Unemployment rate falls to 8.3%

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 11:39:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Feb 3, 2012 11:36:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it looks to me that Obama may be able to campaign on greater gains in employment than Bush had in his first term, despite the overtly worse economic backdrop.

Following the 2003 tax cuts, there were roughly 54 months of job gains.

Housing boom was the reason for the increase not the tax cuts.
The jump in the work force rate over the last 3o years is the boomers. Now that they are retiring we will return to our long term trend which is around 60 % or so.

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 12:22:08 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Feb 3, 2012 12:17:43 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

No, I don't believe he should be totally blamed. I feel our ship had a hole in it and had been slowly sinking when he took office. He merely shoved his foot through the hole and made it bigger.

Let's not for get an extremely, far left, radical congress put in place in 2006 running off with half-cocked ideas, wrecking havoc on the economy.

Are we going to be able to fix the economy by dissecting what we did wrong?

What were the crazy half cocked ideas that congress did that immediately sank the economy.

Literally within minutes of them getting into office?

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 12:17:43 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

No, I don't believe he should be totally blamed. I feel our ship had a hole in it and had been slowly sinking when he took office. He merely shoved his foot through the hole and made it bigger.

Let's not for get an extremely, far left, radical congress put in place in 2006 running off with half-cocked ideas, wrecking havoc on the economy.

Please explain.

[handyman2]

Don't know about the rest of the country but the 8.3 numbers don't come close to the unemployed people around here.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Can you elaborate on just exactly what this "extremely far left radical" Congress did in the year 2006 that made the economy tank starting in 2007?

As I recall, DemInMaine Inc., started going down hill around 2008 or so and you were forced to layoff some staff. ETA: I also recall just following Obama's win in 2008, I asked if you were planning to start hiring staff, since you posted numerous times, you predicted the economy would take off.

In any event, liberal, activist and far left policies instigated the housing meltdown.

Widespread fear of what a congress lead by and comprised of radicals would do to the business climate has suppressed investment. Business investment has not recovered from pre-2008 levels, however, consumer spending has. Business fears nut-case legislation that could come out of congress.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-

"A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%.

[/b]

Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us:

it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million.

Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement."[/quote]

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

www.sacbee.com/2012/02/02/4235116/employment-gains-arent-attracting.html

Employment gains aren't attracting believers yet

WASHINGTON — Employment statistics and the jobless rate have improved over the past several months. These usually point to a rebounding economy, but there's still considerable doubt over just what these numbers really mean.


Then there's the workforce-exit problem. One reason the jobless rate stood at 8.5 percent in December is that the labor force is smaller now. The workforce participation rate was around 64 percent for most of last year, well below the 67 percent rate a decade earlier.

Millions of workers either have given up on looking for jobs or have exhausted their unemployment benefits and can't get back into the workforce. In either case, the workforce size isn't growing sharply as the economy improves.

"I do believe that it's artificially making the unemployment rate, as it is defined, look better," said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. She isn't betting on a jobs recovery anytime soon. "They're not coming back yet. Honestly, I don't expect them to come back until ... jobs prospects improve substantially."

Shierholz points to four available workers competing for every job opening and predicts a long, slow climb ahead.

"It's still an incredibly hostile environment for job seekers. It won't pull in workers from the sidelines. It will take sustained robust growth," she said.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The media had an easy time of carrying Obama's water in 2008. You had BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left, disaffected conservatives angry over the Bush domestic "compassionate conservative" agenda of bigger government, and more spending, topped with the cherry of TARP on his way out of office with McCain suspending his campaign to fly back to Washington, and rather than take a stand, dive RINO-head-first into supporting TARP.

On the other hand, you had a young, good looking, hope-on-a-rope selling, potential first black president running on the promise to fix this mess by cutting the deficit in half, restoring civil liberties lost with the Patriot Act, bringing the troops home from Iraq, mounting an Afghan 'surge' to win where the 'real war' was- and he basically had no real record to judge him on.

