Unemployment rate falls to 8.3%

[SoonerPride]

Good news for America.

[pphilfran]

I thought it would be flat with temp holiday workers getting laid off...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/Unemployment2-1.jpg

[badger]

Much like the stock market seems desperate to continue rising, I think people are sick on not making money and want to do what they can to kill the recession blues... investing, hiring, etc.

There's not really any other explanation that I can think of, because the worries of Greek default, rising oil prices due to Middle East instability, a lingering 2012 presidential election, etc. suggests that business and the wealthy would be shutting their wallets along with the middle and lower classes and horde as many assets as possible... but they are sick of being stagnant! They want to grow and expand and be prosperous!

[pphilfran]

Much like the stock market seems desperate to continue rising, I think people are sick on not making money and want to do what they can to kill the recession blues... investing, hiring, etc.

There's not really any other explanation that I can think of, because the worries of Greek default, rising oil prices due to Middle East instability, a lingering 2012 presidential election, etc. suggests that business and the wealthy would be shutting their wallets along with the middle and lower classes and horde as many assets as possible... but they are sick of being stagnant! They want to grow and expand and be prosperous!

A couple of reasons....

Pent up demand...
People have been paying down debt and now have more disposable income...

[REDREX]

It also helps the unemploment rate go down when over a million people drop out of the workforce----This is a very weak recovery

[SanJoaquinSooner]

A couple of reasons....

Pent up demand...
People have been paying down debt and now have more disposable income...

One more important reason: The earnings reports have been pretty good for most sectors. Housing sector (& associated sectors like banking) has been in a great depression but all others have been mostly good.

[dwarthog]

A little help from Abbott and Costello on how to "shape" the numbers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/the-economics-of-abbott-and-costello_b_1115502.html

[SoonerPride]

A little help from Abbott and Costello on how to "shape" the numbers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-levinson/the-economics-of-abbott-and-costello_b_1115502.html

But the "hidden unemployed" side of the ledger has always been the case, so if you ding a democratic president for it, you would have to ding the republican predecessor as well.

Unless of course, you think there was no "hidden unemployment" number before Obama took office.

As long as each administration uses a similar counting methodology (and they do) there is no way to interpret this but that it is good news for the economy and thus good news for America.

Is it enough? No. But we are clearly headed in the right direction, despite the protestations on the right that we are not.

[hawaii 5-0]

All those rich fat cats are hiring now cause they're still getting those fat tax breaks.

Isn't that the reason for not taxing them more?


I'm glad to see the rate go down, regardless of the reason(s). Too many people wanting to work but can't.

5-0

[badger]

Too many people wanting to work but can't.

5-0

Word... and it's about to get worse locally with American Airlines having layoffs. :(

[LiveLaughLove]

Obama will run on killing bin laden and that he isn't the Republican. He will not run on his economy.

I hope and pray he does, but he won't because we ALL know it sucks. 8.3% may be better than it was, but it's nowhere close to good.

We ALL know his stimulus was a huge waste of money for no or little gain.

Like I said, I hope and pray he runs on his economic record. He won't.

[dwarthog]

But the "hidden unemployed" side of the ledger has always been the case, so if you ding a democratic president for it, you would have to ding the republican predecessor as well.

Unless of course, you think there was no "hidden unemployment" number before Obama took office.

As long as each administration uses a similar counting methodology (and they do) there is no way to interpret this but that it is good news for the economy and thus good news for America.

Is it enough? No. But we are clearly headed in the right direction, despite the protestations on the right that we are not.


The problem with the numbers is how they are derived.


If you have 9.0% employment one month, then the next month, (assuming everything thing else is equal between the two months) 7/10's of those people are still unemployed but removed from being counted due to falling into the "given up" bucket. Then you will see a new unemployment rate of 8.3%.

Nothing has changed with the exception of how you categorized the unemployed. There is no actual improvements, it's a shell game. It doesn't matter who the president is.


BTW, the BLS changed the CPS survey in 1994, significantly. They even state the numbers before and after that date are not comparable.

[badger]

Incumbents only get evicted if voters are fed up with the status quo and are convinced that the new guy will be better than the old guy.

Ron Paul could be that guy, because he's viewed as an outsider with fresh ideas and who isn't beholden to special interests.

Mitt Romney could be that guy, because he could tout his business success (read: the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics).

I don't think Rick Santorum or Newt could be that guy for various reasons.

I also don't think Obama is that incumbent that will get evicted. Not yet, anyway. Election is young and who knows what will happen down the road.

[SoonerPride]

But the "hidden unemployed" side of the ledger has always been the case, so if you ding a democratic president for it, you would have to ding the republican predecessor as well.

Unless of course, you think there was no "hidden unemployment" number before Obama took office.

As long as each administration uses a similar counting methodology (and they do) there is no way to interpret this but that it is good news for the economy and thus good news for America.

Is it enough? No. But we are clearly headed in the right direction, despite the protestations on the right that we are not.


The problem with the numbers is how they are derived.


If you have 9.0% employment one month, then the next month, (assuming everything thing else is equal between the two months) 7/10's of those people are still unemployed but removed from being counted due to falling into the "given up" bucket. Then you will see a new unemployment rate of 8.3%.

Nothing has changed with the exception of how you categorized the unemployed. There is no actual improvements, it's a shell game. It doesn't matter who the president is.


BTW, the BLS changed the CPS survey in 1994, significantly. They even state the numbers before and after that date are not comparable.

But when the BLS shows the economy added 243,000 jobs it's hard to argue that the improvement in the unemployment numbers is strictly a "shell game."

Facts undercut your argument.

[badger]

I am not sure there's a better way to track unemployment than the current way. You have to just track those willing and able to work, not everyone. If you want employement numbers, cool! Compare actual employment month to month. But, if you just want to determine those who are "unemployed," I don't think you should count:

1- Babies. And other people that aren't of working age.

2- Full time parents who have no intention of entering the work force.

3- Retired persons who think Walmart greeter jobs are stupid.

4- Those who just don't feel like working. Trust fund babies, those staying their parents' basements forever, etc.

[dwarthog]

But when the BLS shows the economy added 243,000 jobs it's hard to argue that the improvement in the unemployment numbers is strictly a "shell game."

Facts undercut your argument.

Added against what number which was removed? It's still a calculation with moving values on both sides

[cleller]

Sidebar:
What level of unemployment is considered "full employment"? I remember several years ago the unemployment rate was very low, maybe 3% or something. Economists regarded whatever the figure was as "full employment" as there is a certain percentage of the population that is just un-employable.

For instance: You could go down to the Daycenter for the Homeless in Tulsa, and put up a sign that said "Dig holes-$8/hr". You could then put out a bunch of shovels, and there would still be bums laying on the sidewalk in front of the sign.

[OULenexaman]

Word... and it's about to get worse locally with American Airlines having layoffs. :( Not just locally for AA.....this one will be spread across the land......and don't forget the Boeing folks.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yes, good distinction.

The unemployment figure counts those who are looking for a job they are willing to take. It doesn't simply measure those who can't find a job.

I have an acquaintance who was an unemployed elementary school teacher for a year. A teaching job is the only job she would consider. She's now employed.

[diverdog]

A couple of reasons....

Pent up demand...
People have been paying down debt and now have more disposable income...

Good day for America.

Phil as usual you are right. There is a lot of pent up demand. I have a 10 year old car I will be replacing and a lot of others are in the same situation.

[pphilfran]

Good day for America.

Phil as usual you are right. There is a lot of pent up demand. I have a 10 year old car I will be replacing and a lot of others are in the same situation.

I am in the same situation...bout time for a new vehicle...

Speaking of auto sales...great month...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/totalsales1-1.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/importsales1-1.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/domesticsales1-1.jpg

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Finally some solid job growth with over 200K jobs added last month. 3 years of the Fed pumping money into the economy is finally taking hold.

I think you're going to see oil prices pushing well over $100/bbl this summer creating headwinds for the economy.

[badger]

Another thought: An increase job attrition --- people that leave jobs willingly to take higher pay, better hours, a new location, etc.

During the recession, the "harsh economic times" forced workers to settle for less. As their colleagues were getting laid off around them, their hours increased, the workloads increased and people were not replaced when they left.

And then, like others have have said about making purchases or other things they held off on for awhile, businesses could not hold out inevitably. There was work to be done, and attrition finally caught up with them. They needed to hire new people to replace the leaving ones. Immediately.

I am also seeing more people retiring, possibly due to being overworked, overstressed, crappy hours, etc. There are other reasons too, but it just seems like more people are willing to walk away from jobs now, not by force, but by choice.

[AlboSooner]

Great news. Oklahoma's is at 5.6%. Is that the nations best?

[StoopTroup]

Don't buy a new car. Get a used one and take it to a good mechanic and have them pimp your ride. It's good for 'Merica. :D

[Skysooner]

We ALL know his stimulus was a huge waste of money for no or little gain.

So we ALL know huh? Have you conducted some secret study that shows what the result of not stimulating the economy would have been? I don't think so.

You throw that much money into the economy, it is going to have some effect. My guess is that it sliced the unemployment rate a few percentage points. Also, letting the auto industry go bankrupt would have cost another 1 million jobs and that study is out there. Obama was handed an economy in stagnation due to forces caused by both Congress, former administrations and world economics. It takes years for any sort of "stimulus" to have an effect. Take him for what the last 2 years have been and things have been improving. The first 2 years are on Bush Lite.

[StoopTroup]

So we ALL know huh? Have you conducted some secret study that shows what the result of not stimulating the economy would have been? I don't think so.

You throw that much money into the economy, it is going to have some effect. My guess is that it sliced the unemployment rate a few percentage points. Also, letting the auto industry go bankrupt would have cost another 1 million jobs and that study is out there. Obama was handed an economy in stagnation due to forces caused by both Congress, former administrations and world economics. It takes years for any sort of "stimulus" to have an effect. Take him for what the last 2 years have been and things have been improving. The first 2 years are on Bush Lite.

I'm not going to defend Obama as he had a choice to make. Whether he inherited the problem or not....it was up to him to do what was best for the Country. I think what he did wasn't all that great. I think he should have held a bunch of those bastards accountable and told them that if he saved them....once they had paid it all back....they should resign from their Company and let the Board of Directors choose a new CEO. Of course I'm just throwing out an example of just making them suffer for putting him in such a bad position. All those a-holes that took bonuses....they should have lost every penny they had. They didn't deserve a promotion for him bailing them out. Also....if he had done nothing....we all know he would have gotten hammered by the right for that.

He took the job. If he didn't realize it was in such bad shape....he should have just let Biden take his place or just figured out a way to lose to McCain. Of course losing to McCain isn't an option if you really are an American that in your heart....you really felt that you could overcome the obstacles that the rich CEO and Bankers would throw at you. That's where i think he really was the right guy to take the job as if McCain had taken it.....we would have just put all this off for 4 years and then had a repeat of the 1930's.

Folks can bitch about Obama....but it was the way the War and the last administration was run that put us in this situation IMO.

[Whet]

Where have they gone?

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low


Volunteering for Oh Bam Uh 2012?

[Skysooner]

I'm not going to defend Obama as he had a choice to make. Whether he inherited the problem or not....it was up to him to do what was best for the Country. I think what he did wasn't all that great. I think he should have held a bunch of those bastards accountable and told them that if he saved them....once they had paid it all back....they should resign from their Company and let the Board of Directors choose a new CEO. Of course I'm just throwing out an example of just making them suffer for putting him in such a bad position. All those a-holes that took bonuses....they should have lost every penny they had. They didn't deserve a promotion for him bailing them out. Also....if he had done nothing....we all know he would have gotten hammered by the right for that.

He took the job. If he didn't realize it was in such bad shape....he should have just let Biden take his place or just figured out a way to lose to McCain. Of course losing to McCain isn't an option if you really are an American that in your heart....you really felt that you could overcome the obstacles that the rich CEO and Bankers would throw at you. That's where i think he really was the right guy to take the job as if McCain had taken it.....we would have just put all this off for 4 years and then had a repeat of the 1930's.

Folks can bitch about Obama....but it was the way the War and the last administration was run that put us in this situation IMO.

I agree in principle. The main thing is that this has only really happened twice in the last 100 years. What worked the first time didn't really work for the reasons that they were done. FDR was saved by WW2 and the ensuing industrial buildup. He hasn't gone far enough with what you said which was to hold the bastards on Wall Street accountable for this. They didn't cause it, but they sure exacerbated it. The housing bust was a result of many factors coming together at the same time. It was like the BP oil spill. All that could go wrong did go wrong. The best part of being in the US now instead of Europe is not being hamstrung with a bunch of countries that sold the farm on their budgets.

[sappstuf]

So we ALL know huh? Have you conducted some secret study that shows what the result of not stimulating the economy would have been? I don't think so.

You throw that much money into the economy, it is going to have some effect. My guess is that it sliced the unemployment rate a few percentage points. Also, letting the auto industry go bankrupt would have cost another 1 million jobs and that study is out there. Obama was handed an economy in stagnation due to forces caused by both Congress, former administrations and world economics. It takes years for any sort of "stimulus" to have an effect. Take him for what the last 2 years have been and things have been improving. The first 2 years are on Bush Lite.

You don't need a secret study. All you have to do is compare what Obama said the stimulus would do to what it did do. It was a failure.

Obama knew how bad the economy was.. He kept saying it was the worst depression since the Great Depression. So he knew.. Or it was just words and he didn't know what he was talking about. Take your pick.

Obama himself said he would be judged by what the economy looked like in his third year. Well we are in his third year and it looks like sh!t. Just this week the CBO predicted the GDP would grow by 2% this year and 1.1% next year... That is devastating. Obama predicted we would be growing at 4% annually from 2010 to 2013....

Yeah, he was that wrong. And even with that predicted growth his economic budgets had annual trillion dollar deficits. Now imagine where we will be with GDP growth less than half of what he predicted.

It isn't hard to tell where we will be if that happens... And we won't have a paddle.

[IBleedCrimson]

Obama has only 1 option when advertising his economic record: He has added jobs for 23 months straight.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/6812456155/

Opponents will credit this towards 1900 different factors, none of which are Obama admin policy. And whether they are correct is irrelevant because everything is a carnival sideshow. They are all political entities who spout a bunch of nonsense. I can make America "nonsense political rhetoric" AGAIN! :: cheers from stupid crowd ::

No one is going to revamp the incredibly retarded tax code and make it "FAIR".

No one is going to stop the inter-generational-terrorism of spending that makes all this ridiculousness possible

No one is going to just say, "Racism is evil, EXCEPT when against white males.

No one is going to say that "If everyone has a college degree, then nobody does."

This is all a jerk off. I am incredibly fired up about something that HAS NO MEANING. So... Yeah.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It also helps the unemploment rate go down when over a million people drop out of the workforce----This is a very weak recovery

^^^this. This bump is artificial. Wonder what the numbers would look like with the abondoned looking factored in...

[StoopTroup]

^^^this. This bump is artificial. Wonder what the numbers would look like with the abondoned looking factored in...

Not much. They are just a bunch of lazy bastages waiting for a handout. Why wait until your Unemployment to run out before getting a rake or a lawn mower and starting that business that the INS took away from the Illegals? :peach::apple::livid::sentimental::concern:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You know, I can't figure out the people who want to go on umemployment and that includes the unions when they are on plant break/retool and get unemployment. I have never ever used it and would not consider it unless it was an absolutely last thing ever to do. Then it probably won't be available...

I have made tacos, pizzas, mowed yards and delivered phone books in 112 degree weather to make money and make ends meet. Don't have any respect for people on unemployment and not looking for a job/not taking a pizza delivery job or anything else that would put money on the table...

[pphilfran]

So we ALL know huh? Have you conducted some secret study that shows what the result of not stimulating the economy would have been? I don't think so.

You throw that much money into the economy, it is going to have some effect. My guess is that it sliced the unemployment rate a few percentage points. Also, letting the auto industry go bankrupt would have cost another 1 million jobs and that study is out there. Obama was handed an economy in stagnation due to forces caused by both Congress, former administrations and world economics. It takes years for any sort of "stimulus" to have an effect. Take him for what the last 2 years have been and things have been improving. The first 2 years are on Bush Lite.

Both Chrysler and GM did go bk....Chrysler is now majority owned by Fiat, an Italian company....

[pphilfran]

You don't need a secret study. All you have to do is compare what Obama said the stimulus would do to what it did do. It was a failure.

Obama knew how bad the economy was.. He kept saying it was the worst depression since the Great Depression. So he knew.. Or it was just words and he didn't know what he was talking about. Take your pick.

Obama himself said he would be judged by what the economy looked like in his third year. Well we are in his third year and it looks like sh!t. Just this week the CBO predicted the GDP would grow by 2% this year and 1.1% next year... That is devastating. Obama predicted we would be growing at 4% annually from 2010 to 2013....

Yeah, he was that wrong. And even with that predicted growth his economic budgets had annual trillion dollar deficits. Now imagine where we will be with GDP growth less than half of what he predicted.

It isn't hard to tell where we will be if that happens... And we won't have a paddle.

Actually, based off his 2012 budget GDP was expected to grow.... table 10.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
2012 4.9%
2013 5.9
2014 5.9
2014 6.1
2015 5.7
2016 5.2

Don't think we are going to make it....the lower GDP will be devastating the annual deficit and debt...

[Frozen Sooner]

Sidebar:
What level of unemployment is considered "full employment"? I remember several years ago the unemployment rate was very low, maybe 3% or something. Economists regarded whatever the figure was as "full employment" as there is a certain percentage of the population that is just un-employable.

For instance: You could go down to the Daycenter for the Homeless in Tulsa, and put up a sign that said "Dig holes-$8/hr". You could then put out a bunch of shovels, and there would still be bums laying on the sidewalk in front of the sign.

That's not why full employment is 3%. Those "bums laying on the sidewalk" aren't part of the labor force: they're not looking for work.

The full employment rate being greater than 0 is due to "frictional" unemployment: people lose their jobs due to changes in the employment market (changes in technology making jobs obsolete, for example), because they got fed up and quit, because they sucked at their job and the company fired them, because they moved with their spouse, whatever. Those people don't find jobs instantly.

