[FYIbiatches]

blah.. we need it down...


PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.3% in February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is now essentially the same as the 10.4% at the end of February 2010.

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Hitting 10.3% in February




The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work worsened considerably in February, increasing to 9.6% of the workforce from 9.1% at the end of January. A larger percentage of the U.S. workforce is working part time and wanting full-time work now than was the case a year ago (9.3%).



Underemployment Surges in February

Underemployment, a measure that combines part-time workers wanting full-time work with those who are unemployed, surged in February to 19.9%. This resulted from the combination of a sharp 0.5-point increase since the end of January in the percentage unemployed and a 0.5-point increase in the percentage working part time but wanting full-time work. Underemployment is now higher than it was at this point a year ago (19.7%).



There is essentially no difference between the unemployment rate now and the one at this time a year ago; January's rate, in contrast, showed a 1.1-percentage-point year-over-year improvement. This suggests that the real U.S. jobs situation worsened in February. That is, jobs are relatively less available now than in January.

In the broader underemployment picture, the situation is much the same. January's year-over-year improvement of 1.0 points became -0.2 points in February. In turn, this suggests job market conditions in terms of underemployment also worsened during February.

This deterioration in the jobs situation combined with surging gas prices, budget battles at the federal and state level, and declines on Wall Street tend to explain the recent plunge Gallup recorded in consumer confidence. They also align with the continued "new normal" spending patterns of early 2011. Although Gallup's Job Creation Index has improved over the past year and showed modest improvement in February, the improvement has not been significant enough to positively affect underemployment and unemployment.

Warren Buffet said Wednesday on CNBC that the U.S. unemployment rate should be in the low 7% range by late 2012. If that is going to be the case, the job creation environment must change dramatically from what it is today

How can that be, I mean all we heard was the Bush (temp) tax cuts would cause companies to invest in their companies and hire more people. So the TEMP tax cuts were extended. Why didn't the companies hire more people.

[varrozans]

How can that be, I mean all we heard was the Bush (temp) tax cuts would cause companies to invest in their companies and hire more people. So the TEMP tax cuts were extended. Why didn't the companies hire more people.

They extra money always goes into their bank accounts then they fire more employees to increase it even further.

[fereupfer]

Ohh, I see. So, your source is correct when you like it, and the government numbers are only correct when you like them?

That sum it up?

The government unemployement figures have been jacked up since the 90's when the governmnet changed who they would COUNT.

Since you want to play DUMB 8.9% is the figure of people who are actually GETTING UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS OR ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WORK.. this does not count those who have been declined unemployement, or whose unemployement has run out due to a failue to get another extention.

The gallup number is found by

Survey Methods
Gallup classifies American workers as underemployed if they are either unemployed or working part time but wanting full-time work. The findings reflect approximately 18,000 phone interviews with U.S. adults aged 18 and older in the workforce, collected over a 30-day period. Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and are ahead of government reports by approximately two weeks.

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 30-Feb. 28, 2011, with a random sample of 17,996 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 200 cell phone respondents and 800 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, cell phone-only status, cell phone-mostly status, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management.

[Gedominew]

The government unemployement figures have been jacked up since the 90's when the governmnet changed who they would COUNT.

Since you want to play DUMB 8.9% is the figure of people who are actually GETTING UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS OR ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WORK.. this does not count those who have been declined unemployement, or whose unemployement has run out due to a failue to get another extention.

The gallup number is found by

Survey Methods
Gallup classifies American workers as underemployed if they are either unemployed or working part time but wanting full-time work. The findings reflect approximately 18,000 phone interviews with U.S. adults aged 18 and older in the workforce, collected over a 30-day period. Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and are ahead of government reports by approximately two weeks.

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 30-Feb. 28, 2011, with a random sample of 17,996 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 200 cell phone respondents and 800 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, cell phone-only status, cell phone-mostly status, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management.

I'm fully aware of how the statistic is created. I also objected to the change when it was made.

What I find interesting is that the same people who hoot and holler about Obama's failings with employment are the ones who will hold up the government numbers from the GW Bush era as gospel.

[fereupfer]

How can that be, I mean all we heard was the Bush (temp) tax cuts would cause companies to invest in their companies and hire more people. So the TEMP tax cuts were extended. Why didn't the companies hire more people.

Easy to explain.

1. The COST to hire people is too high.
2. The tax cuts signed by Bush are not for corporate taxes.
3. Obamacare is coming, and employers dont want to pay
4. Inflation is hurting production, and manufaturing
5. consumer confindence is decressing caused less buying and lowing the need for products and services..

Shall I go on??

[fereupfer]

I'm fully aware of how the statistic is created. I also objected to the change when it was made.

What I find interesting is that the same people who hoot and holler about Obama's failings with employment are the ones who will hold up the government numbers from the GW Bush era as gospel.

Have they changed from Bush to Obama? if not then you can compare the two.

Are both WRONG? yes

Are both wrong but wrong in the same way? yes

So a comparative analysis is fine.

Do not try to compare pre-90's to today as that comparison would be flawed.

Thank you.. BTW read my signature since you wanted to bring up Bush again.

[Gedominew]

Easy to explain.

1. The COST to hire people is too high.
2. The tax cuts signed by Bush are not for corporate taxes.
3. Obamacare is coming, and employers dont want to pay
4. Inflation is hurting production, and manufaturing
5. consumer confindence is decressing caused less buying and lowing the need for products and services..

Shall I go on??

So, then it would have made better sense to forego the extension and save the hit to the deficit?

[Gozmand]

The government unemployement figures have been jacked up since the 90's when the governmnet changed who they would COUNT.

Since you want to play DUMB 8.9% is the figure of people who are actually GETTING UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS OR ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WORK.. this does not count those who have been declined unemployement, or whose unemployement has run out due to a failue to get another extention.

The gallup number is found by

Survey Methods
Gallup classifies American workers as underemployed if they are either unemployed or working part time but wanting full-time work. The findings reflect approximately 18,000 phone interviews with U.S. adults aged 18 and older in the workforce, collected over a 30-day period. Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and are ahead of government reports by approximately two weeks.

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 30-Feb. 28, 2011, with a random sample of 17,996 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 200 cell phone respondents and 800 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, cell phone-only status, cell phone-mostly status, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management.

Nicely put, I too was wondering what the difference was..

[goatteatromiag]

I recently made a post here (Tough Vote: Top Countries: Will China overtake the US?) that is more oriented toward the rise of the rest analysis but the first link on there is useful, it outlines the unemployment rate of the top 10 economies and guess who is at the top?

[Hdzcxqoi]

Each tick down of the unemployment number brings Republicans closer to loosing re-election in 2012 and Obama one step closer to winning. This must be a nightmare scenario for the Republicans (the Democrats cleaning up the Republican economic mess that is). Of course partyline people will always try to take credit but independents will look at the numbers and hand Obama & the Dems another victory in 2012 because they jumped the gun in '10.

[Adimos]

Each tick down of the unemployment number brings Republicans closer to loosing re-election in 2012 and Obama one step closer to winning. This must be a nightmare scenario for the Republicans (the Democrats cleaning up the Republican economic mess that is). Of course partyline people will always try to take credit but independents will look at the numbers and hand Obama & the Dems another victory in 2012 because they jumped the gun in '10.

Except of course it didn't go down. Only counting the ones you want to count to make it sound better....isn't better.

Except to a liberal of course, for them facts are irrelevant, it's what they want it to be that matters.

[ThomasMannfanny]

Notice how it's been conveniently ignored?

8.9%, not 10.3%?

The U.S. Govt. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (the BLS), that produces the unemployment reports, reported the following statistics in early November 2010 for the period of the second week in September 2010 through the first week in October 2010 (yes, the BLS reports are always nearly a month behind current):

The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,715,000.
The civilian labor force: 154,007,00.
Working full-time: 111,551,000.
Officially under-employed working part-time: 27,337,000.
Officially unemployed: 15,119,000.
Unofficially unemployed: 5,832,000.
The official unemployment rate: 9.82%.
The unofficial (true) unemployment rate: 13.11%.
The unofficial under-incomed rate: 30.21%

On yesterday, Friday, March 4, 2011, the BLS reported the following statistics for the period of the second week in January 2011 through the first week in February 2011:

The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,851,000.
The civilian labor force: 153,246,00.
Working full-time: 113,323,000.
Officially under-employed working part-time: 26,250,000.
Officially unemployed: 13,673,000.
Unofficially unemployed: 6,405,000.
The official unemployment rate: 8.92%.
The unofficial (true) unemployment rate: 12.58%.
The unofficial under-incomed rate: 29.02%

The stats for the "November 2010" report were documented with links elsewhere here back then.

