U-6 UE Number Falls 2.1% Layoffs at a 13 Year Low

[usaone]

Lots of pushin and pullin.

Frank....you need to send a couple of guys from Jersey over to Libya to "take care of things"!

And tell 'em not to forget the cannoli's!!

[usaone]

Weekly unemployment claims DROP TO 368,000.

Lowest number in almost three years!! ;D ;D ;D ;D


Monster.com reports online hiring jumped 4% over last Feb.

Job growth is accelerating.

[usaone]

US on pace to create over 2 million jobs this year!

Maybe more!

[usaone]

222,000 Jobs added in Feb.

Unemployment at 8.9%!!!

[usaone]

Any open minded person can see the trend. Hiring should stay between 150k to 300k per month most of the year!

I'll have U6 figures when available.

K back at you!

[usaone]

U 6 Unemployment numbers computed the way they are today would have peaked at.....


The 1930's at 38%

The 1980's at 20%

The 1990's at 14.5%

And 2010 at 17.3%

[Virgil Showlion]

Tyler:

Wonder why the unemployment rate is at an artificially low 8.9%? Three simple words: Labor Force Participation. At 64.2%, it was unchanged from last month, and continues to be at a 25 year low. Should the LFP return to its 25 trendline average of 66.1%, the unemployment rate would be 11.6%. And indicatively, the Birth/Death adjustment was +112,000.

Not that I'd expect anybody who reports "222,000 Jobs added in Feb" with a straight face to know what a birth/death adjustment is.

Also, a nice piece at Manifested Deconstruction on why tax revenues continue to plummet and food stamp usage continues to reach successive new highs:

Chart I did using BLS data combining total full time wage and salary workers average weekly earnings. CPI adjusted to 1982-1984 chained dollars. From the 2007 peak, the total basket of people in full-time jobs are making exactly $100 billion dollars less, in real terms, than in 2007. They are making $20 billion less than last year.

You fellows will just suck these cooked employment stats right up if they tell you what you want to hear. Incredible.

U 6 Unemployment numbers computed the way they are today would have peaked at...

Source, maestro.

[usaone]

25 year low puts us at the end of the 1982 recession Virgil.

Thanks for making my point.

History repeats itself.

What happened at the end of that recession?

BULL MARKET and LOTS of hiring!!

We have been here before folks!

[usaone]

This is what recoveries look like Virgil. Go dont add 7 Million Jobs in a month.

It took 5 years back in the 1980's and it will take 5 years this time. Your charts show that.

[usaone]

Even after the mild 2000 recession it took 4 years for wages to pick up.

[usaone]

After the 1982 recession it took 8 YEARS to get back to full employment!!

WOW!!

Great Charts.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The number of available jobs fell 30%. So, of course the U6 number looks better.

[Virgil Showlion]

You're discounting the fact that the current recovery is being purchased with perpetual $1.5 trillion deficits and $200 B in monthly monetizations by the Fed, USA. No such measures were needed in the 1980's.

Also, the recovery in the 1980's came in tandem with an aggressive hike in interest rates. This time around, there's no realistic chance of interest rates rising.

Finally, low labour force participation in the early 1980's was due to systemic reasons. Presently, it's due to demographic ones.

Systemic labour pool deficits can be easily corrected. Demographic LP deficits cannot.

[ihearyou2]

A rising tide causes everything to go up with it. Rising employment means more taxes being paid on every level and less deficit. With that said Repubs need to get through meaningful reform on pensions. You can throw out statistics all day long the fact is things are getting better, it is very clear on an OVERALL picture. I speak to recruiters every month and they are busier then they've been in over three years. Check the stocks of Robert Half or other recruitment firms to get a real grasp of the employment picture. Sorry Virgil your gun is almost empty, the proof is in the reality.

[usaone]

Mar 4, 2011 14:01:37 GMT -5 ihearyou2 said:

A rising tide causes everything to go up with it. Rising employment means more taxes being paid on every level and less deficit. With that said Repubs need to get through meaningful reform on pensions. You can throw out statistics all day long the fact is things are getting better, it is very clear on an OVERALL picture. I speak to recruiters every month and they are busier then they've been in over three years. Check the stocks of Robert Half or other recruitment firms to get a real grasp of the employment picture. Sorry Virgil your gun is almost empty, the proof is in the reality.

Exactly.

The 1980's recovery was also powered by deficits.

[usaone]

U 6 Now at 15.9% and falling.

[GuestDriftr]

And we still have to go back to 1983-1984 to find a labor participation rate as low as the one we have today.

Tell me this is because families are making a conscious choice to live on one salary and keep a parent at home to help raise their children better and I say it's great. Tell me it's because people have figured out a way to live of 'the system' because somewhere along the way they lost hope they could find a job and I say it's bad.

[usaone]

We have to go back to the early 1980's because that was the last time we had a severe recession.

[GuestDriftr]

Mar 8, 2011 9:54:43 GMT -5 usaone said:

We have to go back to the early 1980's because that was the last time we had a severe recession.

