US Unemployment at 4.9%.

[Recursion]

Mic drop, Mr. President.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/news/economy/us-economy-january-jobs-report/index.html

This is literally the most significant 8 year economic recovery in US history. Bigger than FDR's.

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[stevenleser]

2. Exactly. I'm really in awe of what this President has done. With nasty opposition on both sides no

less.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Exactly! Nasty opposition on BOTH sides - which has aggravated me throughout these 7+ years.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

82. You do know the repugs are going to take credit right?

They have been there for a while too... Granted, no real legislation has came out of there, but that's going to be the line. Anything he did legislatively, they were on board with or it didn't pass. Their going to use it as a kumebaya moment.

[Cary]

3. He is a great president

And that pisses a lot of people off.

[stevenleser]

4. I get that it pisses folks off on the right. It's the folks on the left that it pisses off that

surprises me. And yes, it still surprises me 7 years later.

[Recursion]

5. Right? I'm even leaning Sanders now that O'Malley is out, and that astounds me (nt)

[stevenleser]

6. Just remember that if you go that route, those are the folks you would be shoulder to shoulder with

and it's why I would find it very hard to support Sanders if he became the nominee. The folks who have attacked Obama 24x7 and fought even good news and accomplishments make me sick. I certainly don't want to partner with them on anything.

[Recursion]

7. I'm mercenary as fuck. I don't care. I care which of the two's baggage will be less exhausting

to drag across the line to 270. And my mind is still open, but damn this is a depressing campaign for me now that O'Malley's out.

[stevenleser]

8. I hear you. The baggage issue is a concern for me as well.

In my opinion, Bernie can only win if the Republican nominee completely implodes (i.e., he has the same chance as if we nominated you or I), and Hillary might be so damaged by the ridiculous email and Benghazi blather that her road would be tough as well.

If I had to bet right now, and my life depended on it, I would bet that we would lose the White House in 2016.

[Recursion]

9. That is also my bet

I think it will be structurally very difficult for us to keep the WH.

So actually I think we're saying exactly the same things, just from somewhat different perspectives.

[Cary]

23. I respectfully suggest that perhaps you ought to not let them affect you either way

I, myself, prefer Hillary Clinton because: 1) I reject all of the "conservative" propaganda and smears which have all been debunked by objective sources and I especially reject the crap people spew about her character; 2) I prefer her experience; and 3) I like Bernie Sanders but I don't think he's going to be able to do what he is promising.

Like hell I'm going to let a bunch of unthinking radicals sway me one way or another.

And, speaking generally and about no one in particular, I'm not surprised at their behavior. I don't believe they behave this way because of politics. I believe their behavior is a character flaw, and people don't change. They are actually a tiny component of the body politic and the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters are not radicals. They are the least attractive element of our body politic and they will forever be disaffected outcasts. They are losers, so again I personally don't let them affect me.

[stevenleser]

69. The followers of a candidate are a very important indicator of who that candidate is.

So I respectfully disagree on that point.

[Cary]

71. I hear you.

I don't believe it is all of his followers. I believe it is maybe 5% give or take.

What do you think?

[nichomachus]

10. If you believe those numbers, I have a bridge you may want to buy

They have been cooking unemployment numbers for years. Real unemployment is in double digits -- probably closer to 20 percent.

[Recursion]

11. What the fuck are you talking about?

Seriously.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you actually claiming BLS has changed its questions over the past 20 years? Do you have even a tiny bit of evidence for that?

Do you even actually know what "the unemployment rate" means?

[Bigmack]

12. I didn't notice any actual numbers in your post.....

How about this...?

U-6 is about 10 now.

It was over 17 at the depth of the crash.

[Recursion]

14. Seriously, why won't this zombie die? (nt)

[TBF]

22. Info re U6 -

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

I don't think Obama is a bad president, but I suspect there are many more people out of work than is counted in any of these "official" rates. It is hard to quantify such a thing because people just make choices and it's not tracked. Anecdotal evidence. I'll use myself. I was working until I had the last child. Decent income even after moving to an area where I'll never be paid as much as I was previously. But my husband is working and got a raise so I decided to take time off. I see many couples like that here in the suburbs - many more house dads around too than when I was growing up. Folks will decide one takes a break for awhile with the kids if the other makes enough $$ to cover the bills.

I'm not saying he's not a vast improvement over Bush, and that he has not done a good job stopping the hemorrhaging (because he has). Now that he has stablized things we need to move on and vote for Bernie so we can not only build on POTUS's work but also make it a much more equitable country again. IMO.

[Cary]

24. Actually it's pretty accurate but the change is more important than the actual number

More important, we could be doing even better but for Republican obstruction. You can blame President Obama for that, as Republicans want you to do. But then you are enabling their obstruction.

[TBF]

31. What? Where did I blame Obama for anything -

I thought I was quite charitable. He has stopped the hemorrhaging and made many improvements. There are things I don't like as well, but I didn't even bring those up.

Seriously, get a grip.

[Bigmack]

38. ...and people weren't doing those kinds of things before...?

U-6 is still measured the same as it was 20 years ago.

It includes all the folks like you.. and people who have given up, too.

[Recursion]

46. Thank you. The U1 through U6 measures have been unchanged for decades

And frankly I haven't heard a better idea than them.

[TBF]

55. Part of it is a changing economy also -

with folks deciding they might find ways to do contract work, etc. I think those things have definitely increased. But we still have many unemployed and underemployed - and way too many folks having to cobble together part-time jobs without benefits etc. All things to work on going forward.

[Ace Rothstein]

13. The unemployment rate was never even close to 20% during the recession.

[brentspeak]

33. Here's an interesting, unrelated, post from the user named "Recursion"

He claims that hedge fund vulture and major GOP financier Paul Singer didn't actually extort $7.3 billion from taxpayers in 2008 (and then shipped Delphi plant jobs overseas to China).

Get this:

Recursion (44,868 posts)
39. Since none was "forked over" at any point, it's a meaningless question

No actual transfers of money happened in that.

Now why would someone on DU make up bull$hit in order to defend Paul Singer? What can we conclude about this person?

[emulatorloo]

41. We can conclude that you like to smear people.

[Recursion]

43. Unrelated, but I'm also right about that

It is in fact the case that he did not receive $7B (or indeed any money) from taxpayers.

[brentspeak]

58. Ok, prove to us here

that Singer and his group did not receive $7.3 billion (or any money) from the taxpayer. What is your source?

The auto bailout czar, Steven Rattner, dedicated an entire chapter of his book detailing the payout, and yet here's an anonymous person posting on DU saying, without attribution, that it "never happened".

Again: why would someone here on DU defend Paul Singer, one of the GOP's chief financial backers, and falsely claim, without attribution that this whole thing "never happened".

[Recursion]

60. My source is the fact that Treasury uses double-entry bookkeeping

Your "source" is apparently the fantasy that half the GDP could be spirited away and nobody would notice.

[brentspeak]

62. That's your source?

That's your answer? The whole thing never occurred because "Treasury uses double-entry bookkeeping"?

I'm about to make this very topic a thread of its own, and let's see if anyone else here snorfles their coffee with your non-explanation.

[Recursion]

64. Arithmetic? Yes that's a pretty good source.

The government did not hand over $7T to anyone. The government has never even had that much cash on hand at a given time.

This is Alex Jones stuff. Have some dignity.

[brentspeak]

66. "$7T"???

From whose a$$ did you pull the figure $7 trillion from?

Singer and his partner extorted $7.3 billion from taxpayers. "Billions" is what has been reported and what I wrote. Your sad attempt at putting words in my mouth by misattributing what I wrote as "trillions" is even more pathetic than your earlier non-explanation of "double bookkeeping".

[fredamae]

15. A "forever practice"

It's called "creative accounting" based on the Fact no one can track those who are unemployed, exhausted their UI benefits and stopped looking for gainful employment.
They can't know. There is no tracking system. So, no one, in fact-really knows what the raw unemployment/under employment numbers really are.

[Recursion]

16. That is bullshit, and I have to call you out on it

The unemployment rate has zero to do with UI benefits. Nothing. It's egregious right wing bullshit to lie about there being a link between the two.

[fredamae]

17. Go ahead.

I was employed in State Employment Division. It is what it is.

[Recursion]

18. It is what it is, and it's not what you said

Exhausting one's UI benefits has ZERO impact on one's being counted as "unemployed", and it's a lie to claim otherwise like you did

[fredamae]

20. UI Bens ARE absolutely a factor

because UI Claims are tracked Weekly-If you are no longer getting benefits its because you have either found work that exceeds your WBA Or you have exhausted your claim and due to lost benefits can no longer Afford to seek gainful employment.
There Is No Tracking System For Unemployed/Under Employed people. Once you are no longer Active in the system-you are no longer counted in weekly etc stats through DOL.

I'm not saying this happens for nefarious purpose...they simply have No means to track these folks. It has Nothing to do with the job creation efforts from this POTUS or Any other POTUS. It just Is. They can only issue reports based upon available information.

[Ace Rothstein]

25. BLS does NOT use UI Benefits in their calculations of jobs created or the unemployment rate.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm

[fredamae]

45. Thats correct

They cannot Use that which is Not there

[Recursion]

42. Why are you lying about something that can be so easily fact checked?

UI benefits have zero relationship to the BLS unemployment rates. Full stop.

[whatthehey]

19. Well benefits have NOTHING to do with UE rates for a start

And those who have given up are out of the labor force by definition. A number which is easily and routinely tracked, and dominated by retirees, students, the disabled and homemakers and caregivers. A tiny fraction of those outside the LFPR give "other reasons" which is the only segment that could potentially contain the (asinine) decision to simply give up trying.

[fredamae]

21. No, it does NOt mean they

are out of the labor market. It doesn't mean they are not seeking work-it Means they are not using the state/federal resources...no longer registered etc.

[whatthehey]

26. LIES!

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

NOTHING is asked about resources and registration for UE benefits. Immaterial.

Excerpt which shows the seamless nature of employed - unemployed in various UX numbers - out of the labor force. No gaps at all.

What are the unemployment rate, labor force participation rate, and employment-population ratio?

Other important labor market statistics are developed using the basic survey estimates of people employed, unemployed, and not in the labor force. These statistics include:
The number of people in the labor force. This measure is the sum of the employed and the unemployed. In other words, the labor force level is the number of people who are either working or actively seeking work.
The national unemployment rate. Perhaps the most widely known labor market indicator, this statistic reflects the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force.
The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.
The employment-population ratio. This measure is the number of employed as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is currently working.


ALL tracked methodically every month by the BLS

[fredamae]

32. Thats fine and well

however, "basic survey estimates" leaves the Unknown factor Uncounted and that's IF every person participates in surveys. Many are no longer living at their last registered address, many more simply do not respond To the surveys etc
The numbers they release are always going to be slightly off from "reality". The numbers today are good-but the real numbers are slightly higher due to the above.
The numbers they reference re: the number of people in the labor force are people actively seeking work via the system. That limits accuracy.
Again-it's the way it is-and Always has been.

Thanks for your comments.

[whatthehey]

65. Oh Christ some people refuse to learn

It doesn't limit accuracy to only count people in the labor force as unemployed. Retirees, the profoundly disabled etc are not relevant to employment status any more than I'm relevant to the NFL yards per game average. I don't play the game; they don't calculate numbers for me. Same thing.

Those outside the labor force ARE inded counted - in the LFPR statistics. There is no "missing" group of people. If you are in the labor force you are either in one or more U rate or not. All U rates are generally declining If you are out of the labor force, you are counted in the obverse of the LFPR, which has long been unchanged after the baby boom started retiring, and only a minuscule sliver of those not in the LFPR have a reason other than retirement, disability, school attendance, or family responsibilities. There is no hidden option where people who really want to work are "missed" by these metrics and again neither "resources" nor "registration" are even considered.

As for survey methodology, the MOE on a sample that size is vanishingly small and just as likely to overcount UE as undercount it.

[Recursion]

47. Which has not a damn thing to do with the unemployment rate!

My God, this isn't rocket surgery, people.

BLS surveys a large number of Americans every month, and asks them a series of questions, from which they determine the unemployment rate. Precisely zero of these questions have anything to do with unemployment benefits.

Again: why bother lying about something that's so easy to verify?

[fredamae]

49. :)

"My God, this isn't rocket surgery, people."

No matter what you want to believe-no agency can count those who are not there.
If unemployed persons are NOT registered for Work Search and/or Collecting Benefits....They. Cannot. Be. Included.
That is not rocket science. That is Fact.

Again-it does NOT reflect on this or Any other Admins efforts to create jobs. It is Not a slight. It just Is.
Thanks all for your delightful contributions Have a nice day.

[Recursion]

50. OMFG YES THEY CAN

If unemployed persons are NOT registered for Work Search and/or Collecting Benefits....They. Cannot. Be. Included.

Yes. They. Can.



None of the questions ask about being "registered" for anything.

Again, why are you lying about something that's so easy to look up?

[Sunlei]

34. I think our Gov. uses personal bank accounts to know who's in 'ungainful' 'employment'.

Banks are a type of tracking system these days.

People can deal in cash up to a certain point, but barrels of cash, that's not easy to hide. People can't pay for large things with cash anymore and banks watch out for cash washers.

[fredamae]

36. I have never heard that n/t

[backscatter712]

70. The way measures like U-3 and U-6 are made is through surveys.

Just your basic telephone survey, asking questions, taking down answers, and crunching the statistics.

It's an estimate, yes, but the numbers say it isn't too far off.

I'm not sure what the error margins are.

[fredamae]

73. Exactly

I made many of those calls, mailed lots of letters...and the results are based upon results of people you actually speak with or have paper returned and completed.
In my experience-each number was called once-messages left when possible...then Move on. Hundreds if not thousands of calls need to be made.

I don't questions efforts in accuracy of tracking, but people don't understand that the % of unemployed workers who still seek work may be a bit higher than is reflected. There are multiple reasons why this happens.
Again, nothing nefarious here...but that's still a lot of people without gainful employment.

Given the walls of people In Employment Ofcs around the country in 2008/2009 etc even a current percentage point or two Higher is still a Huge improvement over where we were. This obstacle in accurate accounting has existed since forever as far as I know.

I had so many discussions with my supervisor about ways to capture a more accurate picture. There isn't one. I had so many "disconnected phones", letters returned - People can't afford phones and oft times have to move into lower rent housing-don't update contact info w/agency, relocate out of labor market area, move in with parents etc. If they don't stay active in the system..they're like "ghosts" in statistical records. They're there, but "we" can't see (count) them.
I don't know that there Is a good way to tighten up the actual results....

[backscatter712]

84. In surveys, the estimated error rates are based in part on the number of samples.

I'm just remembering statistics classes. The model is essentially a bell curve, where the set of samples you have in your hand creates a result that lies somewhere on that curve. The goal is to have it within two standard deviations of the mean, so when you have enough samples, you can state, for example, that the estimated unemployment rate is N percent, plus or minus x percent, with a confidence of 90% (The BLS puts together their measures of unemployment to a 90% confidence rate).

The larger the number of samples, the higher the confidence in your results, and the smaller the likely difference between your sampled result, and the true result if you were somehow able to get a survey result from the entire population.

Of course, you get more likely accuracy when you take more samples, but that also costs more money. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

You might find this interesting if you're a statistics wonk - this is the BLS's document on how they take their surveys and crunch their numbers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

[Sunlei]

27. If we could get some major corps to stop using, for example brazilian workers in florida resorts,

prison 20 cent an hour workers to sew 'made in America' clothes, foreign visa 'student workers to staff some national parks/hotels, import visa labor to work our forestry services, 'for profit' prison wildfire crews....the unemployment level would be even lower.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. As I continue to contend and believe - BEST PRESIDENT of my lifetime.

Bar. None.

[Sunlei]

37. Agree, I'm still delighted Obama won primary in 2008 and Americans learned to love him!

Wish we could clone him and run him again

Looking forward to O in the private-public sector, no matter who wins the WH, we can still 'follow' Obamas lead

[Recursion]

44. Far and away (nt)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. If you're not old enough to retire, that's not terribly high praise.

Yes, it may be true, but look at the competition.

[arely staircase]

30. So a little Keynesian tinkering isn't so bad after all. nt

[doc03]

35. I see help wanted signs everywhere, what employers tell me is they

have one hell of a time finding qualified people that can pass a drug test. This ahs bee several years ago but the H&R person where I
worked said they had to give physicals to 100 people just to get 30 that passed the drug screening.

[Sunlei]

39. If they excluded Marijuana from the drug screen I bet the majority would pass.

[doc03]

76. I agree you can be a falling down lush

but you smoke mj you are a drug adict..

[Recursion]

48. Why are they requiring a drug test?

Are these jobs with clearances?

Hell, for that matter even garden-variety Top Secret doesn't actually require a drug test, though it makes it easier.

[Fumesucker]

56. I've seen a "best-sales-in-entire-region" manager run off for failing a drug test

Some people and companies simply cannot comprehend that someone might be a pot smoker and yet a good employee, even bottom line hard numbers won't always do it.

[Recursion]

57. Jesus. I guess the numbers say that's true; I still just have a hard time imagining it

What's crazy is that as a sysadmin I can't even imagine an employer asking me that, and I certainly wouldn't agree to it, even though I've never really been a drug user. And that's for servers that control the payroll or whatever for hundreds of people. But try to make a dude a sandwich, and they want your piss. What a fucked up world...

[snooper2]

75. At my job they drug test, every new employee...

They are supposed to do random but have never heard of one. And the manager or director would pick the person and they would just go for the least likely in any case LOL

[doc03]

78. I don't know of a minimum wage job that

doesn't here

[mcar]

40. Thank you, President Obama!

[Rex]

51. Considering he had to make some real tough choices or let the global economy fall apart.

Best POTUS in my lifetime. 2008 could have turned out much much worse imo.

[Recursion]

52. Gotta agree

Where we go from here, we can be at each other's throats about (and we are), but I think this guy will go down as one of the Greats, with a real capital "G".

[Rex]

54. We might not agree on much, but on this we agree 100%.

I remember seeing some of my aunts and uncles crying at how much they lost in 2008 and it still impacts a few of them to this day. That could have been all of us.

[HassleCat]

53. Proof Obama was born in Keynes

Only a Keynesian could do this. Show us the birth certificate!

[maveric]

59. Whats the real number?

Been looking for work for 3+ years. I,m 60 and the hiring trends in SoCal do not favor those over 55. I see a lot of middle aged men holding cardboard signs asking for work or $$$. Whats the number for those who have exhausted their benefits and haven't been able to find work in years? Those who quit looking?

[Recursion]

63. The real number is 4.9%, by the same standards that have been used for decades

Whats the number for those who have exhausted their benefits and haven't been able to find work in years?

The same. Unemployment benefits have zero relationship to the unemployment rate.

I'm really sorry you're having difficulty finding a new job. But most of the country isn't.

[maveric]

74. So where do the numbers go for the millions like me...

who don't show up in that 4.9%? Whats that percentage?

[maveric]

80. Hello! You still there?

Just what I thought.

[shadowrider]

87. The number of people who have fallen off reports is in the 10's of millions

who are no longer counted in unemployment numbers. I'm barely hanging on and at my age, I don't know how much longer I can do this.

[Recursion]

88. Have you looked for work in the past month?

Then you count as "unemployed"

[whatthehey]

68. 4.9% is about 7.5 million people

Tell me when you've seen more than 7.5 million holding up those signs.

Benefits, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread and most others on the subject, have NOTHING AT ALL to do with UE rate calculations.

U rates include people who have looked for a job just once in the last year. If you can work and haven't looked even once in a year you don't really want to work pure and simple. Why should they be counted as unemployed if they don't care enough to get off their ass and send one email or make one call in 365 days? Is Anne Romney unemployed?

[brentspeak]

72. Free Republic makes an appearance on DU.

Thanks for the right wing bull$hit.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. Yes, but it's so frustrating because he's not getting credit for it. Just this morning, my mother

blamed the president for her mortgage rate being at 3.3%!! 3.3%!!! That's fantastic!

[B Calm]

67. What did Mitt Romney promise he would get it to if he was elected?

[Warpy]

77. Now all they need to do is raise the wages

so that an honest day's work reaps an honest day's pay instead of paying less than a person needs to live decently on.

When work starts to pay again, this country will find itself in a real boom, one that isn't confined to the stock market.

[FSogol]

81. Thanks, Obama

[Gothmog]

83. This is great news

[shadowrider]

85. Yea. This great

Maybe now I can give up my three jobs to get one in my field. Three jobs you say? Yes. I can't find anyone to hire me for more than 29 hours a week. (Thanks Obamacare). I'm working about 28 hours a week at each one so I don't go over. No benefits. Pay my own premium. Live in, well, I won't go into details. Sleep? Mostly in my car as I sit outside my next job and try to catch an hours worth of sleep before I put in another 6 hours or so. And while I won't tell you how old I am, suffice it to say I remember Howdy Doody on TV.

4.9%. Thanks to people, and there are millions like me, you could say that. But I doubt it.

Yea recovery.

[AOR]

86. "This is literally the most significant 8 year economic recovery in US history."

Walter Mitty on steroids comes to mind when reading such a statement. If you posted this on any actual leftist website you would be laughed out of the thread in very short order. This represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party. The complete unwillingness to deal in material reality and truth while shilling for the party over the well being of the people as a whole. Your post is a disgrace and an insult to the tens of millions of working people hanging on by a finger nail in this "economic recovery."

Barack Obama has presided over the continued race to the bottom for millions, the ever increasing degradation of the working class as a whole, and the largest wealth transfer to the top in U.S. history. That is reality.