More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[8537]

Do you know that as fact? If yes, where can I find that information?

Yes, I know that as a fact. You can find it by reading the employment situation report at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Notice the headings:
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

Thanks...but I cant find the formula for the adjustment.
Do you know what it is?

Well, I know the statistical methodology. They use ARIMA (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average), which in it's simplest form looks at the increase in employment / hiring each year that occurs during this period. It takes the average of that increase and uses THAT figure as a baseline. For example, let's say that:

1. Over the past 50 years, the average increase in employment for each November has been 200,000.

2. The average in every other month (not Nov, Dec, or Jan) has been 150,000.

Then we can surmise that, on average, approximately 50,000 people are added to the rolls each year thanks to the holidays. So when we seasonally adjust the data, we subtract that amount from the total.

 

[pinqy]

Actually, what the Bureau of Labor Statistics did with the census worker's numbers was count each time the worker was hired back after he'd been laid off for a few days as a job created. So to make it simple...one census job was actually counted several times as the worker was hired back each time. Commonly known as smoke and mirrors.

Not really. The Current Employment Survey doesn't measure hires, it measures the net change between pay periods.

The reference pay period for each month is the one that contains the 12th. Employers are asked how many employees they have on their payroll that pay period. One month later, they're asked again. If the difference is positive that's called "new jobs" in that, for example, in Oct 2011 employers reported approx 131,588,000 and in November, 131,708,000. that's 120,000 more jobs...NOT new hires.

For a single person to be counted twice, he would have had to be fired and hired within the same pay period AND counted as 2 seperate people. Now, I'm not familiar with Census HR, but I would think the same individual would have the same employee number. In any case, there's no way that would happen enough to make any real difference.

 

[8537]

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Ahhhh...but you overlook that that one job is a temporary job that will last through December 24 and that one additional person also joined the workforce during that time. So now you had 4 people without jobs, 1 got a temporary job, 1 other person joined the workforce so you still have 4 people without jobs and a 5th coming right after Christmas.

The data is seasonally-adjusted.

Have I mentioned that they use seasonally-adjusted data to compensate for holiday hiring?

 

[BluePhantom]

But it doesn't change the math of Frank's numbers: 4 people were without jobs. Now 3 people are without jobs. In any normal universe, the "3 people without jobs" scenario is better than the 4.

Ahhhh...but you overlook that that one job is a temporary job that will last through December 24 and that one additional person also joined the workforce during that time. So now you had 4 people without jobs, 1 got a temporary job, 1 other person joined the workforce so you still have 4 people without jobs and a 5th coming right after Christmas.

Actually...it usually lasts through 1/31.....sometimes 1/15

The exact date doesn't matter. The point is that it's not permanent

 

[G.T.]

Fuzzy Math. I have very little faith in Government numbers. It's obviously in this Administration's best interest to claim the Unemployment numbers are lower than they actually are. Unfortunately that's the way the system has been set up. Unemployment is much much higher than 8.6%. That number is just fantasy.

Then, why before this while Obama's been on office for three years, why was it in their best interest to keep them reporting it as a high number, ass clown?

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, I know that as a fact. You can find it by reading the employment situation report at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Notice the headings:
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

Thanks...but I cant find the formula for the adjustment.
Do you know what it is?

Well, I know the methodology. They use ARIMA (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average), which in it's simplest form looks at the increase in employment / hiring each year that occurs during this period. It takes the average of that increase and uses THAT figure as a baseline. For example, let's say that:

1. Over the past 50 years, the average increase in employment for each November has been 200,000.

2. The average in every other month (not Nov, Dec, or Jan) has been 150,000.

Then we can surmise that, on average, approximately 50,000 people are added to the rolls each year thanks to the holidays. So when we seasonally adjust the data, we subtract that amount from the total.

Pretty much what I used to do when I had the temporary employment division of my company. We forecasted by looking at the same month the year before...

However, we found it to be very skewed and unreliable due to technology. For example, one year seasonal hiring dropped for us due to an increase in interent buying...and it only decreased every year after until I opted to get out of that market.

But is there an actual formula?

And is it based on percentages as opposed to "numbers of people"?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

22 pages and i'm sure it will go to 100 with the partisan hackery.

Listen:

to those who like obama and support him;

Yes the unemployment rate is down .4%. yes that is a great thing. yes it is positive for obama.

However, less new jobs were created than total people who stopped looking for work, they did figure in retail hiring numbers which christmas hiring affects, and its just one month so we need this to be a trend that lasts into the spring for it to be really good for obama

Instead of celebrating this as good for Obama why don't you be happy for your fellow americans instead.

To those who dislike obama and don't support him;

The unemployment rate IS down .4% regardless of any quantifiers. This does look good for obama, get over it.

Intelligent people who pay attention understand how insignifigant this truly is in light of factors such as retail hiring being included, people no longer being able to collect so no longer being considered unemployed, and the fact that it is still way above the projected 8% with the stimulus and still way higher than the average under any of the last several presidents. People get it.

Instead of looking for every little thing to show how this isn't good for obama why don't you be happy for your fellow americans instead.



I know, I know...i'm just spitting in the wind with this post but someone had to say it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gotta love it... 3 walk away because they can't find a job, 1 finds a job, and the unemployment rate goes down.

Yeah, nothing corrupt here.

if the three even stayed counted, then of the "4" you're talking about, there's 25% less unemployment. I don't see why that would be a negative, but ok.

There is not 25% less unemployment. U6 is still around 16.5%.... it has not changed. Even if U3 went down 25%, that would make it 6.9%, not 8.6%... anyhoo, this new rate is the result of a Gallop poll... not an official survey.

 

[Truthmatters]

when you have a recovery starting to take steam you dont down talk it unless you dont care about recovery.

This is not about an election this is about A recovery for the American people.


Place your country over your partisan veiws.

NO more debt ceiling type stunts for poltical purposes to RUIN the revcovery OK.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Math fail.

where did that number of 1 hiure to 3 drop come from?

Not being sarcastic...just curious as to who made that number up?

He's saying that because 315000 people who did not find jobs/stopped looking were removed from being listed as "unemployed," while only 120, 000 were hired in November.

The problem with his math is simple. (besides 120x3 = 360)

He's acting as though the 315,000 are somehow newly unemployed or something, which is the only way the number negates the good news that we added 120k jobs, when the reality is this:

add the 2 together: 315000 and 120000 = 435000

so before November, speaking only in the context of these two numbers - - 28% of those specific 435k folks are now employed, when before November, 100% of them were unemployed.

That's a positive in anyone's book, and as 8537 continues to school people on: holiday/seasonal hiring is adjusted in the ue % in order to reflect a more accurate number.

They see this in the article: More than half the jobs added were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000 jobs, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 new workers. The health care industry added 17,000.

And pretend that, that means: the 8.6% number wasn't adjusted for seasonal/holiday hiring, which it was - as always.

You couldn't be any wronger if you were Paul Krugman.

I rounded 315 to 360 to get the 3:1 ratio of drops from the UE roll to the 120 hired because that's what happened.

For ever person hired, 3 just stopped looking for work. You call that Progress and good new and the DOW is up against because of it, I'll keep adding to my short position.

Said it before, one day we'll look back on this and laugh

 

[Rocko]

These numbers aren't robust. Obviously there's an aberration with all the people that stopped looking for work, and the stock market rallied this week, because of central banks across the world easing to alleviate the world debt crisis.

Those of you on the left are just pretending this is a good economy, it's actually amusing.

If these numbers are so great, then what's the cause?????? The porkulos was spent a long time ago, and Obama couldn't pass the American shit act, so I'm guessing it's the tax cuts.....right libs???????

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fuzzy Math. I have very little faith in Government numbers. It's obviously in this Administration's best interest to claim the Unemployment numbers are lower than they actually are. Unfortunately that's the way the system has been set up. Unemployment is much much higher than 8.6%. That number is just fantasy.

Then, why before this while Obama's been on office for three years, why was it in their best interest to keep them reporting it as a high number, ass clown?

No reason.. what has happened here is that 100k were added to the ranks of the employed, coupled with 300k dropping out of the job search and subsequently being removed from the ranks of the job seekers, thus not being counted as unemployed.. yet they are still unemployed.

Fuzzy math it is indeed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

when you have a recovery starting to take steam you dont down talk it unless you dont care about recovery.

This is not about an election this is about A recovery for the American people.


Place your country over your partisan veiws.

NO more debt ceiling type stunts for poltical purposes to RUIN the revcovery OK.

