I'm not sure why its terrible ... but I'm pretty sure some folks will be along soon to explain why.

162,000 new jobs

And one that gives the appearance at least of being gamed to make actual conditions on the ground in Peoria or Pittsburgh appear better than they are. And focusing on it ignores anyone that hasn't yet got themselves a decent job even though they might have some shitty part time situation twenty five miles away at slightly over minimum wage with random on call scheduling.

For a lot of us it's becoming obvious that there aren't going to be enough decent jobs for everyone, the business of providing basics for human existence, food, shelter, clothing and so forth have been automated to the point only a relatively small percentage of people are employed doing that sort of thing. The rest of employment comes from the "extras" and with an ever smaller percentage of people having more of the money the "extra" market is not expanding as fast as the population is.

I understand where you're coming from and I have a really strong urge to sarcasm myself, my dad was thirty second degree black belt in sarcasm so I learned early. On the other hand a n00b coming into DU could easily take either one of us the wrong way, Poe's law and all. That certainly happens to me from time to time although I sometimes feel I almost get misunderstood more when I'm not sarcastic.

Capital has been disproportionately absorbing productivity gains; there is enough wealth even with the growth of McJobs to make lives better than they are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0

And the jobs are all low paying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

The BLS has cooked the books and is lying!!!!!!111111

Everyone I know is unemployed!

We are doomed!

There I saved several people some keystrokes.

By the time you leave out people who quit looking and all the workers thrown off of unemployment insurance you will see it go down, when it is probably actually going up.

On the other hand we probably lost more full time good jobs that were replaced by below poverty level jobs. Like the Titanic we keep sinking yet the captains of business keep saying everything is fine.

The thing about that is most of it has been coming from Fox News. The truth is as the UE comes down people start looking so a good number of those who stopped have been absorbed back into the UE rate which could be part of the reason it hasn't dropped very quickly over the last few months.

As for the amount of lower paying jobs, yes that is true. The US has been moving toward a service economy for a long time, way before Obama was elected. Many service sector jobs pay less. Part of that has to do with how people spend their money.

It has been almost a full 5 years since the economic collapse of the banks (one place many jobs were lost). The truth is it will take much longer to dig ourselves out of the hole.

the people who want a Republican controlled House and Senate in 2014 chime in.

At least no real members.

But, we are unwilling to tow-the-party-line when doing so just helps the fascist movement do decimate the average American citizen.

is 8 million, roughly. Which is a lot, but still only a small percentage of the total employed workforce of 145 million or so.

The amount of part time work is vastly and repeatedly overstated by those who minimize any kind of good news that makes it look like we have actually been having an economic recovery for the last 4 years, since the stimulus package was passed.

divide by pi, read a few pages of Ayn Rand, and get the stomach flu, you'll see that the numbers aren't really what they seem and Obama has made things worse.

which is almost an all time high.

A better metric would be percentage.

...as the numbers leaving the workforce due to retirement are a little closer to the numbers entering the workforce for the past few years. Another dampening factor on labor participation rates is college; more people in college, and more time spent in college.

that is closer to where the truth is.

And then, how many of those employed are parttime when they need fulltime to survive? Or are juggling multiple parttime jobs (me)? And where are wages at, and where are they headed? And how many older people are eligible to retire but forced to keep working because they can't afford to, which prevents younger people from getting their jobs?

That single unemployment number means zip when many are no longer listed because they fell off the unemployment roles.

For the billionth time.

Have you even tried looking up the answers to your questions? Part time for economic reasons, multiple job holders, weekly wages, and employment by retirement age are ALL included in today's data report.

I'm simply replying to the OP which is announcing the unemployment number, which means nothing to me.

I look at the other numbers.

Interesting to note that I am at least the 3rd poster to mention falling off the unemployment roles, as almost an afterthought to the crux of my post, but the first and only you choose to give a snotty reply to

Have a nice day.

More generally, you can determine how many people want a job and do not have one on this table: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

There are 224K fewer people that want a job and do not have one this month than there was last month.
There are 1.2M fewer people that want a job and do not have one this month than there were a year ago.

ETA: I responded to your post because 1) you asked a lot of questions that are, in fact, answered by the data report you're being critical of and 2) I am not sufficiently convinced that those other posters are not "left wing caricature" type trolls and I try to avoid posters like that.

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center
Sending out resumes or filling out applications
Placing or answering advertisements
Checking union or professional registers
Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to result in a job offer and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.

Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).


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

It looks like you were referring to the unemployment number, which does not include people that are not in the labor force, by definition (helpfully cited in your post I'm replying to).

I'm not sure what the problem is since that data IS included in the report, like I said. People not in the labor force that want a job, even if they haven't looked for one, is reported right there in that table I linked to above.

Since you were asking questions about things other than the unemployment number that are answered in the data report, you'll have to forgive me for thinking we were talking about the data report.

Aw, fuck it. You're just asking clichéd "critical" questions, with no intention of getting answers in an effort to make it seem like things suck and are getting worse. I know it. You know it. The whole DU knows it.

My responses have been to and about the thread's OP. I am not interested in the unemployment number. I look at other numbers for economic indicators. Period.

I don't have to forgive you for anything. You still haven't responded to why you chose to pick on me, of the numerous people who gave similar responses. What the fuck ever.

and let all the economic and job-producing legislation go through.

meaningless

But what would I know.

But what would I know.

Glad we established that.



There is more...some folks (see the food service strikes) feed families on part time, minimum wage work.

I hate the restructuring of the US economy...it started with Reagan.

But I'd suggest that the restructuring of the US economy is a constant.

The industrial revolution ... the information age ...

The members of my family, for a number of generations, lived in Philly. I grew up in the same house that my father grew up in. I left in the 80s. Most of my high school friends still live there.

I've lived in 4 different states. I changed states for education and career.

I suspect that my kids might do the same.

Perhaps even change not only states, but countries ... as the global economy continues its restructuring.

I would move to another country right now.

And yes, it is the federal policies on NSA and the restructuring, and the fact that we are straggling behind other countries in things like health care and education.

But particularly the inverted totalitarianism, which in it's present form started with Clinton.

I am not blind to the warts...the US has way too many of them right now.

"When the payroll report was released last month, the world finally noticed what we had been saying for nearly three years: that the US was slowly being converted to a part-time worker society. This slow conversion accelerated drastically in the last few months, and especially in June, when part time jobs exploded higher by 360K while full time jobs dropped by 240K. In July we are sad to report that America's conversation to a part-time worker society is not "tapering": according to the Household Survey, of the 266K jobs created (note this number differs from the establishment survey), only 35% of jobs, or 92K, were full time. The rest were... not"

ZH

I am sure that this 7.4% does not include the people whose unemployment has run out. Also it is summer time and in this area there are lots of seasonal jobs that end anytime from Sept. to Nov. So it is not an accurate figure.

This does not imply that they would reject an economically justifiable job offer.

People whose unemployment has run out often fall into this category.

That is what seasonally adjusted means. BLS explains how they figure these numbers. You would do well to go to their website and read about the methodology to correct your misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with unemployment. There are two surveys: one of employers (job numbers), and one of households (unemployment percentage).

"One of the overlooked components of today's NFP report is that in July the one industry that posted a clear decline in workers was none other than Construction, the sector which is expected to carry the recovery entirely on its shoulders once Bernanke tapers and ultimately goes away, which saw a decline of 6,000 workers: the largest job loss by industry in the past month. Perhaps there isn't quite as much demand as some would propagandize? But most notably, and disturbingly, is that the industry with the most job gains in July was also the second lowest paying one: retail, which saw an addition of 47,000 jobs: far and away the biggest winner in the past month. The worst paying industry - temp jobs - rose by 8K in July following a revised 16K increase in June. And the reason for the swing in July: the plunge in another low-quality job group: Leisure and Hospitality, which increased by only 23K in July following 57K additions in June."

"What is worse however is that the change in average hourly earnings dropped -0.1% on expectations of a 0.2% increase and down from the 0.4% increase last month."

HELP!! Where's the number indicating how many people no longer qualify for unemployment benefits?

It is comforting to see some folks challenge it and of course if the administration was Republican, there would be a round chorus of moral indignation.

Republicans campaign on jobs. Democrats must differentiate themselves by campaigning on worker pay, benefits, and safety. If it is "the economy stupid", then touting crummy jobs as victory reduces Democrats to a Republican levels. This is why half the country cannot tell the difference between the parties. Because when it comes to jobs, there is no difference.


Thirty two trillion of "trickle down" hidden offshore, twice the federal deficit. There is money to improve our collective standard of living. I will cease further comment so that people may ponder this awhile.

If the employment situation were the same as it was in 1999, nearly 10 million more people would be employed.



When your only tool is a pom-pom, all your problems begin to look like pep rallies.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

The first quarter of 2013 saw the biggest drop in wages in US history.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/06/07/2121581/first-quarter-of-2013-saw-largest-wage-drop-ever/

I don't consider a job an intrinsically good thing. (Some people do).

Consider the hypothetical: 30% employment to population ratio but 1% unemployment rate, using the official definitions. Is this bad? Good? Neither? I'd say it was a pretty awesome situation.

The employment to population ratio can be useful to get a broader understanding of the employment picture but ultimately what matters is the unemployment rate and other measures of lack of employment (like people not in the labor force that want jobs).

The unemployment rate is a horrendously poor metric. If wages go down, (as they are) then people drop out of the workforce (as they are). This is driving the unemployment rate down which you are considering a good thing.

You appear to be suggesting that the perfect world would be one in which no one works because wages are too low to make it worth anyone's while.

For those of us who buy food with our wages, this isn't an academic exercise.

since we have opposing views on the intrinsic value of a job (which I consider distinct from labor or work).

In that hypothetical I posed, people aren't working by choice. Wages aren't high enough to get them to work because they have enough of what they want without working for those wages. It was meant to illustrate that the employment to population ratio by itself doesn't account for the change in work preferences of the population and the work preferences of the population is better viewed through unemployment and its not-in-the-labor-force counterpart.

It seems a bit of a non sequitur but I don't see how this is anything other than an academic exercise no matter how one buys their food: wages, government assistance, investment income, or other. Unless you mean that you're proposing some sort of campaign to specifically raise the employment to population ratio, regardless of unemployment?

Work in exchange for compensation = job. Without compensation, the labor is valueless.

By what logical process can you defend the idea that 6% of the US workforce stopped working - permanently - in 2008 through conscious, collective and simultaneous choice?

Yes. My campaign would raise the employment to population ratio, regardless of unemployment. Unemployment is a secondary measure. As people find the workplace more attractive, more people begin looking for work which drives up unemployment. If average wages were to increase 10% through government action, the unemployment rate would rise, (as people reentered the workforce) leading policymakers to all kinds of counterproductive activities.

At best it is a incomplete measurement, at worst (as it is being used here) it is a compass needle which points south.

So, no, labor without compensation is not valueless.

Nor am I arguing that 6% of the workforce decided to stop working permanently. Some decided to stop working for an extended temporary period (to go to college, for example), some decided to stop working permanently, and many of them didn't decide to stop working at all, which is why we have relatively high unemployment. The issue is you can't tell just by looking at the employment to population ratio. When I look at the employment to population ratio I see two demographic trends, women fully entering the workforce and boomers hitting their peak employment, modified with the effects of economic expansions and recessions.

You seem to be saying that you want wages to be high enough that people that don't want to work now would want to work. I have no problem with that. However, unemployment and its effects are not about averages. The least employable people and the communities they live in would still suffer the effects of high unemployment even if average wages and the employment to population ratio were higher. I think unemployment itself and its not-in-the-laborforce counterpart are the things to be reduced, letting the employment to population ratio end up where it ends up.

Unfortunately it comes with what used to be 20 hour a week pay thanks to inflation and the low minimum wage.

We are stratifying into the overworked and the underpaid/unemployed. Very Dangerous.

This only requires two small corrections to FLSA.

It would work because people wouldn't accept managerial positions that required a cut in pay.

... and hourly people are plenty overworked.

If unemployment was said to be at 7.4%, with Reaganomics being fought for by the White House, Low hour and paying jobs becoming the norm, and an R was in the White House; DU would stand with one voice.