Economy Adds 120K Jobs In March; Unemployment Falls To 8.2 Percent

[ProSense]

Economy Adds 120K Jobs In March; Unemployment Falls To 8.2 Percent

The U.S. economy added 120,000 new jobs in March, and the unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent, according to the Labor Department jobs report.

Here's how the numbers break down:

Biggest industry winners: Transportation equipment (+13k), finance (+15k), building services (+23k), administration (+15k), food services (+38k).

Biggest industry losers: Employment services (-14k), department stores (-21k), retail overall (including department stores -34k), construction (-11k).

The Labor Department revised February's numbers from 227,000 to 240,000 and January's numbers from 284,000 to 275,000.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/economy-adds-120k-jobs-in-march-unemployment-falls

[CAPHAVOC]

1. Errrr.

[ProSense]

2. I missed the joke? n/t

[CAPHAVOC]

3. Unemployment falls to 8.2.

Meanwhile 150k quit looking for work and lose benefits. LOL.

[ProSense]

4. Ah

Unemployment falls to 8.2.

Meanwhile 150k quit looking for work and lose benefits. LOL.

...it's a conspiracy!

You know, maybe the economy didn't actually lose the 800,000 jobs the month it was reported. Maybe we're all being tricked!!!!

[mathematic]

12. Let's see how your claim stands up to reality...

If you just quit looking for a job but still want one you're marginally attached. The rate that includes this type of unemployment in the definition dropped from 9.8 to 9.6.

As you ought to know, benefit status does not determine unemployment status. Nevertheless, long term unemployment (over 27 weeks) declined from 5.4 mil to 5.3 mil.

And finally, while persons not in the labor force increased from 87.654 mil to 87.897 mil the number of those that actually want jobs declined from 6.378 mil to 6.299 mil. Yes, people DO leave the labor force with no desire to have a job.

[CAPHAVOC]

16. So how many rates are there?

Who is leaving the Labor Force? The 1%? When one runs out of unemployment what are they counted as in the 8.2? Or are they counted at all. This is whacky. This reality could only exist in the Funny Farm. 40% of the people do not work.

[mathematic]

17. It's not wacky. You just don't understand it.

There are 4 main rates used to measure labor underutilization (unemployment). They are referred to as U3, U4, U5, U6. U3 is the most narrow measure and it is the headline number reported (the 8.2 rate). The one I quoted you above (the 9.6 rate) is U5. U6 is the broadest measure, including people working part time that want and are able to work full time, and it dropped from 14.9 to 14.5.

People leave the labor force for all sorts of reasons: retired, student, housewife/househusband, unable to work. Considering our two biggest generations, the boomers and millennials, intersect with the retired and student demographics, it's not surprising that the labor force participation rate is declining.

One does not need to have ever collected unemployment insurance to be counted in the 8.2 rate. For example, a person that quits a job can still be counted in the 8.2 rate. Simply put, unemployment insurance status has nothing to do with these BLS numbers.

Finally, 40% of the people don't work. I think that's great... as long as they don't want to work. Heck, if 100% of the people didn't work and 100% didn't want to work I'd think that's great too. I'm not holding my breath for that fully-autonomous-robot-future-freeing-humanity-from-the-drudgery-of-work any time soon though.

[former9thward]

19. You are making up stuff.

The Labor Department does not count students, unable to work and retired as being in the labor force. The rate went down because of people giving up looking for work.

[phleshdef]

22. That poster posted nothing but pure facts.

All of them 100% accurate. Nothing was made up.

Of course they wouldn't count "unable to work" or "retired" as being in the labor force. It would be monumentally stupid. If you are retired or unable to work, then you are most definately not part of the labor force. What part of "not working" or "not able to work" do you have an issue understanding? Obviously, the "not" part. Additionally, if you are "not looking for work", for whatever reason, you aren't part of the labor force. Some people quit looking for work because they don't want a job, some because they are tired of not finding anything. In either event, the only way anyone SHOULD be counted as part of the labor force is if they are seeking a job or they have a job. Its the only way that makes sense by the definition of what a labor force is.

The problem with your view here is that you are acting like the numbers we see these days are trying to hide something, and thats just bullshit. In the late 90s, when the unemployment rate was golden, it was surveyed and calculated then exactly the same way it is now. Whenever the economy is good or bad, we measure unemployment the same way. Because of the consistent approach to measurement, we can have confidence that each report is showing us a true movement in the trend one way or the other.

[former9thward]

26. You are wrong.

Your post "Additionally, if you are "not looking for work", for whatever reason, you aren't part of the labor force." That is incorrect. The labor department does count those people as part of the labor force but does not count them when developing the basic unemployment number. That is why the unemployment number went down despite a poor jobs number.

[phleshdef]

37. Um, no, I'm completely right.

You are not counted as part of the labor force unless you are seeking work. Period. There are people that have no interest in working, like stay at home parents for example. They are not counted as part of the labor force. If you aren't looking for a job, it would make no sense to count you.

[former9thward]

38. Um, no, that is not what the Labor Department does.

If you don't like how they collect stats take it up with them. If are not looking for a job because you are too discouraged that you will ever find one you are not counted as being in the labor force so the unemployment number goes artificially down. It has nothing to do with being disabled, student, stay at home parent, etc.

[phleshdef]

39. Yes. It is.

And it has nothing to do with their statistics. We are discussing what they consider "in the labor force" vs "not in the labor force".

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include:
1.Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
2.What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS?
3.Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
4.LAST WEEK, could you have started a job if one had been offered?

These questions form the basis for estimating the number of persons who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be "marginally attached to the labor force." These are persons without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as "marginally attached to the labor force," individuals must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. "Discouraged workers" are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of four reasons:
1.They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
2.They had previously been unable to find work.
3.They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
4.Employers think they are too young or too old, or they face some other type of discrimination.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#nilf

Its right there for your own reading. You are not considered part of the labor force if you have no job and aren't looking for one. Discouraged workers are considered "marginally attached to the labor force", only if they've looked for work in the last year. And thats a different category and are not counted among the unemployed. No one said they didn't measure the people that fit that category. Thats a false argument that you are pretending someone made. Its just that those people are not considered part of the labor force in ANY figure where they are specifically giving a measurement based on labor force participation. Participation requires people participating. If you aren't looking for work, then you aren't participating, no matter what the reason is.

[former9thward]

40. I think we are talking past each other.

Do you think people dropping out of the workforce because they are too discouraged they will ever find a job is a good thing? Because that is what is happening. And that is why the unemployment rate is dropping. Not because jobs are being added. People are dropping out because there are no jobs they can find. That is a good thing???

[phleshdef]

41. To answer your first question, of course not.

And no one denied that some of the unemployment drops we've seen over the last 2 years have been due to people dropping out of the labor force. But its a far reach to act like that accounts for most of it. We've actually seen jobs come back as well. Some companies who cut positions during the height of the recession have in fact started reinstating people back to those positions.

Also, don't forget that we just completed a census not that long ago. And the results of that census resulted in a lower estimated labor force size as well.

And not everyone that drops out of the labor force does it because they are giving up on looking for work. People retire EVERY DAY. People die EVERY DAY. People decide to become stay at home parents EVERY DAY. Yes, some people become discouraged and stop looking for work. But there are many reasons someone exits the labor force. And I don't think most people have the choice of just giving up on employment. I know I wouldn't. If I find myself without a job again, unless some unforeseen circumstance rendered me physical or mentally incapable of it, I'll keep looking for another one until I'm dead.

[mathematic]

23. How strange...

I clearly say that those people are NOT in the labor force. If a person was in the labor force but retired or went to college while not working or became unable to work, etc then they would LEAVE the labor force. Furthermore it's not true that they necessarily gave up looking for work because they need not have even started looking for work after they left their last employment.

Examples:
retired person - "That's the last job I'm ever going to work" - did not give up looking for work
student - "I hate this job. I'm going to school so I can get a real one" - did not give up looking for work
stay-at-home parent - "Screw that job I'm taking care of junior!" - did not give up looking for work
unable to work - "Healing from my sudden illness requires my full attention." - did not give up looking for work

And don't even try to tell me these examples aren't common. As I said above, the number of people not in the labor force that actually want a job declined!

[former9thward]

25. How strange...

You are attempting to imply that people are leaving the labor force so that is the reason the number of those who have given up looking for work is rising. That is false. The labor department does not count those people. The rat went to 8.2 because of the rise in people who have given up looking for a job. It matters not those who have actually left the labor pool for whatever reason. Keep trying to white wash bad numbers.

[mathematic]

28. If you're going to pretend I mean things I don't say why are you even bothering to respond?

But for the benefit of the people reading this that are interested in facts, here goes.

The definitions and numbers from the actual BLS report.

Labor force = employed plus unemployed
unemployed is available for work and looked for work in the last 4 weeks
Definitions

People not in the labor force include people that gave up looking for work over 4 weeks ago, people that never looked for work after their last job, and people that were never in the labor force. Of these three types, only the first represents an economic problem. People can leave the labor force from employment or from unemployment. I have given many legitimate, everyday scenarios where people leave the labor force from employment.

The total number of people that want a job that do not have a job are the unemployed plus the people not in the labor force that want a job. The BLS reports BOTH these numbers. And both these numbers declined last month. Unemployed declined from 12.806 mil to 12.673 mil. Explain how that is bad! People not in the labor force that want a job declined from 6.378 mil to 6.299 mil. Explain how that is bad! The total number of people in the United States of America that wanted jobs but were jobless DECLINED last month from 19.184 mil to 18.972 mil. Explain why fewer people wanting jobs and not having them is a bad thing.
data

I'll repeat that last part for the people skimming... the total number of people that wanted a job but did not have one declined last month. This is out of everybody! Even including people that want a job but have never had one or ever looked for one.

The numbers say that the labor force declined, the number of employed declined, the number of unemployed declined, and the number of jobless that wanted a job declined. How can this possibly make sense? Easy: a bunch of people got jobs but even more people with jobs left the labor force due to one of the many everyday scenarios I mentioned above (retirement, school, etc).

[CAPHAVOC]

36. Seems like

Less people working the lower the rate.

[klook]

18. Oh, really?

Wonder where you're getting that 40 percent number.

[SpencerShay]

32. Don't Count Your Chickens...

Not at all surprised that a George Zimmerman apologist wants the black president to fail. Don't count your chickens, just yet...

[WI_DEM]

5. well, better to be adding jobs than losing them, but still was expecting over 200,000 new jobs

based on reports. The recovery continues to be less than vigorous but lets face it the Bush Depression was the worse since the Great Depression and the Great Depression wasn't really solved until World War II.

[aaaaaa5a]

9. Remember this number is only an estimate.

I have noticed that when the actual numbers come out, the jobs number is almost always much higher than reported. If current trends hold, a 120,000 jobs claim will probably be about 150-175,000 when the true figures are known. Its not 200,000 but its pretty close.

[former9thward]

20. Not true.

Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

The January numbers were revised down 9,000 and the February numbers were rivised up 13,000. So combined those two months together went up 4,000. Not much difference at all.

[aaaaaa5a]

30. We have different information.

Here is a link on job revision numbers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73815.html


From the article:

The payroll numbers slightly beat Wall Street forecasts of 210,000 jobs, confirming that the hiring jumps in recent months were not flukes. The January jobs numbers also were revised upward to 284,000 from 243,000, while the December results were increased to 223,000 from 203,000.

[former9thward]

31. I took my numbers directly from the OP.

From the OP: The Labor Department revised February's numbers from 227,000 to 240,000 and January's numbers from 284,000 to 275,000

[aaaaaa5a]

34. Fair enough. I stand corrected.

And in all honesty thank you for the correction. I always want all of the threads and posts here at DU to be as factually accurate as possible.

[CAPHAVOC]

10. The "recovery" is due to the Fed.

QE2 is wearing off. The addicts are Jonesing. They need a shot. QE3 will have to be a bigger dose. Or the addicts will have to be sent to Re-Hab.
Why do they say people who run out of 99 weeks of unemployment have left the job market and are not looking for work? I doubt that is true.

[jeff47]

13. They don't.

Why do they say people who run out of 99 weeks of unemployment have left the job market and are not looking for work?

They don't.

The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits. The unemployment rate is determined via a survey. Which is why they're able to produce so many different unemployment rates.

U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

U6 is the one I personally think they should use. That was about 14%.

[phleshdef]

21. "The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits"

How many times do people need to be told this around here? Every fucking time new job numbers come out, its the same shit.

The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits
The unemployment rate is not tied to unemployment benefits

I swear, its like we are going to need to pre-emptively spam the board with that fact on the first Friday of every month.

[JoePhilly]

6. Every down tick is good to see ... gonna upset the haters.

And it getting tougher for Fox News to claim that "unemployment is still almost 10%".

I bet Romney wishes he had a dog to kick this morning.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. Or a dog to trap in a cage on top of his car.

Romney is a fool.

[aaaaaa5a]

7. When the President took office I believe we were losing over 700,000 jobs per month!

The Presidents stimulus package has saved the country from a depression and we are now in 20+ months of positive private sector job creation.

Remember the unemployment number will be coming down more slowly, because more people are entering the market to find work. This is actually a sign the economy is improving from the (GBR) Great Bush Recession.

[WI_DEM]

11. True. Obama inherited a terrible situation

[Dawson Leery]

27. Correct.

[great white snark]

14. Good news is always good.

Thanks and be safe.

I say "be safe" because truly, what would we do without you? What would I do?
I'd be lost..walking in circles. An unkempt shell of a man lost and stumbling around while pulling at my overused adult diaper. Going in circles. Round and round. The monotony of my empty existence only interrupted when my fungus ridden, overgrown toenails snag on tufts of carpeting that my endless pacing hasn't worn out. Round and round and round.

Please don't let that happen to me!


Anyhoo, don't worry 'bout me and have a great weekend. Really, I'll be ok.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

15. Oh well, Romney still has the planned parenthood issue

Whoops, that one's looking less and less promising, too.

[MadHound]

24. Yes, about half the number of jobs expected to be added,

And sadly, the number of those dropping out of the work force increased as well.

Mixed news at best.

[mathematic]

29. Declines in the labor force aren't necessarily a bad thing

I posted on this above. It comes down to why people are leaving the labor force and if they left the labor force from employment (retired people, etc) or unemployment (giving up looking for work).

People in the labor force decreased by 160k last month but people not in the labor force that actually wanted a job decreased by 80k. This suggests that the labor force decline has far more to do with employed people leaving their jobs and not wanting another one than the economically dire situation of more people losing their jobs and not being able to find one.

[girl gone mad]

33. The report was a disaster.

Nothing mixed about it. At this rate, we might see losses in the private sector by the end of this quarter. No monetary fix will can get us back on track, and fiscal solutions remain hopelessly out of reach.

[ProSense]

35. Really?

"At this rate, we might see losses in the private sector by the end of this quarter."



Jared Bernstein: http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/jobs-report-take-2/