Good thing, too. If full employment didn't have frictional unemployment, inflation would go through the roof.

[Skysooner]

Both Chrysler and GM did go bk....Chrysler is now majority owned by Fiat, an Italian company....

Yes, they did. Still one of the major problems we have had is jobs moving overseas and factory closures. If GM goes broke at that particular moment, you see an entire supply chain go away along with a myriad of other companies and jobs. This was the absolute right thing to do at that time. We cannot afford to let all of our manufacturing jobs go. The people that work in those plants are the middle class and are the ones that drive the consumer economy. Without them spending money, more jobs go away, etc. The poor spend some money. The rich spend lots of money, but there are only so many consumer goods they can buy. This is a simple thing to fix usually when the economy is just so so. With a bad economy, huge budget deficits, etc., there are only so many things that can be done by the federal government. Letting our auto industry go down would not have been a good thing.

[diverdog]

Where have they gone?


Volunteering for Oh Bam Uh 2012?

Whet those numbers are not accurate and the author from Zero Hedge has been called out about them. BTW that idiot has been predicting doom and gloom for a long time.

[sappstuf]

Actually, based off his 2012 budget GDP was expected to grow.... table 10.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
2012 4.9%
2013 5.9
2014 5.9
2014 6.1
2015 5.7
2016 5.2

Don't think we are going to make it....the lower GDP will be devastating the annual deficit and debt...

Even with those "rosy", read deceitful, projections, Obama still projected to rack up annual trillion dollar deficits to 2020.

[SoonerPride]

Actually, based off his 2012 budget GDP was expected to grow.... table 10.1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
2012 4.9%
2013 5.9
2014 5.9
2014 6.1
2015 5.7
2016 5.2

Don't think we are going to make it....the lower GDP will be devastating the annual deficit and debt...

Even with those "rosy", read deceitful, projections, Obama still projected to rack up annual trillion dollar deficits to 2020.

Where were the deficit hawks when President Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and had two unfunded wars and exploded our debt and deficit?

If the right wants to have any credibility on this subject they should have done or at least said something in the previous administration. Now it is completely disingenuous political posturing and nothing more.

[sappstuf]

Where were the deficit hawks when President Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and had two unfunded wars and exploded our debt and deficit?

If the right wants to have any credibility on this subject they should have done or at least said something in the previous administration. Now it is completely disingenuous political posturing and nothing more.

Can't defend Obama's projections so attempt to deflect by attacking the credibility of the one pointing out Obama's very dumb projections for the utter failure they are...

Classic.

Of course it does nothing to further the conversation about our current president and the path of our government, but maybe that is the point.

For your knowledge, since you seem to lack it, there were many conservatives unhappy with Bush's spending and those old articles are not hard to find. But over the course of Bush's presidency he average about $450 billion in annual deficits. Obama is on track by his own projections, to have over a trillion dollar deficits for his entire presidency. It could be much worse than Obama projected.

But you really don't care about Obama's deficits because he is your guy. Talk about disingenuous...

[dwarthog]

Whet those numbers are not accurate and the author from Zero Hedge has been called out about them. BTW that idiot has been predicting doom and gloom for a long time.

How are they not accurate?

Page 6 of the latest report clearly states that 1,252,000 were dropped out of the labor force.

[diverdog]

How are they not accurate?

Page 6 of the latest report clearly states that 1,252,000 were dropped out of the labor force.

From the WSJ Blog:


Today's jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real -- people actually found jobs.The employment gain wasn't immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month's report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.
This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn't change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.
Here's what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn't distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn't affected.
"There was not a big increase in discouraged workers," economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. "What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died." [The Wall Street Journal, 2/3/12 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Feconomics%2F201 2%2F02%2F03%2Fwhats-behind-the-unemployment-rate-drop%2F)]

To be fair I think the number will be revised....it always is. This time it will be due to the way the DL calculates seasonal job loss adjustments to try and figure out real job growth in the economy.

[dwarthog]

From the WSJ Blog:



To be fair I think the number will be revised....it always is. This time it will be due to the way the DL calculates seasonal job loss adjustments to try and figure out real job growth in the economy.

Part of the problem here is the numbers soup being thrown out in the report requires a fair bit of digesting.

There is some very interesting information contained within the report.


The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by
1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and
persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the
labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage
point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a
lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force
participation than the general population.


This snippet from the data indicates there are still some serious issues in the job market and that any fluctuations in the percentages appear to be largely due to short term employment changes since the long term employment numbers remain static.


In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged
from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in January, little different
from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not
currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7
million persons marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work in the 4
weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I agree in principle. The main thing is that this has only really happened twice in the last 100 years. What worked the first time didn't really work for the reasons that they were done. FDR was saved by WW2 and the ensuing industrial buildup. He hasn't gone far enough with what you said which was to hold the bastards on Wall Street accountable for this. They didn't cause it, but they sure exacerbated it. The housing bust was a result of many factors coming together at the same time. It was like the BP oil spill. All that could go wrong did go wrong. The best part of being in the US now instead of Europe is not being hamstrung with a bunch of countries that sold the farm on their budgets.

How do we know what would have filled the void wouldn't have been better than what we currently have. What we do know is that we still have the same clunky, overly-bureacratic too big to fail auto industry that's not competitive. It might have been under a real restructuring, they would have had to make moves to make themselves much leaner and more flexible, which is just what the american auto industry needs. What would have filled the void would likely include non-union labor, which is the real reason government motors and chrysler were saved.

Too big to fail is bad for banks but good for the auto industry. I'll stay consistent on this one.

[soonercruiser]

I thought it would be flat with temp holiday workers getting laid off...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/Unemployment2-1.jpg

Phil!
How about this????
Only 130,000 jobs were created in January.
But, 1.2 million jobless ended their available unemployment benefits in January, and were thus dropped from the employment statistics.
Unemployment is not actually down.
They have played with the statistics!

Obama said unemployment would be 6% by the end of his first term if the skimulus package was passed.
Seems that they intend to make the statistics fit!

[SoonerPride]

Phil!
How about this????
Only 130,000 jobs were created in January.
But, 1.2 million jobless ended their available unemployment benefits in January, and were thus dropped from the employment statistics.
Unemployment is not actually down.
They have played with the statistics!


Obama said unemployment would be 6% by the end of his first term if the skimulus package was passed.
Seems that they intend to make the statistics fit!

This is false.


Economic Journalist Barry Ritholtz: "The Fact Is 1 Million People Did Not Drop Out Of The Labor Force In January 2012." In a February 3 post, economic journalist and Washington Post columnist Barry Ritholtz explained that those who are claiming that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in January are misreading the Labor Department's jobs report:

So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn't some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity's sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out).

[...]

[T]he fact is 1 million people did not drop out of the labor force in January 2012. [The Big Picture, 2/3/12]




Krugman: "We Have Rush Limbaugh, Fox, Etc., Claiming That A Step Down [In Working-Age Population Estimate] Somehow Implies Fake Calculations. Still Not True." In a February 5 blog post, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

First, about that jobs report: all the usual suspects have jumped on the routine BLS population adjustment to claim that the numbers were cooked. The real story here is that the BLS estimates unemployment based on a monthly survey; this tells us what fraction of workers are unemployed. To turn that into a number of unemployed, the BLS estimates total working-age population; but it updates those estimates only once a year. So there's usually a step up or down in the totals each January, signifying nothing.

Back in the Bush years there were a lot of bogus claims of huge job growth reflecting a step up in the population numbers. Now we have Rush Limbaugh, Fox, etc., claiming that a step down somehow implies fake calculations. Still not true. And the thing that makes this so tiring is that they keep trotting out the same old bogosity, no matter how many times it has been refuted. [The New York Times, The Conscience of a Liberal, 2/5/12]





http://mediamatters.org/research/201202060007

[REDREX]

Krugman is a joke----When was the last time he was right on anything?

[SoonerPride]

Krugman is a joke----When was the last time he was right on anything?

More recently than Hannity.

Or Limbaugh.

[soonercruiser]

"Krugman".....great!
Might as well ask the Press Secretary for an answer.


Try this as some balance.....

First, some history...
Why the Unemployment Rate Has Become a Bad Joke
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41583533/Why_the_Unemployment_Rate_Has_Become_a_Bad_Joke

Unemployment – the Real Numbers
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/unemployment-the-real-numbers/1459

Unemployment: Real Numbers and Real Rates
http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/02/unemployment-real-numbers-and-real-rates/

Just a little on how the numbers are manipulated, and miscalculated!
And.....this is how they came up with the estimate that another 1.2 million were dropped off the employment rolls in January...
-----------------------
Actual U.S. Unemployment: 15.8%
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/05/actual_us_unemployment_158.html

The bureau, which is under the Labor Department, cannot use unemployment compensation records to count the out-of-work, because they are not reliable or up-to-date enough. The bureau also cannot count every out-of-work person.

Instead, as The Ticker reported here in December: "In the case of the monthly jobs report, the Labor Department contacts 60,000 households to determine the unemployment picture for the entire workforce, which consists of about 154 million Americans."

The problem with this methodology is that it does not include millions of Americans who are not working full-time who ought to be. Those, in the bureau's words, who are "marginally attached to the labor force."

Those numbered an additional 2.1 million Americans in the first quarter of this year, the bureau said. Alarmingly, that number was up 35 percent from the first quarter of 2008.

Of this number, the bureau categorized 717,000 as "discouraged" workers, or those that have simply given up looking for work for any number of reasons. That number was up 70 percent from the first quarter of 2008.

"Discouraged" workers include a disproportionate number of young people, blacks, Hispanics and men, the bureau said.

On top of all of this, add an additional 3.6 million unemployed Americans who say they want a job but have not looked for work in the past 12 months.

The remaining 2.6 million or so officially unemployed Americans include part-time workers who would prefer to have full-time jobs, those who have not looked for work because of illness or transportation reasons and those who believe they have other impediments.

[SoonerPride]

"Krugman".....great!
Might as well ask the Press Secretary for an answer.

Would you prefer the American Spectator?


Even Conservative American Spectator Admits Claim That "Labor Force Dropped More Than 1.2 Million" Is "Simply Wrong"
American Spectator Blog: "The Claims Of A Big One-Month Drop In Labor Force And Participation Rate Are Simply Wrong." In a February 3 post on the blog of The American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ross Kaminsky wrote that it's "simply not true" that "the participation rate dropped .03 percent and the labor force dropped more than 1.2 million in the past month." From Kaminsky's post:

[ZeroHedge.com analyst and writer Tyler] Durden says that the civilian non-institutional population rose by 1.7 million month-over-month but doesn't mention that almost all of that increase was due to an adjustment by Bureau of Labor Statistics based on the results of the 2010 census, plus smaller annual adjustments.

From the BLS report:

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population.

or the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal?


WSJ: Population Growth Didn't Affect Unemployment Rate. In a post analyzing the jobs report numbers, The Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog explained:

Today's jobs report carries good news on both fronts. The unemployment rate fell, and the employment-population ratio rose. That means the improvement in the labor market is real -- people actually found jobs.

The employment gain wasn't immediately obvious to some observers because of a quirk in this month's report. Every January, the Labor Department readjusts its data to account for changes in the population. The tweaks are especially significant in years like this one that take into account a new decennial census.

This year, the population adjustment makes it look like the employment-population ratio didn't change from December to January. In reality, the ratio improved by 0.3 percentage points. The gains were just masked by the population adjustments.

Here's what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn't distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn't affected.

Are these sufficiently right-wing enough media outlets for you?

[OU_Sooners75]

That is a report for who files for unemployment, not those that are actually unemployed.

Guessimations are around 15-16% are actually unemployed. People have used up their unemployment benefits so therefore can no longer draw a government pension so they can no longer file.

[OU_Sooners75]

More recently than Hannity.

Or Limbaugh.

So you point to other extreme journalists/henchmen to attempt to make a point?

[Turd_Ferguson]

That is a report for who files for unemployment, not those that are actually unemployed.

Guessimations are around 15-16% are actually unemployed. People have used up their unemployment benefits so therefore can no longer draw a government pension so they can no longer file.DO NOT go against SP!! He's the smartest mother****er on the planet!!

[OU_Sooners75]

Obama will run on killing bin laden and that he isn't the Republican. He will not run on his economy.

I hope and pray he does, but he won't because we ALL know it sucks. 8.3% may be better than it was, but it's nowhere close to good.

We ALL know his stimulus was a huge waste of money for no or little gain.

Like I said, I hope and pray he runs on his economic record. He won't.

Why can't the republicans keep it at te forefront....which they will!

[OU_Sooners75]

Where were the deficit hawks when President Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and had two unfunded wars and exploded our debt and deficit?

If the right wants to have any credibility on this subject they should have done or at least said something in the previous administration. Now it is completely disingenuous political posturing and nothing more.

If the Left is going to give and give, why not take and take?

Just remember, 6 of the 8 years Bush was in office, the House and Senate was ran by the left. So I ask, why didn't the left keep him in check?

[SoonerPride]

So you point to other extreme journalists/henchmen to attempt to make a point?

Well, I like how you infer that a Nobel Laureate winning economist is an an "extreme journalist/henchmen."

I'll take the words of someone who teaches econ at Princeton over the blowhards I mentioned (in jest, by the way, since those buffoons couldn't tell a Kenynes from a Kenyan.)

[OU_Sooners75]

Well, I like how you infer that a Nobel Laureate winning economist is an an "extreme journalist/henchmen."

I'll take the words of someone who teaches econ at Princeton over the blowhards I mentioned (in jest, by the way, since those buffoons couldn't tell a Kenynes from a Kenyan.)

Dont confuse me as right-wing loon.

I couldn't care any less about Any of the loons you have mentioned.

Fact is, they are all after their own agenda.

[SoonerPride]

If the Left is going to give and give, why not take and take?

Just remember, 6 of the 8 years Bush was in office, the House and Senate was ran by the left. So I ask, why didn't the left keep him in check?

They were completely cowed by 9/11 and the fervor for supporting a wartime president.

Two unfunded wars, expansion of Medicare by adding a Rx drug card, and giving him the gigantic tax cut for the wealthy were among the contributing factors which tanked the economy and ballooned our national debt. The Democratically controlled Congress at the time was more than complicit in this and should be also condemned.

But make no mistake, Bush got what he wanted and only a few strident voices on the other side of the aisle voted no (and at the time were lambasted for it by Fox, et al.)

They should have opposed his every move like the GOP lead Congress has thwarted Obama at every turn. Then they should have arrested him and sent him and Cheney to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes when it was apparent the authorized torture.

[SoonerPride]

That is a report for who files for unemployment, not those that are actually unemployed.

Guessimations are around 15-16% are actually unemployed. People have used up their unemployment benefits so therefore can no longer draw a government pension so they can no longer file.

The Congress was cowed by 9/11 and the fervor to support a wartime president.

They should have opposed his every move: two unfunded wars, expansion of Medicare by adding an Rx card, and the tax cuts for the super wealthy all ballooned our national debt and helped tank our economy.

The Democratically controlled Congress was complicit and failed the country badly.

They should have arrested Bush & Cheney and sent them to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes, too.

[SoonerPride]

DO NOT go against SP!! He's the smartest mother****er on the planet!!

Thank you for noticing.

[OU_Sooners75]

They were completely cowed by 9/11 and the fervor for supporting a wartime president.

Two unfunded wars, expansion of Medicare by adding a Rx drug card, and giving him the gigantic tax cut for the wealthy were among the contributing factors which tanked the economy and ballooned our national debt. The Democraticly controlled Congress at the time was more than complicit in this and should be also condemned.

But make no mistake, Bush got what he wanted and only a few strident voices on the other side of the aisle voted no (and at the time were lambasted for it by Fox, et al.)

They should have opposed his every move like the GOP lead Congress has thwarted Obama at every turn. Then they should have arrested him and sent him and Cheney to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes when it was apparent the authorized torture.

You sound like my ex....one excuse after another.

Who cares what Fox News says. You all have CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. The left has a far more reaching means than the right. The right has Fox and NPR.

Seriously...Bush was not perfect.

But I do wish you leftists would stop making excuses and pinning everything as Bush's fault. Be adults and accept responsibilities.....

That said, Obama made over 500 promises while campaigning to become president.
Of those 500+ campaign promises, 25 were key promises.

Of all campaign promises:
He has honored 167 of them.
He has broken 42 of them.
He has hedged 40 of them.
There have been 69 that have stalled.
There are 220 more in the works right now.

Of those promises, the 25 key promises:
He has honored just one (New hires to deny cronyism), hedged on one (tougher rules for lobbyists and former officials), and broken one (Close Guantanamo).

Only two of his 25 key promises are being worked on...bringing the total of his key promises that have had or seen action to 5 or just 20%.

They guy is a good talker....but that is all he is!

[SoonerPride]

He did pass health care reform, right?

And ended DADT....

(just to be fair.)

And IIRC those were pretty important promises.....

The full Obamameter is here...http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

It's far from perfect, and as a liberal (not scared or ashamed to use that word) I think he has failed to deliver the amount of change that I had hoped. However, I do also give him some slack because in my 45 years on this planet I can never remember an opposition party so reluctant to even compromise. At all. On anything. It is simply the worst I have ever seen it. And that recalcitrance is all part of the GOP's "one term Obama at all costs" mantra. Even when he proposes a plan they had dreamed up, they then shoot it down or stall it out. It is unbelievable.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, let me tell you...his health care reform will be repealed or overturned by the USSC.

If the petition that is going around gains over 2.5 million signatures, it will be repealed.

That bill (healthcare) was the biggest joke to come out of congress in forever!

[SoonerPride]

Yeah, let me tell you...his health care reform will be repealed or overturned by the USSC.

If the petition that is going around gains over 2.5 million signatures, it will be repealed.

That bill (healthcare) was the biggest joke to come out of congress in forever!

I disagree.

[OU_Sooners75]

I disagree.

How come I am not surprised?

[LiveLaughLove]

SP, you act like it is a sin for Republicans to only want one term for the great Obama.

Do you think the Democrats actually wanted two terms for Bush?

I recall a lot of opposition and vitriol against him. Isn't the opposition supposed to be the opposition?

I suppose the difference is Bush deserved it, and Barry doesn't? Is that it?