Today, things are vastly different. Business-as-usual would be a significant upgrade. Obama, as it has turned out is as big a spender as LBJ and as crooked as Nixon. He's like the worst of all worlds.

November will be a referendum on more than $4 trillion in new debt with no end in sight to trillion plus dollar deficits. It'll be a referendum on bailouts, on fast and furious, on Solyndra and a half dozen other failed 'green economy' companies that took taxpayer money, made big donations to Democrats and Obama, and then went under and fired all their workers. It'll be decision time for ObamaCare, and the Keystone Pipeline decision.

And if you think the media will be able to pull it off, well- you might be right. The GOP is in the process of blowing it out their ass again by nominating another weak, Bob Dole / John McCain style RINO. But it may just be that disenchantment with Obama will be enough to drag Mitt huffing and puffing across the finish line.

[usaone]

I guess some Republicans want to ignore the housing bubble and bust.

The employment picture isnt great but its much improved over 2008 and 2009. And seems to be headed in the right direction.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Karma Paul!!!

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 3, 2012 15:37:15 GMT -5 usaone said:

I guess some Republicans want to ignore the housing bubble and bust.

The employment picture isnt great but its much improved over 2008 and 2009. And seems to be headed in the right direction.

The housing bubble started in the early 90s. In fact, Obama was part of the problem back then as an activist in Chicago.

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 15:35:19 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The media had an easy time of carrying Obama's water in 2008. You had BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left, disaffected conservatives angry over the Bush domestic "compassionate conservative" agenda of bigger government, and more spending, topped with the cherry of TARP on his way out of office with McCain suspending his campaign to fly back to Washington, and rather than take a stand, dive RINO-head-first into supporting TARP.

On the other hand, you had a young, good looking, hope-on-a-rope selling, potential first black president running on the promise to fix this mess by cutting the deficit in half, restoring civil liberties lost with the Patriot Act, bringing the troops home from Iraq, mounting an Afghan 'surge' to win where the 'real war' was- and he basically had no real record to judge him on.

Today, things are vastly different. Business-as-usual would be a significant upgrade. Obama, as it has turned out is as big a spender as LBJ and as crooked as Nixon. He's like the worst of all worlds.

November will be a referendum on more than $4 trillion in new debt with no end in sight to trillion plus dollar deficits. It'll be a referendum on bailouts, on fast and furious, on Solyndra and a half dozen other failed 'green economy' companies that took taxpayer money, made big donations to Democrats and Obama, and then went under and fired all their workers. It'll be decision time for ObamaCare, and the Keystone Pipeline decision.

And if you think the media will be able to pull it off, well- you might be right. The GOP is in the process of blowing it out their ass again by nominating another weak, Bob Dole / John McCain style RINO. But it may just be that disenchantment with Obama will be enough to drag Mitt huffing and puffing across the finish line.

The media did not hand Obama the election. He will be just as hard to beat this time around. To pretend he wont be only hurts Republicans.

Fox news has the biggest rating of any media. Didnt seem to help MCcain/Palin.

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 15:29:49 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

www.sacbee.com/2012/02/02/4235116/employment-gains-arent-attracting.html

Employment gains aren't attracting believers yet

WASHINGTON — Employment statistics and the jobless rate have improved over the past several months. These usually point to a rebounding economy, but there's still considerable doubt over just what these numbers really mean.


Then there's the workforce-exit problem. One reason the jobless rate stood at 8.5 percent in December is that the labor force is smaller now. The workforce participation rate was around 64 percent for most of last year, well below the 67 percent rate a decade earlier.

Millions of workers either have given up on looking for jobs or have exhausted their unemployment benefits and can't get back into the workforce. In either case, the workforce size isn't growing sharply as the economy improves.

"I do believe that it's artificially making the unemployment rate, as it is defined, look better," said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. She isn't betting on a jobs recovery anytime soon. "They're not coming back yet. Honestly, I don't expect them to come back until ... jobs prospects improve substantially."

Shierholz points to four available workers competing for every job opening and predicts a long, slow climb ahead.

"It's still an incredibly hostile environment for job seekers. It won't pull in workers from the sidelines. It will take sustained robust growth," she said.

That article was from yesterday before the Jan numbers came out.

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 15:38:29 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Feb 3, 2012 15:37:15 GMT -5 usaone said:

I guess some Republicans want to ignore the housing bubble and bust.

The employment picture isnt great but its much improved over 2008 and 2009. And seems to be headed in the right direction.

The housing bubble started in the early 90s. In fact, Obama was part of the problem back then as an activist in Chicago.

LOL the 2003 to 2006 bubble was bigger than the whole decade of the 1990's.

[usaone]

As long as we whine about the media and poo poo any good economic data, we will never win another election.

The 2010 Tea Party Wave has been squandered.

[usaone]

Feb 3, 2012 11:42:30 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02/interesting-facts-from-todays.html



Large employment gains are in the temporary worker category and oil and gas extraction industry.

Some highlights of today's employment report
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf):

1. Temporary employment reached a 3.5-year high in January of 2.4 million jobs, the highest level since May 2008 (see chart).

2. Manufacturing overtime hours, at 4.3 hours in January, were at the highest level since 2006 (see chart).

3. Manufacturing companies hired an additional 50,000 workers in January, bringing the 12-month total of new manufacturing jobs to 235,000, and the 24-month total of new manufacturing jobs to almost 400,000.

4. For the eighth consecutive month starting last June, the January manufacturing jobless rate was below the national average rate (not seasonally adjusted).

5. The construction industry has added more than 50,000 jobs in the last two months.

6. Oil and gas extraction employment has increased by 14.2% over the last 12 months to 186,100, the highest level in 20 years.

Update:

7. The more comprehensive measure of employment from the BLS household survey (civilian employment) showed a 847,000 job increase in January, the greatest monthly increase since 2003, and brings the total job increase over the last 12 months to 2.3 million.

Sav this chart seems to show most jobs created under Bush were Temp jobs.

[rockon]

So do we blame the Tea Party for the drop in unemployment or Bush or credit Obama and the Democrats who have been in control of congress since 2006 or do we credit the fact that we stopped spending so much stimulus money? Such confusion and hand wringing considering while it is an improvement that will definitely help Obama in his re election bid it means almost nothing considering these numbers are like taking a picture of a moving train that will have ups and down both ways and the fact that the number is still historically high and it is still higher then Obama predicted it would ever get.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Sav this chart seems to show most jobs created under Bush were Temp jobs.

With the unemployment rate so low under Bush, remember it was around 4%, it was hard to find full time employees.

[billisonboard]

Feb 3, 2012 16:13:45 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Sav this chart seems to show most jobs created under Bush were Temp jobs.

With the unemployment rate so low under Bush, remember it was around 4%, it was hard to find full time employees.

Temporary, not full. Not the same.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Unemployment-rate-hinges-on-more-than-job-gains-2997013.php


Unemployment rate hinges on more than job gains
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, Associated Press Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer
Published 02:50 p.m., Friday, February 3, 2012



WASHINGTON (AP) — For most people, the 8.3 percent unemployment rate is the most visible sign of the economy's health. The rate's every movement is closely watched, especially in an election year.

But when the rate declines, it's not always because many more people were hired. The unemployment rate can rise or fall even when no jobs are created or lost.

Last month, the rate fell because jobs were added. But that hasn't always been the case in the 2½ years since the Great Recession ended. One reason for the rate's decline is that fewer people are looking for work.

Here's why:

The unemployment rate counts only people who don't have a job and are looking for one. Once you stop looking, you're no longer considered unemployed.

In January, the number of people either working or looking for work — who collectively form the labor force — rose. That's an encouraging sign. It suggests that more of the unemployed were optimistic about finding a job.

The situation has shifted over the past year. The labor force has grown. But it hasn't grown as fast as the overall population. The result: The proportion of the population either working or seeking work has fallen from 64.2 percent to 63.7 percent. That's known as the labor force participation rate.

That drop is a big reason why the unemployment rate has declined in the past year.

People start and stop looking for work for varying reasons. Some return to school. People retire. Immigration can slow. In tough economies, people who were looking for work become discouraged and stop. That's what happened during and after the Great Recession.

The first retirements of the vast baby boomer generation helps explain why the labor force participation rate is declining.

The government tracks unemployed people who have given up looking for work in the past year. It calculates that if they were still job-hunting, but hadn't found work, the unemployment rate would have been 8.9 percent last month.

That figure is much higher than the unemployment rate of 8.3 percent. But like the unemployment rate, it's dropped sharply over the past year.

Because many factors can skew the unemployment rate, economists find that a better way to assess how much hiring is going on is to simply follow the number of jobs created each month.

The monthly job gains and the unemployment rate are reported in separate surveys. The job gains come from a survey of employers. The unemployment rate is calculated from a survey of households.

Last year, the economy gained 1.8 million jobs, the employer survey found. That's an improvement over 2010's gain of about 1 million.

The rate of job creation is accelerating. Employers have added an average of 201,000 jobs a month for the past three months. That's much better than the average of 152,000 a month last year.

If the economy keeps gaining jobs, more people who have stopped seeking work will likely start looking again. And if many of them can't find jobs, the unemployment rate could rise. So far, that hasn't happened.

Most economists think there will eventually be a rebound in labor force participation, which would likely raise the unemployment rate. But it might take more hiring before any such rebound kicks in.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 3, 2012 16:18:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 3, 2012 16:13:45 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Sav this chart seems to show most jobs created under Bush were Temp jobs.

With the unemployment rate so low under Bush, remember it was around 4%, it was hard to find full time employees.

Temporary, not full. Not the same.

Part timers can also be considered temps.

[usaone]

I always go by u6 not u3.

U6 has dropped from 17.2% to 15.1%.

[thyme4change]

NPR this morning had a guy saying that the only reason the rate went down was because people have given up and stopped looking. This was NPR, not Fox. So I'm guessing that NPR isn't liberal after all - they just hate everyone in office, and love all lesbians and stuff.

[vandalshandle]

Since posters here are claiming that tax reduction creates jobs, it stands to reason that if we cut taxes to zero, we would have 100% employment, so by all means, let's do that! Of course, the side effect will be unimaginable debt, , causing interest rates to rise so much that no industry or government of individual can afford to borrow money, which means that capitalization would dry up, and industry would no longer be able to finance expansion, which means that they would have to do major layoffs, meanwhile our entire civilization would go down the tube...which is pretty much what was starting to happen between the time between when the USA was under the Articles of Confederation, until the Constitution was adopted, but hey, if you are going to make an omelet........

[thyme4change]

Yes - hyperbole always wins arguments.

[Deleted]

"Of course, the side effect will be unimaginable debt"

Oh, you've got it all wrong. Because as taxes approach zero and unemployment approaches 100%, income approaches infinity. So therefore, we just need to set the tax rate at 0.001% and everything will be cool. Don't worry about it....

[rockon]

"Of course, the side effect will be unimaginable debt, "
Only if the government spends an unimaginable amount of money.... like 3 trillion dollars a year. Can you image that?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 3, 2012 12:55:02 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The unemployment number is going to be whatever it needs to be in order to help pave the way for Obama's re-election. The number has no meaning whatsoever.

it's meaning has not changed in the last (40) years or so. it is just as meaningful for Obama as it was for Reagan.

[rockon]

Or we could argue that we would all be rich if we imposed a 110% tax on everything?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 3, 2012 13:53:33 GMT -5 usaone said:

Feb 3, 2012 11:39:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Following the 2003 tax cuts, there were roughly 54 months of job gains.

Housing boom was the reason for the increase not the tax cuts.
The jump in the work force rate over the last 3o years is the boomers. Now that they are retiring we will return to our long term trend which is around 60 % or so.

70% of economic growth during the Naughties was due to home equity borrowing. when that leg came out from under the stool, down went the economy.