Then why did the Labor Force Participation rate increase or hold steady every year from 1971-1990.

[usaone]

What rate was it at through the 1970's and 19800"s? According to Virgils chart it was at least 61% and probably lower.

Were minorities counted correctly back then?

[GuestDriftr]

Labor Force Participation rates for 1970-1989.
1970: 60.4
1971: 60.2
1972: 60.4
1973: 60.8
1974: 61.3
1975: 61.2 (oops, didn't notice this blip when I eyeballed it earlier)
1976: 61.6
1977: 62.3
1978: 63.2
1979: 63.7
1980: 63.8
1981: 63.9
1982: 64.0
1983: 64.0
1984: 64.4
1985: 64.8
1986: 65.3
1987: 65.6
1988: 65.9
1989: 66.5
I am not aware of minorities being treated any differently on this report for 1970 versus 1989 or any year in between. This rate continued to trend up until 2000 when we hit our max of 67.1. It looks to be trending down since the tech-wreck.

[usaone]

My point is it takes time.

It took 20 YEARS for the job participation to rise 6%!!!!!!!

[usaone]

Another good continuing jobs number today.

397,000 claims.

Another week under 400,000!

[Driftr]

Mar 10, 2011 8:53:17 GMT -5 usaone said:

My point is it takes time.

It took 20 YEARS for the job participation to rise 6%!!!!!!!

Agreed it will take time for Labor Force Participation rate to get back to the highs in 2000. Looks like the rate may have leveled off for now. I suppose we should hope that trend stays the same or improves. Personally though, I'd prefer it if participation stayed low, wages increased, and one parent was able to work while the other stayed home again.

After the 1982 recession it took 8 YEARS to get back to full employment!!

I guess I'm not understanding where you see employment was hurt during the '82 recession. At least not from a participation rate standpoint. We must have really been growing the economy back then if U3 or U6 showed spikes while we were increasing participation at the same time.

[usaone]

The difference between then and now is the babyboomers retiring. I think its around 1.5 Million every year moving out of the work force. In 1982 it was the opposite.

[Driftr]

That makes sense. Even with the 150k per month getting added to the workforce, losing 1.5 a year is bound to have an effect on the participation rate. I wonder how badly this baby boomer retirement swing is going to affect our tax revenues. I'm sure .gov and CBO have that figured in to future tax revenue figures...

[decoy409]

Driftr, the news on this is very old. Many years back it was already figured. The figuring was done by the UN,IMF,CFR and a few others.

What was come to conclusion was,

1.) Overpopulation about this time as the baby boomers started stepping down.

2.) The cookie jars being empty in order to cover the mass of new claims like to SSI for starts.

Last year if you recall at MSN MT,I spoke about this issue coming into play. And I covered the 'Hallway Interview' with the senator stating that they were trying to pass that bill quickly to retirement age of 71 years of age.

And I went on to add that the human life here in the U.S. has a average span life of 74 years old.

Yes,they have it figured out and I can assure you that they do.

[usaone]

Raising the retirement age will be for the younger people. Those close to retirement wont be affected.

Anyone 35 and older wont have to work past 70.

But when people in their 20's hit 70 that wont be a big deal because by then we will be living past 100!

[Driftr]

Mar 10, 2011 16:36:30 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

And I covered the 'Hallway Interview' with the senator stating that they were trying to pass that bill quickly to retirement age of 71 years of age.

And I went on to add that the human life here in the U.S. has a average span life of 74 years old.

Good that the retirement age gets increased.
What do you think the average life span is for someone after they've reached say age 65? I'd expect it's longer than the total average. Food for thought if anyone's looking at that 74(or is it 78)-71 and thinking to themselves, hey, 3(or is it 7) years isn't fair.

Where'd you get the 74 from? I just did a quick google and found this.
www.nysun.com/national/american-life-expectancy-passes-78-years/79783/

or this through 2005

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

[vl]

U-6 Unemployment has fallen from 17% to 16.1%. This number DOES include people not actively looking for work.

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=moneytalk&action=display&thread=2960&page=1#ixzz1GFkbwxgI

It doesn't include the under-employed, nor the impact when they become exhausted from working 2-5 jobs. The two factors you need to consider in reading data like this is the ramification (Risk) in deviation. Most multi-jobbers cannot sustain if they lose even one job, much less fall-off completely. They are also inclined to pack up and abandon homes, cars and other credit obligations. Among the 2 million foreclosures, a fair amount will- in fact- walk away this year. As gasoline rises, cars with keys will show up in bank branch parking lots. Credit cards will kite while in flight, then the trail will become cold as they disappear themselves with accumulated cash and supplies.
This has all happened before and recently. We've made ZERO adjustments to process and put naive people in key roles who wouldn't recognize the symptoms even if they were staring at them. We cannot afford the free fall again. Any thoughts on what to do when "bail them out" while waving blank sheets of paper fails to go over?