• 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!

Only 115,000 jobs added in April; unemployment rate dips to 8.1 percent

Kushinator said:
Today's employment report has two main segments, the current population survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate(s) and current employment statistics, which is based on payroll data to derive the "jobs" number of 115,000 this month.

The CPS essentially surveys 50,000 households every month (on the 12th i believe) and takes into consideration different geographical locations of the nation to provide a well rounded report. Then, the BLS employs various time-series statistical techniques that take into consideration previous data to derive the unemployment rate, number of people employed, non-civilian population, etc.... According to this survey and the techniques involved, the U3 unemployment rate fell from 8.2% to 8.1%.

The CES surveys 400,000 businesses that employ something like 50 million employees. Similar to the CPS, the CES uses time-series analysis to derive the "job gains" or "job losses" figure along with various industry breakdowns (like how many construction jobs were lost or gained). According to the establishment data, 115,000 jobs were created in April, while the figures from February and March were revised upward from 240,000 to 259,000 and from 120,000 to 154,000 respectively.

As far as the unemployment rate is concerned, they simply take the figures derived from the data and simply divide each respective employment statistic (from U1 to U6) by the number of people in the workforce. Remember, unemployment is defined as a person who is actively seeking employment, but for some reason is unable to find said employment. The UE rate is simply the ratio that is extrapolated using the data and statistics derived from the survey.

Given that the CPS and the CES differ in population parameters, it is entirely possible for there to be positive CES data and positive CPS unemployment ratios and vise versa (negative job gains and falling unemployment rates).
Click to expand...

So if I understand that correctly, we have 115,000 more jobs this month in this country than we had last month?

Remember, unemployment is defined as a person who is actively seeking employment, but for some reason is unable to find said employment.
Click to expand...

Is there a report that shows us the actual percentage of adults who are working?
 
Erod said:
Half the battle is for the president to stop acting like he can fix it with more government and taxes. Private business doesn't like more government; it likes less.

The private sector is scared senseless of what Obama might do next to them. Take away that fear, and let private enterprise get to work on the problem.
Click to expand...
Private enterprises have contracted because of a lack of demand, not because of the federal government. I'm in favor of lessening regulatory burdens as a whole, but to point to government intervention as the main culprit for our employment woes would be naive.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
You drew a conclusion and assumed an inference that I did not make. And all the debt increasing didn't come from just a few companies that failed but from a financial sector that held the balance of the markets in their grasp. Maybe exerting a little of that regulatory control would've stemmed the losses of toxic paper that amassed over the last decade.
Click to expand...
You took my post a little too serious, but its based on truth though. A lot of money went to the very few and none of it, regardless of what the obamites and dems say about it saving creating yadda yadda, none of it went to anything productive, at all. I feel bad for true liberals whom I can respect although not agree. They voted for change and ended up with a steroided version of the worst of Bush era policies. I believe many are simply in a state of denial of how badly they have been had.
 
muciti said:
So if I understand that correctly, we have 115,000 more jobs this month in this country than we had last month?
Click to expand...

According to payroll establishment data, that would be correct.

Is there a report that shows us the actual percentage of adults who are working?
Click to expand...

You mean the number of people employed divided by the non institutional population? The employment:population ratio is 58.4%, and can be found in table A from here.
 
Last edited:
00timh said:
You took my post a little too serious, but its based on truth though. A lot of money went to the very few and none of it, regardless of what the obamites and dems say about it saving creating yadda yadda, none of it went to anything productive, at all. I feel bad for true liberals whom I can respect although not agree. They voted for change and ended up with a steroided version of the worst of Bush era policies. I believe many are simply in a state of denial of how badly they have been had.
Click to expand...

Your uninformed opinion is still, well uninformed....
 
Kushinator said:
According to payroll establishment data, that would be correct.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why have 115,000 more jobs this month than last month would be a bad thing.
That would be the inverse of the various unemployment rate statistics (U1 - U6).
Click to expand...

What are U1 and U6?
 
Mycroft said:
I don't really think too many on the right are complaining that the President hasn't created any jobs...rather, I think they wish he would stop TRYING to create jobs. He's just making it worse.
Click to expand...
Wait what? You're going to have to elaborate on this statement.
 
muciti said:
I fail to see why have 115,000 more jobs this month than last month would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Not that it is necessarily bad, but rather it has fallen below expectations of what it needs to be in order to push the unemployment rate to a more comfortable place. In that sense, we need something like 3 million + jobs per year.


What are U1 and U6?
Click to expand...

They are the various ways of figuring the unemployment rate; the U3 rate is what is considered official. You can find the table that lists them here.
 
Kushinator said:
Not that it is necessarily bad, but rather it has fallen below expectations of what it needs to be in order to push the unemployment rate to a more comfortable place. In that sense, we need something like 3 million + jobs per year.




They are the various ways of figuring the unemployment rate; the U3 rate is what is considered official. You can find the table that lists them here.
Click to expand...

thanks for the charts.
 
Hare said:
Wait what? You're going to have to elaborate on this statement.
Click to expand...

All of his methods that are supposed to create jobs...don't. They only spend more money (that we don't have and end up having to borrow) and increase the size, scope and control of government and place more people in a state of dependency.

I wish he'd stop.
 
Mycroft said:
I wish he'd stop.
Click to expand...
FWIW, government jobs have been decreasing in all but one month (august 2011) since December 2010, while private employment is increased every month since March 2010 (using revised data).

I really wish you would stop with the emotionally driven nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
This should suffice.
Click to expand...
Though the information might be there, it's not easy to find.

There doesn't seem to be a chart for gross jobs added and gross jobs lost from which to calculate a net. I didn't catch whether the jobs added was a net or not.

As to living-wage jobs, net gain or loss, I don't know if that could be extrapolated from the link's charts or not, but certainly not easily.