Yeah because our ever growing national debt has no threat of completely destroying the economy for everyone from rich to poor and in the process destroying all our entilement programs....nah the national debt could NEVER do that.

Stop being a partisan hack about it and just admit that, yes, its good the rate went down but no its not great because of all the other aspects of the employment equation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

when you have a recovery starting to take steam you dont down talk it unless you dont care about recovery.

This is not about an election this is about A recovery for the American people.


Place your country over your partisan veiws.

NO more debt ceiling type stunts for poltical purposes to RUIN the revcovery OK.

There is no recovery.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yeap some people cant place country over party

 

[G.T.]

Gotta love it... 3 walk away because they can't find a job, 1 finds a job, and the unemployment rate goes down.

Yeah, nothing corrupt here.

if the three even stayed counted, then of the "4" you're talking about, there's 25% less unemployment. I don't see why that would be a negative, but ok.

There is not 25% less unemployment. U6 is still around 16.5%.... it has not changed. Even if U3 went down 25%, that would make it 6.9%, not 8.6%... anyhoo, this new rate is the result of a Gallop poll... not an official survey.

Yes yes, I know. Try reading for context. I didn't say there was 25% less unemployment.

I said of the 120k newly employed versus the 315k who dropped out.....(which is the point everyone's been discussing, for fuck's sake).....and any unemployment less than their previous total is a good thing.

 

[masquerade]

22 pages and i'm sure it will go to 100 with the partisan hackery.

Listen:

to those who like obama and support him;

Yes the unemployment rate is down .4%. yes that is a great thing. yes it is positive for obama.

However, less new jobs were created than total people who stopped looking for work, they did figure in retail hiring numbers which christmas hiring affects, and its just one month so we need this to be a trend that lasts into the spring for it to be really good for obama

Instead of celebrating this as good for Obama why don't you be happy for your fellow americans instead.

To those who dislike obama and don't support him;

The unemployment rate IS down .4% regardless of any quantifiers. This does look good for obama, get over it.

Intelligent people who pay attention understand how insignifigant this truly is in light of factors such as retail hiring being included, people no longer being able to collect so no longer being considered unemployed, and the fact that it is still way above the projected 8% with the stimulus and still way higher than the average under any of the last several presidents. People get it.

Instead of looking for every little thing to show how this isn't good for obama why don't you be happy for your fellow americans instead.



I know, I know...i'm just spitting in the wind with this post but someone had to say it.

Thank you.

 

[kiwiman127]

Those who are disputing whether the new unemployment rate really indicates progress by point to those who stopped looking for jobs are very correct.
Using historical data, I use the unemployment rates from 1998 to 2008 and the Labor Force Participation Index. The Index reflects all those in the nations workforce, those who are still looking for work and those who have given up looking for work.
Please note that the unemployment rates were at 4.5 in 1998 and when the unemployment rate was at 4.6 in 2006. Now look at the Labor Force Participation Index for those years. One can see there is quite a difference. In other words, there was actually a higher percentage of workers participating within the workforce in 1998 than there were in 2006. The reason is because millions of people had stopped looking for jobs and that dramatically enhanced the unemployment rate in 2006.

Year-Unemployment Rate
1998-4.5 1999-4.3 2000-4.0 2001-4.7 2002-5.8 2003-6.0 2004-5.5 2006-4.6 2007-4.6 2008-5.8

 

[CrusaderFrank]

when you have a recovery starting to take steam you dont down talk it unless you dont care about recovery.

This is not about an election this is about A recovery for the American people.


Place your country over your partisan veiws.

NO more debt ceiling type stunts for poltical purposes to RUIN the revcovery OK.

How is 3 times as many people dropping from the work force than got hired a "recovery"?

What fucking planet do you live on?

 

[Chris]

when you have a recovery starting to take steam you dont down talk it unless you dont care about recovery.

This is not about an election this is about A recovery for the American people.


Place your country over your partisan veiws.

NO more debt ceiling type stunts for poltical purposes to RUIN the revcovery OK.

The treasonous Tea Party/Republicans don't dare try another stunt like that in an election year.

The Bush tax cuts expire automatically in December of 2012, and the spending cuts kick in automatically in January of 2013, so Congress has been taken out of the equation.

The deficit problem has been solved.