HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Payroll employment rises ...

Fri Nov 4, 2016, 08:32 AM

Payroll employment rises by 161,000 in October; unemployment rate changes little (4.9%)

Last edited Tue Nov 8, 2016, 01:55 PM - Edit history (8)

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economic News Release

Employment Situation Summary USDL-16-2095

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, November 4, 2016

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- OCTOBER 2016

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 161,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment continued to trend up in health care, professional and business services, and financial activities.


_______________________________________________________________________________

Hurricane Matthew

Hurricane Matthew affected parts of the East Coast during the October reference
periods for the establishment and household surveys. For information on how
severe weather can affect employment and hours data, see Question 8 in the
Frequently Asked Questions section of this news release.
_______________________________________________________________________________


Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate, at 4.9 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 7.8 million, changed little in October. Both measures have shown little movement, on net, since August 2015. (See table A-1.)
....

The number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 218,000 over the month to 3.7 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was unchanged at 2.0 million in October and accounted for 25.2 percent of the unemployed. (See tables A-11 and A-12.)

In October, both the labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, changed little. These measures have shown little movement in recent months, although both are up over the year. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (also referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was unchanged in October at 5.9 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In October, 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 216,000 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 487,000 discouraged workers in October, down by 178,000 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 1.2 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in October had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 161,000 in October. Thus far in 2016, employment growth has averaged 181,000 per month, compared with an average monthly increase of 229,000 in 2015. In October, employment continued to trend up in health care, professional and business services, and financial activities. (See table B-1.)
....

In October, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to $25.92, following an 8-cent increase in September. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.8 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $21.72 in October. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised up from +167,000 to +176,000, and the change for September was revised up from +156,000 to +191,000. With these revisions, employment gains in August and September combined were 44,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 176,000 per month.

_____________
The Employment Situation for November is scheduled to be released on Friday, December 2, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).



Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



I'm truncating the [strike]rant[/strike] commentary this month, as people already have a lot on their plates. I'll add it as a reply. It provides a lot of supplemental information, but it is not of immediate importance

Let's be nice. Thank you.

-- --

[font color="red"]These will be (or should be) the talking points:

1) A gain of 161,000 is more than Wednesday's estimate by ADP[sup]®[/sup] of a gain of 147,000 jobs. It is below estimates I heard earlier this week of a gain of 170,000 - 175,000 and earlier this week.[sup]1[/sup] ;
2) "In October, both the labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, changed little. These measures have shown little movement in recent months, although both are up over the year."[sup]2[/sup] ;
3) "The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised up from +167,000 to +176,000, and the change for September was revised up from +156,000 to +191,000. With these revisions, employment gains in August and September combined were 44,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 176,000 per month." ;
4) "In October, average hourly earnings for all employees on private payrolls rose by 10 cents to $25.92, following an 8-cent increase in September. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.8 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $21.72 in October." ;
5) The civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,184,000 in September to 94,609,000 in October, an increase of 425,000.[sup]3[/sup] ; and
6) The number of "{persons not in the labor force} who currently want a job" went from 6,088,000 in September to 5,912,000 in October, a decrease of 176,000. Therefore, the percentage of those not in the labor force who want a job now is (5,912,000/94,609,000) times 100%, or 6.2%, down from 6.5% in September.[sup]4[/sup][/font]

[sup]1[/sup] ADP Private Payrolls Add 147,000 Workers in October

[sup]2[/sup] I've added mention of the employment-population ratio, aka the employment to population ratio, as progree argues that it is more worthy of attention than the labor force participation rate (LFPR). See: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

[sup]3[/sup] The datum "civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force" is in Table A-1. It's also at Not in Labor Force. (Hat tip, progree: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now.) Some people make a big deal out of this number, so to keep them happy, here it is.

[sup]4[/sup] The figure is also found in or derived from Table A-1. Once again, I'm indebted to progree for pointing out the significance of these data: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now).

If you don't have the time to study the report thoroughly, here is the news in a nutshell:

Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation


[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200, Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.


[center]Introduction[/center]

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome our good friends from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so I am absolutely delighted to have you participate in this thread. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.

Full disclosure: I do not work for BLS, nor am I friends with anyone over there. I'm just someone who appreciates the work they do. My sole connection with the agency is that I've been in the building to pick up some publications.

Thank you for being a part of this thread.

It is easy to find one paragraph, or one sentence, or one datum in this report that will support the most outlandish of conclusions, from "the sky is falling" to "we'll have blue skies, nothing but blue skies, from now on." Easy, but disingenuous.

Every month, you can find something in the report that will cause you concern. Take the information in context. Consider not just this month’s data, but the trend.

Please take the time to look at progree's not-to-be-missed thread containing his thoughtful analysis, updated monthly. Here is the latest version:

Economy facts with links to official sources, rev 11/4/16.

This month, he also presented his analysis in the tenth reply in this thread:

Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Thank you so much for that, progree.

Let's begin with a couple of questions:


[center]What Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Why Does It Release All These Numbers Every Month?
[/center]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the dates of major data releases are scheduled more than a year in advance, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.

[font color="red"]New material, added November 4, 2016:[/font]

This article is nothing but timely. The NYT changed the title between last night and this morning. The article does a great job of explaining what this monthly report is all about. I've bolded the money quote.

How the Labor Dept. Keeps Its Economic Data Politics-Free

How the Labor Dept. Keeps Its Economic Data Politics-Free

By PATRICIA COHEN NOV. 3, 2016

....
{S}uspicions about even the routine, day-in and day-out economic statistics produced by the federal government, voiced by a scattershot of skeptics in previous years, have turned into a steady roar this campaign season. ... With Mr. Trump insisting, wrongly, that the United States is “losing jobs to other countries at a higher rate than ever,” it may not be a surprise that nearly half of Mr. Trump’s supporters “completely distrust the economic data reported by the federal government,” according to a recent Marketplace-Edison Research survey. (By contrast, 5 percent of those planning to vote for Hillary Clinton say they distrust the government information.)
....

So how reliable is the government data on employment, which will be reported again on Friday? Like all statistical measurements, it can be both honest and imprecise; a best estimate given the available tools but nonetheless subject to ambiguity, misinterpretation and error. ... “Every data collection comes with a set of strengths and weaknesses,” said Karen Kosanovich, an economist and 24-year veteran of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. “That’s part of the business of collecting information.” ... There are some basic ground rules, however, that prevent the process from spitting out any answers you please and undermine claims that the results are rigged for a political purpose.

For starters, the people who generate the numbers are all career civil servants who have churned out reports for both Republicans and Democrats. And their basic methods do not swerve from one administration to the next. If the figures are biased, they are consistently biased in the same way regardless of what party is in office. ... “I’ve never had any outside influence that tells me what to do or how to collect and interpret information,” {Karen Kosanovich, an economist and 24-year veteran of the Bureau of Labor Statistics} said. “Our approach is based on methodologies that have been proven over time and approved statistical practices. They are not based on political influence.”
....

Positive or negative spin, however, is not part of the Labor Department’s brief, Ms. Kosanovich said. She repeated a comment made by Kathleen Utgoff, a former Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner appointed by George W. Bush, that serves as the agency’s unofficial motto: When asked whether the glass is half full or half empty, the bureau’s response is, It’s an eight-ounce glass with four ounces of liquid.

Follow Patricia Cohen on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PatcohenNYT

[font color="red"]New material, added August 29, 2016:[/font] Print title, Washington Post, Saturday, March 10, 2012, front page, above the fold: "Watching the clock: Monthly data release is an economic, political obsession timed to the nanosecond"

‘Jobs Day’: Monthly release of employment data an economic, political obsession

By Eli Saslow
http://twitter.com/elisaslow

March 9, 2012

The release of employment numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has long been a ritual in Washington, but lately it has turned into an obsession during an election year defined by economic instability. Once each month, a nondescript government agency compiles and releases 24 tables of economic data that have come to define the 2012 election and so much else. Republican presidential candidates turn the numbers into speeches. The president’s staff monitors how they affect his approval rating. The Federal Reserve reevaluates interest rates. Investors prepare for the stock market to rise or fall, sometimes swinging in value by $150 billion in the minutes after the report is released.
....

The raw data had arrived at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), like always, on Wednesday the week before the report’s release: millions of characters representing survey information from 55,000 households; and then, a few days later, monthly payroll data from 486,000 businesses. Kosanovich’s boss posted a two-page schedule on the office wall, detailing the tasks ahead for a team of more than 20 economists. They would be required to make a series of six deadlines. Their work would undergo 15 fact checks and then 15 clearance reviews. They would sit together in a windowless conference room and read aloud from their eventual creation, a three-page news release and 24 data tables, debating commas and verbs for hours on end.

They would do it all with absolute discretion during an eight-day security lockdown, signing confidentiality agreements each morning, encrypting their computers and locking data into a safe every time they walked 10 yards away to use a bathroom. “Is your workstation secure?” asked a sign in the hallway. They all remembered the last security miscue, in November 2008 — the accidental transmission of some data to one wire service a full 25 seconds before the report’s scheduled release, an incident that had necessitated a series of internal investigations and revisions.

“We always tape paper over the windows of the conference room or draw the shades,” Kosanovich said about her typical routine during a lockdown. She made a habit of refraining from answering phone calls or e-mails from unknown numbers and never discussing data outside her office. For eight days, nobody visited her team’s floor at BLS without a security clearance. The custodial staff did not empty their trash until the report was released.
....


[center]Household Survey vs. Establishment Survey[/center]

From the February 10, 2011, DOL Newsletter:

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The household survey, or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The establishment survey, or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.


[center]Complaint Department[/center]

I post this information on a nonpartisan basis. I am not here to make elected officials of any party or persuasion look good. I am certain that the people who compile these data are of the same outlook. They are civil servants. They do not work for a party; they work for you, the American people.

My only contribution is to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the BLS and then, in the commentary, link to some sources that I feel are trustworthy. I hope people come away with a better understanding of the data after reading this thread. Once again, I do not work for BLS, but I will nonetheless try to assist if I can.

If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here:

Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

Affected persons who believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has disseminated information that does not meet its guidelines or those of the Department of Labor or Office of Management and Budget, and who wish to file a formal complaint may send their complaint by mail, e-mail, or fax to:

Division of Management Systems
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4080
Washington, D.C., 20212-0001
E-mail: dataqa@bls.gov
Fax: (202) 691-5111

Complainants should:

Identify themselves and indicate where and how they can be reached;
Identify, as specifically as possible, the information in question;
Indicate how they are affected by the information about which they are complaining;
Carefully describe the nature of the complaint, including an explanation of why they believe the information does not comply with OMB, Departmental, or agency-specific guidelines; and
Describe the change requested and the reason why the agency should make the change.

Failure to include this information may result in a complainant not receiving a response to the complaint or greatly reducing the usefulness or timeliness of any response. Complainants should be aware that they bear the burden of establishing that they are affected persons and showing the need and justification for the correction they are seeking, including why the information being complained about does not comply with applicable guidelines.


[center]We Got the Beat.[/center]

TWSJ.'s MoneyBeat blog is pay-per-view if you try direct access. I'll try going in through Google News, (but it's 9:24 now, so the early comments are already obsolete).

Jobs Friday Is More Important for the Election Than the Fed

October’s reading on the labor market will be the focus for traders on Friday, but for very different reasons than usual.

By Chris Dieterich

Nov 4, 2016 7:03 am ET

The two latest reports from Automatic Data Processing Inc. (ADP) and BLS at DU:

ADP Private Payrolls Add 147,000 Workers in October

Payroll employment increases by 156,000 in September; unemployment rate little changed...

13 replies, 1245 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Payroll employment rises by 161,000 in October; unemployment rate changes little (4.9%) (Original post)
mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2016 OP
LiberalFighter Nov 2016 #1
BumRushDaShow Nov 2016 #2
SpankMe Nov 2016 #7
DrToast Nov 2016 #8
progree Nov 2016 #10
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Nov 4, 2016, 08:38 AM

1. I wonder how much the ACA played a part in that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Nov 4, 2016, 08:38 AM

2. Not too far off from estimates

I know you are working furiously!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Nov 4, 2016, 10:46 AM

7. Again, I blame Obama.

How many consecutive months of job growth is this? And, with wage increases, to boot, this time around?

