However, reading your link does not lead me to think that "the unemployment drop is bogus"
According to that very link, the labor force grew by 111,000 and the number of discouraged workers grew by 136,000 but it also says that the number employed grew by 541,000 and the number of unemployed fell by 430,000.
As I said before, The Household report may say that the labor force grew by a underwhelming one tenth of one percent (0.1) but it also says that 136,000 workers were reclassified as "discouraged" this month, up from December. When that number is factored in, it cuts the unemployment number nearly in half.
Yes, I'm aware that this is how the BLS always calculates unemployment, which is why, contrary to your claims, I didn't start a thread bashing the Obama administration. My problem is with the way unemployment is calculated so as to give politicians the lowest possible unemployment numbers to talk about. And I'll come back to this later.
Also, it's important to understand the context of the 541 number in relation to the population adjustment process that happens this month:
Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey
Effective with data for January 2010, updated population estimates have been
used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey
are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates
the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of
the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the
new estimates results primarily from adjustments for net international migra-
tion, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological
changes in the estimation process.
In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household
survey estimates for December 2009 or earlier months. To show the impact of
the population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2009 labor
force series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.
The adjustment decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional
population in December by 258,000, the civilian labor force by 249,000, and
employment by 243,000; the new population estimates had a negligible impact
on unemployment rates and other percentage estimates. Data users are cautioned
that these annual population adjustments affect the comparability of household
data series over time. Estimates of large levels, such as total labor force and
employment, are impacted most. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of
new population estimates on the changes in selected labor force measures between
December 2009 and January 2010. More detailed information on the population
adjustments and their effect on national labor force estimates are available at
www.bls.gov/cps/cps10adj.pdf.
Now back to you:
It also says that the number of people working part-time fell by 849,000. (meaning they went from part-time to full-time, another little bit of GOOD news).
That's incorrect. It does not necessarily mean they went from part-time to full time employment. That can move from part-time to not-looking for work by choice, or to discouraged from looking for work. Seasonally Adjusted vs. Non-Seasonally adjusted numbers both try to deal with the December-January reality of numerous part-time jobs being created and then ended during the holiday season, with job holders not necessarily moving to full employment (they may not look for further work, this is true of million and millions of college students for example.)
I'm not suggesting that no people moved to full employment. But its not a direct connection from falling part-time numbers to full employment, especially in the month of January.
Granted it is counter-intuitive how a 20,000 loss translates into lower unemployment, but it comes from two reports. The household survey never matches with the establishment survey and the household survey is showing a gain and that's where the unemployment rate comes from.
That is also incorrect. There is frequently, in fact usually, a connection between establishment survey's information on payroll and an opposite effect in household unemployment numbers.
There's something else very important: there's a reason why the Labor report cited the payroll statistics when talking about employment in its monthly report rather than the household data's information on employment:
because for month to month evaluations, one of the strengths of the establishment data is that it is much more accurate and has a much larger sample size. Don't take my word on that:
Frequently Asked Questions about Employment and Unemployment Estimates
Why are there two monthly measures of employment?
The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based
estimates of employment and both have strengths and limitations. The
establishment survey employment series has a smaller margin of error on
the measurement of month-to-month change than the household survey because
of its much larger sample size. An over-the-month employment change of
107,000 is statistically significant in the establishment survey, while
the threshold for a statistically significant change in the household sur-
vey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more expansive
scope than the establishment survey because it includes the self-employed,
unpaid family workers, agricultural workers, and private household workers,
who are excluded by the establishment survey. The household survey also
provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.
Again, back to you:
So, are you telling the truth, or looking for ways to spin this against the Obama administration and the Democratic Party? Because the truth looks pretty good from where I sit.
People just can't get this through their heads, can they. I could care less about making the Obama administration "look" good or bad. I care about one thing only here: the way in which BLS are used is misleading and consistently misrepresents the true state of unemployment in the United States.
There are six different employment numbers - U1 through U6, with U1 being the most narrow and U6 being the most inclusive. When the media reports on "unemployment" you would think they would use the most inclusive number, same with political administrations.
The U6 number includes classifications of unemployed workers that I believe are
critical when trying to really understand where unemployment is at. "U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force"
"NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data."
Now -
that is a real unemployment number. One that represents people willing and able to work, but who can't find work. I wish the U6 number included discouraged workers too, because these are people who are willing and able to work but have given up hope of ever finding work and I believe they should be included. But they aren't.
Okay are you still with me? Then for the U6 number we have two different calculations, first we have the non-seasonally adjusted U6 number (NSA-U6) - this number is the straight-up results of survey data. Then we have the Seasonally-adjusted U6 number (SA-U6) - this number is arrived at via a special statistical formula that makes guesses and tries to compensate for the reality of short-term holiday jobs that disappear again after the holidays.
I believe that the NSA number ends up being more accurate than the SA number in many instances, because the calculation applied to calculate the seasonal adjustment leaves something to be desired. Further, there are far less ways to try and "game" non-seasonally adjusted numbers. They just say what they say. But both SA and NSA numbers are important, and should probably be considered together. So let's look at them.
These are the statistics that I think are most important:
FIRST - Civilian Particpation Rate Doesn't Look Good At All
Even though there is a 0.1 positive change in this rate in January, its a scary, scary number and things are currently not looking up. We want to know this so that we can continue to be serious about the kind of dramatic action we need on the economy. Now is not a time when we can play it safe with "middle of the road" economic recovery legislation.
SECOND - SA-U6 Unemployment at a Staggering 16.5%, But down 1% from December.
It is true that there's a 1% downward shift in unemployment to a still stunning 16.5% level, if one uses the special calculation to provide a "seasonal adjustment." What I believe we should take aware from this number, even with a 1% drop is that we are in the middle of a deep crisis. We are not in "recovery." The economy is not "strong." And its not a slam on the adminsitration to say that.
But we must demand that our administration take bold serious action to make deep spending investments into this situation, and right now they aren't doing that. They are trying to straddle the fence - worried about how deficit spending will effect their 2010 elections. We need to strongly push our leaders to do more.
THIRD - NSA-U6 Unemployment Numbers Rose to a record setting 18%
I argue that NSA numbers are the hardest to manipulate and "game" and thus come closest to what I believe a real picture of "conditions on the ground" in working America actually look like.
However, even if one disagrees with that, then the fact remains that the Seasonally Adjusted U6 numbers are also abysmal.
So either way, my point stands - unemployment is, as usual, worse than what is reported in the mainstream and we must continue to forcefully demand that our representatives pass aggressive, sweeping spending on jobs and infrastructure in order to pull us out of this spiral and not set us on course for a decade long jobless recovery.
If you read "OMG I H8 OBAMA!!!1" into that, you're the one being ridiculous, not me.