• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amigo said:
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

From the actual BLS report:

Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey
Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census
2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are
developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect
new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in
population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the
new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other
information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the
population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010.
Click to expand...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
 
Amigo said:
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

Yeah. I saw that. They don't bother to cite their original source, and the number "1.2 million" doesn't exist anywhere in the actual BLS report.

Here's what they actually say:

After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) rose in January, while the civilian labor force participation rate held at 63.7 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population adjustments, see
table C.)
Click to expand...

So it seems to me that your blog, zero hedge either just made up some bull**** numbers, or misinterpreted them. Now how the **** is that possible if 1.2 million people drop out of the labor force?
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah. I saw that. They don't bother to cite their original source, and the number "1.2 million" doesn't exist anywhere in the actual BLS report.
Click to expand...

The number is derived from an upward adjustment of the overall population that resulted from the incorporation of census 2010 data. In fact the labor force grew from December to January, but it fell IN PROPORTION TO to the upwardly revised population figure. In other words, 1.2 million didn't just drop out of the labor force. Rather, the labor force all along was slightly bigger than they though it was.
 
AdamT said:
The number is derived from an upward adjustment of the overall population that resulted from the incorporation of census 2010 data. In fact the labor force grew from December to January, but it fell IN PROPORTION TO to the upwardly revised population figure. In other words, 1.2 million didn't just drop out of the labor force. Rather, the labor force all along was slightly bigger than they though it was.
Click to expand...

Which paragraph actually cites the "1.2 million"?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Me thinks you need to read the entire thread, instead of just masturbating at the ones in favor of Obama.

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

Methinks you need to actually check the real numbers instead of masturbating at the ridiculous statistical spin from a blog which doesn't bother to cite its original source and whose assertions aren't being corroborated by the actual numbers.
 
AdamT said:
The number is derived from an upward adjustment of the overall population that resulted from the incorporation of census 2010 data. In fact the labor force grew from December to January, but it fell IN PROPORTION TO to the upwardly revised population figure. In other words, 1.2 million didn't just drop out of the labor force. Rather, the labor force all along was slightly bigger than they though it was.
Click to expand...

So if the work force was slightly bigger than they thought it was then it seems the revised census numbers would add people to the labor force unless I am not understanding what this means. A drop in the calculated labor force would mean the employment numbers would get better right?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Which paragraph actually cites the "1.2 million"?
Click to expand...

I don't think they mention that figure specifically. It's derived from the figures on p. 7 of the report. You'll see that the population was adjusted upward by 1.7 million, while the labor force increased by 500,000. 1.7 million minus 500,000 = 1.2 million.

So, did 1.2 million people really drop out of the labor force? No. The labor force actually increased by half a million people. But the total population increased more than the labor force, due to new census data.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think they mention that figure specifically. It's derived from the figures on p. 7 of the report. You'll see that the population was adjusted upward by 1.7 million, while the labor force increased by 500,000. 1.7 million minus 500,000 = 1.2 million.

So, did 1.2 million people really drop out of the labor force? No. The labor force actually increased by half a million people. But the total population increased more than the labor force, due to new census data.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plausible explanation, but I'm still waitin on how all the folks who are jerking off to the Zero Hedge headline are going to explain themselves.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Which paragraph actually cites the "1.2 million"?
Click to expand...

Page 6.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by
1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and
persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000
Click to expand...

Zerohedge is a very reputable blog and rarely do they get their numbers wrong. They are just extremely bearish biased, they don't care what political party is in power, they think the world is going to end.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Page 6.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf



Zerohedge is a very reputable blog and rarely do they get their numbers wrong. They are just extremely bearish biased, they don't care what political party is in power, they think the world is going to end.
Click to expand...

It's quite a logical leap to go from what p.6 of the report said, to "1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force." That's pure spin. The only two explanations for that are that it was either a) a stupid mistake or b) intentional spin. Either way, it damages what repute you say it has.
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
[...] Zerohedge is a very reputable blog and rarely do they get their numbers wrong. They are just extremely bearish biased, they don't care what political party is in power, they think the world is going to end.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

And they bias towards that end (recently there was some ballyhoo there about oil contracts not in U.S. dollars, which they (he) used as basis for saying the U.S. dollar was going to collapse, when even some of his own cites indicated that the non-U.S.-dollar oil contracts were intended to circumvent U.S. sanctions, rather than any concern about the dollar's stability).
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Great news. Markets are coming off the best January in 15 years. Numbers this morning blew out all expectations. Hopefully (even though I'm dyed red), this will continue. Seems to go against recent warnings from the Fed and CBO about slow job/economic growth this year. This helps Obama obviously, but not as much as it would if it happened this summer. Memories are short; if we print these job numbers June - August the Republicans are in for a world of hurt. I've read conflicting reports on what happened with the LFPR, anyone got some more color? Here are some more details on the job numbers:

  • Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January. Private-sector employment grew by 257,000, with the largest employment gains in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government employment was little changed over the month. (See table B-1.)
  • Professional and business services continued to add jobs in January (+70,000). About half of the increase occurred in employment services (+33,000). Job gains also occurred in accounting and bookkeeping (+13,000) and in architectural and engineering services (+7,000).
  • Over the month, employment in leisure and hospitality increased by 44,000, primarily in food services and drinking places (+33,000). Since a recent low in February 2010, food services has added 487,000 jobs.
  • In January, health care employment continued to grow (+31,000). Within the industry, hospitals and ambulatory care services each added 13,000 jobs.
  • Wholesale trade employment increased by 14,000 over the month. Since a recent employment low in May 2010, wholesale trade has added 144,000 jobs.
  • Employment in retail trade continued to trend up in January. Job gains in department stores (+19,000), health and personal care stores (+7,000), and automobile dealers (+7,000) were partially offset by losses in clothing and clothing accessory stores (-14,000). Since an employment trough in December 2009, retail trade has added 390,000 jobs.
  • In January, employment in information declined by 13,000, including a loss of 8,000 jobs in the motion picture and sound recording industry.
  • In the goods-producing sector, manufacturing added 50,000 jobs. Nearly all of the increase occurred in durable goods manufacturing, with job growth in fabricated metal products (+11,000), machinery (+11,000), and motor vehicles and parts (+8,000). Durable goods manufacturing has added 418,000 jobs over the past 2 years.
  • Employment in construction increased by 21,000 in January, following a gain of 31,000 in the previous month. Over the past 2 months, nonresidential specialty trade contractors added 30,000 jobs.
  • Mining added 10,000 jobs in January, with most of the gain in support activities for mining (+8,000). Since a recent low in October 2009, mining employment has expanded by 172,000.
  • Government employment changed little in January. Over the past 12 months, the sector has lost 276,000 jobs, with declines in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service.
  • The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged in January. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.3 hour to 40.9 hours, and factory overtime increased by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
Click to expand...

Yes, things are beginning to look good, but there are a couple of gotchas here.

1) More orders were placed in November and December, due to companies adding to inventory. This should slow down, but we should still see overall growth during 2012. I am expecting that the unemployment rate will tick down to a little under 8% by November, but for the most part, this recovery is going to still be more jobless than what is typical. Still, good news.

2) In the historical data, there is a huge bump in jobs during the spring of last year. This is due to census hiring. When the census workers completed their job, and were let go, it resulted in a jump in unemployment. Both statistics are atypical, and skew the data for last year.

All in all, the way I see it is that this is going to be a bonus for Obama, but he is not out of the woods yet. In picking Romney, Republicans have chosen someone who has an outside chance of picking Obama off. There are a lot of people who don't want Obama in office for various reasons - Being black, instituting Obamacare, for carrying out policies that were instituted by Bush, for being too moderate or even too liberal, among others. While Gingrich would be toast on a stick running against Obama, Romney should be able to make it a fight, and I predict that, for the reasons I have given, this is going to be a close election. I predict, at this time, that Obama will win in a squeaker, and it won't be the economy that is the deciding factor. It will be Obama's relentless pursuit and destruction of al Qaeda infrastructure, and the killing of their leaders. The real irony here is that the Democrats are the ones who lead in foreign policy, when they have historically been very weak in that area. Although I have said Obama should win this, it isn't in the bank. It's his to lose, and the president has between now and November to screw it up.
 
muciti said:
Anything good that happens in the US is because of the President. Anything bad is fault of the senate and house. Did I get that about right?
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. Anything bad that happens, is Bush's fault.
 
muciti said:
Anything good that happens in the US is because of the President. Anything bad is fault of the senate and house. Did I get that about right?
Click to expand...

That would depend on a) your party affiliation and b) the party of the president. If a=b, then what you say is true; if a<>b, then what you say false.... of course, the variables a and b can be Democrat or Republican.
 
Amigo said:
It's amazing how liberals ignore that 1,000,000 people dropped out of the work force in January. Interesting!
Click to expand...

Let's say those million didn't drop out. We still gained 240,000 jobs and the unemployment rate still drops, just not by as much as it did.

Would that be completely awful news? Oh no, we are gaining jobs!

I understand, you have to find a way to be pissed about this good news, so you just go on right ahead.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Let's say those million didn't drop out. We still gained 240,000 jobs and the unemployment rate still drops, just not by as much as it did.

Would that be completely awful news? Oh no, we are gaining jobs!

I understand, you have to find a way to be pissed about this good news, so you just go on right ahead.
Click to expand...

In reality that actually didn't even happen, so it's a moot point.
 
Amigo said:
It's amazing how liberals ignore that 1,000,000 people dropped out of the work force in January. Interesting!
Click to expand...
It's hard to ignore something that isn't true.
 
Good to see we finally hit a net positive month to outpace population growth.
 
Any data on what jobs are being created? I mean losing 100,000 high paying jobs and replacing them with 200,000 minimum wage jobs really isn't something to be excited over. If high paying jobs are disappearing and low paying jobs are replacing them, is that change we can believe in?

I can't seem to find any data on what jobs were lost and which were gained, except at the link provided:

As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing.
Click to expand...

Can anyone else find any data on WHAT these jobs are? I mean a bunch of new burger flippers are added to the economy and we re elect a president based on that? I'm just curious. I can't seem to find anything. I want it to be honest good news, but from what I'm hearing "down on the street" more and more people are being layed off. Teachers can't find work. I want people to have jobs, but I dont want them to think our idiot n chief had anything to do with it. Congress is responsible for the good or bad, and if they keep this congress because of false numbers that is going to piss off a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
Good news for the country, good news for the Democrats, bad news for the Republicans. What do you think? Is the rise temporary? Does it even matter politically? What is causing it?
Click to expand...
Most people do not understand a key characteristic of the information from which the unemployment figure is obtained: the information is from two months ago.

The report we received this morning is for information pertaining to the time period of the second week of December through the first week of January. It was captured by the BLS during the second week of January, and it took them over two weeks more to produce the reports .. which are presented today, the second month later, usually on the first Friday.

Not very many people realize this.

What this means is that the information still greatly reflects the increase in minimum wage holiday season jobs in production, distribution, and retail. These are not permanent living-wage jobs, and are thus substantitvely fairly meaningless.

The report we receive next month will be for the second week in January through the first week in February, and will reflect holiday layoffs.

The correct interpretation of this chart -- Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age -- still reflects a true national unemployment rate of roughly 14.5%.

It is also important to understand that we still suffer a great loss of buying power for the marjority, and that has not shown signs of recovery since we hit bottom in the fall of 2008. Tens of millions of Americans who once worked full-time at a living-wage are now working longer hours for less pay, working part-time barely getting by, or not working at all.

This is the direct result of off-shoring to wage-slavers .. which neither Obama or the House Repubs have put any real effort in addressing, paying lip service occasionally at best merely to placate voters.
 
upsideguy said:
That would depend on a) your party affiliation and b) the party of the president. If a=b, then what you say is true; if a<>b, then what you say false.... of course, the variables a and b can be Democrat or Republican.
Click to expand...


I dont think it does. For instance.

If your a Dem.

Dem president/Rep congress = all good is credit to him. All bad is congress fault
Rep president/Dem congress = all good is credit to congress. All bad in presidents fault.
Dem president/Dem congress= previous presidents fault if something goes wrong
Rep president/Rep congress= all bad things are their fault. also applies to future problem. anything good is a result of the last dem congress or president.

If your a Republican

Dem president/Rep congress = all good is credit to congress. All bad in presidents fault.
Rep president/Dem congress = all good is credit to him. All bad is congress fault.
Dem president/Dem congress= all bad things are their fault. also applies to future problem. anything good is a result of the last dem congress or president.
Rep president/Rep congress= previous presidents fault if something goes wrong.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Let's say those million didn't drop out. We still gained 240,000 jobs and the unemployment rate still drops, just not by as much as it did.

Would that be completely awful news? Oh no, we are gaining jobs!

I understand, you have to find a way to be pissed about this good news, so you just go on right ahead.
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring the results, all I'm trying to point out is that this whole job creation thing from Obama is a scam, a scam to get people to drink the kool-aid and say "Hey! The economy is working! Obamanomics is working!". It is a scam to get people to follow them. While the debt continues to sky-rocket, people see the government reports, and have too much faith.

If Obama is re-elected, the economy will plunge, and our country will end. Obama's goal is to destroy us. He isn't "way over his head" as Romney claims.
 
Amigo said:
I am not ignoring the results, all I'm trying to point out is that this whole job creation thing from Obama is a scam, a scam to get people to drink the kool-aid and say "Hey! The economy is working! Obamanomics is working!". It is a scam to get people to follow them. While the debt continues to sky-rocket, people see the government reports, and have too much faith.

If Obama is re-elected, the economy will plunge, and our country will end. Obama's goal is to destroy us. He isn't "way over his head" as Romney claims.
Click to expand...

Funny, I remember the really out there nut jobs saying that leading up to the 2008 elections.


If his goal is to destroy us he's doing a terrible job of it, lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom