• 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!

U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. economy created 165,000 jobs in April and the unemployment rate fell to 7.5% from 7.6% even though the size of the labor force increased, the government said Friday. What's more, hiring in March and February were revised up by a combined 124,000. The increase in hiring in April beat Wall Street's forecast. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected a 135,000 gain, with unemployment remaining at 7.6%. The decline to 7.5% puts the jobless rate at the lowest level since December 2008. Meanwhile, the number of new jobs created in March was revised up to 138,000 from 88,000, the Labor Department said, while February's figure was revised up to 332,000 from 268,000.'


U.S. adds 165,000 jobs; unemployment 7.5% - MarketWatch
 
So, after 52 months and a 50+% increase in the U.S. national debt...the Obama administration has 'got' the unemployment rate down to it's lowest level since George W. Bush's last full month in office.


SUCCESS...right?
 
Hey, it's better than expected. For now, we'll just have to take it.

But yeah.


Remember when 8% unemployment was the Great Boogeyman used to scare us all into mindless support of any massive expenditure desired?
 
It would paint a far different picture if actual numbers were being used instead of massaging stats to mislead the American people.
 
This is a modest but real improvement, especially considering that the government jobs keep disappearing, as they should.
 
It would paint a far different picture if actual numbers were being used instead of massaging stats to mislead the American people.
Ok, the actual rate (not "massaged" through seasonal adjustment) is 7.1%, and the not seasonally adjusted change in jobs was +932,000

Although somehow I suspect that's not what you meant, though I also suspect it would have been what you meant if the unadjusted numbers were worse.
 
Ok, the actual rate (not "massaged" through seasonal adjustment) is 7.1%, and the not seasonally adjusted change in jobs was +932,000

Although somehow I suspect that's not what you meant, though I also suspect it would have been what you meant if the unadjusted numbers were worse.

Got a source?
 
Ok, the actual rate (not "massaged" through seasonal adjustment) is 7.1%, and the not seasonally adjusted change in jobs was +932,000

Although somehow I suspect that's not what you meant, though I also suspect it would have been what you meant if the unadjusted numbers were worse.

No. Listen, I am a layman when it comes to economics, and statistics. I confess that I am not very good at comprehending all the aspects behind coming up with the numbers that are fed to us through media. But, I do remember that we were told that we needed some 250,000 jobs created each month in order to keep up with population growth. Now we are being told that 130,000, to 180,000 is good enough, and lowers the rate. There is only one reason for that to happen in my understanding, and that is that the number of people dropping out of the workforce, exceeds the demand for new employment, so the number in my eyes is a shell game, and a lie.
 
'WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. economy created 165,000 jobs in April and the unemployment rate fell to 7.5% from 7.6% even though the size of the labor force increased, the government said Friday. What's more, hiring in March and February were revised up by a combined 124,000. The increase in hiring in April beat Wall Street's forecast. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had expected a 135,000 gain, with unemployment remaining at 7.6%. The decline to 7.5% puts the jobless rate at the lowest level since December 2008. Meanwhile, the number of new jobs created in March was revised up to 138,000 from 88,000, the Labor Department said, while February's figure was revised up to 332,000 from 268,000.'


U.S. adds 165,000 jobs; unemployment 7.5% - MarketWatch

Republicans will be terribly dismayed by this news.
 
It would paint a far different picture if actual numbers were being used instead of massaging stats to mislead the American people.

Yes, the employment numbers (through changes to how the Seasonally adjusted numbers are computed), the CPI (Congress just voted to change it to the C-CPI-U model...which lowers the rate...again) and the GDP (which makes the number seem larger and thus makes the debt-to-GDP look smaller) are all being skewed by the government to make the numbers the public sees look better.
 
There are so many discouraged workers who's unemployment has run out and are not looking for work that a drop in the official unemployment number is meaningless, in fact a sudden sharp increase in the number is what would be a good sign right now, it would mean discouraged workers see job opportunities and got back in the game.
 
So, after 52 months and a 50+% increase in the U.S. national debt...the Obama administration has 'got' the unemployment rate down to it's lowest level since George W. Bush's last full month in office.


SUCCESS...right?

BTW...I am being sarcastic here.

That is not a success in my mind.

It is a gigantic failure.

A 50+% rise in the national debt (which does not include the trillions more on the Fed ledger) over 52 months to 'get' the unemployment rate down to 7.5%?!?

That's pathetic.

It's (to a point) the 1930's all over again.

Massive government spending in return for economic stagnation (except, this time the Fed is pumping trillions indirectly into the stock markets to artificially pump them up).

And the ignorant public is buying it - with the help of the government fudging the CPI/GDP numbers to make things look better - hook, line and sinker.

The U.S. economy is not getting better...it is getting worse.

But John/Jane Q. Public (and Keynesian economists/bureaucrats like Paul Krugman/Ben Bernanke/Janet Yellen) are too ignorant on macroeconomics to see it.
 
Last edited:
I like the revisions. Up is good. When they revise them up 2 months later, I feel they are more solid.
 
With the Affordable Health Care Act going into effect, and employers moving employees from 35 hours a week to less than 30, that should create jobs right? Because someone will have to pick up those hours, it will count as another job created. I wonder how they are going to reflect that in the metrics.
 
BTW...I am being sarcastic here.

That is not a success in my mind.

It is a gigantic failure.

A 50+% rise in the national debt (which does not include the trillions more on the Fed ledger) over 52 months to 'get' the unemployment rate down to 7.5%?!?

That's pathetic.

It's (to a point) the 1930's all over again.

Massive government spending in return for economic stagnation (except, this time the Fed is pumping trillions indirectly into the stock markets to artificially pump them up).

And the ignorant public is buying it - with the help of the government fudging the CPI/GDP numbers to make things look better - hook, line and sinker.

The U.S. economy is not getting better...it is getting worse.

But John/Jane Q. Public (and Keynesian economists/bureaucrats like Paul Krugman/Ben Bernanke/Janet Yellen) are too ignorant on macroeconomics to see it.

Out of curiosity...what would you have done?
 
the labor participation rate remained the same at 63.3%.
 
Good work everyone.
 
No. Listen, I am a layman when it comes to economics, and statistics. I confess that I am not very good at comprehending all the aspects behind coming up with the numbers that are fed to us through media.
I am not a layman and I've worked in this field for over a decade. So I will try to explain and keep things comprehensible.

But, I do remember that we were told that we needed some 250,000 jobs created each month in order to keep up with population growth.
That seems awfully high. Either your source was waaaay off, or you are mis-remembering.
Now we are being told that 130,000, to 180,000 is good enough, and lowers the rate.
There is not and cannot be a set number..it's obviously going to change as the population changes. Also, it can be complicated because "jobs" and "employment" are different concepts and the jobs numbers are not used in the UE rate calculations.

There are 2 surveys in the Employment Situation Report. The "Jobs" numbers come from a survey of approx 145,000 businesses (557,000 individual establishments). The Jobs numbers exclude agriculture, the self employed, people who work in other people's houses, people working off the books, and unpaid family workers. It's also a count of jobs, so a person who works two jobs will be counted twice.

The Current Population Survey is a survey of approx 60,000 households. It includes everyone 16 and older and Employed are those who worked at least 1 hour for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family business/farm. It's a count of people and people are counted only once no matter how many jobs they have. It's also the survey that counts Unemployed and those Not in the Labor Force (neither working nor looking for work).

So to "keep up with the population" we're looking at the Employment to Population ratio...but that's Employment from the Household survey. You have to do some adjustments to get the number of nonfarm payroll jobs (making assumptions about self employed and agriculture etc). A decent tool is at Jobs Calculator - Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

There is only one reason for that to happen in my understanding, and that is that the number of people dropping out of the workforce, exceeds the demand for new employment, so the number in my eyes is a shell game, and a lie.
Leaving the labor force can happen in many ways. To leave the population altogether (which of course is a minus to the labor force as well), you can die, go to jail, join the military, get institutionalized, or leave the country. To leave the labor force and stay in the population you can retire or otherwise lose/leave your job and not (yet) start looking for work. Until you start looking, you're not unemployed. If Unemployed, you stop looking for work. Most of that is for personal reasons: school, family obligations, illness/injury etc.

The Labor Force bounces up and down all the time. It reached its peak back in 2000 and is unlikely to get that high again for a while. Keep in mind that many people are loosely attached to the labor force: students/stay home spouses/retirees/Paris Hilton..who don't necessarily need a job but often want one for some extra cash. So these groups dropping out, increased retirees, more people deciding they're better off staying home with the kids, can all drop the labor force (or the participation rate) without meaning anything dire.

It's not a shell game or a lie, it's just that technical definitions and methodology just doesn't, and can't, match casual/everyday language usage. You can say a 19 year old pothead living in his mom's basement is "unemployed" but is that really a good way to measure the job market? (yes, that was an extreme example to prove a point)
 
Republicans will be terribly dismayed by this news.

We're dismayed by the job participation rate which is at its lowest since the 70's as well as the fact that these jobs added are nothing compared to the number that left the workforce.
 
Actually, a more accurate measure is found here:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Which measure are you considering more accurate and why? Certainly not the U4, U5, or U6, where the standard errors are going to be much higher as the groups are much smaller and the definitions more subjective.

Besides which, I was asked for links to support my cites of the not seasonally adjusted numbers. The alternative measures don't change that at all.
 
Out of curiosity...what would you have done?

One) change the CPI tabulation model to what it was in 1980. This would leave the CPI well over the present Fed mandate and force them to raise interest rates to what they should be.

Two) tell the Fed to end QE immediately or I will end the Fed immediately (assuming I had the power).

Three) balance the budget (by - among many other things - cutting the defence budget in 1/3-1/2 and bringing all the troops home).

Four) never again bailout another bank or corporation.

Basically; neuter the Fed, balance the budget and let the economy fix itself.


I realize you are totally against most/all of this.

Your love of all things 'big government' is well documented.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
One) change the CPI tabulation model to what it was in 1980. This would leave the CPI well over the present Fed mandate and force them to raise interest rates to what they should be.

Two) tell the Fed to end QE immediately or I will end the Fed immediately (assuming I had the power).

Three) balance the budget (by - among many other things - cutting the defence budget in 1/3-1/2 and bringing all the troops home).

Four) never again bailout another bank or corporation.

Basically, balance the budget and let the economy fix itself.


I realize you are totally against most/all of this.

Your love of all things 'big government' is well documented.

Have a nice day.

If the economy is allowed to recover then no one can take credit for that, not a political reality. QE is all that is left postponing the inevitable, they won't give that up either.

You are still right though, John Galt said when in this situation the solution is to "Get the hell out of my way."
 
Back
Top Bottom