ap Unexpected drop in jobless rate sparks optimism

[jujuman13]

Link
Unexpected drop in jobless rate sparks optimism - Yahoo! Finance

I am puzzled.
I feel certain that some of the more educated people who frequent these blogs can point out the mistakes in my thinking.

We are informed that the unemployment stands at 10.2%, then we are also told that the number of those who have lost jobs in the last month is an unexpected drop in being 11,000.
However I am at a loss to understand how a loss of jobs (while being a declining amount on a month to month basis) can possibly be called a reduction of 0.2% of those unemployed.
Please help me to understand.

 

[American]

I think it has to do with projected losses and/or the was they calculated constant unemployment though people gain and lose jobs constantly.

 

[Gill]

The numbers are funny because a lot of people drop off unemployment each month because they've given up looking for work.

I also heard that the biggest drop in this month's unemployment figures was due to a rise in temporary jobs. If that's the case, look for January's numbers to be horrible.

 

[Partisan]

The numbers are funny because a lot of people drop off unemployment each month because they've given up looking for work.

I also heard that the biggest drop in this month's unemployment figures was due to a rise in temporary jobs. If that's the case, look for January's numbers to be horrible.

Smoke & mirrors, this economy has not bottomed out....

 

[PeteEU]

The numbers are funny because a lot of people drop off unemployment each month because they've given up looking for work.

I also heard that the biggest drop in this month's unemployment figures was due to a rise in temporary jobs. If that's the case, look for January's numbers to be horrible.

Yep, but the real unemployment number which includes these people also fell.

Plus the last two months numbers were revised down (as in fewer job losses).

 

[PeteEU]

Smoke & mirrors, this economy has not bottomed out....

Considering that the real unemployment fell also then there is a chance that it has bottomed out. The next two months will be key to see if it in fact did bottom out.

 

[Gill]

Yep, but the real unemployment number which includes these people also fell.

Plus the last two months numbers were revised down (as in fewer job losses).

Not according to this article:

The unemployment rate also dropped because fewer people are looking for work. The size of the labor force, which includes the employed and those actively searching for jobs, has fallen by 1.2 million in the past six months. That indicates more of the unemployed are giving up on looking for work.

 

[PeteEU]

Not according to this article:

That is exactly what I am saying.

The unemployment numbers of 10% now are "fake" because the pool of workers change so much in the US.

After X months a person is automatically kicked off the list if they have not found work as they are considered as not looking for work.. they are still unemployed of course and looking for work, but they are not part of the statistic any more. That is why you could easily have a rise in unemployment in one month with jobs created.. sounds nuts, but it is possible.

It is also why the rise last time from 9.8 to 10.4% or whatever it was happened with only 140k more unemployed. The amount of people in the labour pool fell relatively more than the amount of people filing for unemployment and hence pushing up the official unemployment number considerably more than one would expect. And some of the decline in the unemployment number is also attributed to the fact that the revised number of unemployed in the last two months fell, so the 10.4% or whatever was never really that high.

Now the "real unemployment" number adds these people plus those working part time but want full time work and that number has fallen also.

US unemployment numbers are can be very deceptive, but the more accurate number is some where in between the official 10% and the "real unemployment" number of near 17%.

 

[Dutch]

That is exactly what I am saying.

The unemployment numbers of 10% now are "fake" because the pool of workers change so much in the US.

After X months a person is automatically kicked off the list if they have not found work as they are considered as not looking for work.. they are still unemployed of course and looking for work, but they are not part of the statistic any more. That is why you could easily have a rise in unemployment in one month with jobs created.. sounds nuts, but it is possible.

It is also why the rise last time from 9.8 to 10.4% or whatever it was happened with only 140k more unemployed. The amount of people in the labour pool fell relatively more than the amount of people filing for unemployment and hence pushing up the official unemployment number considerably more than one would expect. And some of the decline in the unemployment number is also attributed to the fact that the revised number of unemployed in the last two months fell, so the 10.4% or whatever was never really that high.

Now the "real unemployment" number adds these people plus those working part time but want full time work and that number has fallen also.

US unemployment numbers are can be very deceptive, but the more accurate number is some where in between the official 10% and the "real unemployment" number of near 17%.

I've been hearing 20% a lot this last week, tho I have no idea if that figure is anywhere near accurate. If it is it's shocking to say the least.

 

[Erod]

I've been hearing 20% a lot this last week, tho I have no idea if that figure is anywhere near accurate. If it is it's shocking to say the least.

Truly shocking when you think about it. Plus, the real unemployment rate among black men ages 25-54 is over 34 percent, which is incomprehensible.

 

[Partisan]

Truly shocking when you think about it. Plus, the real unemployment rate among black men ages 25-54 is over 34 percent, which is incomprehensible.

Why?.....
Change that number to the 18-54 age bracket & I will guarantee that percentage is significantly higher.....

 

[Ethereal]

The economy is bound to recover eventually. People forget, that's what free enterprise does...

 

[Erod]

The economy is bound to recover eventually. People forget, that's what free enterprise does...

...if you let it.

 

[carlkay58]

The reason we have two numbers that get posted and talked about unemployment is that the Federal government changed the calculations in the 1990s sometime. The new calculation counts the number of people collecting unemployment - that is all. So when your unemployment benefits run out you are no longer 'unemployed' - you vanish from the work pool totally. Since this is a farce, many economists also track the old way which reports higher numbers by tracking those still unemployed and keeping track of the new hires and new unemployment filings. The latest figures are 10% unemployment by the current standards but the total number of jobs fell by 102,000 and the old figure is around 18.6% now - expected to hit 20% by March by many of the experts.

Then there is the 'real' unemployment figure that adds the 'underemployed' into the unemployed figures. Underemployed people are part-timers who want to be full-time but are working just to get some money coming in or people who are over-qualified for their current jobs because, well you get some money coming in. The last figures I recall for the 'real' unemployment is about 22% currently.

Note that the only solid number is the current method of tracking the number of people collecting unemployment payments. The other two numbers include a lot of 'fudge' factors and are much harder to calculate and prove. Too subjective and liable to be used for political purposes.

 

[Crunch]

Check this out....

multimediafinal

 

[carlkay58]

Check this out....

multimediafinal

Oh fun, its like watching the plague spread. Of course during the entire time span the color of St Clair County, MI never change from the over 10%.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Truly shocking when you think about it. Plus, the real unemployment rate among black men ages 25-54 is over 34 percent, which is incomprehensible.

Unless you grew up 70 years ago and the unemployment rate was around 50% and probably much much higher for black men.

 

[jujuman13]

The economy is bound to recover eventually. People forget, that's what free enterprise does...

While an economy may well recover over time, the point is how long a time will it take for this US economy to recover.

 

[Navy Pride]

Link
Unexpected drop in jobless rate sparks optimism - Yahoo! Finance

I am puzzled.
I feel certain that some of the more educated people who frequent these blogs can point out the mistakes in my thinking.

We are informed that the unemployment stands at 10.2%, then we are also told that the number of those who have lost jobs in the last month is an unexpected drop in being 11,000.
However I am at a loss to understand how a loss of jobs (while being a declining amount on a month to month basis) can possibly be called a reduction of 0.2% of those unemployed.
Please help me to understand.

Its called fuzzy math................

 

[PeteEU]

I've been hearing 20% a lot this last week, tho I have no idea if that figure is anywhere near accurate. If it is it's shocking to say the least.

It was 17.5% and fell to 17.2% last month. And no it is not shocking, the real unemployment of the US has always been been closer to 10%+ than under, but in the never ending partisan politics of the US, only the official unemployment numbers have been used despite their obvious lacking. So even under Bush the US unemployment was way above the official of 5 to 6% it was in reality closer to 10% if not over, but that was politically wrong to say so (regardless of who was in power). Same for under Clinton btw.

 

[PeteEU]

Its called fuzzy math................

The math is sound, it is methodology that is selective and not inclusive. But that was the same as under Bush and others.