I know a BLS agent .. so I'll inquire directly of him. He has pointed out tables in the past that weren't on the BLS website, so maybe he'll do the same with these questions.
 
Mycroft said:
All of his methods that are supposed to create jobs...don't.
Click to expand...
What "methods"? Can you at least name them?

They only spend more money (that we don't have and end up having to borrow) and increase the size, scope and control of government and place more people in a state of dependency.

I wish he'd stop.
Click to expand...

What does the gov now control which they did not use to?
 
Kushinator said:
FWIW, government jobs have been decreasing in all but one month (august 2011) since December 2010, while private employment is increased every month since March 2010 (using revised data).

I really wish you would stop with the emotionally driven nonsense.
Click to expand...

And all this time...people who USED to be working...aren't. An increasing number of them have stopped looking because the jobs aren't there...the jobs Obama is spending so hard to create...and failing.

He really needs to stop.
 
Kushinator said:
FWIW, government jobs have been decreasing in all but one month (august 2011) since December 2010, while private employment is increased every month since March 2010 (using revised data).

I really wish you would stop with the emotionally driven nonsense.
Click to expand...

The 2008 Federal Budget was $ 2.9 Trillion. In 2011, it was 3.6 trillion. An increase by Obama of 24.1% in just 3 years.

That's more than five times the rate of Inflation over that same span. Yeah. He's really cutting back allright :roll:

The complaint was that Obama is creating dependency, while suppressing job growth. The complaint was spot-on.

Your post was nonsense. But it ain't the first time ;)
 
Mycroft said:
And all this time...people who USED to be working...aren't. An increasing number of them have stopped looking because the jobs aren't there...the jobs Obama is spending so hard to create...and failing.

He really needs to stop.
Click to expand...

So it comes back to it being the government's job to force private businesses to hire more workers...?
 
AdamT said:
So it comes back to it being the government's job to force private businesses to hire more workers...?
Click to expand...

No. It comes back to government not being an impediment to the economy. :roll:

These concept are so difficult for the liberals. But do keep trying <sigh>
 
Ontologuy said:
(Can't believe this late in the day I'm the first to post this, but I couldn't find any other new thread talkin' about it ..)

"Only 115,000 jobs added in April; unemployment rate to 8.1 percent" Only 115,000 jobs added in April; unemployment rate to 8.1 percent | The Lookout - Yahoo! News.



Recovery? What recovery???

So more than 300,000 had been looking for some time but couldn't find work, and thus depressed, they stopped looking for at least the past four weeks for jobs that just aren't there, and they get removed from the unemployment rate calculation. This happens all the time. Thus the ubiquitous basic unemployment rate we're fed in the news is a contrivance that is much, much higher in reality than fictitiously presented to the public.

Where are all the promised new jobs?

Where are "happy days are here again", I mean the non-sarcastic happy days?

When will someone actually do something about the mess we're in?

Left and right, the answer is never!!!
Click to expand...

Only?

There are a finite amount of jobs available in the united state.

Perhaps 91.9% is the ceiling for full employment. People can circle in and out of unemployment, but, for better or worse we have to support a standard of living for the other 8.9%.

I can live with that.

The markets doing well. Corps are earning profits. Just throw the corrupt GOP and spineless DEMs out of congress and get this country on the right track by finding a pragmatic center.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
No. It comes back to government not being an impediment to the economy. :roll:

These concept are so difficult for the liberals. But do keep trying <sigh>
Click to expand...
You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the federal government is impeding private employment. It's a common talking point, but unfortunately that's the extent of it's use.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the federal government is impeding private employment. It's a common talking point, but unfortunately that's the extent of it's use.
Click to expand...

It takes common sense to figure out.

Sorry. :roll:
 
ric27 said:
Its the President's socialist mindset that's ****ed....

The Socialism bit was tried at Plymouth Rock and quite a few colonists starved to death before they abandoned it. It was tried in Soviet Russia...and failed. It was tried in Cuba...and it's failing. It has been tried in Europe...and it's failing. Do you have to try it again and have it fail for you before you learn the lesson?

Thats, the issue
Click to expand...

I think you're using a creative definition of "socialism."
 
hazlnut said:
Only?

There are a finite amount of jobs available in the united state.

Perhaps 91.9% is the ceiling for full employment. People can circle in and out of unemployment, but, for better or worse we have to support a standard of living for the other 8.9%.

I can live with that.

The markets doing well. Corps are earning profits. Just throw the corrupt GOP and spineless DEMs out of congress and get this country on the right track by finding a pragmatic center.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm right there with you on your last line here.

I guess what concerns me is that that finite number of maximum potential jobs in the U.S. is considerably less than it would have been now had not so many jobs, especially those jobs of what came to be termed "sub-primers", disappeared overseas and the like.

We do need to get centered on the right track again.
 
Kushinator said:
You are aware that the current employment status of the U.S. is not politically driven?!?! Right?
Click to expand...
Actually, it kind of is.

There are the powerful Multi-Cultural-Internationalists on the left and the powerful Corporate Global Expanisionists on the right who don't care if mainland Americans have jobs just as long as someone has those jobs somewhere, the MCIs hoping more people from other countries can work those jobs, and the CGE's hoping tremendously cheaper labor can work those jobs whereever it can be found.

These two political powerhouses are "cooperatively" responsible for the mess we're in.

Until they are out of power, we cannot rationally hope for real recovery for American citizens and thus greatly America as a country.
 
AdamT said:
So it comes back to it being the government's job to force private businesses to hire more workers...?
Click to expand...

No.

The government needs to get out of the way. The government needs to stop passing laws designed to create jobs. The government needs to stop the uncertainty.

Bottom line...it's not the government's job to do ANYTHING about increasing jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom