9.8%

[redrumjuice]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405..._LEFTTopStories

[Perchoutofwater]

This doesn't jive with what was posted in another thread stating that more private sector jobs were created in November since the recession began. I wonder which is true?

[wiegie]

For the record, private employment increased by 50,000 workers in November (and 39,000 jobs were added overall). The reason the unemploymet rate increased was most likely because more people are re-entering the work-force and looking for jobs. (The official unemployment rate doesn't count people who don't have jobs and who are not actively working for work. So the unemployment rate can increase even if more people are working if there is an even bigger increase in people who have decided to go out and actively look for work.)

 

Overall, the recovery is still very very slow (as I have been predicting all along) but at least private job growth is still positive.

[Perchoutofwater]

Overall, the recovery is still very very slow (as I have been predicting all along) but at least private job growth is still positive.

 

I agree with you completely on this statement, and am particularly encouraged by the growth in the private sector.

[Azazello1313]

For the record, private employment increased by 50,000 workers in November (and 39,000 jobs were added overall). The reason the unemploymet rate increased was most likely because more people are re-entering the work-force and looking for jobs.

 

or perhaps 39,000 is way less than needed simply to keep up with population growth. if we add 39,000 per month ad infinitum, the unemployment rate will continue to grow. hard to call that even a "slow recovery" in the job market. to the extent there's any trajectory at all, it's not in the right direction. it's a disappointing report.

[driveby]

The November Employment Report: A Wake-up Call

 

December 3, 2010 10:01 A.M. By Douglas Holtz-Eakin

Awful. That’s the best one can say about the November employment report. The headline — that unemployment jumped to 9.8 percent — is not really the bad news. If and when the economy does catch fire, droves of discouraged workers will flood back into the labor market and the rate will easily exceed 10 percent. So a rising unemployment rate is not really the main concern.

 

No, the main concern is that there were only 50,000 private-sector jobs created, not nearly enough to make a dent in the employment woes. And that was the bright spot. For blue-collar workers — “production and nonsupervisory employees” — aggregate hours fell, aggregate payrolls fell, average weekly hours fell, average hourly earnings fell, and average weekly earnings fell. In the household survey, employment actually declined.

 

Unlike the recent past months, this report offers less of a mixed reading and more plain bad news.

 

It’s also a bit mysterious. The other data for November showed considerably more promise, and the ADP Employment Report on Wednesday pointed to large job gains. We should expect the data nerds to tear apart the seasonal adjustment of the numbers — always tricky for the holiday season — and see if something fishy turns up.

 

But mostly this is an alarm bell for the lame-duck Congress. No more games — extend all the tax cuts for two years, patch the AMT, and turn to cutting spending and tax reform.

 

Going forward, Congress has lost the luxury of extended debate on boutique social issues. All focus should be on growth. Every policy should be evaluated for its impact on growth. Wake up.

 

— Douglas Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum.

[redrumjuice]

So we need 150,000 per month just to keep even, and the rate never changes when we don't hit that, how strange.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think the new normal is a floor of 7% at best. The days of 3% are gone forever. I think I read somewhere that moderate unemployment is actually good for business since it keeps labor costs down and people stay longer.

[TimC]

For the record, private employment increased by 50,000 workers in November (and 39,000 jobs were added overall).

 

Is that the addendum to the correction of the revision of the adjusted numbers where we learn the real truth in 10 years?

 

I had sex with 12 Playboy centerfolds until I seasonally adjusted that I just whacked off to Bea Arthur's pic.

Edited December 3, 2010 by TimC

[cliaz]

What I would love to see is the number of new 'consultant' jobs that were created independently. Not sure if those can be reported on or not.

[moneymakers]

Watch for major layoffs after tax increase on small business and corporations.

[Jimmy Neutron]

(The official unemployment rate doesn't count people who don't have jobs and who are not actively working for work. So the unemployment rate can increase even if more people are working if there is an even bigger increase in people who have decided to go out and actively look for work.)

 

This (the calculatiuon, not Wiegie's statement) is completely BS, IMO. Shouldn't unemployement be recorded as the number of people out of work that want jobs? Why do the unemployed magically go away when they lose hope and stop lookling when things are really bad?

[Perchoutofwater]

This (the calculatiuon, not Wiegie's statement) is completely BS, IMO. Shouldn't unemployement be recorded as the number of people out of work that want jobs? Why do the unemployed magically go away when they lose hope and stop lookling when things are really bad?

 

Because then the figure would have real meaning and we would all know just how screwed up our economy really is.

[wiegie]

This (the calculatiuon, not Wiegie's statement) is completely BS, IMO. Shouldn't unemployement be recorded as the number of people out of work that want jobs? Why do the unemployed magically go away when they lose hope and stop lookling when things are really bad?

it should be the number of people out of a job who want jobs, but then the question is: How can you tell if somebody really wants a job or not? The BLS has decided that you do this by asking people if they have actually looked for work or not in the last four weeks. If the person says that s/he hasn't actively looked for a job, then they just say this person is not in the labor force.

 

I will note that the BLS does indeed calculate other measures of labor disutilitization. The best know of these alternative measures is called U-6. This contains not only the officially unemployed people but also other "marginally attached" workers without jobs. This U-6 measure of labor underutilization is currently 17.0%. Below are the figures for U-6 going back to its most recent low in March 2007:

 

LNS13327709 2007 M03 8.0

LNS13327709 2007 M04 8.2

LNS13327709 2007 M05 8.2

LNS13327709 2007 M06 8.2

LNS13327709 2007 M07 8.3

LNS13327709 2007 M08 8.5

LNS13327709 2007 M09 8.4

LNS13327709 2007 M10 8.4

LNS13327709 2007 M11 8.5

LNS13327709 2007 M12 8.8

LNS13327709 2008 M01 9.1

LNS13327709 2008 M02 8.9

LNS13327709 2008 M03 9.0

LNS13327709 2008 M04 9.2

LNS13327709 2008 M05 9.7

LNS13327709 2008 M06 10.0

LNS13327709 2008 M07 10.5

LNS13327709 2008 M08 10.9

LNS13327709 2008 M09 11.2

LNS13327709 2008 M10 11.9

LNS13327709 2008 M11 12.8

LNS13327709 2008 M12 13.7

LNS13327709 2009 M01 14.0

LNS13327709 2009 M02 15.0

LNS13327709 2009 M03 15.6

LNS13327709 2009 M04 15.8

LNS13327709 2009 M05 16.4

LNS13327709 2009 M06 16.5

LNS13327709 2009 M07 16.4

LNS13327709 2009 M08 16.8

LNS13327709 2009 M09 17.0

LNS13327709 2009 M10 17.4

LNS13327709 2009 M11 17.2

LNS13327709 2009 M12 17.3

LNS13327709 2010 M01 16.5

LNS13327709 2010 M02 16.8

LNS13327709 2010 M03 16.9

LNS13327709 2010 M04 17.1

LNS13327709 2010 M05 16.6

LNS13327709 2010 M06 16.5

LNS13327709 2010 M07 16.5

LNS13327709 2010 M08 16.7

LNS13327709 2010 M09 17.1

LNS13327709 2010 M10 17.0

LNS13327709 2010 M11 17.0

[Jimmy Neutron]

it should be the number of people out of a job who want jobs, but then the question is: How can you tell if somebody really wants a job or not? The BLS has decided that you do this by asking people if they have actually looked for work or not in the last four weeks. If the person says that s/he hasn't actively looked for a job, then they just say this person is not in the labor force.

 

I will note that the BLS does indeed calculate other measures of labor disutilitization. The best know of these alternative measures is called U-6. This contains not only the officially unemployed people but also other "marginally attached" workers without jobs. This U-6 measure of labor underutilization is currently 17.0%. Below are the figures for U-6 going back to its most recent low in March 2007:

 

