USA TODAY: Adjusted U.S. figures paint a rosier jobs picture

Job growth may be stronger than it appears.

Another healthy drop in unemployment claims reported last week is the latest clue that job gains might be more robust than the Labor Department's monthly reports show.

Some economists say jobless claims and other recent data show that employers likely added 200,000 to 300,000 jobs a month this year, rather than the 128,000 average reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The reason for the possible disparity: The government tends to underestimate both job gains in a recovery and job losses in a recession, the economists say. That helps explain why the nation's unemployment rate has fallen more sharply than the modest payroll increases suggest. The jobless rate was 8.9% last month, down from 9.8% in November.

"The data suggest there's been more improvement already in the employment numbers," says Jim O'Sullivan, chief economist of MF Global.

The rest of the article is here....http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-03-22-1Acountingjobs22_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip#

THE RECOVERY CONTINUES IN SPITE OF THE REPUBS!

So that is a good thing.

... thanks to BushCo economic malpractice.

Thank the Gods/Goddesses/Higher Power/Aqua Buddha for Team Obama!

FYI, mega-invested private companies have been hiring mucho hi-tech engineers and nanoscience research scientists in my region.

So none of those numbers are accurate.

The only accurate number is how many people are paying payroll taxes.
Every one who works pays payroll tax.

Divide that number by adult population of working age based on Census.
Then you may have something.

It does not matter if any of those people are not actively looking.
Lot of people are not looking for jobs because they have given up.

But that ratio is of great value in comparing prosperity in various periods.

...but you can't collect them every month. At least not with any details like industry, hours, or any demographics at all. Plus you run into the problem of multiple job holders. There are nearly 7 million people with more than one job, and they're counted twice in any payroll taxes. For the official employment numbers, they are counted twice (or 3x or 4x etc), which is why those numbers aren't used to calculate the unemployment rate.

And dividing by working age only gives you the equivalent of employment-population ratio, which is already calculated monthly. Now you say it doesn't matter if any are not actively looking because many have given up, but you're still including a great many people who don't want to work (or can't work). So that doesn't tell you what the actual labor market is like.

Look at the numbers from BLS: Adult civilian non-institutional population is 238,851,000. The employment-population ratio (which you're suggesting) is 58.4%. So what of the other 41.6%? 13,673,000 (5.7% of the population) are actively looking for work. That leaves 85,605,000 (38.5% of the population) not trying to work. Of those, only 6,410.000 say they want a job. And of those, only around 2,730,000 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm">table A-16 are available to work and have looked in the last year. And of those, only 1,020,000 have "given up," with the rest not looking for a variety of personal reasons.

So your justification for including 85,605,000 more people as unemployed is that 1 million have given up? Seriously?

during prosperous years such as the Clinton era, many more people
chose to work because jobs were going begging for people. So that ratio was
much higher, a very good indication of a prospering economy.

And you are correct that payroll tax figures are quarterly. So why do we
need to know about unreliable unemployment numbers every month, every week,
or every day? It is meaningless and fruitless. US economy is akin to a huge ship.
It does not turn around on a dime anyway.

Lastly that "people who have given up" is extremely UNreliable because there is
no formal place they go and register as such versus those who are actively looking.

So people can complain about them?

Let's just do away with these reports and have people guessing and making up stuff, sort of like Republicans do now.

Yeah, but that doesn't prevent the expectation that the "huge ship" can be turned around "on a dime."

Do you believe a larger stimulus in 2009 would have turned the economy around more quickly?

in the 50's when the social dynamic was different. Fewer stay at home wives, people working later in life have all changed the ratio. It is useful for broad trends, but doesn't address the actual market.

Monthly figures allow us to look at the dynamics and changes better, and more timely. And you're still ignoring the usefullness of industry and demographic data.

Except the data on job search doesn't come from any formal place where people register. The UE rate isn't based on UI claims, but on a monthly survey. The unreliability of not looking is based on subjectivity, not ability to collect.

LLC and self employed types pay none.

cry some big boehner tears