The current stats can be found in BLS documents Table A-1, Table A-8, and Table 4 (Table 4 contains the unofficially unemployed figures, and is not posted by the BLS on their website (!), but they will e-mail it to you on your request). These links have stats that shift over time, so if you're checking these links a few months from now, this "March" data may be gone.

The unofficial unemployed figure is not considered by the BLS to be part of what they deem to be "the labor force" (don't ask why; we know why). Thus to arrive at the true unemployment rate, add the unofficially unemployed count to the labor force then divide that figure into the sum of the officially unemployed count and the unofficially unemployed count.

The unofficially unemployed count are all people who want and need full-time work, the vast majority who have lost those jobs, maybe given up searching after years of futility, perhaps went back to school in the hope of getting retrained after their job was outsourced or insourced to wage-slave labor and are living off of others or what's left of their savings while they go to school, and the jettisoned pre-retirement aged who are considered cost-effectively unemployable no matter what.

When comparing last fall with what is essentially the first month of this year, clearly the unemployment rate has dropped, so yes, the true unemployment rate is not 10.3% ..

.. It's 12.58%, down from 13.11% last fall.

Now I know that those who are politically ideologically compelled to be like the government may want to also ignore the unofficially unemployed and reference only the official numbers. But, of course, that would be ignoring reality for the sake of ideology, which is not considered a sensible rational way of dealing with matters (something to do with a river in Egypt ..).

In compiling their rates, the government also doesn't present an official under-incomed rate, the rate that represents the number of people who don't have the income they need to survive well, let alone thrive. This rate, however, is easily calculable from the figures presented, and it too dropped in comparison, from 30.21% to 29.02%.

This 29.02% under-incomed rate reflects 46,328,000 Americans who are suffering from the lack of full-time income they need. With an average factor of 2.5 people per family, that's an estimated 115,820,000 Americans greatly detrimentally affected by our horrific un- and under- employment problem, to the tune of 37.36% of our total population!

With many millions more Americans courageously assisting these families at the sacrifice of their own personal purchasing power, it's really difficult to expect a domestic retail and jobs-based recovery here any time soon .. which is why so many corporations are "investing" .. overseas.

It is interesting to note that, in this time period, the non-institutionalize population grew by 136,000 people, but the labor force actually shrunk by 831,000 people!

Obviously, something's not getting reported.

And indeed, the BLS admits that its inadequate reporting methods for determining the unofficially unemployed, where most of this unretired shrinkage exists, way understates this figure, as most of these people, requested to report to the BLS as survey participants, simply don't report (understandably) and the BLS only reports the numbers based on those who do actually report to their monthly census takers.

Thus the unofficially unemployed count which has risen from 5,832,000 to 6,405,000 -- a 9.8% increase in this time period -- is likely considerably much higher!

So before we all rush to declare the recession and its jobless recovery over and thus excuse our governing officials' cowardly lack of needed action to create a real recovery, let me remind you all that there are still a BLS reported 46,328,000 Americans under-incomed -- creating great economic suffering for them and their families, totaling 115,820,000 Americans -- millions of whom are suffering the associated repercussions of poverty, homelessness, starvation .. and premature death by the minute.

That's not acceptable!

The current supposed rate of "recovery" here is hardly noteworthy .. and considering the increased number of unofficially unemployed -- which is actually maybe millions of people under-reported -- .. I'm just not seeing that "great recovery" that others, both left and right, are ideologically myopically compelled to state.

And, considering that the recent report is much about January, not February, let's wait until the early April reporting before making such premature "happy days are here again" declarations, as many temporary part-time holiday positions won't be totally cleared from the reports until then.

It's not rocket science, people: unless specific and direct state-of-emergency heroic action to end the lingering Great Recession is taken soon, any trickle-down recovery, if it occurs at all, will take many, many years .. of deadly American attrition.

With regard to the truly deadly nature of such an attrition .. I wonder which American is next.

So, with regard to that heroic action so desperately needed now, here it is, for your consideration, once again: Solving The Economic Crisis.

Time, however, is truly running out on us.

We cannot delay any longer in doing the right thing.

[Adimos]

The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,715,000.
The civilian labor force: 154,007,00.
Working full-time: 111,551,000.
Officially under-employed working part-time: 27,337,000.
Officially unemployed: 15,119,000.
Unofficially unemployed: 5,832,000.
The official unemployment rate: 9.82%.
The unofficial (true) unemployment rate: 13.11%.
The unofficial under-incomed rate: 30.21%

On yesterday, Friday, March 4, 2011, the BLS reported the following statistics for the period of the second week in January 2011 through the first week in February 2011:

The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,851,000.
The civilian labor force: 153,246,00.
Working full-time: 113,323,000.
Officially under-employed working part-time: 26,250,000.
Officially unemployed: 13,673,000.
Unofficially unemployed: 6,405,000.
The official unemployment rate: 8.92%.
The unofficial (true) unemployment rate: 12.58%.
The unofficial under-incomed rate: 29.02%

----------------

Some interesting things to me.
The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,715,000.
The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,851,000.

Population increased, which of course is expected. But then look at the labor force

The civilian labor force: 154,007,00.
The civilian labor force: 153,246,00.

The labor force decreased by over half as much as the population increased. Does this make sense to you? Looks like people are disappearing off the books.

[ThomasMannfanny]

The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,715,000.
The civilian labor force: 154,007,00.
Working full-time: 111,551,000.
Officially under-employed working part-time: 27,337,000.
Officially unemployed: 15,119,000.
Unofficially unemployed: 5,832,000.
The official unemployment rate: 9.82%.
The unofficial (true) unemployment rate: 13.11%.
The unofficial under-incomed rate: 30.21%

On yesterday, Friday, March 4, 2011, the BLS reported the following statistics for the period of the second week in January 2011 through the first week in February 2011:

The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,851,000.
The civilian labor force: 153,246,00.
Working full-time: 113,323,000.
Officially under-employed working part-time: 26,250,000.
Officially unemployed: 13,673,000.
Unofficially unemployed: 6,405,000.
The official unemployment rate: 8.92%.
The unofficial (true) unemployment rate: 12.58%.
The unofficial under-incomed rate: 29.02%

----------------

Some interesting things to me.
The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,715,000.
The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,851,000.

Population increased, which of course is expected. But then look at the labor force

The civilian labor force: 154,007,00.
The civilian labor force: 153,246,00.

The labor force decreased by over half as much as the population increased. Does this make sense to you? Looks like people are disappearing off the books.

Yes, my post was rather large so it's easy to miss that I too commented on that.

The BLS admits that their method of tracking the unofficially unemployed results in a way understated figure of the true number of unemployed people.

They don't have a better way of tracking everyone who is dropping by the wayside, and so they know this figure, the unofficially unemployed, is way low. Perhaps that's "why" they don't include these people in their ubiquitous monthly unemployment rate.

But I would argue that they need to include everyone they do know about in a category when presenting their rate to the public.

Yes, the BLS has some 'splain' to do, as they know they're playin' "Lucy gucy" with the facts .. and thereby misleading the public.

[brraverishhh]

----------------

Some interesting things to me.
The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,715,000.
The civilian non-institutionalized population: 238,851,000.

Population increased, which of course is expected. But then look at the labor force

The civilian labor force: 154,007,00.
The civilian labor force: 153,246,00.

The labor force decreased by over half as much as the population increased. Does this make sense to you? Looks like people are disappearing off the books.

The Baby Boomers are retiring, that's why the social security surplus has turned to a deficit. That means a larger retiree population, and a smaller workforce.

[ThomasMannfanny]

The Baby Boomers are retiring, that's why the social security surplus has turned to a deficit. That means a larger retiree population, and a smaller workforce.

The Baby Boomers are retiring, yes.

However .. the Baby Boomers expanded into Gen Xers by an average factor of two .. and the gen Xers expanded by the same average into the Gen Yers now in their twenties and long considered in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population of working age.