LNS13327709 2007 M03 8.0

LNS13327709 2007 M04 8.2

LNS13327709 2007 M05 8.2

LNS13327709 2007 M06 8.2

LNS13327709 2007 M07 8.3

LNS13327709 2007 M08 8.5

LNS13327709 2007 M09 8.4

LNS13327709 2007 M10 8.4

LNS13327709 2007 M11 8.5

LNS13327709 2007 M12 8.8

LNS13327709 2008 M01 9.1

LNS13327709 2008 M02 8.9

LNS13327709 2008 M03 9.0

LNS13327709 2008 M04 9.2

LNS13327709 2008 M05 9.7

LNS13327709 2008 M06 10.0

LNS13327709 2008 M07 10.5

LNS13327709 2008 M08 10.9

LNS13327709 2008 M09 11.2

LNS13327709 2008 M10 11.9

LNS13327709 2008 M11 12.8

LNS13327709 2008 M12 13.7

LNS13327709 2009 M01 14.0

LNS13327709 2009 M02 15.0

LNS13327709 2009 M03 15.6

LNS13327709 2009 M04 15.8

LNS13327709 2009 M05 16.4

LNS13327709 2009 M06 16.5

LNS13327709 2009 M07 16.4

LNS13327709 2009 M08 16.8

LNS13327709 2009 M09 17.0

LNS13327709 2009 M10 17.4

LNS13327709 2009 M11 17.2

LNS13327709 2009 M12 17.3

LNS13327709 2010 M01 16.5

LNS13327709 2010 M02 16.8

LNS13327709 2010 M03 16.9

LNS13327709 2010 M04 17.1

LNS13327709 2010 M05 16.6

LNS13327709 2010 M06 16.5

LNS13327709 2010 M07 16.5

LNS13327709 2010 M08 16.7

LNS13327709 2010 M09 17.1

LNS13327709 2010 M10 17.0

LNS13327709 2010 M11 17.0

 

Ah. More useful. Thank you.

[Jackass]

So we need 150,000 per month just to keep even, and the rate never changes when we don't hit that, how strange.

 

actually the rate did change. it went up .2%

[bushwacked]

actually the rate did change. it went up .2%

 

Yea, I thought that was kind of the primary reason for starting the thread. Redrum must have not noticed the initial post.

[redrumjuice]

How many consecutive months have we had 150K + jobs added? The number 9.6 didn't change til now, it's a BULLSCHIT number.

 

Recovery summer.

 

But now the kommies say unemployment benies keep the economy running. And you libs agree, saddening.

[bushwacked]

How many consecutive months have we had 150K + jobs added? The number 9.6 didn't change til now, it's a BULLSCHIT number.

 

 

March 208,000

April 313,000

May 432,000

June 175,000

July 66,000

August 57,000

September 95,000

October 172,000

November 39,000

 

I count 5 of the 9 months above 150K and corresponding unemployment rate seems to make sense to me. Then again, I typically try to have a clue of what I'm talking about before I make a post.

[tosberg34]

March 208,000

April 313,000

May 432,000

June 175,000

July 66,000

August 57,000

September 95,000

October 172,000

November 39,000

 

I count 5 of the 9 months above 150K and corresponding unemployment rate seems to make sense to me. Then again, I typically try to have a clue of what I'm talking about before I make a post.

 

No you don't. Your one the Huddle's resident far left ideologues who only posts the same liberal talking points over and over again. Most of your posts are just one liners attacking the poster (if they don't follow the liberal party line) instead of providing real value. In fact, you have absolutely no clue what you are posting about. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.

Edited December 4, 2010 by tosberg34

[detlef]

Is that the addendum to the correction of the revision of the adjusted numbers where we learn the real truth in 10 years?

 

I had sex with 12 Playboy centerfolds until I seasonally adjusted that I just whacked off to Bea Arthur's pic.

 

Truth be told. Every time someone says something basically funny, people do the obligatory graemlin. However, most of the time, when Tim says something, I literally do laugh out loud.

[caddyman]

March 208,000

April 313,000

May 432,000

June 175,000

July 66,000

August 57,000

September 95,000

October 172,000

November 39,000

 

I count 5 of the 9 months above 150K and corresponding unemployment rate seems to make sense to me. Then again, I typically try to have a clue of what I'm talking about before I make a post.

Wow, just wow...the king of driveby juvenile posts has the nerve to make this statement. A very late entry for post of the year! This one will be hard to beat.

[Yukon Cornelius]

No you don't. Your one the Huddle's resident far left ideologues who only posts the same liberal talking points over and over again. Most of your posts are just one liners attacking the poster (if they don't follow the liberal party line) instead of providing real value. In fact, you have absolutely no clue what you are posting about. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.

 

 

Wow, just wow...the king of driveby juvenile posts has the nerve to make this statement. A very late entry for post of the year! This one will be hard to beat.

[caddyman]

:tup: :lol:

Sorry I was wrong...I did not think of your posts.

[bushwacked]

:lol: