U.S. Payrolls Increased by 80,000 in October as Jobless Rate Falls to 9%

[CARLHAYDEN]

U.S. Payrolls Increased by 80,000 in October as Jobless Rate Falls to 9%

By Shobhana Chandra - Nov 4, 2011

U.S. employment climbed in October at the slowest pace in four months…  (which) was less than forecast (but,) the unemployment rate fell to a six-month low of 9 percent from 9.1 percent even as the labor force expanded.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-04/u-s-payrolls-increased-by-80-000-in-october-as-jobless-rate-falls-to-9-.html

[greenforest32]

The U-6 rate is 16.2%: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

80,000 is weak

[phk]

The U-6 rate is 16.2%: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

80,000 is weak

They are probably not counting the seasonal temps.

[Sbane]

It's interesting that the numbers for August and September were revised upwards. Does anyone know why that was the case, and if the trend is likely to continue into this month?

[Torie]

Why did the size of the workforce increase so anemically? I thought it usually went up 100,000 to 120,000 per month, which would translate into a higher unemployment rate with 80,000 jobs added, not a lower one.

[opebo]

Why did the size of the workforce increase so anemically? I thought it usually went up 100,000 to 120,000 per month, which would translate into a higher unemployment rate with 80,000 jobs added, not a lower one.

Suicides, most likely, Torie.

[Beet]

Unemployment rate is calculated from the household survey, which showed 277,000 jobs added in October.

[Torie]

Unemployment rate is calculated from the household survey, which showed 277,000 jobs added in October.

What does the 80,000 figure represent then?

[Beet]

Unemployment rate is calculated from the household survey, which showed 277,000 jobs added in October.

What does the 80,000 figure represent then?

It represents the same thing only it's from a different survey.

[pinqy]

Non-farm payroll.  Basically, all non-agricultural businesses that pay into Unemployment Insurance.  It's a much larger survey then the household survey, so it's more accurate, but it excludes a lot of people....farm workers, self-employed, and people who work in other people's houses.  

It also counts jobs, not people, so someone with 2 jobs is counted twice.

The household survey is total employment, but from a smaller sample, and counts a person once no matter how many jobs.

The BLS website has the technical note for the news release which explains the differences.

[Torie]

Thanks for that most lucid explanation pinqy, and welcome to the forum!  I need all the help I can get. In the meantime, I remain confused if employment is going up or down.

[phk]

Thanks for that most lucid explanation pinqy, and welcome to the forum!  I need all the help I can get. In the meantime, I remain confused if employment is going up or down.

Household Survey has no seasonal adjustment.

[pinqy]

Yes, it does.  The reported number is seasonally adjusted.  The unadjusted rate for October is 8.5%

[Jacobtm]

Thanks for that most lucid explanation pinqy, and welcome to the forum!  I need all the help I can get. In the meantime, I remain confused if employment is going up or down.

There are fewer new jobs being created then there are people entering the working-age population.

The unemployment rate dropped only because we stopped counting people who stopped actively looking for work.

The jobless proportion of our country is still growing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thanks for that most lucid explanation pinqy, and welcome to the forum!  I need all the help I can get. In the meantime, I remain confused if employment is going up or down.

There are fewer new jobs being created then there are people entering the working-age population.

The unemployment rate dropped only because we stopped counting people who stopped actively looking for work.

The jobless proportion of our country is still growing.

You are exactly correct.

In December of 2008, the unadjusted Civilian noninstutional population was approximately 235,035,000 while in October of 2011 it was approximately 240,269,000.035

The unadjusted number of employed in December of 2008 was approximately 143,350,000 while in October of 2011 it was approximately 140,987,000.

So, in  December of 2008 approximately 61.0 % of the Civilian noninstitutional population was employed, while in October of 2011, approximately 58.7 % of the Civilian noninstitutional population was employed.

[pinqy]

The unemployment rate dropped only because we stopped counting people who stopped actively looking for work.

The jobless proportion of our country is still growing.

Nope.  From Sept 2011 to Oct 2011 the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population increased by 198,000. The Labor Force increased 181,000 (+277,000 employed, -95,000 unemployed) and Not in the Labor Force only increased by 17,000

So the drop in the UE rate was absolutely not from people dropping out of the labor force.  Discouraged workers (no longer looking due to belief that they would not get hired) dropped by 70,000.  The Labor Force participation rate stayed flat at 64.2%, but the employment/population ratio went up from 58.3 to 58.4%

[Person Man]

The U-6 rate is 16.2%: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

80,000 is weak

So, this economy is comparable to the 21% u-rate of the Great Depression.

[pinqy]

No, because the definitions used to calculate the UE rate for the 30's (which weren't done until the late 40's) are not anywhere near related to the U-6.  The U-6 includes "part time for economic reasons" which nobody ever has used as part of an official definition, and it also includes "Marginally Attached" which wasn't a concept until 1994.  Some of what we now call "discouraged workers were included in the pre-1967 definition, and that's closer to the U-4 measurement (currently at 9.6%).

So we are nowhere close to the 20-25% seen in the 1930's.

[Beet]

Welcome to the forum pinqy.