Anyone who votes Trump at this point should be jailed for economic vandalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Nov 4, 2016, 10:54 AM

8. The big news is the hourly earnings

Wage growth is picking up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Nov 4, 2016, 02:04 PM

10. Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Here are some summary tables of the key October 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on November 4, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

In the below tables, all "%" ones are percentage point changes, *not* percent increases or decreases. FOR EXAMPLE, when you see something like this:

+0.1% Unemployment rate

It means that the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (this EXAMPLE is from March 2016 when the unemployment rate rose from 4.9% to 5.0%).

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Before each item, (F) indicates very bad, (D) indicates bad, (C) indicates neutral, (B) indicates good, (A) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(A ) +161,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )
` ` ` I'll give it an "A" because with the 44,000 upward revisions of the previous 2 months
` ` ` combined, it is +205,000 higher than in the previous job report

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(F ) -195,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` That's bad. But in September it went up by 444,000. (As always, household survey statistics
` ` ` are wildly volatile from month to month). Over the past year, the Labor Force has increased
` ` ` by 2.6 million, thanks to the 2.7 million increase in the Employed.

(F ) -43,000 Employed. UGHH! Note it is much less than the +161,000 increase in payroll employment.
` ` ` Go figure. (The latter is far less volatile due to a much larger sample). Note that it is up
` ` ` 408,000 in the past 3 months, and 2.7 million in the past 12 months

(D ) -152,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` Normally something to be overjoyed about. But this month it was because of a big drop in
` ` ` the number of people looking for work, not because they found work, according to this Household
` ` ` Survey (see above where Employment dropped by 43,000).

(D ) -0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.7%)
` ` ` However, it's up 0.4% over the past 12 months, despite boomer retirements.

(D ) -0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.8%)
` ` ` It is only 0.4% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.
` ` ` OTOH, that 0.4% increase in this tough statistic in 13 months is really nice

(C ) -0.1% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.9%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` Though the down-tick is good, the reason this month for the drop is because of a big drop
` ` ` in the number of people seeking work in the past 4 weeks (jobless people who don't seek
` ` ` work in the past 4 weeks are not counted as unemployed). The number of Employed actually
` ` ` dropped, according to this same survey (but has increased by 408,000 in the past 3 months
` ` ` and 2.7 million over the past 12 months). Month to month changes in the Household
` ` ` statistics are more statistical noise than what really happened.

(A ) -0.2% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.5%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
` ` ` This drop is nice! U-6 is the BLS's broadest measure of unemployment -- it includes
` ` ` all who sought work sometime, even just once, in the past 12 months. And it includes
` ` ` part-timers who say they want full time work. Note too that it is down 1.0% in just
` ` ` the past 12 months

(A ) -0.2% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work. U-7 is the broadest meaure of unemployment imaginable. (U-7 is now
` ` ` at 11.8%).

(A ) -176,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639

(B ) -5,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
` ` ` Good direction, but just a small drop, so I'll give it a B.

(C ) +90,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9). I gave this a "neutral" (C ) rating because
` ` ` I'm undecided whether this is good or bad. The key statistic on part-time workers
` ` ` is the one above -- part-time workers who want full-time work, and this month that
` ` ` went down 5,000, which is good, though only a slight drop

(F ) -103,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9), awful. The righties and their DU allies will
` ` ` undoubtedly make an enormous hoo-hah out of this and the 90,000 increase in part-time
` ` ` workers, and try to make it sound like the story of the Obama administration (i.e. that
` ` ` most new jobs are part-time). But that's not true.
` ` ` In the last 12 months, full-time workers increased by an average of 178,000/month
` ` ` Since the job market bottom in February 2010, there has been a 100,000 increase
` ` ` in part-time workers and a 13,415,000 increase in full-time workers


^--Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "bad" months and in "good" months

The "U-7" unemployment rate is a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour, not a BLS number. The above number is one I calculated, because he doesn't update his number every month, and when he does, it is about a day after the jobs report comes out. My number has consistently matched his within 0.1 percentage points (and mine has always been a bit higher). The "U-7" unemployment rate counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job, no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want full time work

For more background on the U-7 number, see: "If you count everyone who says they want a job, even if they have made no effort to find one in many years" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2

[font color = magenta]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010[/font]

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,357,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+0.86% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru September because no CPI data for October yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+2,616,000 Labor Force = Employed + jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks
+2,728,000 Employed
-112,000 Unemployed (jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+0.4% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.3% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.1% Unemployment rate
-1.0% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-0.2% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-127,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
+128,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+518,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,139,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for October yet for the inflation-adjusted Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for October is not yet available.

