General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVery few others are saying it, so I will. Congratulations, Mr. President.
The American jobs recovery seems to have finally hit its stride. The U.S. economy added 288,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday.
That number beats economists' expectations and comes along with other good news: Job growth was revised higher for both May and April. Taken altogether, that means employers added 1.4 million jobs in the first six months of the year. That's the strongest six months for job growth since 2006.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is now 6.1%, down from 6.3% in May. The drop came for the right reasons: More Americans said they had jobs, plus more people joined the labor force. Another encouraging sign: pay is on the rise. Hourly wages ticked up 0.2% in June and are up 2% in the past 12 months.
.....
Over the past year, 2.3 million Americans have found jobs. Unemployment is down for many ages and races, although the nation's youngest workers are still struggling this summer. One in 10 workers between the ages 20 to 24 were unemployed while 1 in 5 workers between the ages 16 to 19 did not have a job. In contrast, the unemployment rate is only 5.1% for workers between the ages 25 to 54, and even lower for workers over age 55, at 4.4%.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/03/investing/june-jobs-report/index.html
quinnox
(20,600 posts)The real unemployment rate is much higher than that, they play with the numbers, and drop several categories, like long term unemployed people, and others.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Of course, those DUers who were huffing about that number being a "single data point" seem to be quiet today.
Chucky-Doll
(21 posts)It was a good jobs report. Period. The "real" unemployment rate is always higher no matter who is president. The "real unemployment rate" was also higher during the "booming Clinton economy." People who are whining about the "real unemployment rate" are just mad because it was a good jobs report that beat expectations.
FSogol
(45,428 posts)Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)jobs report. See any change in percentage people employed?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Retrain and reeducate for high tech jobs, tell college kids to study math and science instead of acting and theater production, start training manufacturing employees who know computer systems into medical tech field, green jobs, such as solar, hydro, wind. Tell guidance counselor to actually guide the children, not just push them out of their offices.....This country used to be the top in manufacturing, but not anymore, and we need to train and educate our children to face that reality.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)fffff
Well when it becomes a necessary way of life....everything is pushed to the last minute. Time to act.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Any time those numbers get better and someone wants to draw attention away from them they try to point to different measurements that produce higher numbers while ignoring what THOSE numbers have historically been if we were to always measure things that way instead.
progree
(10,886 posts)As long as a jobless person has looked for work within the last 4 weeks, and says s(he) wants a job, s(he) is counted as unemployed in the headline unemployment rate statistic -- U-3 -- currently 6.1% -- no matter how long s(he) has been out of work.
As long as a jobless person has looked for work within the last 12 months, and says s(he) wants a job, s(he) is counted as unemployed in what is often referred to as the "underemployment rate" -- U-6 -- currently 12.1% -- no matter how long s(he) has been out of work.
http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Definitions of alternative measures of unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
Granted, many people who have been jobless a long time have also given up looking for work -- and that they have stopped looking for work in the past 4 weeks (or past 12 months) is what drops them out of the unemployment rate statistic U-3 (or U-6).
Here's another myth, while I'm at it:
# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa when a RepubliCON is in the White House).
# Fact: the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance" or Google the below line::
"How the Government Measures Unemployment" cps_htgm.htm
and search the page for the word "insurance"
#####################################################################
I'm not saying it hasn't been a slow slow recovery from the bottom. And we are far from fully recovered (in May for the first time we've reached the point where we regained the payroll jobs we lost during the Great Recession -- but meanwhile, during the past 7 years, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the population has grown by I forget what amount such that 7 million more jobs would be needed to return the labor market back to where it was.
Nor am I arguing that it's a good job market. I do agree with Fed Chair Janet Yellen that the modest unemployment rate (U-3) is not giving us the full picture of weakness in the labor market. The multi-decade low in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) that we're at is only about half due to the Boomer retirements, the other half is a lot of discouraged working age people who have given up the job search. And then a lot of the new jobs are part-time, and in low-wage sectors.
On the other hand, I am saying its a fantastic job market compared to what Bush left us. And it's a miracle given that the RepubliCONS have controlled the House since Jan 2011 and have filibustered the Senate since the Dems lost their brief 60-vote advantage back in 2009 or 2010. Comparisons between Bush and Obama are all over the link at my signature line.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)For all the anti Obama crowd when things look good. Sure things could be better, but damn give the president credit when credit is due. What do you think things would look like today if McCain had won? Or if Romney had won? Think about it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The notion that this is not the real unemployment rate has been going around right wing websites since Obama was elected shortly after Bush left the economy in shambles.
Of course when the unemployment rate was calculated in similar fashion under Bush....nary a peep!!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Boomers are retiring at a huge rate. The only employment number that is relevant is "those that want to work but don't have a job." That number is going down.
On Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:10 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Keep in mind those aren't the real numbers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5189474
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Stop watching fox news.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:22 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop sending stupid alerts.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm conflicted. It's an opinion which has been argued on the thread. Voting to hide, but doubt it will be hidden. I just feel the poster's assertion is not honest. I regret that is how I see the comment.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just once in a while it would be nice to give credit where it's due and not sh*t all over good news.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you.
Well it looks like you got away with it this time. But you shouldn't rain on our parade.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I'm gob-smacked.
progree
(10,886 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)that claim in ways that makes sense and are understandable.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)for labor statistics.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mcar
(42,276 posts)Hekate
(90,509 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Congrats, Mr President!
FSogol
(45,428 posts)joanbarnes
(1,721 posts)It would be significantly lower, that is a certainty.
It would not be 'near 0'.
bhikkhu
(10,711 posts)I'm lucky myself, being pretty healthy, but I know several people who would like to work but suffer various chronic issues that, over the years, make it a real struggle to qualify for and keep jobs. Improvements in our healthcare system should incrementally make that better, but there are plenty of individual circumstances that are just hard to fix.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)and so I will add my voice to the congratulations. My only concern is what kind of jobs they are.
lark
(23,058 posts)Thank you Mr. President, think you've done the best job on this possible with the "Do Nothing" Congess who are determined to make America fail for the working class as retaliation for choosing you over their "golden" boys.
denvine
(799 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)Let's keep working on getting the rate even lower, with better jobs and more full-time jobs for people like my son !
progree
(10,886 posts)It seems Dr. Reich is playing the aberrant statistical component of the month game (the Household Survey component numbers are extremely highly volatile from month to month).
Phlem
(6,323 posts)We'll see if it grows into full time, but at least it's something I put myself through school for.
We'll see.
progree
(10,886 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Andy823
(11,495 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sheshe2
(83,604 posts)quaker bill
(8,223 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)progree
(10,886 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:55 PM - Edit history (3)
This shows that the average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees, in 1982-1984, meaning these are inflation-adjusted numbers, increased from 8.23 $/hour from Jan 1984 to 8.81 $/hour in May 2014 (again, both numbers are expressed in constant 1982-1984 dollars). So its keeping up with inflation, even exceeding inflation a little bit, but just barely.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032
Here's the raw (non-inflation adjusted) numbers
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008
the raw numbers increased from 8.38 $/hour from Jan 1984 to 20.58 $/hour in June 2014
according to the BLS anyway.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Around here $8.00/hr won't even pay the rent.
progree
(10,886 posts)The raw (non inflation-adjusted) numbers increased from 8.38 $/hour from Jan 1984 to 20.58 $/hour in June 2014.
I added that line to my post above along with some emphasis here and there.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I know someone that was making $34K/yr and she couldn't find anything decent and affordable.
A shit efficiency in a bad neighborhood is about $1000/mo.
you see 5 people in a 3 br because that's the only way they have a roof besides a cardboard box under an overpass.
My housemate got a raise to $9.75 and then they cut his hours by 6 hrs a week.
progree
(10,886 posts)The BLS "production and non-supervisory employees" are an average. Even though they don't include CEOs or any kinds of managers, executives, supervisors, or business owners, they still include some highly paid employees, including doctors, lawyers, and engineers. These skew the average way above the median (the median is the 50% line where half of all employees make more and half make less -- the guy/gal right in the middle).
