Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[Alceste]

Well, I have been listing to a lot of data here and there and it seems that I am totally confused. It seems that around 114,000 jobs were created in Sept and the unemployment rate dropped 0.3%. That doesn't make much sense to me. The average new job figure for the preceding months were fairly close to that yet the unemployment rate didn't change as much as it did in September.
This seems to be an interesting article from Fox Business:

Here’s the math behind the unemployment rate if all the people who want a job suddenly re-entered the workforce, according to FOX News analyst James Farrell:
In September 2012, there were 6.73 million people who say they currently want a job, but are not in the labor force because they are not looking for work, says Farrell. If all 6.727 million of these workers suddenly started looking for a job, and would in turn be counted both in the workforce and as unemployed, then the unemployment rate would rise to 11.63%.

Sept. 2012 civilian labor force 155.063 million
Sept. 2012 – people who want a job but not looking 6.727 million
Adjusted labor force 161.79 million
Employed in Sept (household survey) 142.974 million
Employed as % of adjusted labor force: (142.974 / 161.79) = 88.37%
Unemployed as % of adjusted labor force (100.00 – 89.27) = 11.63%

Read more: The Real Unemployment Rate | Fox Business

Now the following link is how the Bureau of Labor Statics computers the data:
Prepare to have your head swim!!!
How the Government Measures Unemployment
​

A moot point. If people who are not working wanted work, they'd be looking for work, and therefore be counted as "unemployed".

There are lots of possible reasons a person who doesn't have a job might not be looking for a job. Many of them might be stay-at-home parents, or people who retired early, or people who are independently wealthy and don't need to work, or college students, or aspiring entrepreneurs who are getting a business off the ground.

I guess it's just not adequately hysteria-inducing for Fox to recognize it's not a sign of an Obama-induced economic apocalypse for stay-at-home parents not to be looking for work.

That's Fox for you. Spin spin spin spin spin....

[youtube]k9uqYbcMHVk[/youtube]
Arnold Schwarzenegger "You Spin Me Round" - YouTube

 

[Alceste]

You obviously think that I am saying that the BLS cooked the numbers; that is far from what I was saying. I was just wondering how the unemployment dropped 0.3% when the new jobs figures didn't change as big. The new jobs numbers was just about the same as the previous months. I'm just confused how they dropped so much. Can you answer that little question for me?

The unemployment rate has been dropping for several months (and for most of Obama's presidency, in fact). Does that explain it for you, or would you like me to elaborate?

September jobs report: Unemployment rate tumbles - Oct. 5, 2012

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You obviously think that I am saying that the BLS cooked the numbers; that is far from what I was saying. I was just wondering how the unemployment dropped 0.3% when the new jobs figures didn't change as big. The new jobs numbers was just about the same as the previous months. I'm just confused how they dropped so much. Can you answer that little question for me?

I believe the employment numbers for August were readjusted upward by BLS...Additionally we tend to forget the many retirees that exit the workforce.

I don't think we had this kind of speculation when the BLS applied the same techniques over the past the and a half years of reporting high job rate numbers. More importantly is that the fact that we can actually see on a month by month basis the percentage going down. While it had remained above 8% but steadily going down no one said a word other than how horrible things are the fact it's above 8%. Where was all the concern for the numbers then? The fact of the matter is while it is a very slow recovery...as the president said it would be....we are headed in the right directions. Republicans may be salty they lost one of their talking points...but it is what what it is.

 

[Thief]

Just a side note....as reported by an international economics adviser...
Half of America is not working.

Numbers from the Census Bureau show that half of America is either too old
or too young to participate in the workplace.

That means half of the population is living on the income of the other half.

The non-working portion will rise in number as time goes by.

Social security will go belly up in 2015.
At that point 105% of the budget will needed to cover the checks going out.

Of course that's not possible.

Unemployment is 12% where I live.....
I have taken employment and separated from my family to avoid the economics of this immediate area.
Here in this place I've been laid off too many times and suffered pay scale far below my skill level.
Local business is collaborating.
'Don't hire my guy...I won't hire your guy....don't pay more...neither will I.'

