Bushy left us a hell of a mess. But in spite of your whining, crying, pissing and moaning, the economy appears to have turned an important corner.
I know this is fucking horrible news for most of you Anti-American shitheels, but it's amazing considering the amount of resistance there's been to fixing what the GOP fucked up!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/bu...business&_r=1&
Employers have hired at least 200,000 workers in three of the last four months, including 203,000 in November. By contrast, as recently as July, when the economy seemed stuck in yet another summer swoon, only 89,000 new jobs were created.
The better-than-expected data from the Labor Department on Friday follows other hopeful economic indicators this week, including an upward revision for economic growth in the third quarter on Thursday and an uptick in manufacturing reported on Monday.
The 7 percent unemployment rate last month — down from its most recent peak of 10 percent in October 2009 — is the best reading since President Obama took office, providing one bright spot for a White House beleaguered on many other fronts. The unemployment rate was 7.3 percent in December 2008, the month before Mr. Obama was inaugurated.
“The headwinds are fading and the tailwinds are gaining strength,” said Michael Hanson, senior United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, ticking off sources of growth like pent-up demand for automobiles, a rebounding housing sector and the surging stock market.
The stock market rose by more than 1 percent after the jobs report, as traders concluded that the prospect of higher employment and faster economic growth outweighed the increased likelihood that the Federal Reserve would soon begin easing back on its stimulus efforts.
While there is a chance that policy makers will act when they meet later this month, most experts say they believe that Fed officials want to see a little more consistency to the data before they begin tapering, probably early in 2014.
“We consider it a strong report but it’s not something that would cause the Fed to move,” said Michael Gapen, senior United States economist at Barclays. “Our scenario is still March.”
One reason for remaining cautious is that there have been several false dawns before in the current recovery, including in early 2011 and again in early 2012, when encouraging monthly hiring gains quickly petered out. And some economists warned on Friday that it was too soon to conclude the labor market had turned a corner.
“We still need more evidence that the economy is picking up momentum before we ring the victory bell,” said Julia Coronado, chief economist for North America at BNP Paribas. While the unemployment rate, which counts only people actively looking for work, has fallen to 7 percent, from 7.8 percent a year ago, she said that was largely because of people dropping out of the work force.
Moreover, the current level is well above the 5 percent rate that economists consider closer to full employment. At the current rate of job creation, unemployment would fall to 6.4 percent by the end of 2014, and still be around 5.7 percent in late 2015.
Despite the overall improvement in the employment picture, the situation remains desperate for many American workers and those seeking jobs.
For people with less than a high school diploma, for example, the jobless rate last month stood at 10.8 percent. For African-Americans, it was 12.5 percent, or nearly twice what it was for whites.
No improvement was seen in the fate of the long-term unemployed, either, with the ranks of people who have been seeking jobs for more than 27 weeks actually rising slightly in November to 4.06 million. Employers remain wary of workers with long gaps in their résumés, and skills erode the longer people are out of a job.
“We still have a crisis in terms of long-term unemployment,” said Christine L. Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage and unemployed workers. “We need solutions like extending support while also encouraging policies that will promote re-employment,” she added, citing potential programs like tax breaks for firms that hire the long-term jobless.
- Yssup Rider
- 12-09-2013, 08:51 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 09:39 PM
You are a real Idiot... http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-is-the-...ployment-rate/
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?
It's far higher than the official 7.3 percent.
by
TOM BLUMER
Bio
November 12, 2013 - 10:39 pmPage 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
Just beneath the surface, the government’s latest employment report shows how much damage the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy, now well into its sixth year, has done to the country’s economic fabric. The impact of Obamacare, if it isn’t stopped, will only compound it.
Even the relatively decent news in Uncle Sam’s October report was suspect.
Employers are said to have added 204,000 seasonally adjusted jobs. But as the Associated Press noted, the government, thanks to the 17 percent government shutdown, had an extra week to retrieve its surveys from employers, and therefore had a higher than usual response rate. It doesn’t seem as if this should matter, but apparently the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a history of estimating high in its initial releases when it has more time to collect and assemble the data. Additionally, economist Mark Zandi believes that “businesses may have inadvertently counted employment for an extra week.”
Even more questionable are the BLS’s revisions to August and September. As seen below, the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) figures show no revised net improvement during those two months. But that goose egg somehow turned into 60,000 additional jobs during seasonal conversion:
Then there’s the unemployment rate. Even though it ticked up to 7.3 percent, that was also supposedly good news, because it would have dropped if it weren’t for the 850,000 federal government workers furloughed during part or all of the partial shutdown and treated as unemployed.
The real problem, thanks to the POR economy’s progenitors and the Obamanomics policies which have accompanied it since January 2009, is that the official unemployment rate is more unreflective of true job market conditions than it has ever been.
During Republican and conservative presidential administrations, those on the left, particularly in organized labor, often complained bitterly that the official unemployment rate fails to count discouraged workers and those who are working part-time for economic reasons. For some reason — I wonder why? — they’re incredibly quiet these days, even though their complaint, as we will see, is far more valid.
In August 1982, AFL-CIO head Lane Kirkland contended that the previous month’s official 9.8 percent unemployment rate, so adjusted, would have been 13.6 percent, or 3.8 points higher. That’s interesting, because October 2013′s seasonally adjusted “U-6″ unemployment rate, after I adjusted the official 13.8 percent down by 0.2 points to account for those furloughed government workers, was that very same 13.6 percent, even though the official 7.3 percent “U-3″ unemployment rate was 2.5 points lower than it was at the time of Kirkland’s complaint.
What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?
It's far higher than the official 7.3 percent.
by
TOM BLUMER
Bio
November 12, 2013 - 10:39 pmPage 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single Page
Just beneath the surface, the government’s latest employment report shows how much damage the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy, now well into its sixth year, has done to the country’s economic fabric. The impact of Obamacare, if it isn’t stopped, will only compound it.
Even the relatively decent news in Uncle Sam’s October report was suspect.
Employers are said to have added 204,000 seasonally adjusted jobs. But as the Associated Press noted, the government, thanks to the 17 percent government shutdown, had an extra week to retrieve its surveys from employers, and therefore had a higher than usual response rate. It doesn’t seem as if this should matter, but apparently the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a history of estimating high in its initial releases when it has more time to collect and assemble the data. Additionally, economist Mark Zandi believes that “businesses may have inadvertently counted employment for an extra week.”
Even more questionable are the BLS’s revisions to August and September. As seen below, the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) figures show no revised net improvement during those two months. But that goose egg somehow turned into 60,000 additional jobs during seasonal conversion:
Then there’s the unemployment rate. Even though it ticked up to 7.3 percent, that was also supposedly good news, because it would have dropped if it weren’t for the 850,000 federal government workers furloughed during part or all of the partial shutdown and treated as unemployed.
The real problem, thanks to the POR economy’s progenitors and the Obamanomics policies which have accompanied it since January 2009, is that the official unemployment rate is more unreflective of true job market conditions than it has ever been.
During Republican and conservative presidential administrations, those on the left, particularly in organized labor, often complained bitterly that the official unemployment rate fails to count discouraged workers and those who are working part-time for economic reasons. For some reason — I wonder why? — they’re incredibly quiet these days, even though their complaint, as we will see, is far more valid.
In August 1982, AFL-CIO head Lane Kirkland contended that the previous month’s official 9.8 percent unemployment rate, so adjusted, would have been 13.6 percent, or 3.8 points higher. That’s interesting, because October 2013′s seasonally adjusted “U-6″ unemployment rate, after I adjusted the official 13.8 percent down by 0.2 points to account for those furloughed government workers, was that very same 13.6 percent, even though the official 7.3 percent “U-3″ unemployment rate was 2.5 points lower than it was at the time of Kirkland’s complaint.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 09:42 PM
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...loyment-charts
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
- RedLeg505
- 12-09-2013, 09:45 PM
ROFL.. yeah, ain't it GREAT so many have stopped looking for work so Obama's rate could go down? Gotta love the Dem's outlook. When Bush had the unemployment rate at 5.6% before the Dems took over the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi cried.."Mr President.. WHERE ARE THE JOBS" with a job participation rate of 66.4 in Jan 2007 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000). And now, the Obama-bots want to celebrate a job participation rate of barely 63%. Too funny.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 09:47 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-
Wire/2013/1206/Unemployment-rate-drops-how-to-read-Friday-s-jobs-report
Unemployment rate drops: how to read Friday's jobs report
The unemployment rate dipped to a five-year low of 7 percent in November. That’s good. But that figure does not really measure the total number of out-of-work Americans.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / December 6, 2013
White House press secretary Jay Carney gestures to a display about job numbers during the daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Friday.
WASHINGTON
The monthly jobs numbers are among the most important and anticipated economic measures produced by the federal government. On Fridays prior to their release, reporters, economists, and number nerds gather on Twitter and other social media and count toward the magic hour of 8:30 a.m. Eastern time as if they’re football fans awaiting Game Day kickoff.
Peter Grier
Washington Editor
Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the
The Christian Science Monitor
Weekly Digital Edition
Then “Boom!” the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases the report, and immediately experts are racing through it to divine its meaning. The top-line unemployment rate seems clear enough, and usually it’s indicative, but then all those folks on CNBC start rattling off sub-numbers to make subsidiary points. They’ll say stuff like “non-farm seasonally-adjusted retail payrolls are flat, so the markets will freak out like tweener girls!” and so on.
After that they start throwing around “U-6” and “monthly revisions” and arguing about what the Fed will do, so you switch to PBS in search of old British sitcoms. Is the jobs report really that complicated?
RECOMMENDED: What is your social class? Take our quiz to find out!
Well, it’s got a lot of things in it. The actual report is some 40 pages of data. But here’s our guide to a trick (or two) that will help you make sense of the numbers and sound like an expert to boot.
We’ll start with Friday's report on November’s job situation. Unemployment dipped down to a five-year low of 7 percent. That’s good – it shows that hiring has picked up and remained strong since mid-summer. It’s better than many experts expected. Americans with jobs are working more hours and their wages are going up a bit.
“The numbers amount to confirmation that the jobs recovery remains underway, is well-entrenched, and is solid and steady,” concludes Neil Irwin, economic czar of the Washington Post’s Wonkblog.
But here’s the trick: the unemployment rate does not really measure the total number of out-of-work Americans.
It’s a solid number in the sense that it is a consistent measure that over time provides a good idea of the state of the US economy. But it counts a shifting population of Americans who do not have a job, but haven’t been out of work for an extended period of time, and are still looking, since they haven’t gone back to school or joined the military or taken a seasonal job at Williams-Sonoma because they just got laid off.
It’s true. The BLS unemployment measure does not include people who have been out of work for 12 months. It does not count “discouraged” workers who have given up looking for a job. It does not count people who are underemployed, such as PhD microbiologists working as nannies. (Yes, “Doonesbury”, we’re looking at you.)
The BLS does have a broader measure of unemployment that includes these people. To us, it gives a better picture of the social impact of joblessness throughout the economy. This is the “U-6” unemployment number. For November, it stood at 12.7 percent, down from 13.2 percent in October.
So, getting better. But not great by any means.
One last pro tip: The labor force participation rate is fun to look at, too. OK, maybe not “fun,” but instructive.
That’s because lots of new workers enter the job market every month. Some 125,000, in fact. So just looking at the number of jobs created does not tell you everything that’s happening. The labor force participation rate shows how well US job creation is keeping up with this influx of newbies while providing new opportunity for the veteran unemployed.
November’s participation rate was 63 percent, up from 62.8 percent in October. But this number is still at a low point in comparison to recent years. A year ago it was 64 percent, for example.
The bottom line there may be that the US economy is still struggling to lift out of the morass of joblessness created by the Great Recession.
Wire/2013/1206/Unemployment-rate-drops-how-to-read-Friday-s-jobs-report
Unemployment rate drops: how to read Friday's jobs report
The unemployment rate dipped to a five-year low of 7 percent in November. That’s good. But that figure does not really measure the total number of out-of-work Americans.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / December 6, 2013
White House press secretary Jay Carney gestures to a display about job numbers during the daily news briefing at the White House in Washington, Friday.
WASHINGTON
The monthly jobs numbers are among the most important and anticipated economic measures produced by the federal government. On Fridays prior to their release, reporters, economists, and number nerds gather on Twitter and other social media and count toward the magic hour of 8:30 a.m. Eastern time as if they’re football fans awaiting Game Day kickoff.
Peter Grier
Washington Editor
Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the
The Christian Science Monitor
Weekly Digital Edition
Then “Boom!” the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases the report, and immediately experts are racing through it to divine its meaning. The top-line unemployment rate seems clear enough, and usually it’s indicative, but then all those folks on CNBC start rattling off sub-numbers to make subsidiary points. They’ll say stuff like “non-farm seasonally-adjusted retail payrolls are flat, so the markets will freak out like tweener girls!” and so on.
After that they start throwing around “U-6” and “monthly revisions” and arguing about what the Fed will do, so you switch to PBS in search of old British sitcoms. Is the jobs report really that complicated?
RECOMMENDED: What is your social class? Take our quiz to find out!
Well, it’s got a lot of things in it. The actual report is some 40 pages of data. But here’s our guide to a trick (or two) that will help you make sense of the numbers and sound like an expert to boot.
We’ll start with Friday's report on November’s job situation. Unemployment dipped down to a five-year low of 7 percent. That’s good – it shows that hiring has picked up and remained strong since mid-summer. It’s better than many experts expected. Americans with jobs are working more hours and their wages are going up a bit.
“The numbers amount to confirmation that the jobs recovery remains underway, is well-entrenched, and is solid and steady,” concludes Neil Irwin, economic czar of the Washington Post’s Wonkblog.
But here’s the trick: the unemployment rate does not really measure the total number of out-of-work Americans.
It’s a solid number in the sense that it is a consistent measure that over time provides a good idea of the state of the US economy. But it counts a shifting population of Americans who do not have a job, but haven’t been out of work for an extended period of time, and are still looking, since they haven’t gone back to school or joined the military or taken a seasonal job at Williams-Sonoma because they just got laid off.
It’s true. The BLS unemployment measure does not include people who have been out of work for 12 months. It does not count “discouraged” workers who have given up looking for a job. It does not count people who are underemployed, such as PhD microbiologists working as nannies. (Yes, “Doonesbury”, we’re looking at you.)
The BLS does have a broader measure of unemployment that includes these people. To us, it gives a better picture of the social impact of joblessness throughout the economy. This is the “U-6” unemployment number. For November, it stood at 12.7 percent, down from 13.2 percent in October.
So, getting better. But not great by any means.
One last pro tip: The labor force participation rate is fun to look at, too. OK, maybe not “fun,” but instructive.
That’s because lots of new workers enter the job market every month. Some 125,000, in fact. So just looking at the number of jobs created does not tell you everything that’s happening. The labor force participation rate shows how well US job creation is keeping up with this influx of newbies while providing new opportunity for the veteran unemployed.
November’s participation rate was 63 percent, up from 62.8 percent in October. But this number is still at a low point in comparison to recent years. A year ago it was 64 percent, for example.
The bottom line there may be that the US economy is still struggling to lift out of the morass of joblessness created by the Great Recession.
- acp5762
- 12-09-2013, 09:50 PM
Don't make moronic statements about people hating America ok jerkoff. You know dam good and well if a Republican was in office right now you wouldn't even be posting that article.
- Submodo
- 12-09-2013, 10:01 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-... It does not count people who are underemployed, such as PhD microbiologists working as nannies. (Yes, “Doonesbury”, we’re looking at you.) Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDBWait, don't we need to increase the number of H1B visa to 1 million a year (or 6 million, I forget) because americans are so stupid and don't want to major in the sciences?
That's what the man in the suit said on that cable business channel. There's this great shortage of high-tech workers.
- BJerk
- 12-09-2013, 10:07 PM
Wait, don't we need to increase the number of H1B visa to 1 million a year (or 6 million, I forget) because americans are so stupid and don't want to major in the sciences?There is a great shortage of tech workers willing to be slaves of big business!
That's what the man in the suit said on that cable business channel. There's this great shortage of high-tech workers. Originally Posted by Submodo
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 10:08 PM
I agree but sharqueena monika iketha williams and Dandrika darshay beuncle bonay williams would rather party all night and sleep late. Besides they got some EBT.
- Submodo
- 12-09-2013, 10:22 PM
How many bills have been sponsored this year to eliminate all H1B visas, since unemployment is so bad?
- BJerk
- 12-09-2013, 10:28 PM
- Yssup Rider
- 12-09-2013, 10:30 PM
I agree but sharqueena monika iketha williams and Dandrika darshay beuncle bonay williams would rather party all night and sleep late. Besides they got some EBT. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDBawesome.
You're as big a racist as your big daddy, IBIdiot!
that said... I posted this bit of good news because I was absolutely certain the jackals would start howling.
You are absolutely an anti-american bunch of pussies. ALWAYS playing the "Don't".
you deserve to lose.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 10:32 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 10:33 PM
- Yssup Rider
- 12-09-2013, 10:36 PM
Youre an expert not he strong sauce, aren't you Cuckoo's Nest?