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.

Of course, those DUers who were huffing about that number being a "single data point" seem to be quiet today.

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.

jobs report. See any change in percentage people employed?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

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.

fffff

Well when it becomes a necessary way of life....everything is pushed to the last minute. Time to act.

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.

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&quot 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 it’s 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.

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.

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!!

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.

I'm gob-smacked.

that claim in ways that makes sense and are understandable.

for labor statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Congrats, Mr President!

It would be significantly lower, that is a certainty.

It would not be 'near 0'.

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.

and so I will add my voice to the congratulations. My only concern is what kind of jobs they are.

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.

Let's keep working on getting the rate even lower, with better jobs and more full-time jobs for people like my son !

We'll see if it grows into full time, but at least it's something I put myself through school for.

We'll see.

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

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.

Around here $8.00/hr won't even pay the rent.

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.

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.

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.

Thats not happning here.

...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...

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

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

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.

eom

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

eom