Thus, there are actually more raw numbers of people coming into the workforce than there are retiring ..

.. And, thanks to the recession, less Boomers are retiring than otherwise would have, as they need to keep working, if they can, having lost their savings.

No, the BLS reported increase in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population while the Labor Force decreased is most likely attributed to both previous workers who lost their jobs some time ago and new young workers who can't find work, both falling by the wayside in the BLS reports.

Some of them didn't fall by the wayside .. and that accounts for the great increase between last fall and early January in the BLS reported unofficially unemployed count.

[Gedominew]

The Baby Boomers are retiring, yes.

However .. the Baby Boomers expanded into Gen Xers by an average factor of two .. and the gen Xers expanded by the same average into the Gen Yers now in their twenties and long considered in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population of working age.

Thus, there are actually more raw numbers of people coming into the workforce than there are retiring ..

.. And, thanks to the recession, less Boomers are retiring than otherwise would have, as they need to keep working, if they can, having lost their savings.

No, the BLS reported increase in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population while the Labor Force decreased is most likely attributed to both previous workers who lost their jobs some time ago and new young workers who can't find work, both falling by the wayside in the BLS reports.

Some of them didn't fall by the wayside .. and that accounts for the great increase between last fall and early January in the BLS reported unofficially unemployed count.

Except that that's not true:



As is plainly clear - the Baby Boomers did NOT replace themselves in double. They didn't even replace themselves. The succeeding generation is smaller - thus it's harder to pay for their support.

[Adimos]

Except that that's not true:



As is plainly clear - the Baby Boomers did NOT replace themselves in double. They didn't even replace themselves. The succeeding generation is smaller - thus it's harder to pay for their support.

True, but your graph doesn't explain the discrepancy between losing people from the workforce, and the increasing population. Actually the spike in birth around 1990 would be people entering the workforce starting a couple years ago through now.

[Gedominew]

True, but your graph doesn't explain the discrepancy between losing people from the workforce, and the increasing population. Actually the spike in birth around 1990 would be people entering the workforce starting a couple years ago through now.

At the low end of the salary range, so still not contributing at full amounts.

But, as I was saying - there wasn't the replacement of the Boomers as expected, thus the gap in population. That's all I was trying to demonstrate.

[ThomasMannfanny]

Except that that's not true:



As is plainly clear - the Baby Boomers did NOT replace themselves in double. They didn't even replace themselves. The succeeding generation is smaller - thus it's harder to pay for their support.

This is a great graph -- good find.

First of all, that debate, about how many years is a generation: 20. 'Nuff said.

With regard to Gen Yers (Millennials?!) the graph needs to stop at 2004 for the Echo Boomers, for the sake of generational argument, and consider the remainder .. Zers.

The graph also does not address the great infant mortality rate decline of the 1950s. Thus, because of that, and other factors, quite a bit less of these 79 million Boomers survived to produce the 69 million gen Xers, now all in the work force, and who in turn produced so many millions more now entering the work force in droves. The general production rate of 2x still applies for those surviving Boomers who chose to have kids.

Regarding retired Baby Boomers: people born in the initial Boomer year of 1945 and surviving until now began retiring, on average .. in 2010, at the age of 65 ..

.. Or at least they would have, as many, forced by The Great Recession, have kept working, full-time where they're allowed, part-time when jetisoned by their company, etc.

Meanwhile, the Xers are strong in the work force, yet second place to the Boomers. And the Yers started "infiltrating" the working ranks in 2001 (BLS reports start at age 16 under considerations).

So the figures in the BLS reports .. regarding the increase in civilian non-institutionalized population and the decrease in the labor force .. cannot be explained by Boomer retirement, as the roughly 2.9 million live Boomer births in 1945, pruned for the higher infant mortality rate etc., does not begin to compensate for the over 4 million births in a decreased mortality rate of the early 1990s, people who are now entering the work force in droves.

The rational application of the numbers do not add up to blaming the retired Boomers for this anomaly.

No, the 9.8% increase in the unofficially unemployed from last fall to this January, presented by the BLS, is rightly rationally attributed in part to truly declining rate of new domestic jobs and the higher rate of more people entering the non-institutionalized population -- non-institutionalized wokring-age people -- than leaving it through either death or retirement.