Most of the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers. Exceptions:

The Labor Force Participation Rate, although ticking up a notch this past 12 months (good direction, though tiny) is at 62.8%, which is only 0.4 percentage points above a multi-decade low. (Though I'm happy that it has improved by 0.4 percentage points in just 13 months).

Interesting though that there was a 0.4 percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio in the past 12 months, and a 1.5 percentage point increase from its multi-decade low point of 58.2% in November 2010. So we have the labor force participation rate increasing by only 0.4% from its multi-decade low, while the employment to population ratio has a much more substantial 1.5% increase from its multi-decade low. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians .

Seems to me that there is too much discussion in the media of the Labor Force Participation Rate -- aka the Labor Force to Population Ratio -- (the employed plus the jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, all divided by the population), and not enough attention to what seemingly matters more -- the Employment to Population Ratio. Why aren't we celebrating the increase in the percentage of the population that is employed (the employment to population ratio)-- a figure that has been slowly moving up since the job market bottom, despite the growing wave of baby boomer retirements?

(As always, the population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, including the elderly, even centenarians).

Another "bad" number is the 128,000 increase in part-time workers who want full time jobs over the past 12 months. But it's fortunately small compared to say the 2,139,000 increase in full time workers.

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 80 months thru October 31, 2016: 10'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru October 31, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+15,303,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.56% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru September 2016 because no CPI data for October yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+6,018,000 Labor Force
+13,344,000 Employed
-7,326,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+1.2% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.9% Unemployment rate
-7.5% U-6 unemployment rate
-7.0% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-186,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-3,047,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+100,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+13,415,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

[font color=blue]Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]Oct'15 Jul'16 Sep'16 Oct'16

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]


Umm, but aren't most of the new jobs part-time? (umm, no)

A graph of part-time and full-time workers (from June 2009 through November 2015)


CLARIFICATION: in the above, these are part-time workers and full-time workers, not part-time jobs and full-time jobs.

This excellent post from early July 2015 show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post12

What kind of Wages?

INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average Weekly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

Again, the above are INFLATION-ADJUSTED earnings


Here is the nominal, i.e. not-inflation-adjusted version of the above:
Weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
Hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010

The links to the data above
# Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639
# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/11/04/employment-situation-october (find this at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog or http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in October}

Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141615960

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"][font size=4 color=blue]Detailed Discussion[/font]

11/4/16 -

I'm going to make the narrative short this month. Most of what's worth noting is in the commentary that is with the tables above.

One thing worth pointing out here though is the payroll jobs is a good 205,000 higher than in last month's (Oct 7's) job report. That's because the 161,000 increase in payroll jobs in October was supplemented by a 44,000 combined upward revision of the August and September job numbers (161 + 44 = 205)

There were a lot of bad numbers too in this month's ultra volatile Household Survey numbers -- for example the 195,000 drop in the labor force, the 43,000 drop in the number of employed (yeah yeah, that's way different from the 161,000 increase in payroll jobs from the Establishment Survey), the 0.1 percentage point tick-downs in both the employment to population ratio and the labor force participation rate, and a 103,000 drop in full-time workers. All grist for the righties to make a big hoo hah about, and to make people think it’s the story of the "Obummer" administration.

But see the "OVER THE LAST MONTH" tables above where the embedded commentary give perspective on the above numbers, such as the movement of these numbers over the past year. (A lot of these numbers bounce up and down month to month -- from good to bad to good to bad and on and on, thanks mostly to statistical noise. That's why it's important to look at longer periods of time as well).

The "OVER THE LAST MONTH" tables above also have the good numbers for the month -- besides the payroll jobs numbers, the 0.2 percentage point drops in the broader measures of the unemployment rate -- U-6 and Solman's "U-7" -- was quite heartening. These were aided by a substantial 176,000 decrease in "Not in Labor Force, Wants Job Now" numbers.

Weird shit.

See also the Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/11/04/employment-situation-october , particularly the positive remarks on wages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread