - the credibility will be found at the next FED meeting - since 17000 should get a 0.25% increase - while 47000 seems more likely to get a 0.5% increase.

[Frodo]

22. I think the question is "which survey"???

Can you give me a link, I can't find those numbers.

Is it from the household survey?

[papau]

24. No - "B" - since those are the "trustworthy" numbers per our FED Chair!

The B table one was updated about 2 minutes ago! As was the historical B.

Not that the DU board is up to the minute or anything!

[Frodo]

32. Could you give me a link?

I'm really not sure how this differs from the other numbers reported. I see "adjusted" and "non-adjusted" totals, but they don't seem to vary (in the net) from each other the way what you posted does.

[papau]

33. B table data below

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet (for total non-farm)

Series Id: CEU0000000001Not Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 110730 111308 112283 113364 114376 115171 114227 114535 115591 116217 116827 116861 114291
1995 114551 115213 115972 116803 117523 118243 117008 117268 118180 118780 119017 119015 117298
1996 116315 117252 118056 118890 120017 120681 119642 119931 120673 121383 121842 121815 119708
1997 119269 120125 121007 121979 123052 123701 122709 122770 123770 124673 125063 125196 122776
1998 122636 123405 124121 125159 126240 126902 125833 126069 126874 127652 128052 128215 125930
1999 125462 126445 127158 128305 129176 129906 129039 129093 129867 130804 131262 131403 128993
2000 128763 129428 130526 131525 132481 132998 131777 131785 132450 133007 133372 133308 131785
2001 130433 131098 131690 132094 132800 133179 131686 131613 131871 132072 131880 131491 131826
2002 128602 129069 129672 130257 131023 131404 129959 130044 130559 131227 131346 130933 130341
2003 128248 128660 129148 129781 130520 130830 129481 129512 130135 130924 131071 130862 129931
2004 128190 128786 129816 130975(p) 131914(p)
p : preliminary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 112473 112665 113133 113490 113829 114139 114498 114801 115155 115361 115786 116056
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130730 130876 131369 131677 131908 131883 132043 132015 132104 132134 132317 132441
2001 132388 132492 132507 132236 132237 132087 131972 131831 131564 131203 130871 130659
2002 130494 130404 130447 130379 130381 130406 130295 130306 130259 130342 130305 130096
2003 130190 130031 129921 129901 129873 129859 129814 129789 129856 129944 130027 130035
2004 130194 130277 130630 130976(p) 131224(p)

[jwcomer]

36. some help

Papau,

I think the year to year data is in the right ballpark. The reason is that the household survey data is very much in line with the Establishment survey. Namely the Household survey for the last year gives a net gain of 1,267k +/- 290k. The establishment survey change of 1,351k +/- 290k. The household data does not include the birth/death model. Therefore the birth/death model doesn't seem to be causing a detectable problem in the year to year changes. For now, I'm more than willing to give the BLS the benefit of the doubt on the birth/death model.

Notes:

Those are 90% error estimates. They were not easy to find.
Establishment 1 yr error is 290k=1.6*181k; See table 2-F http://www.bls.gov/web/cestntab.htm

Survey error is 290k from this note:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

I have heard many times that the establishment survey is more accurate than the Household survey, apparently this is only true for month to month changes but not for yearly changes.

cheers,
Walton

[74dodgedart]

26. My understanding is that there are two methods of measuring

unemployment. One is based on unemployment benefits and one is a household survey.

To recieve unemployment benefits you must be actively seeking a job. So people who have given up looking don't count as unemployed (discouraged). Also, unemployment benefits only last for certain period of time. So if you've exhausted your benefits you don't count as unemployed (really discouraged). You don't recieve unemployment if you lose a part-time job, so part-timers don't count.

Under the houshold survey, you count as employed if you worked some number of hours in the previous week (I beleive it is 15 hrs). So if you worked a temp job, or your teenage child got a part-time job, etc
it counts as a "job".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. I don't think you're counted if you're just out of school

and haven't found a job or if you've worked even one hour in the past week.

So if you get called for a temp job one day a week, you're not unemployed. At least that's the way they figure it.

[Frodo]

31. Not exactly. The ARE "two methods" of measuring employment data

One is the household survey of 60,000 households, the other is the "establishment" survey of 400,000 job sites representing millions of employees. There is no survey based on benefits (though you WILL show up on the "continuing benefits" number of the "initial filings" report and WILL drop off of THAT number when benefits run out. That's a different number altogether).


Your last paragraph is essentially correct. If you worked AT ALL you show up as "employed". BUT, that isn't the only question they ask. You will also show up as "underemployed" meaning you want full-time work and could only find PT.

And each family member if seperate. If your teen worked and you didn't (s)he is "employed", you are not.

[74dodgedart]

35. Some points

"There is no survey based on benefits" - I agree, it is not a survey, but it is one of the methods used to measure unemployment (people filing first time claims is often cited as well as people on continuing claims).I know its not the method used in this particular report, it just seemed to me that people were confusing what counted as a job under the two different methods.

"And each family member if seperate". If your teen worked and you didn't (s)he is "employed", you are not.- I agree, however if my teen worked it counts as a "job".

I think people have to accept that after 3 1/2 years of Bush and 800 billion dollars in new government debt, the job is finally starting to improve. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

[henslee]

28. The Gov. iissue a report titled "Pretend Partime Jobs?" Hmmm....

I don't think we've reached that state of open, honest government yet.

[papau]

29. Birth Death report is at the link shown - where the math discussion

explains how the pretend is done.

[ConcernedAmerican]

44. Everyone, including the Dems, fail to state the obvious

I can not understand how the obvious is missed. If you notice, the Unemployment number is quoted WEEKLY. A number under 400,000 a week of newly Unemployed people per week is now considered a positive. The average is now about 350,000 per week. This equals about 1,500,000 newly Unemployed per month (a month is slightly more then 4 weeks).
The New Jobs Number is quoted MONTHLY, and even though the now reported about 300,000 "New" jobs is inflated as others have explained on this thread, I can't understand why someone, namely a Democrat, hasn't stated the obvious; How does a Milion and a half of new Unemployed people per month versus 300 thousand of newly created jobs work out to be a Positive in the Employment data and percentage of Unemployed having dropped over the last 4 months?

More importantly, and my frustation with the Democratic Party, is nobody is making this obvious point. Also not mentioined is the fact that the Labor pool needs to create somewhere between 150,000-200,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with those people entering the job's market for the first time. IOW, you need to create at least 150,000 new jobs per month just to stay flat. I find it hard to understand why this is never mentioned in the Media or by a Democrat.

[Robert Oak]

45. statistics from space - welcome to the bias factor

According to columnists writing in the Wall Street Journal and the
New York Post, the Labor Department's jobs figure:

"includes a 'bias adjustment factor' that adds about 160,000 jobs a
month. This bias factor is basically picked out of thin air, and is
supposed to capture employment in newly started firms that Labor
misses in its survey." (1)

So it is far from clear that the jobs crisis we are all worrying
about has gone away.

Regards,
Ian Fletcher
VP, Gov't Relations
American Engineering Association
www.aea.org

References:

1. "Labor Statistics Are Lying" by Lincoln Anderson (Wall Street
Journal, July 10, 2001, Editorial Page)

And more recently:

2. "What Are They Smoking at the Labor Department?" by John Crudele
New York Post, May 11, 2004,
http://www.nypost.com/business/28327.htm)