 

[esmith]

I believe the employment numbers for August were readjusted upward by BLS...Additionally we tend to forget the many retirees that exit the workforce.

From what I understand, the unemployment figures are based on the labor force. The labor Force is made up of the employed and unemployed. There are those who are not in the labor force and are not considered in the figures. Those people consist of retired people, students, people who are not actively looking for work explanation for those not considered in the figures can be found at How the Government Measures Unemployment. If you are working at a part time job you are considered employed, this just doesn't seem right to me. You can't support your family on part time pay. I would suspect that those that are now part time want to be or ran out of unemployment benefits.

 

[Alceste]

From what I understand, the unemployment figures are based on the labor force. The labor Force is made up of the employed and unemployed. There are those who are not in the labor force and are not considered in the figures. Those people consist of retired people, students, people who are not actively looking for work explanation for those not considered in the figures can be found at How the Government Measures Unemployment. If you are working at a part time job you are considered employed, this just doesn't seem right to me. You can't support your family on part time pay. I would suspect that those that are now part time want to be or ran out of unemployment benefits.

It's cheaper for businesses to create part time jobs because then they aren't on the hook for benefits. That is why so many people are trying to get by on three or four part time jobs. You want more full time jobs to open up, you're going to need to regulate the abuse of this system by major employers like Walmart. You might have to party a penny or two more for your Doritos, but so what?

 

[esmith]

It's cheaper for businesses to create part time jobs because then they aren't on the hook for benefits. That is why so many people are trying to get by on three or four part time jobs. You want more full time jobs to open up, you're going to need to regulate the abuse of this system by major employers like Walmart. You might have to party a penny or two more for your Doritos, but so what?

We weren't discussing part-time employment, we were discussing the new unemployment figures and I couldn't understand how the rate dropped 0.3% in Sept when only 1400 new jobs were created. It has been suggested that it changed due to additional people going on part time work.

 

[Darkness]

I have never placed much faith in the unemployment rate (U3). The Fox Business News article you linked to esmith is correct. I am a Marxist, so I could care less about defending President Obama. Hatred of Fox News and loyalty some feel towards the President should not get in the way of proper economics. The fact of the matter is that the drop in the unemployment rate for the last two/three years has been a statistical illusion for the most part. So many people are discouraged from not finding a job that they have simply given up. Now, you can blame them for not continuing to look for work, but that is liberal-based, agency nonsense. We are suffering from a severe structural unemployment problem (though I do not like using the word "structural", it works for now). Looking or not, we now have more than four percent less people working in the total population than we had before the recession, and President Obama has not fixed it. Sorry Democrats.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have never placed much faith in the unemployment rate (U3). The Fox Business News article you linked to esmith is correct. I am a Marxist, so I could care less about defending President Obama. Hatred of Fox News and loyalty some feel towards the President should not get in the way of proper economics. The fact of the matter is that the drop in the unemployment rate for the last two/three years has been a statistical illusion for the most part. So many people are discouraged from not finding a job that they have simply given up. Now, you can blame them for not continuing to look for work, but that is liberal-base, agency nonsense. We are suffering from a severe structural unemployment problem (though I do not like using the word "structural", it works for now). Looking or not, we now have more than four percent less people working in the total population than we had before the recession, and President Obama has not fixed it. Sorry Democrats.

Oh.....Oh.....OH! I just love it when you talk dirty!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If you are working at a part time job you are considered employed, this just doesn't seem right to me. You can't support your family on part time pay.

You make a classic assumption without any facts. There are people that are working a part time job that may want a full time. There are a lot of part time jobs out there now that are seasonal jobs.

"BUT"

Don't assume that because some one is working part time it's solely because they can't find full time work...or that it is hard to support a family. I work for a a school system and talk with students and parents on a daily basis and what I'm finding out is there are many young people taking part time work while living at home with parents. They're saving cost by staying at home and on their parents health insurance plan and using that part time money for tuition assistance (i.e. books, credits and food).

I also know that a few of the married moms are working part time because the husband hasn't gotten a raise so the extra income help to offset what he's not making and the part time work affords them the ability to be able to be home with the kids but able to work when they're in school. So yes, while there are plenty that take the part time or season work because they need it there are plenty that are working part time for other reasons and many that work part time simply because they want to. Not one of the seasonal working parents I've spoken to say they haven't been or not going to continue to peruse full time work before the holiday season is over.

I would suspect that those that are now part time want to be or ran out of unemployment benefits.

Some but certainly not all as I've indicated above. My wife was working for Sprint for 12 years and was let go. She was out of work for a few months and found a part time job but kept applying to others and is now working full time.

 

[Babs]

All I can say is that the other day I litterally saw a homeless guy standing on the street corner holding a sign that said, "Will fix computer for food".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We weren't discussing part-time employment, we were discussing the new unemployment figures and I couldn't understand how the rate dropped 0.3% in Sept when only 1400 new jobs were created. It has been suggested that it changed due to additional people going on part time work.

It's due to some adjustments in the actual number of people that entered the workforce in August. The numbers were adjusted upward.

 

[Awoon]

How many new jobs have been created by the political adds? Any stats on that?

 

[YmirGF]

It's due to some adjustments in the actual number of people that entered the workforce in August. The numbers were adjusted upward.

Rather conveniently too. My guess is that the American people will not fall for this cooking of the books.

 

[Sunstone]

Rather conveniently too. My guess is that the American people will not fall for this cooking of the books.

Do you have any evidence the books are being cooked, Paul, or was that just one more time you've pulled a stinking idea out of your butt? Be careful, Paul -- the Forum prohibits trolling. So produce your evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

....or was that just one more time you've pulled astinking idea out of your butt?

Don't the rules also prohibit this kind of language?
If lack of evidence were such a problem, we'd all be banned by now.
A guy is entitled to his opinion about cooked numbers. I venture that you can't judge a long term trend by a single month.
I stand to profit hugely from a recovery, but I'm not ready to start celebrating.

 

[esmith]

As you most know I am a rabid economic conservative. I do not believe that the books were cooked. I really believe that this is the season when business's take on part time help and this is what helped bring the unemployment figures down, also school started and students are taken out of the equation. So I really believe that the numbers are accurate, it is just that the data really doesn't show the economic health of the country. After listing to various sources (Fox Business Channel) and doing some reading on my own, I really believe that the U6 data is the most effective way to judge the health of the US economy.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you have any evidence the books are being cooked, Paul, or was that just one more time you've pulled a stinking idea out of your butt? Be careful, Paul -- the Forum prohibits trolling. So produce your evidence.

Oh, get a grip, Phil. Perhaps my language was a bit "over the top", much like getting excited about these job numbers is, and your finger-wagging over the RF rules is. The nutty side of these "job numbers" is that most of the jobs are part time jobs at significantly lower wages than the workers were getting previously. Better than nothing, sure, but barely.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the people who are unemployed and NOT looking for work or have given up looking for work. Estimates are that adding these people to the "cooked" figures would pad the number upwards to 27 million people which is far higher than 7.8%., but like homosexuals in Iran, these people no longer exist - for some reason...

Another nail in the coffin is that it is quite normal for job numbers to rise in September, and if this is the case then Obama and crew have no business crowing over the fact.

Another nail is that the Labor Department has with the issue of these numbers, for years, is not to take these numbers too literally as they are not true indicators.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

To address the "cooked" remark. NO, I do not believe that the Labor Dept. was directed to produce a "cooked" figure by the Obamaniacs pretending to run the country, I am sure they are doing it, as they always have done, however, due to the sampling method, these figures are - to an extent - "cooked" figures.

 

[crossfire]

I smell sulfur. Uncle Scratch, are you lurking around here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hate to agree -- even in part -- with our country's malicious and brain dead right wing propaganda machine, but there's a reasonable chance that the number will be adjusted at a future date. So it's probably worthwhile taking the number with a grain of salt for now. It could go either up or down after an adjustment.

One take I heard on the news last night for these numbers is that while unemployment is down overall, it's up in every "swing state" but Ohio, so the Romney campaign would still be able to spin this announcement in their favour.