October 08, 2010
— Geoff UPDATE: The most important stat in the BLS report is the huge increase in workers forced into part-time work due to economic circumstances. This category has increased by 940,000 people over the past two months.
The BLS just released the unemployment rate for last month, and at first blush it's not the most interesting of results. The U-3 unemployment rate last month was 9.6% and this month it's.......9.6%. Here's how that looks on The Chart:
We lost 95K non-farm jobs, but they claim that we added 64K private sector jobs. That doesn't agree well with ADP's announcement that we lost 39,000 jobs last month.
I had many requests for particular graphs yesterday: I'm going to start adding them below the fold as I get to them.
I'll kick off the supplemental charts with a comparison of total private employment estimates from BLS and ADP. The BLS surveys employment in two ways: they poll households ("Household" data) and they survey businesses ("Establishment" data). ADP uses their payroll records to extrapolate to the nation as a whole. Several people also asked about seasonal adjustments, so I included seasonally-adjusted ("SA") and non-seasonally adjusted ("NSA") variants for both BLS surveys.
You can see that while they're at different levels, they pretty much follow the same trends, except for the little rise recently in the BLS household data. There's a similar, but smaller rise in the establishment data, and no rise at all in the ADP stats. This is borne out by this chart that I lifted from ADP's September report:
The BLS and ADP month-to-month changes agree pretty well until this past year, when the BLS started showing larger improvements than ADP. Interesting.
But one overall point to note is that non-farm private employment has not continued to fall - it's been at least stable and maybe even slightly positive since the beginning of the year.
The next chart is one I like to call "Atlas Groans." It's the ratio of private, non-farm employees to the civilian non-institutional population. It's basically a measure of how heavy the burden of supporting government employees and non-workers is on private employers and employees. As you can see, the burden has increased significantly since 2006, but has been stable lately.
There were a lot of questions yesterday about how many people were being dropped after exceeding their 99 weeks of insurance coverage. The average duration of unemployment has actually dropped a bit, though it's still outrageously high:
A lot of people have argued that we should be looking at the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number (You can find definitions for the different measures of unemployment here). Here's a comparison between the two measures:
They agree pretty well in terms of trends, except for the little uptick in the last month. This is due to an increase the number of workers forced to take part-time work. Here's a plot of their plight:
The number of people forced into part-time work has increased by 943,000 over the past two months. I noted this last month, but this month was even worse.
And I think that concludes this month's flurry of charts.
Posted by: Geoff at
05:14 AM
| Comments (72)
Post contains 531 words, total size 5 kb.
Democrats way up in latest Quinnipiac poll
this goes along with my comment #51 in last thread. At least in Ohio, people's jobs and property have been threatened if they support an R. Esp. in schools, hospitals (unions), and union work places.
Posted by: momma at October 08, 2010 05:19 AM (penCf)
I listend to a live radio report this morning as the Sept jobs numbers were released from the govt. You would have thought they were announcing five million jobs created last month. Honestly, the radio reporters were beside themselves they were so giddy. Why, because the unemployment number stayed high!
As we always have to ask, imagine if unemployment had stayed at 9.6% for two months in a row under George Bush. It would be a month-long lamentation of how awful it is, and of course where the blame belongs.
Posted by: Boots at October 08, 2010 05:20 AM (06JTY)
Posted by: Johnnyreb at October 08, 2010 05:21 AM (cqZXM)
I suppose it's too late to ask for my money back?
What's behind door number 5?
I'm not feeling so good!
I say we let all of the current dems keep their jobs after the election if they just shitcan Barry.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 08, 2010 05:21 AM (r1h5M)
momma: Dems are throwing alot of money at this election. they are paying SEIU people to work the polls, phone banks, canvass etc.
If you have money, please donate to Republican candidate. And volunteer. We can beat them, but we have to stick together & we have to work.
Posted by: kelley in virginia at October 08, 2010 05:22 AM (MEs24)
via drudge
Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 05:30 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 05:31 AM (Ew1k4)
Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 05:33 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Roy at October 08, 2010 05:34 AM (YFXn0)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 08, 2010 05:34 AM (Baf0e)
And when the real world succeeds in deprogramming them after years in the hard-left dominated school systems, they'll vote republican!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at October 08, 2010 05:35 AM (LH6ir)
Wishcraft? Or did they read the entrails of the dead fish the WH staff gave Rahmie as a parting gift?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at October 08, 2010 05:35 AM (Vz9lf)
Geoff, you still have the best charts of anyone out there.
Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 05:36 AM (p302b)
Don't know how good their methodology is, but shadowstats puts it around 22%.
Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 05:38 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 05:39 AM (p302b)
We lost 95K non-farm jobs, but they claim that we added 64K private sector jobs. That doesn't agree well with ADT's announcement that we lost 39,000 jobs last month.
Birth/death model discrepancy as a factor, perhaps? I've noticed on some recent reports that this metric frequently covered much of the spread between the BLS and ADT reports.
Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 05:39 AM (/Pw+r)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose by 612,000 over the month to 9.5 million.
About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in September, up from 2.2 million a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Among the marginally attached, there were 1.2 million discouraged workers in September, an increase of 503,000 from a year earlier.
Yep, the car is out of the ditch alright
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 08, 2010 05:39 AM (1Jaio)
10 You would think a lot of kids in their late teens, early twenties would be scared shitless of what's happening.
You would think that, but you would be wrong. I know lots of kids in that age range and they still love Obama & Colbert & Stewart et al. It will take a few more years of hard times getting worse to make them question what all those years of lefty indoctrination "taught" them.
Posted by: Boots at October 08, 2010 05:44 AM (06JTY)
We ought to note that the U6 skyrocketed as well.
Denninger has a post up on the whole picture this morning, and he's not too happy.
Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 05:45 AM (/Pw+r)
Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 05:48 AM (Ew1k4)
ok, can someone give me some knowledge here?
CNN's report says that economists were expecting the numbers to be flat, i.e., about even number of private gains and govt losses and the % to tick up to 9.7.
However, we lost almost 100k jobs and the % stayed flat.
Is it just me who doesn't understand the discrepancie there?
Posted by: todler at October 08, 2010 05:48 AM (fPOY0)
Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 05:55 AM (Ew1k4)
Posted by: Reno_Dave at October 08, 2010 05:55 AM (j8sk7)
However, we lost almost 100k jobs and the % stayed flat.
Is it just me who doesn't understand the discrepancie there?
Discouraged workers dropping out of the workforce don't count as unemployed anymore.
Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 05:59 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 08, 2010 06:00 AM (tJjm/)
The real unemployment (U6) went up from 16.7% to 17.1% ... that's the only one that counts.
Posted by: tarpon at October 08, 2010 06:03 AM (g0QB8)
Posted by: Reno_Dave at October 08, 2010 06:05 AM (j8sk7)
Discouraged workers dropping out of the workforce don't count as unemployed anymore.
Check the spike in the U6--from 16.7 to 17.1. That's probably where a lot of that is coming from.
Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 06:06 AM (/Pw+r)
The numbers have been cooked again. Can't have that number going up before the election since this is the last one before it.
P.S. EVERYONE watch that video of the president seal falling. The jerk is reading his 'joking' off the damn teleprompters!! From side to side, same cadence. Even his feigned surprise is an act as he looks over the lecturn. And notice the feinting women are back. Plouffe is back to trying to make the robot look human!
Posted by: Schwalbe at October 08, 2010 06:09 AM (UU0OF)
Posted by: SurferDoc at October 08, 2010 06:10 AM (RKpGM)
Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 06:17 AM (Nq/UF)
Wow, isn't the a Frank Lautenberg admission against interest?
Posted by: ParisParamus at October 08, 2010 06:17 AM (bN5ZU)
I call BLShit on 9.6% -- fortunately, we're pretty much inoculated against believing the Ministry of Plenty's reports of output.
BTW, have any of you started to notice that the prices for home contracting services have started to increase substantially? No more illegals? Fewer companies in business?
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at October 08, 2010 06:19 AM (3iMgs)
"a point surely not lost on the Fed - no QE2 and the slide starts for real. I was in part worried that an overly bullish picture might be drummed up for the midterms - but that would have spelled disaster for the markets if it took QE2 off the table - and that would put a 2nd term in jeopardy - I think the midterms are a necessary writeoff at this point." Link
Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 06:24 AM (p302b)
Very interesting. One more statistic to consider; the total non-adjusted private payroll:
- September 1998 - 107,103,000
- September 1999 - 109,919,000
- September 2000 - 111,900,000
- September 2001 - 110,816,000
- September 2002 - 109,192,000
- September 2003 - 108,925,000
- September 2004 - 110,571,000
- September 2005 - 112,826,000
- September 2006 - 114,858,000
- September 2007 - 115,960,000
- September 2008 - 114,313,000
- September 2009 - 107,964,000
- September 2010 - 108,510,000
That's right; there were fewer people on private payrolls last month than there were in any September of the Bush administration (the Worst Economy Since the Great Depression™), and outside the depths of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, the lowest since 1998.
Posted by: steveegg at October 08, 2010 06:26 AM (51MkX)
Thanks guys. i knew i'd get smarter here. just seems like something odd about those numbers. now I know it is 
but yeah, the total number is the interestign one. curious we don't hear about it anymore.
Posted by: todler at October 08, 2010 06:46 AM (fPOY0)
Posted by: Dr Mabuse at October 08, 2010 06:48 AM (jgkJo)
Posted by: shibumi at October 08, 2010 06:51 AM (OKZrE)
"Yes, the US would then come to resemble the EU at that point... but at least the states would have the cash to hire back all the workers they're slashing.
Sound good?"
This has to be a joke, right?
Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 06:52 AM (p302b)
Remember when any soldier died? The "another grim milestone" meme? That's gone too.
I guess with President "Can't I Eat My Waffles in Peace" a soldier dying is not interesting.
Posted by: shibumi at October 08, 2010 06:53 AM (OKZrE)
Posted by: steveegg at October 08, 2010 06:59 AM (51MkX)
This BS unemployment number is unexpectedly neutral just before the election. right. sure. I can really believe this 9.6%. check's in the mail. etc.
I can't wait to see the 'revised' numbers some time down the road. Much like the big ooops about last year's numbers I expect to see that actual funemployment this month is more like 10.5 or higher and rising with "real" funemployment around 20+%.
How's all the Hope and Change workin' for ya 52%?
Posted by: chuck in st paul at October 08, 2010 07:25 AM (adr25)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 08, 2010 07:37 AM (1Jaio)
Ummm...if we are loosing jobs.
And more people are coming here to work (remember, almost 1 million a year in LEGAL immigration)..
How does the percentage of unemployed stay flat?
Rhetorical question.... because they create a system whereby people are not counted...
But the bigger question... is why anyone would trust the Government numbers, when they are so easily shown to be bogus?
Posted by: Romeo13 at October 08, 2010 07:44 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at October 08, 2010 07:56 AM (ruu60)
Household employment is up 2 Million jobs in a year, up 223k jobs last month.
Employment is a lagging indicator, unlike the stock market which is a leading indicator, and payrolls data lags the household data.
Household data surveys everyone vs payroll that only surveys medium and large firms, and household has no B-D model.
ADP [not ADT] has been underestimating actual job creation by about 85k a month as they serve mostly large businesses.
Posted by: horn at October 08, 2010 07:59 AM (PpXdM)
Jobs increase in one year is 623k, not 2mm. Last month was 141k not 223k.
Posted by: horn at October 08, 2010 08:02 AM (PpXdM)
Looking at the data by job category, 22,000 jobs were lost in the "Goods Producing" sector, but 38K jobs were added in "Health and Hospitality" (including 34K in Food Services and Drinking Places). Note that these are probably fairly low-paying... I wouldn't be surprised if the increases in food services are due to kids going back to school and increased business during football season.
Maybe just a little off-topic, but I am noticing that the quality of folks working as "clerks" in convenience stores and "sales droids" in the mall is skyrocketing.
Just yesterday, I saw clean, well-groomed, slender, sober white people [and borderline hot chicks] working the floor in both Sears and Target.
And this is in a locality which is probably >50% black or mexican indian.
Folks are REALLY hurting if they are willing to stoop to working these demeaning $7/hr or $8/hr bullshit dead-end humiliating jobs.
Thing is - if that's all you can find to earn an income - then suddenly it's not quite so humiliating anymore.
Posted by: Lindsey Grahmnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at October 08, 2010 08:06 AM (pfMMA)
After the two trashing of course to be fair and balanced they had to put Wendell "Great Pyramid" Goler on to kiss his ass and make up for it.
Posted by: Vic at October 08, 2010 08:07 AM (/jbAw)
Household employment is up 2 Million jobs in a year, up 223k jobs last month.
Dude, you're looking at the Civilian Non-Institutional Population numbers, not employment numbers. Hop down 3 lines.
And as to the household data - there's a reason that the BLS prefers the establishment data for estimating job loss.
Posted by: geoff at October 08, 2010 08:11 AM (QrzlF)
Jobs increase in one year is 623k, not 2mm. Last month was 141k not 223k.
Yes, and per the numbers, we needed to add 1.3 million jobs last year just to keep up with population growth.
Posted by: geoff at October 08, 2010 08:14 AM (QrzlF)
Posted by: ChicagoJedi at October 08, 2010 08:57 AM (WZFkG)
OK I need some help with the Atlus Groans chart.
Is it really saying that there are more public sector workers than there are private sector workers? If it is, where can I find hard numbers/sources to back that up.
I need this information for my campaign.
Yes, I'm running for office. Imagine that, a proud moron as a state Rep.
Posted by: TSgt Ciz at October 08, 2010 10:02 PM (af5xa)
Posted by: TSgt Ciz at October 08, 2010 10:39 PM (af5xa)
Is it really saying that there are more public sector workers than there are private sector workers?
Oh no - it's saying that there are more public sector workers and non-workers (like retirees 'n such) than there are private sector workers. The "civilian noninstitutional population" is everybody over 16 years old who's not incarcerated or on active duty in the military. If you include the under 16 set, the burden on private employees is even greater.
So the chart says that we used to have 53 people supporting 47 gov't employees and non workers, but now we have 48 - 49 supporting 52 - 51. Big swing.
Posted by: geoff at October 09, 2010 02:32 AM (QrzlF)
Posted by: Suspicious at October 09, 2010 04:50 AM (eAEkc)
Oh no - it's saying that there are more public sector workers and non-workers (like retirees 'n such) than there are private sector workers. The "civilian noninstitutional population" is everybody over 16 years old who's not incarcerated or on active duty in the military. If you include the under 16 set, the burden on private employees is even greater.
So the chart says that we used to have 53 people supporting 47 gov't employees and non workers, but now we have 48 - 49 supporting 52 - 51. Big swing.
Thanks. Where can I source this information directly?
Posted by: TSgt Ciz at October 09, 2010 03:53 PM (af5xa)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1779 seconds, 200 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Vic at October 08, 2010 05:18 AM (/jbAw)