Unemployment down to 8.3%; jobs up 243,000

[memphis]

the number of jobless fell to 12,758,000...it was the strongest signal yet that an economic recovery was spreading to the jobs market.

what this doesn't tell you is 1.1 Million people stopped looking for work last month and thus are not counted as unemployed...and the participation rate fell to a new 30 year low (63.7%).

30 years ago puts you back at the participation rate of the '82 recession, when not as many women worked outside the home.

That graph would be damning evidence, if it weren't covering  the movement of a statistically insignificant 3 percentage points over thirty years.

yeah, it's just all random background noise, right? after all, what's significant about 7 million people?

It's been 67 years since the end of WWII. That might have something to do with it. People who are that bad off don't stop looking for work.  America's just getting old and retired. Get used to it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's been 67 years since the end of WWII. That might have something to do with it. People who are that bad off don't stop looking for work.  America's just getting old and retired. Get used to it.

yo, those over the age of 65 are NOT included in the work force, therefore it is automatically adjusted for aging.  this graph is correlated to job growth relative to the labor force - you have to have STRONG job growth, quicker than the change in the labor force, for this graph to slope upper.  it's not rocket science.

things might change in the coming months, but right now, we're still falling off a cliff.

[Oakvale]

The idea that 1 million people stopped looking for work last month actually isn't true.

The figure's due to adjusted figures based on the 2010 Census, which is used in calculating the labour force as of January 2012.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DrScholl]

This is good news and some people want to insist on making it into something negative. It really is transparent what the real issue is and that's electoral chances.

[Linus Van Pelt]

It's been 67 years since the end of WWII. That might have something to do with it. People who are that bad off don't stop looking for work.  America's just getting old and retired. Get used to it.

yo, those over the age of 65 are NOT included in the work force, therefore it is automatically adjusted for aging.  this graph is correlated to job growth relative to the labor force - you have to have STRONG job growth, quicker than the change in the labor force, for this graph to slope upper.  it's not rocket science.

things might change in the coming months, but right now, we're still falling off a cliff.

No, Memphis is correct here. Civilian labor force participation is defined by the BLS as a percentage of all persons over age 16.

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

At the above link the definition of "16 years and over" is clear, and if you change the starting year in the drop-down menu to 1984 you will see that your chart above is taken straight from these data. At this link, meanwhile, you will see the rate broken down by age; the categories go up to "75 and over".

Civilian labor force participation is thus highly sensitive to the aging of the population.

[Sbane]

Knew I shouldn't have taken Jmfcst's word for it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, Memphis is correct here. Civilian labor force participation is defined by the BLS as a percentage of all persons over age 16.

i checked your links, good catch.  but that's really gay - why the heck would they include the  catatonic elderly in the labor "force"?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Knew I shouldn't have taken Jmfcst's word for it.

careful...

I was just going by wiki: "In economics, a labor force or labour force is a region's combined civilian workforce, including both the employed and unemployed.[1]

Normally, the labor force of a country (or other geographic entity) consists of everyone of working age (typically above a certain age (around 14 to 16) and below retirement (around 65) who are participating workers, that is people actively employed or seeking employment. People not counted include students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions, people employed in jobs or professions with unreported income, as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work."

[memphis]

Even without the proof, the whole notion that only 64% of people of working age work didn't pass the sniff test.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Even without the proof, the whole notion that only 64% of people of working age work didn't pass the sniff test.

why not? as if 67% would pass a snif test?!

 college students and house wives are counted in the work force, but not as participants...so that could easily account for a good chunk of adults

we need to see this graph refreshed with those 65 and over excluded

[memphis]

Even without the proof, the whole notion that only 64% of people of working age work didn't pass the sniff test.

why not? as if 67% would pass a snif test?!

 college students and house wives are counted in the work force, but not as participants...so that could easily account for a good chunk of adults

we need to see this graph refreshed with those 65 and over excluded

67% isn't feasible either. It's not 1952. There aren't that many housewives around. And an enormous number of college students work also.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

67% isn't feasible either. It's not 1952. There aren't that many housewives around. And an enormous number of college students work also.

well, in my home there are 3 members of the work force: me, my wife, and my 16 year old daughter.  But only I work, so that is just 33%...and even if my wife worked (now, that a HUGE hypothetical), that's still only 67%.

and, in two years, my son will be 16...so that is only 25% participation rate, and only 50% if my wife works.

so, 67% aint a suspicious number to me, especially since 8.3% are unwillingly unemployed and looking for work... with 8% unemployment, you only need another 25% sitting on the side lines (school, house wives, etc) to get to 67% participation rate.

[Linus Van Pelt]

From my second link above, by age and gender (from 2010, the most recent data on this site with the demographic breakdowns, so more useful for the overall social pattern than the exact details of this month):

M 16-24: 56.8            F 16-24: 53.6
M 25-34: 90.3            F 25-34: 74.7
M 35-44: 91.5            F 35-44: 75.2
M 45-54: 86.8            F 45-54: 75.7
M 55-64: 70.0            F 55-64: 60.2
M 65-74: 30.4            F 65-74: 21.6
M 75+: 10.4               F 75+: 5.3

[memphis]

67% isn't feasible either. It's not 1952. There aren't that many housewives around. And an enormous number of college students work also.

well, in my home there are 3 members of the work force: me, my wife, and my 16 year old daughter.  But only I work, so that is just 33%...and even if my wife worked (now, that a HUGE hypothetical), that's still only 67%.

and, in two years, my son will be 16...so that is only 25% participation rate, and only 50% if my wife works.

so, 67% aint a suspicious number to me, especially since 8.3% are unwillingly unemployed and looking for work... with 8% unemployment, you only need another 25% sitting on the side lines (school, house wives, etc) to get to 67% participation rate.

Perhaps you need to meet people outside of your family. Most everybody from 18-65, man and woman, is busting their a$$, trying to pay their bills.

[BigSkyBob]

The jobs number was "revised" to plus 243,000. The real number was a job loss of over two million jobs. Noone will know until later if the guestimated increase in the seasonal adjustment over last year was appropriate, or not.

Trimtabs does a job creation estimate based on the amount of real-time tax withholdings. That estimate put January's figure at 45,000 jobs [comparable to about 70,00 BLS jobs for some odd reason], the worst month in the last year.