since tomorrow is the Federal Holiday but I'll take it!

Thanks for posting!

Never mind.

It's going to be interesting...but I'm sure they'll find a way to turn day to night, more to less, up to down...somehow in their twisted minds...

Wait for it.

and pretending that it's indicative of hordes of desperate people deciding to give up and die of starvation or live on the charity of others rather than make a single effort, however desultory and forlorn, to get a job once in a month, which is all that's needed to be counted in U3. Hell you can go a whole damn year and still be counted in the (also declining and pretty low at 6.4%) U5.

If you haven't tried once in a year you either cannot or do not want to work. There is no plausible third reason.

But don't be surprised if we hear anecdotes of every single one of them...

Lowest since 1977. Hell of a lot more than 1/2 of 1%. And we certainly don't want to hear stories from those pesky unemployed!

You want those retirees and college students working instead?

The labor participation rate is dropping in the 25-54 age group. And a lot of so-called retirees don't want to be "retired" because they can't afford it. A lot of students have no real interest being in school but they can't find any decent job. So yes, I want people of any age to be working if that is what they want to do.

And that's at 0.3%. So there aren't many people in that situation.

Even though they don't want to. They are counted as retired. Unbelievable the things progressives say just because a Democrat is in power. This board would be afire if these were Bush's numbers.

The unemployment numbers do not interact with retirement or unemployment benefits at all.

For that matter BLS doesn't even have a "retired" category it counts.

Generally they are the ones who really are tired and are just waiting for a generous offer.

They go on early SS with a lifetime 20% reduction because they are out of work and desperate for some money.

Obama doesn't either despite what many think. Neither do Republicans. I oppose the TPP because it will only increase the weakness of the economy.

223,000 jobs were, in net, created last month; but, 519,000 of them were part-time jobs. Meaning almost 300,000 full-time jobs were lost. 432,000 left the labor force.

And, while jobs were up, the number of people actually employed went down. This was because self-employment shrank by 407,000. Your definition of great news is far different than mine.

[font color = blue]>>223,000 jobs were, in net, created last month; but, 519,000 of them were part-time jobs. Meaning almost 300,000 full-time jobs were lost. 432,000 left the labor force.
And, while jobs were up, the number of people actually employed went down. This was because self-employment shrank by 407,000. <<[/font]

There are two reports of employment: The very large and comprehensive non-farm payroll employment report (from the Establishment Survey), and the extremely volatile statistically very noisy Household Survey report.

Establishment Survey Report

The Establishment Survey payroll employment report reported that 223,000 net new employees were added in June. They do not break it out between full-time and part-time employees. Notice these are employees, not "jobs" (I'll have to fix that at my sigline). http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

This establishment survey payroll employment report was a pretty good report. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta jobs calculator -- https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx
only about 112,000 net new employees are needed in order to keep up with population growth.

One dark spot on the payroll employment report is that April and May employment was revised down by 60,000. Thus, compared to last month's report, we have 163,000 net new payroll employment (223-60 = 163).

Still, 163,000 increased employment more than keeps up with population growth. According to the Federal Reserve jobs calculator above, 162,000 jobs/month over the next 12 months would reduce the unemployment rate from the current 5.3% to 4.9%. Not all that great, but a large step in the right direction.

But over the last 3 months we've averaged a 221,000/month gain in payroll employment. And over the last 12 months it has averaged 245,000/month. According to the Federal Reserve jobs calculator above, 245,000 jobs/month over the next 12 months is enough to reduce the unemployment rate from the current 5.3% to 4.3%.

Household Survey Report

The stuff on part-time and full-time jobs comes from the extremely volatile statistically very noisy Household Survey report, where month-to-month changes are more statistical noise than signal. Also, it is important not to mix numbers from the two reports together to come up with calculated values of anything.

That said, I also have to say that the household survey, as bad as it is, is the source of the headline official unemployment rate and labor force participation rate to cite the two most-discussed statistics from this report. (I don't question the long-term trends in either, just month-to-month changes).

In any case, I don't know where you got the part-time employment numbers. From Table A-9 (Household Survey) I get an increase of part-time workers of 161,000 in June. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Table A-9 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. Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

The Household Survey reports in Table A-9 that full-time workers dropped (arghh!) by 349,000 in June, in rough agreement with your quote. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

However, this, as do just about all Household Survey statistics, bounces around from month to month. I all but disregard any month-to-month changes in household survey numbers and look at a longer period to smooth out some of the noise (the zigs and zags tend to somewhat even out over longer periods and the trend emerges).

Over the past 12 months, full-time employment has increased by 2,801,000, or 233,000/month on average.

(Not so good is that in the last 5 months, full-time employment has increased only by 342,000 (68,000/month average). Could possibly be mostly statistical noise or could be the start of a real trend... 5 straight months is a fairly long time to have such a shit average statistic without there being some real shit )

[font color = blue]>>And, while jobs were up, the number of people actually employed went down. This was because self-employment shrank by 407,000. << [/font]

Yes, according to the wildly volatile Household Survey, the Employed dropped by 56,000 in June. (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000 )

See post#29 in this thread that shows the Household Survey's Employment Level aka Employed, and compares it to the Establishment Survey's Payroll employment. Anyway it is very illustrative of the Household Survey's volatility. No economist that I've ever heard of thinks that in actuality employment bounces up and down that radically from month to month. (Likewise the labor force)

Again, looking at a longer time period -- a year -- the Household Survey's Employed increased by +2,492,000, or 208,000/month on average.

On self-employment, on unincorporated workers, I get a 420,000 drop in June (Table A-8 by adding agricultural to non-agricultural, or Table A-9), in close agreement to your 407,000 number. Over the past 12 months, it has increased by 410,000 or 4.3%.

On self-employed incorporated workers, there is no seasonally adjusted data! So I'll have to use seasonally UNADJUSTED data (Table A-9) (` symbols are added to create spaces since DU software compresses 2 or more spaces into one. Try to ignore them):

[font face = "courier new"]
1 month` 1 year
`+98,000 +253,000 NON-SA Self-employed worker(incorporated)
-342,000 +391,000 NON-SA Self-employed worker(unincorporated)
--------------------------------------------------
-244,000 +644,000 NON-SA Sum of above. [/font]

NON-SA (non-seasonally adjusted) Household Survey data is worthless as far as month-to-month changes. But even without seasonal adjustment, changes over 12 months are meaningful, because one is comparing a month's level to the same month a year ago (so any seasonal adjustment factor would be the same for both).

The 644,000 increase over 12 months is about a 4.4% increase. Not bad when the growth of the population is 0.0790% a month (according to the Federal Reserve calculator - near the bottom), which translates into a (1.000790^12 - 1) * 100% = 0.95%/year population growth rate.

Or perhaps not good considering what a lot of self-employment is: scrounging for piece-work for shit pay and zero benefits as an "independent contractor"....

As if this isn't enough, my full take on the jobs report is at post#15 in this thread.

I look forward to it every month.

Best wishes, and please enjoy the remainder of the weekend.

And Obamacare...oh, wait some more....and deficits....wait a minute.....lot of RW propaganda on the economy is down in flames....which is why the media suddenly made foreign policy and ISIS and anything else as the thing to now talk about, no longer the economy...some have noticed that.

233,000 jobs created. The lowest labor participation rate since 1977. Yep, that's a healthy economy!

The June Jobs Report in 10 Charts

probably more than 10 million.

BLS-Labor Statistics Twitter feed

Charting the labor market: Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) July 2, 2015

If you think there's some aspect to this month's data that the BLS is not charting, let them know. Maybe left handed redheaded vegetarians have not been examined closely enough.

will save the celebration for when we get our manufacturing sector back and I don't mean burger manufacturing. Reaganomics is still driving this pissy economy.

It just doesn't take employees like it used to, and won't. Like Germany and Scandinavia, our economic future is services.

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (7)

[font color = red]On EDIT 7/3/15 8:16 AM CT:[/font] The numbers are the same as was here yesterday, but since then I've written discussion of the numbers.

7/3/15 - Pretty good but mixed jobs report this month 223,000 net new payroll employment in June. April and May were revised downward by a combined 60,000 (April was revised down by 34,000 and May was revised down by 26,000). So we have 163,000 more payroll employment than we did in last month's report (223 - 60 = 163).

(Later: the reason I call it pretty good but mixed, is because the Establishment survey -- which is far more reliable than the Household survey -- gave a good report: 223,000 new net payroll employment. Although it's really 163,000 after considering the April and May downward revisions.
The Household Survey, where all the other numbers come from, is very definitely not so great. But it is highly volatile from month-to-month, so I'm more concerned about the last 6 or 12 months ... the last 12 months is reported below and those are pretty good).

The below paragraphs are from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/employment-situation-june

The economy added 223,000 jobs in June as the unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent. Our economy has now added 5.6 million jobs over the past two years, the strongest two-year job growth since 2000 ((when Clinton was president -Progree)). But despite this progress, there is more work to do. We must continue to build on the positive trends underlying our economy by ensuring that Americans working overtime receive a fair day’s pay, opening new markets for U.S. goods and services through expanded trade ((through corporate-friendly trade policies like TPP and TTIP -Progree)), increasing investments in infrastructure, providing relief from the sequester, and raising the minimum wage. ((4 progressive ideas out of 5 is not bad -Progree))

... On the whole, our economy has added 2.9 million new jobs over the past twelve months, near the fifteen-year high achieved in February.

... The labor force grew more slowly in June than it normally does at this time of year, reducing the seasonally adjusted labor force participation rate. June is normally a seasonally strong month for labor force growth, as many new graduates and summer workers enter the labor force. ((anyway it rose 0.4% before seasonal adjustment, but fell on a seasonally adjusted basis by 432,000, thus lowering the seasonally adjusted labor force participation rate by 0.3% to 62.6% -- the lowest level since the mid-1970's. Remember, about half the drop from the peak in early 2000 is due to boomer retirements. And half isn't. -Progree))

One contributing factor was the timing of the “reference week”—the week for which households report their labor force status in the Current Population Survey ... That 0.3 percentage-point gap alone represents nearly 500,000 members of the labor force.

Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 221,000 per month. Over the past year, payroll employment has increased by 2,935,000 (an average of 245,000/month). And since the jobs recovery began in March 2010, payroll employment increased by 12,193,000.

The numbers in the below paragraphs come from the Household Survey, which is different from the Establishment Survey that produces the payroll employment number.

Table numbers, like Table A-8 and A-9, refer to the tables in http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Many numbers were good in June

The official unemployment rate (U-3) fell by 0.2% to 5.3% (thanks entirely to the decline in the labor force -- see below. The Employed dropped too -- see below).

BLS's broadest measure of unemployment -- U-6 -- decreased by 0.3%. It includes in its version of the "labor force" everyone who has looked for a job in the last 12 months (even if just once). And it includes part-timers wanting full-time work. So this is just plain good news. (Unlike the official labor force -- the denominator of the official unemployment rate -- which counts only those who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks as unemployed).

Part-time workers who want full-time work fell by 157,000. It has fallen by 1,011,000 over the past 12 months

Many numbers were not-so-good or bad in June

The labor force decreased by 432,000 (see above where that was largely caused by where the reference week fell. Note it increased 467,000 over the preceding 3 months, making the 4 month total a barely positive +35,000. But over the past 12 months it has grown by 1,337,000. (LNS11000000) .

The labor force participation rate fell by 0.3%, to 62.6%, its lowest level since the mid-1970's.

The Employed dropped by 56,000 in June. (LNS12000000) (Remember this is the Household Survey, a separate survey from the Establishment survey that produced the +223,000 payroll employment figure. The Household Survey is much more volatile and less reliable than the Establishment survey. Anyhoo, the Employed has increase by 2,492,000 over the last 12 months.

Full-time workers declined by 349,000 in June. This is a volatile data series. No doubt our good friends on the right and their DU allies will make a big hoo-hah out of this, and lead you to think this is representative of the record of the Obama administration. But over the past 12 months, full-time workers increased by 2,801,000 (233,000/mo average). And since the jobs recovery began, it has increased by 10,275,000. HOWEVER, it has been in a slump in the last 5 months, in which it increased by only 342,000 (68,000/month average).

===========================================

Some key numbers from the Household Survey (note the Household Survey is different from the Establishment Survey that produces the payroll employment of the first paragraph). See below, and see Table A-1 for the main Household Survey numbers - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Exception: the payroll employment numbers and the inflation-adjusted weekly earnings come from the Establishment Survey. I don't include the over-the-last-month figure for inflation-adjusted weekly earnings, because the CPI data needed for the inflation adjustment is not available until later in the month; but I do include them for the longer periods (over the last year and since the payroll employment recovery began)

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 May 2015 when the unemployment rate rose from 5.4% to 5.5%). This is an increase of 0.1 percentage points, *not* a 0.1% increase. The corresponding percent increase is (5.5-5.4)/5.4 X 100% = +1.9%, i.e. a 1.9% increase. So in summary, IN THIS EXAMPLE, the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points, and also increased 1.9%.


[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
+223,000 Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )
== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
-432,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
-56,000 Employed
-375,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
-0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.3%)
-0.3% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (to 62.6%)
-0.2% Unemployment rate (at 5.3%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
-0.3% U-6 unemployment rate (to 10.5%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
-157,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+161,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
-349,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

(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)

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,935,000 Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+2.20% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru May because no CPI data for June yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+1,337,000 Labor Force
+2,492,000 Employed
-1,154,000 Unemployed
+0.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
-0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.8% Unemployment rate
-1.5% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-1,011,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-330,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,801,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate shows a 0.2% decrease. Interesting though that there was a 0.3% percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio. 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 (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?


[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 64 months thru June 30, 2015: 6'15 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru June 30, 2015)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+12,193,000 Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+3.40% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru May 2015 because no CPI data for June yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+3,343,000 Labor Force
+10,158,000 Employed
-6,814,000 Unemployed
+0.8% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.3% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.5% Unemployment rate
-6.5% U-6 unemployment rate
-2,552,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+40,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+10,275,000 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;"]Jun'14 Mar'15 May'15 Jun'15
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]5.1% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3%


A graph of part-time and full-time workers (this is through June 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 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

Also in that post is "The June Jobs Report in 10 charts" which is worth extra highlighting:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/02/the-june-jobs-report-in-10-charts/


The links to the data above
# Payroll employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# 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
# 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
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

########################################################################
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

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/2015/07/02/employment-situation-june
(find this at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post)

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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This is the lowest labor force participation rate seen in 38 years. It hasn’t been this low since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.



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

And a record 25 million were in college.

So, yeah, sounds about right.

Even though it's nothing but BS numbers that came floating through your pleasantly unfocused mind, it will make some people here feel good. Peace to all beings, bliss to all beings, happiness to all beings!

He was instrumental in getting Tata to start refining steel in India.

Also, I'm not people's research librarian. www.bls.gov is free to read.

Last edited Sat Jul 4, 2015, 11:36 PM - Edit history (3)

Quite a few not so good (or bad) numbers from the Household Survey. Remember most of the statistics in the Household Survey are very volatile from month to month. So it's important to look at the past 12 months figures (which are included) before deciding how the economy is doing lately.... Looking at the past 12 months smooths out most of the month-to-month volatility.

As an example of the month to month volatility, consider the month-to-month changes in the Household Survey's count of the Employed over the last 2 1/2 years:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
[font face = "courier new"]
Thousands of employed, change from the previous month:
2013: 48 101 -55 291 225 135 250 13 9 -844 1037 181
2014: 535 95 495 -72 144 379 154 50 156 653 71 111
2015: 759 96 34 192 272 -56
January and February numbers are affected by changes in population controls.[/font]

And these are seasonally adjusted numbers! The unadjusted numbers are even more rocky.

This is far more volatile than the much more reliable Establishment Survey that produces the payroll employment:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
[font face = "courier new"]
Thousands of payroll employees, change from the previous month:
2013: 205 314 115 187 219 127 164 256 150 225 317 109
2014: 166 188 225 330 236 286 249 213 250 221 423 329
2015: 201 266 119 187 254 223
The last 2 months are preliminary[/font]


Even worse than the Household Survey's Employed, the Household Survey's Labor Force has even more volatility. Here is the month-to-month changes in the Household Survey's Labor Force over the last 2 1/2 years:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
[font face = "courier new"]
Labor Force, thousands, change from the previous month:
2013: 272 -429 -370 375 161 199 -129 -103 19 -933 689 -257
2014: 439 202 492 -760 209 71 348 -30 -173 398 159 -273
2015: 1051 -178 -96 166 397 -432
January and February numbers are affected by changes in population controls.[/font]

On statistical noise, I found this BLS technical note on sampling error -- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm . Based on what it says, there is a 90% probability that the payroll employment increase is within +/- 90,000 jobs of the stated number. And a 10% chance that it is off by more than 90,000.

And in the Household Survey, there is a 90% chance that the monthly unemployment change is +/- 300,000 of the stated number (note this is 3.3 times the payroll employment's sampling error). Also, that there is a 90% chance that the unemployment rate is about +/- 0.2% of the stated number.

The above only covers sampling error. There are also many other sources of error (search the above link for "non-sampling error&quot

The individual components that go into these numbers have an even larger sampling error.

Right-wingers love to find the aberrant statistic or two of the month in these wildly volatile data series and make it out to be the story of the Obama administration, rather than what it really is -- just one month's number in a very statistically volatile data series.

Sorry, too late for LBN.

June jobless rates down in 21 states, up in 12; payroll jobs up in 31 states, down in 17

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 11:03 PM - Edit history (3)

The {1} in your email and added to your OP above did not work, it only showed me 3 paragraphs and demanded I subscribe to Barron to see more.

Rather than subscribing, I Googled the first sentence of the excerpt "The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention" and the first one to show up was {2} which morphed into {3} which looks the same as {1}.

{1} http://online.barrons.com/articles/refresher-course-inside-the-jobless-numbers-1437195186

{2} https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwiAmZGH0_fGAhUKK4gKHXftAL4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.barrons.com%2Farticles%2Frefresher-course-inside-the-jobless-numbers-1437195186&ei=Wji0VYCEJIrWoAT32oPwCw&usg=AFQjCNHJ9-2WzlK572DqvdFsFfDdpfe2IQ

{3} http://online.barrons.com/articles/refresher-course-inside-the-jobless-numbers-1437195186




[font color = red]Edited to Add: [/font] Anyway, it is interesting. For those who can't gain access to the article, my take on it is that it is kind of written from a right-wing perspective that the BLS uses lenient measures of unemployment in both the official unemployment rate (U-3) and what they term the "hidden" unemployment rates (U-4 thru U-6) by counting people as unemployed who aren't looking very hard for work.

Which may be true, but doesn't really answer the questions that are bugging economists and policy makers, e.g. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, about why the job market feels so weak (and virtually no upward pressure on wages) when the official unemployment rate is quite modest (5.3%). As compared to the past when an unemployment rate of 5.3% was accompanied by substantial wage pressures (relative to general inflation).

There is a pointer in the article, titled "Work is for Squares" that blames much of the fall in the labor force participation of prime-age males (ages 25-54) to Social Security disability. (Likewise women by almost as much if you begin from say 1990, according to the article).

[font color = red]Edited to Add: [/font] And it argues that there will be a big drop in work incentives due to the Affordable Care Act, resulting in more labor force participation decline.

I found this excerpt interesting from the Barron's article:

Someone once made an enormously big hoo hah about how supposedly in the Clinton administration they stopped counting the long-term discouraged worker, and if you counted them, then January 2015's unemployment rate "is about 23%" and a responder to that post gave a link to a very nerdy BLS paper about this change.

Anyway, I dug into that and found that it was rather far different than what the big hoo hah makers were saying. I've included a little excerpt about this in my "EF-0. Economy facts with official sources", actually in the EF-2 posting (see below excerpt for the link)

Last edited Sun Jul 26, 2015, 09:01 AM - Edit history (2)

[font color = blue]>>June Payrolls (Number of Jobs, Not People with Jobs) Rose by 223,000, But Number of People with Full-Time Employment Dropped by 349,000 <<[/font]

No, the "June Payrolls", from the Establishment survey are payroll employees, not payroll jobs, according to the BLS. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

However, some of these are part-time employees, so I may be making a distinction without much of a difference. (Unfortunately part-time and full-time isn't broken out in the Establishment Survey).

The much more volatile and much less reliable Household Survey reports in Table A-9 that full-time workers dropped by 349,000 in June, like you say. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

However, this, as do just about all Household Survey statistics, bounces around from month to month. I all but disregard any month-to-month changes in household survey numbers and look at a longer period to smooth out some of the noise (the zigs and zags tend to somewhat even out over longer periods and the trend emerges).

To illustrate the volatility, here is the last 2 1/2 years of monthly change in full-time workers
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000
[font face = "courier new"]
2013: 83 -56 126 141 226 -101 4 306 416 -576 653 294
2014: 410 209 203 396 332 -538 196 310 552 371 -174 427
2015: 777 123 190 -252 630 -349 [/font]

Over the past 12 months, full-time employment has increased by 2,801,000, or 233,000/month on average.

(Not so good is that in the last 5 months, full-time employment has increased only by 342,000 (68,000/month average). Could possibly be mostly statistical noise or could be the start of a real trend... 5 straight months is a fairly long time to have such a shit average statistic without there being some real shit )

Since the jobs recovery began in March 2010, part-time workers have increased by 40,000 and full-time workers have increased by 10,275,000. (The right-wing meme (spread by their DU allies) that most of the new Obama-era jobs are part-time is a bunch of crap)

[font color = blue]>>June Payroll Gain of 223,000 Was Just 163,000, Net of a Downside Revision of 60,000 Jobs to Overstated May Payrolls <<[/font]

True.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta jobs calculator -- https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx
only about 112,000 net new employees are needed in order to keep up with population growth.

So 163,000 increased employment more than keeps up with population growth. According to the Federal Reserve jobs calculator above, 163,000 jobs/month over the next 12 months would reduce the unemployment rate from the current 5.3% to 4.9%. Not all that great, but a large step in the right direction.

But over the last 3 months we've averaged a 221,000/month gain in payroll employment. And over the last 12 months it has averaged 245,000/month. According to the Federal Reserve jobs calculator above, 245,000 jobs/month over the next 12 months is enough to reduce the unemployment rate from the current 5.3% to 4.3%.


[font color = blue]>>Bad News—Drop in Unemployment from 5.5% to 5.3% Reflected 375,000 Unemployed Disappearing from the Labor Force, Instead of Finding Gainful Employment <<[/font]

My figure is that the Labor Force (the sum of the employed plus the officially unemployed -- those who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks) declined by 432,000 in June, which is indeed very bad. But as with all Household Survey numbers, it is highly volatile. Over the past year the labor force has increased by 1,337,000.

Here is the month-to-month changes in the Household Survey's Labor Force over the last 2 1/2 years:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000

[font face = "courier new"]
Labor Force, thousands, change from the previous month:
2013: 272 -429 -370 375 161 199 -129 -103 19 -933 689 -257
2014: 439 202 492 -760 209 71 348 -30 -173 398 159 -273
2015: 1051 -178 -96 166 397 -432
January and February numbers are affected by changes in population controls. [/font]

Generally speaking, a drop in the unemployed is good, not bad, because in most months a drop in the unemployed is a result of finding jobs. But in June, according to the highly volatile Household Survey, employment dropped by 56,000. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post29 that compares the last 2 1/2 years of monthly changes of the Employed (Houshold Survey), Payroll Employees (Establishment Survey), and the labor force (Household Survey) showing the volatility of the Household Survey numbers.

[font color = blue]>>June 2015 Unemployment: 5.3% (U.3), 10.5% (U.6), 23.1% (ShadowStats) <<[/font]

U-6 counts everyone as unemployed who has looked for work, even just once, in the past year.

The ShadowStats is just fucking plain nonsense. If you count everyone who says they want a job, including part-timers who say they want full-time work, the unemployment rate number according to Paul Solman's U-7 indicator is 12.73%
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/junes-job-report/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/a-disjointed-jobs-report-and-u-7-month-two.html

I'm curious -- in months when the labor force numbers or the full-time worker numbers jump upward, do you make as big a hoo hah as in the months when they drop? And do you ever give some context, like how these numbers have done over say the past 12 months or since Obama was in office?

about "the right-wing meme (spread by their DU allies)", at least know what the hell you're talking about.

progree:

James Williams (shadowstats):



In short, BLS uses reported payroll jobs, not accurate, actual numbers of living, breathing employees.

So, you don't really know what you're talking about.

But just to humor your barely concealed accusation that shadowstats (and me) are "right wingers", consider this: James Williams is opposed to the Republicans (and corporate Democrats such as Obama) use of the bogus chained-CPI estimation, which would simply justify cutting of Social Security benefits. Meanwhile, your hero, Paul Solman, regularly uses his pbs platform to host the Social Security-cutting ravings of economist Larry Kotlikoff, one of billionaire Pete Peterson's anti-Social Security lapdogs.

So who's the "right winger"? You, or me?

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:01 AM - Edit history (6)

[font color = blue]>>In short, BLS uses reported payroll jobs, not accurate, actual numbers of living, breathing employees. <<[/font]

Sorry, it says "All Employees, Thousands", not "All Jobs, Thousands"

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Show me anywhere where the BLS says they are counting "jobs" not employees in the Establishment Survey.
http://bls.gov/ces

Likewise the Household Survey. http://bls.gov/cps

I believe the BLS over what some blogger on the Internet says that the righties love to quote. Unless given any reason to do so otherwise.

Every article I've read from any source says the Establishment Survey is much more accurate than the Household Survey (with the lone exception of your excerpt from Williams). And given the month to month volatility in the Household Survey results -- does any economist really believe that employment bounces around like this (from post #29) :

They make huge annual adjustments to the Household Survey numbers too, by the way.

As for right-wingers, they love peddling the aberrantly bad statistic or two of the month from the highly volatile Household Survey and making it out like it’s the whole history of the Obama administration. I've caught many of their DU allies (intentional or not) picking this stuff up like from Peter Morici and regurgitating it.

John Williams is being extremely dishonest when he peddles a negative one month change in Household Survey as being much more than statistical noise. (The same would be true if he were touting positive change numbers) I would believe him, and you much more if he gave us a little context -- like how things have been going in the last 6 months or a year. And how much the numbers bounce around from month to month. And no mention that the bad numbers of the month, e.g. full-time workers were preceded by the great numbers in the preceding month or so.

I know it is not only right-wingers that are peddling the bad numbers of the month, without context, and never peddling the same numbers in months when they were good. For some reason, some people who think of themselves as "progressives" just like to immerse themselves in a pity pot and tell their fellow progressives a deliberately one-sided view of the economy. Like telling us that 85% of jobs are "McJobs".

The pity-pot brigade that spread the right-wing memes like "most of the new jobs since the so-called recovery are part-time" on DU (without checking the facts out themselves or not even being interested about what the facts are) probably are not all or mostly right-wingers, but they are doing their work for them. (Despite that since the jobs recovery began in March 2010, part-time workers have increased by 40,000 and full-time workers have increased by 10,275,000).

By the way, I never accused you or Williams of being right-wingers. But I do point out the fact that it is a right-wing meme that most of the Obama - era net new jobs are part-time, and that they are indeed happily spread around by some DU-ers. Who are acting as their allies whether intentionally or not.

Especially a few months before an election (like in 2012 and 2014) where they really pour it on about how miserable the Obama economy is (people who believe that are more likely to sit at home (if progressives), or to vote Republican (if they are independent or leaning rightward) ). By citing deliberately and grossly misleading half-truths. (If it was honestly presented information, they have the right and even the responsibility to post it here and everywhere else).

You never told me what was wrong with Paul Solman's U-7 -- percent who say they want a job, period (no matter how long ago it was that they last looked for a job). 12.73% in June.

[font color = red]Edited to Add: Well, I get a slightly higher number, using June 2015 numbers from Table A-1 and Table A-8, namely 13.3%:[/font]

## Unemployment rate: 5.3% (Table A-1) - the official unemployment rate

## Unemployed: 8,299,000 (Table A-1) -- these are officially unemployed because they are jobless and looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks

## Persons not in labor force but who currently want a job: 6,076,000 (Table A-1) - these are not counted among the officially unemployed because they haven't looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks

## Part time for economic reasons: 6,506,000 (Table A-8) -- these are people who are working part-time who want a full-time job

## Labor force: 157,037,000 -- the employed + officially unemployed

## So, if you add those who currently want a job (but aren't counted as officially Unemployed) to the officially Unemployed, plus those working part-time who want full-time work, the total unemployed/underemployed would be 8,299,000 + 6,076,000 + 6,506,000 = 20,881,000. Including them in the unemployment rate would increase it to 5.3% * 20,881,000/8,299,000 = 13.3%

## ON EDIT: however, when the BLS calculates expanded measures of unemployment, they also add in the newly added unemployed groups to the labor force (denominator) as well as the numerator:

The expanded labor force = 157,037,000 + 6,076,000 = 163,113,000 {1}

The new unemployment rate: 20,881,000/163,113,000 = 12.80% -- very close to Solman's number of 12.73%

A far cry from Williams magic 23.1% figure. Is he counting those who say they don't want a job but, in William's estimation, really do?

{1} The part-timers who want full time work are not added to the denominator because they are already in the denominator -- they are counted as part of the official labor force (as employed workers). This is consistent with how the BLS calculates U-6 - which also includes part-timers who want full time work.

As for who the guests are, it is the Public Broadcasting System's Newshour, and they present multiple viewpoints in their opinion / analysis segments. Shame on them for that, right?

I don't consider people to be progressives who mislead their fellow progressives by telling us only about the aberrant bad numbers of the month from the extremely volatile Household Survey, And do so without any context.

Like did you make a big hoo hah when the BLS reported that full-time workers increased by 427,000 in December, 777,000 in January, and 630,000 in May? Or just when the numbers are bad? Did you tell us that despite the big reported 349,000 drop in full-time workers in June, that full-time employment over the past year has increased by 2,801,000, or 233,000/month on average? (More than twice what the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta jobs calculator says is needed to stay in place)

I report the numbers every month, all the main ones, good or bad. And I don't shy away from pointing out a negative trend, such as the average increase over the last 5 months of full-time workers being only 68,000/month. Like in the post you just answered, #44. Or in #15.

is claiming the goosed full time/part time employment numbers you're peddling:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/the-problem-with-part-time-work-theres-just-too-damn-much-of-it.html/?a=viewall

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/the-rise-of-part-time-work/

When you base everything on the false premise that everyone else' motivation is simply to make Obama look bad (as opposed to simply being accurate), you can't be expected to be taken too seriously.

Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 11:24 AM - Edit history (2)

[font color = blue]>>Funny how no one but the White House is claiming the goosed full time/part time employment numbers you're peddling<<[/font]

The statistics I'm reporting are the Bureau Of Labor Statistics ones, not "White House" ones. I made the source of every number clear in all my prior postings -- including giving the BLS link numbers.

You may think there is a vast conspiracy where the White House pressures the BLS to "goose up" the statistics, like Jack Welch and other right-wingers (and some of their DU allies) famously accused the BLS of doing in the lead-up to the 2012 election. I don't.

By the way, the articles you cited presented statistics from the BLS too.. [font color = red] Edited to Add 7/28/15 1016 A.M. CT:[/font] As were the all the items in your #43 except the last 2 items (construction stuff) and the garbage ShadowStats 23.1% unemployment number. And you extolled the Household Survey in #45 -- the same survey that shows the great 1-year and since-the-job-recovery-began numbers on the full-time jobs that you are so mightily struggling with.

So what you just said is a bunch of hooey, Louie. And you expect to be taken seriously if that's the best you can come up with?

I realize that a lot of job statistics are not as good as they were at the height of the housing bubble or the height of the Internet craze. That's what those articles are essentially saying (as opposed to how we've done since Obama took office, for example).

Both the housing and Internet bubbles were unsustainable bubbles that we are not likely to get back to, nor would we want to return to them because they were wild unstable periods headed inevitably for a big crash.

By the way, you might choose more up-to-date articles, and they in turn might show graphs more recent than a year or more before the article's publication date. There has been a lot of recovery in the full-time worker statistics in the past 2 years. All the information that I presented was as of the last monthly BLS report -- through June 2015.

Graphs are also provided by default in the links I give below (and they can easily be copied and pasted into a DU post)


OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months):
-1,011,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-330,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,801,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

OVER THE LAST 2 YEARS (last 24 months):
-1,619,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-210,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+4,910,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN in March 2010
-2,552,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
[font color = blue]+40,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+10,275,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)[/font]

The links to the data above:
# 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

This is also a good set of UP-TO-DATE charts of the part-time and full-time data and much else:
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

I think FactCheck.org summarizes it well in this RECENT article:

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 06:34 PM - Edit history (2)

[font color = blue]>>Funny how no one but the White House is claiming the goosed full time/part time employment numbers you're peddling[/font]

Just to recap what I said in post #49 - They come from the BLS, not the White House

[font color = blue]>>When you base everything on the false premise that everyone else' motivation is simply to make Obama look bad (as opposed to simply being accurate), you can't be expected to be taken too seriously<<[/font]

Hmm, well its hard not to see an intent to make Obama look bad in talking about the White House claiming goosed employment numbers. So, I get it. Obama is a liar, is forcing another goverment agency to lie, but you're not trying to make him look bad, of course.

As for me saying everyone else's motivation "is simply to make Obama look bad" is another hooey-like prevarication. (Though after post #48, I certainly have doubts about you).

Nowhere (read post #46 again, or any prior post) did I say everyone peddling the false right-wing memes about the Obama recovery being mostly part-time jobs are trying to make Obama look bad. Though it has that effect.

Like I said, there seems to be an incomprehensible pity pot brigade on DU that seems to get some bizarre satisfaction whenever they run across a bad one-month statistic or two that they can post about (and never post the same statistics in the months when they are good or great. Nor give us any longer-term context that will indicate the trend, as opposed to one month's wild zig or zag).

That's not "simply being accurate". Nor honest. It's more a psychological issue. It's about misleading your fellow progressives, plain and simple.

Ditto for the relatively few cheer-leader posts where they only post the good months of statistics having good months.

I post about a dozen of the most discussed statistics every month, both good and bad. Including part-time for economic reasons, part-time workers, and full-time workers that those articles you linked to in #48 discuss. I include the monthly changes (even though the vast majority of monthly change statistics, being from the extremely volatile statistically noisy Household Survey, are just about worthless), the 1 year changes, and since the Jobs Recovery began.

I see you haven't answered my question in post #47. {v/}-Noted

Hat tip, Justin Wolfers's Twitter feed

He got the day of the July release wrong. It's next Friday.

Hat tip for the link to his Twitter feed: the BLS Twitter feed

Unemployment projected to drop to 5.2% in July and reach 4.5% by December

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141163067

This is the McJobs effect. It's why "Payroll employment rises by 223,000 in June; unemployment rate declines to 5.3%"

[font color = blue]>> This is the McJobs effect.<< [/font]

Oh, I don't think so. It's not surprising that we have a recent slowdown in compensation growth, given that the Consumer Price Index has been basically flat over the past 12 months ( +0.2% )
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SA0

While the Employment Cost Index is up 2.0% over the past 12 months. Which translates to an inflation-adjusted increase of about 1.8% (2.0 - 0.2 = 1.8).

In the past year, the INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers is up 2.2%

And better than under G.W. Bush. And better than under Clinton even.
The below graph is the INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers through June 2015

I didn't see anyone making a big hoo hah 3 months ago when it was reported that compensation in the 1st quarter rose 0.7% (which is about a 2.8% annual rate -- against a backdrop of near zero inflation).