Job openings fall for second straight month

Reflects the situation of the last two months.

"As a result, on average there were 4.7 people competing for each available job. That's below the ratio of 6.3, reached in November 2009, That's below the ratio of 6.3, reached in November 2009, the highest since the department began tracking job openings in 2000."

Still a vast improvement from late 2009, early 2010.

Yes, but the job market still sucks. It just sucks a little bit less than before.

Touting 36,000 new jobs as a gain, and somehow the U3 percentage falls, miraculously, four tenths of a percent on those numbers.

When in reality any numerical gain in the employment figures is simply based on more and more people simply dropping out of the labor force.

This three card monte game being played by this administration with the employment numbers is worthy of Bush or Reagan. Sadly, it is being done by Obama.

If they're "cooking the unemployment figures," why aren't they cooking up a higher number of jobs?

You can disagree with the administration on jobs but no need to don the :tinfoilhat:

When the reality is that hundreds of thousands dropped out of the labor force instead, yeah, I'd call that cooking the books, much the same way it was cooking the books when Reagan decided to start including the military in the ranks of the employed in order to make his efforts look more productive.

Sure, people on all sides will always cherry-pick numbers to make their arguments but that does not amount to "cooking the books". It's called spin. Welcome to American politics.

The fact remains that for decades now, administrations have used various tricks in order to minimize the numbers of unemployed in this country. The fact of the matter is that if we were counting the unemployed in the straightforward manner first employed under FDR, our unemployment rate would be double what is currently being published as the "official" numbers. Call it what you want, but it is dishonest and unethical, no matter who does it.

Because it's not true. The calculations and definitions have NOT substantially changed. (cue the inevitable link to shadowstats which grossly misleads about past calculations and whose current data cannot be replicated and does not add up)

Here, educate yourself.

<http://seattlejobmarket.com/news/unemployment-data-ever-changing-standard-measurement>

Clinton dropped discouraged workers from the unemployment count. Reagan added the military into the employment count. Various other presidents have changed how the unemployed have been counted, always to their own political gain. The best rough measure of unemployment these days is to simply double the official U3 number that comes out every month.

In all, the way that unemployment has been measured has had thirty one major changes since the data started being kept. That is the truth, deal with it.

Discouraged were not in the unemployment count since 1967 (and it wasn't systematic, but interviewer discretion)...That was Johnson, not Clinton as you claimed. But discouraged are only around a million. How does that double anything?

The military were added in 1984, based on recommendations made in 1979, but they were taken out again in 1994.

No changes were made for political gain, but only after years and years of debates and inquiry.

Discouraged should NOT be in the stats: they're not participating in the labor market anymore than anyone else not looking for work.

Now, gain some knowledge...the only major change to the definitions, was in 1967. The 1984 change adding military was taken out in 1994.

Links (which you cannot provide for your claims): http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/employment/">Employment and Earnings Pick a year, pick a month, and read for yourself in Appendix what the definition was. The U-6 does NOT represent anything ever done before.

Apparently not, since you are claiming, despite the evidence of our own eyes, that I didn't provide a link. Oh well.

Speaking of not providing links to back your ass up with, when are you going to provide a link to back up your claims?

Oh, and according to the BLS, the military are still counted in the labor force.
<http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/07/art1full.pdf>

But you wish to believe otherwise, even if it means ignoring the facts. Who am I to stop you, it is like trying to stop a birther from believing that the president wasn't born in the US.

Seriously, you're quoting an article from 1984 for current? Really? And you're telling ME to read it? The date is even in the url, not to mention on every page. How the Hell is that current?

Ok, links: February 1994 Employment and Earnings] Goes through all the changes in effect. Note that "Discouraged" is not considered as unemployed. They never were after 1967. And it turns out I was wrong...including the military in the UE rate was actually discontinued in 1991, not 1994.

then your statement itself is "dishonest and unethical". Yes, yours is spin too. Deal with it.

you.got.owned.

My spouse and I are 60 and 64. Our entire social life the last few months has been going to retirement parties. Most of those retiring are between 55 and 60. Now that the stock market has returned to 2008 levels, a significant number of boomers' 501ks or TIAA/CREF accounts are healthy again and they are retiring in large numbers.

My niece just took a temporary position at the private university in our community where I worked from 1977-1986. Her temporary position was created because so many administrative staff retired in January. The retirements opened positions that will be filled through national searches so it will be months before permanent replacements are hired.

The union local from which my husband retired in 2003 had 3 of its staff of 10 retire between October and December.

The trucking company from which my brother-in-law is trying to retire asked him to stay on another 6 months because they have so many driving positions to fill. He is one of only 5 remaining experienced drivers working out of their Tacoma terminal. They have 15 current openings for drivers with class A CDLs and two years experience. These are Teamster positions with Teamsters medical and pension and a starting wage of $22/hr. According to my brother-in-law, 2 of every 3 applicants for the open positions fail the mandatory pre-employment drug test.

According to a story in my local paper, WorkSource (the former state unemployment office)had more listings for jobs available last week than they have had at any time since April 2008 and WorkSource and Labor Ready were both receiving more requests for temporary workers than they have since early 2008.

600 openings locally. 3500 people actively looking.

I am happy you are fortunate enough to have a retirement. Please don't forget a full third of people are not nearly so, retiring with nothing but social security.

That includes the tens of thousands of 50-something workers who have been laid off from the last job they will ever
have, with 10 years to go before they can even get reduced SSI, after their year or so of unemployment.

I meet them, and others, over and over when I do taxes for AARP, almost the most-fullfilling, but certainly the most depressing volunteer job I have ever had.

The gain of 36k has nothing at all to do with the U3. The 36K comes from the non-farm payroll survey, while the Unemployment rate comes from a household survey. Different time periods, different samples, different coverage. One possible difference is that multiple job holders dropped. The establishment survey counts jobs, while the household survey counts people. So if a person has 2 jobs and quits or is fired from one, the establishment survey will count a loss of one job, while the household survey remains unchanged (because the person is still employed). Self-employed also went up, and that's not covered in the establishment survey either.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're welcome to join us in reality any time you'd like.

for all the people who can handle the truth.

Seriously, do a little homework. Before the great great depression they were called panics, but economists found the term a bit too harsh so they decided to call them depressions. Then another group of economists decided that the term depression was too harsh, so they decided to call them recessions.

To your second point, he's running out of time. Prices are rising, wages are flat and employment is not growing fast enough.

In fact, I would argue that wages are moving backwards since the jobs being created are not paying nearly what the jobs were that people lost.

You better start looking for a new excuse, this one is getting old.