FINALLY the unemployment rate budged

[nadinbrzezinski]

breaking on MSNC, it went down to 9.4%. It is not great, but IT FINALLY BUDGED.

[earthside]

1. Because ...

... half a million people gave-up and stopped looking.

Only a hundred thousand new jobs in the private sector last month.

Pretty pathetic.

[jaxx]

3. Really? You know that how?

Dropping .4 is good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. There are reasons why yes people gave up

but still some people will never be happy, nor realize the psychological effect.

[toddwv]

9. That may be true, but it wouldn't affect the "unemployment" rate.

The official "unemployment" rate only reports the number of new filing for unemployment claims

[Igel]

15. That would be the "new unemployment claims" number.

The unemployment rate--there are a few--is starkly different from that.

Usually when two things get different names it's a good hint that they are different things. (Even synonyms usually have slight differences in meaning.)

[DeadEyeDyck]

17. I also wonder how many people were

concerned about filing for unemployment over the Holidays. How many days were the unemployment offices closed.
We saw the exact same drop over Thanksgiving.

My fear is the post Christmas drop. The company I work for just dropped all the temps. They kept them through Christmas to finish the year end close outs but by mid-Jan they will all be gone.

[notesdev]

2. That rate is total farce

Ever go through the logic of how they decide who to include and who not to include? It's Kafkaesque.

The rate to keep an eye on re: unemployment is the civilian labor participation rate, which has been dropping for over a decade and is not improving presently either:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000

[Laelth]

4. That is a very informative and useful tool.

Thanks for posting it.

-Laelth

[pinqy]

6. the logic is simple

To track people in the labor market, you need to track people in the labor market. (kind of a tautology there)

So Excluded from the Population are those who cannot freely participate in the labor market: Children under 16, Military, Prisoners, people in mental institutes or other long term care.

Then the population is divided into 2 groups: The Labor Force, and Not in the Labor Force. The Labor Force are people participating in the labor market either by working or looking for work. Not in the Labor Force are those who are not trying to work.

And the Labor Force is then divided into those actually working and those looking for work and the UE rate is Unemployed/Labor Force.

Not sure how you think that's Kafkaesque...seems pretty straight forward to me, and is how most of the world does it.

[notesdev]

8. Is it?

Here's a handy guide to determine which is which:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA

[pinqy]

10. I can't currently watch videos at work

And I don't really need to...I know the programs inside and out. Like I said the logic is simple, and I've pointed out what it is. What exactly do you think is complicated? I can assure you that pretty much anything else would be MORE commplicated. Give me an example and I'll explain why.

[notesdev]

12. The video has examples

It's a parody but the point is straight, it details four people in very similar circumstances, yet only one of the four is actually officially unemployed. Watch it at home.

[pinqy]

26. Ok watched it

It was wrong..none of them were unemployed. Job search must be active. Looking through want ads doesn't count.

3 of the four weren't looking for work, and the 4th had a job (though crappy) Like I said, straightforward...if you're NOT TRYING TO GET A JOB, then how can you be considered Unemployed? Do you want to count retirees, stay at home spouses, children etc as unemployed? They don't have jobs and they're not looking for work. As far as the labor market is concerned, there's no difference.

[notesdev]

27. The sensible way to count

Is any person of working age who wants to work and is not. Simple, straightforward, not subject to manipulation.

[Statistical]

32. The BLS does count that. It is called U-5.

U-3 = not employed and actively looking (at least one inquiry in last 4 weeks)
U-4 = U-3 + not employed and not looking due to discourage (person believes there are no jobs or they won't get a job).
U-5 = U-4 + not employed and not looking for other reasons.
U-6 = U-5 + all persons working less than full time due inability to find full time work.

[pinqy]

37. But it is subject to bias and gross error

Anyone can say they want to work, but that doesn't mean they really want to. The best way to know if someone actually wants to work is to look at what they're doing about it. And someone may say they want to work, but that doesn't mean they can....family issues, transportation, illness etc may make a person not able to work. So including them as unemployed gives a false picture about the actual job market.

[taught_me_patience]

7. It went down because of people leaving the workforce

The question is why? Did they retire? (ok) Did they go to school? (ok) Did they give up looking for work because they were unemployed for so long? (terrible). It's not just as simple as the rate going down... we need to know why.

[hugo_from_TN]

11. I was unemployed from 2002 to early 2005

I always stopped looking for work around Thanksgiving until after the New Year. It really is a waste of time because most industries just don't actively pursue interviewees during that time due to holidays & vacations.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

29. I went back to school and dropped off the rolls..........

Hopefully nursing will be a bit more steady (notice I didn't say lucrative) than my last vocation.

[tabasco]

33. That was only half of the drop. Of course, you probably knew that.

And that number is always calculated into the statistic.

So why are you stating lies?

[galileoreloaded]

13. Yeahhhhhh, not so much. Actually, it bumped up to 11.7% U-3 (adjusted for participation)

Sorry.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/labor-force-participation-rate-drops-fresh-25-year-low-adjusted-unemployment-rate-117

[hfojvt]

14. wow, the Bush tax cuts are already working

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/136

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I am sure Speaker Boehner will use exactly

that spin. They are predictable as the sun rises in the East.

[hfojvt]

21. especially if there are good reports in Feb, March, and April

by April they will be claiming victory. I predicted that back in December though and put it in my journal so I can point to it when they do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Fully agreed

hell they are doing that right now on the MSNBC show.

[spanone]

16. posting good news will get you nowhere round these parts

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Posting bad news doesn't either

DU is weird at times.

[JoePhilly]

20. Ding Ding Ding!!!

When was the last time that the unemployment rate dropped by .4%??

The whiners are nothing more.

If unemployment #s go UP, Obama is bad. If it goes down, the numbers are wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

25. It isn't whining to accept reality. We once again failed to net enough jobs to keep up with

population which means we have some fool's gold in the mix here.

Without games, we're talking hundreds of thousands and probably over a million jobs to move the needle like that in reality.

[JoePhilly]

28. Who said we were creating enough jobs to keep up with population?

The fact that we are bending the curve is good news.

Go back to the graphs, which side do you think is better, the red side, or the blue side?

[TheKentuckian]

34. The curve wasn't the discussion. The number is bogus. You admit it is a misrepresentation

of the situation.

If you are not creating enough jobs to keep up with the population then you are net losing jobs and as a consequence the real unemployment rate is increasing at a thankfully reduce rate.

My preference is completely irrelevant. This is straight reality that picking a side doesn't address. The number and percentage of the population without work is still increasing and as such the number being reduced is a scam.

[JoePhilly]

36. Actually, no ... that statistic does not misrepresent anything.

It is the SAME statistic that has been used for YEARS to report unemployment.

But only recently, has a DROP in the unemployment rate become more an indication of people giving up, then of improvement.

A few months back, the unemployment rate jumped from 9.6% to 9.8%, for many here on DU, that was an indication, not of MORE people returning to the labor market, but of a worsening economy.

Now, when it goes DOWN by .4%, that is not an improvement, but an indication that more people gave up.

Regardless of which way unemployment moves, some on DU see it as BAD NEWS.

Historically, the interpretation is that a decrease in unemployment is good news, an increase is not. There are factors which create "noise" in those numbers, but movement in the right direction is seen as positive.

Maybe we should have hoped that unemployment jumped UP to 10.2%, after all, a .4% increase would represent people returning to the labor market.

Up is Down.

[TheKentuckian]

38. Are we producing enough jobs to exceed population growth or not?

If we are the number can go down, if not then games are being played.

This isn't new, the number has been gamed forever to create a false level of unemployment in this country.

The pain continues to grow and to deny it is a lie.

[Mike 03]

23. Kick and Rec. NT/

[girl gone mad]

24. The report was a disaster.

The UE rate is dropping only because the labor force participation rate is now at a 25 year low.

Private Payrolls came in 36% below expectations.

Only propagandists and the severely math challenged would celebrate this report.

[SoCalDem]

30. and the definition of "job" is also an issue for me

Lost factory job @$20 hr w/benefits = 1 job lost

worker finds TWO part-time $7 hr jobs w/NO benefits = 2 jobs gained, but at what cost to the economy or the worker?

These reports are always apples v oranges, since the overall worth of the jobs is rarely talked about.

and the reports that come in around the "buying season" are hard to believe since seasonal workers are often laid off in Jan/Feb & most are not even eligible for unemployment benefits

[dkofos]

31. Of course it went down, the repubes are in charge now.

[neverforget]

35. We have a long ways to go