A median would be a better gauge for the reality of most working people than an average that includes people making several several times the median.
[font color = blue]"My housemate got a raise to $9.75 and then they cut his hours by 6 hrs a week".[/font]
That sucks. I don't see much change in the average number of hours worked over time of payroll employees in the BLS statistics, probably because on average people make up for it with a 2nd job or more hours on the second job. Or a 3rd job. That holds up the average hours worked per week statistic, but doesn't include the time, expense, and hassle commuting between jobs (argghhhh!). That's not in the BLS statistics.
progressoid
(49,919 posts)Thats not happning here.
Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)
progree This message was self-deleted by its author.
First Speaker
(4,858 posts)...slow and steady wins the race. I'll always feel that if he had asked for more in 2009, he probably would have gotten more. But he asked for--and got--what he did, and given the fact of total and absolute GOP obstruction, I think getting to where we are is a tribute to his coolness of nerve and steady hands on the wheel...
Cha
(296,704 posts)Political Line @PoliticaILine
Follow
FUN FACT: President Obama has created more jobs in 6 years than any other President did during this point in their presidency
3:18 AM - 3 Jul 2014 337 Retweets 124 favorites
TOD
OnlinePoker
(5,715 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Seasonally adjusted full-time employment dropped by over 500k whereas part-time employment increased by 800k. The net result is fewer people working to the levels that would get them benefits. On the positive side, full-time employment has increased by 2 million since last June.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
progree
(10,886 posts)according to the Table A-9 figures (indicating part-time jobs were about 0.5% of the total).
(which differ from the Table A-8 figures, a discrepancy I haven't yet been able to figure out, oh well, though over the past 12 months it tells the same general story: new part time jobs were a small fraction (9.1% in the Table A-8 case) of all new jobs)
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189920#post34
where I battle with the Table A-8 figures.
The month - to - month changes in the numbers in the Household Survey where these numbers come from are extremely very volatile -- they zig way up one month and zig way down another month. The vast majority of that volatilility is plain old statistical noise, but unfortunately it gives the righties the aberrant statistic of the month to make it like most of the jobs created under "Obummer" or "Oduhmuh" are part-time.
Here for example are the last 12 monthly changes of the table A-9 Full-Time jobs figures (in thousands)
69 145 582 -577 645 327 378 163 184 412 312 -523
And the Part-Time jobs figures (in thousands)
176 -296 -467 -210 250 -89 168 -210 365 -398 -78 799
Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig Zag Zig
Every month when the Jobs Report comes out, we go through this same shit. One month the part-time jobs numbers are embarrasing. (then next month there's a huge gain in full-time jobs and a modest drop in part time jobs but the righties don't mention that because it fucks up their meme about "Obummer" being hamburger flipper-in-chief. Instead they find another aberrant statistic of the month to make an extreme hoo hah over, like a gazillion people left the labor force (next month a whole bunch entered the labor force but nobody says anything about that) Sigh, instead on to the next aberrant Household Survey statistic of the month -- there's always at least one. ALWAYS ALWAYSY ALSWYS,;l'5rtjtg).
I'll write more about this later after I update my DU "website" (see my signature line) for the job report.
Thanks very much for pointing out the 1 year change in full-time jobs (2.1 million) rather than just giving out the one-month figure. This screed isn't aimed at you.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
progree
(10,886 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 6, 2014, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)
This shows that the inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees, from 1/1992 - 6/2014, increased from 8.30 $/hour when Clinton left office in January 2001 to $8.81/hour in June 2014 (again, both numbers are expressed in constant 1982-1984 dollars). So it's beating inflation a little bit, but just barely -- an increase of 6.1% in real (inflation-adjusted dollars) over the past 13 1/2 years.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032
Here's the graph:
Here's the raw (non-inflation adjusted) numbers --
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008
Showing an increase from $14.29/hour in January 2001 to $20.58/hour now
So, on what basis do you say [font color = blue]"Too Bad - So Sad - That These Jobs Are Low Quality And Low Wage"[/font], unless "these jobs" have always been low quality and low wage?
For a 30 year perspective (since 1984) please see post 29 in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5192184
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom