On the jobs number (4.00 / 6)

Pretty interesting post over at Daily Kos by one of the site's best econobloggers.

The first and most obvious thing that jumped out at me was how the civilian labor force dropped by nearly 100,000 people, in both the seasonally adjusted (SA) and non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) numbers. The number of people not in the labor force climbed about 290,000, both SA and NSA. That brought up the obvious question of: where did those people vanish from?

The number of employed went up by 227,000 in the headline, seasonally adjusted numbers (only 47,000 in the non-seasonally adjusted numbers). Therefore it wasn't the employed that got dropped off the labor force.

It turns out that 375,000 unemployed people (SA) simply vanished from the numbers like magic...

To understand how this could happen you need to look at the initial claims unemployment report from yesterday...

To get the real story you needed to read all the way to the bottom of the official report. The very last line says EUC 2008. It is the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program that Bush signed into office before he left. The number of people receiving EUC increased by +265,300.

That means that an additional 265,300 people exhausted all 26 weeks of state unemployment benefits and rolled onto the federal dole.

The number of people receiving Extended Benefits jumped by 58,157. These are people that have exhausted both their state unemployment insurance AND their EUC benefits, and are now on benefits that Obama signed into law.

To put it another way: there are no jobs out there. No one is hiring.

People are dropping off of official statistics, whether they've given up looking, or simply are no longer being counted, and that is the only reason that the numbers weren't terrible yet again.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

I can't say I can authoritatively evaluate his analysis, but I found it persuasive.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 19:40:47 PM UTC

It is certainly possible (0.00 / 0)

And I can't say that I can't authoritatively evaluate the analysis either.

Further, jobs reports don't actually mean much.  The daily reality that people face means everything.

However, with the current numbers, the continuing stimulus, and the forthcoming legislation I mentioned, it still seems very likely that A LOT of jobs will start appearing by at least May, and keep pouring in the rest of the year.

We could see a 2% drop in unemployment over the next 11 months.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 19:43:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's a good rebuttal (4.00 / 1)

(I need to study this stuff. I'm at the mercy of others.)

This is wrong on so many levels...

people who drop off the unemployment rolls are still counted, as the household survey (and establishment survey) are just that, surveys and have nothing to do with unemployment benefits.  

Also, the BLS keeps track of those dropping out of the labor force that want a job, it's reported right under the not in labor force heading.  That number was up a whopping 16,000 this month, so there goes your theory that all these people that dropped out were just the unemployed.  

Why is it that the permabears and economic doomers cannot be happy with a decent (relatively speaking of course) jobs report that will benefit Democrats going forward?

http://www.dailykos.com/commen...

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 19:47:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It has nothing to do .. (4.00 / 2)

with permabears ... it has everything to do with realizing there are structural weaknesses in the U.S. economy ... do you read Calculated Risk?  I suggest you do so .. the person above was right ... people have stopped looking .. but I wouldn't get too excited yet ... the U3 will still go higher .. because more people will start looking for work again .. so don't gloat prematurely

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:00:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mizner wasn't gloating, methinks the Bulltard in the quote was (4.00 / 3)

Bottom line is the fundamentals aren't there to support any notion of real economic growth. I think we all know that, here anyway.

Housings still getting worse. CRE is imploding and hasn't even rocked the balance sheets yet. Derivatives trade is through the roof. Employment is still falling, wages and hours still falling and so on. Oh, consumer credit is still being destroyed at a $10-20 Billion per month clip, so there goes consumer spending!

Without financial and economic reform, an engine for creating real jobs that won't be offshored, any "recovery" will only be ephemeral at best. This current uptick is so weak and so divorced from fundamentals that it can't last very long.

But the neo-liberals are so desperate to declare victory, so they can avoid real reform altogether, I'm sure this report will be shouted from the mountains of Manhattan and The District.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 21:11:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oy vey. Talk about grasping at straws. (0.00 / 0)

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:24:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

U6 includes (0.00 / 0)

the so called "discouraged" workers.

Calculated Risk has a really good piece that explores this topic.  

There is unquestioned improvement in the job picture when you look at job losses and at the weekly unemployment claims.

This does NOT mean that this decline means we have reached the peak unemployment number.  It does mean that there has been a significant slowing in job loss and if you look closely it is possible that we will see net job additions early next year.

We know less about the future direction of the economy at this moment than at any time in the last 70 years.  If the trends that have showed up recently hold though improvement may happen faster than we think but my own personal belief is that when 1 in 4 jobs is likely to be offshored in the next 5 to 7 years we will continue to face problems creating jobs.

---

by: fladem @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 21:07:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And here is a rebuttal to that... (4.00 / 2)

According to IRS statistics, the employment situation is far worse than the BLS numbers.

TrimTabs employment analysis, which uses real-time daily income tax deposits from all U.S. taxpayers to compute employment growth, estimated that the U.S. economy shed 255,000 jobs in November. This past month's results were an improvement of only 10.2% from the 284,000 jobs lost in October.
...
the BLS is grossly underestimating current job losses due to their flawed survey methodology. Those flaws include rigid seasonal adjustments, a mysterious birth/death adjustment, and the fact that only 40% to 60% of the BLS survey is complete by the time of the first release and subject to revision.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

---

by: FLGibsonJr @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 00:12:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If someone hasn't looked for a job in the last 4 weeks, (4.00 / 1)

they are no longer included in any of the statistics.

Six alternative measures of labor underutilization are available on a monthly basis for the United States as a whole. They are published in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly Employment Situation news release.  The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the U.S. and are defined as follows:

U-1: persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2: job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3: total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4: total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5: total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6: total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION - NOVEMBER 2009

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 11:41:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to destroy your optimism, Chris, but that's not what Krugman says. (4.00 / 1)

He seems to hold the opinion that it will take more years than just three to get back to "normal" levels. If the government simply continues on this course, and doesn't jumpstart the economy somehow.

---

by: Gray @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:38:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Optimism is very important. (0.00 / 0)

If the recession/semi-depression is seen as a constant excuse for people not looking for work the numbers will build on themselves.

As has been previously posted the numbers of discouraged jobseekers has been growing.  The problem I see is that the long term numbers will be the last to receed.  As they come out of discouragement and start looking for work, the numbers of new requests for assistance may not go up.  However competition for the jobs may surely increase.

The numbers quoted today seem to be involved with temp work or seasonal employment.  So if you want temporary work the stimulus will be the way to go.  Census takers will be surely included in the labor statistics.  I guess that will be the only employment for a lot of people next year.  The real increase in numbers of people looking for work will probably come next spring when warmer weather affects us.  By the time the heat of the 2010 elections come around the competition for work will be greater from those newly unemployed and the long term unemployed that have finally run out of options.

The Dems will be remembered by a lot of people for the next ten years.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

---

by: Money Man @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 23:55:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

8% (4.00 / 1)

isn't normal.  The natural unemployment rate is probably around 5 or lower.  

Unemployment did not return to its pre-recession levels in the '82 recession until late 1984.

The lesson of 1983 is that when the economic trend reverses and becomes established, the political trend reverses as well.  This happens far before the entire effects of the recession leave.

We don't at this point know how significant a reversal we are looking at. Are we looking a simple slowing of the job losses or are looking at a true turn.

If it is a real turn, and unemployment goes below nine and the trend is unmistakable Obama will probably be near 60%.

---

by: fladem @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:41:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like you (0.00 / 0)

I really don't see a direct dip in UE numbers.  I think that it will bump along, at least through the winter.  The real push will come in the spring.  These numbers tend to be self-sustaining from the interrelatedness of our economy.

I think also that full employment is around 5%.  The problem for Obo is that the approval/disapproval numbers could still be in the minus territory.  If it stays there and the unemployment numbers receed, I'm still skeptical of his future.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

---

by: Money Man @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:57:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. UE is noisy, so one month's data is not a trend. (4.00 / 2)

Additionally, BLS is still massaging data in some fairly mysterious ways, with their Birth/Death Model and so on. I haven't seen what this months projections are yet, so i'll not comment on that.

If this pattern continues for several months, we may have a real trend. But I wouldn't place any wagers based on one month's data. Indeed, this could very well be the result of the slight uptick due to inventory replacement. They could alternatively be shaving off a lot more people who simply gave up looking for work, since they "don't count" as unemployed anymore.

But whatever the case, this comes down not to numbers, but how people perceive the economy to be doing in their neck of the proverbial woods.


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:22:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here is another link with graphs etc... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.economicpopulist.or...

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

---

by: FLGibsonJr @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 00:05:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lots of Skepticism with BLS Numbers And Economy (4.00 / 1)

The reaction on the economic blogs are generally skeptical that the BLS numbers are correct about unemployment.

Plus it ignores the structural employment problems in our country.  We are fighting a losing battle creating good jobs with benefits that can support a middle class American family.

The same economic blogs leering at the U-3 numbers are also moaning about the overpaid government employees with underfunded pensions.  Remember when government jobs were not well paying but at least the benefits and the retirement were OK?  Well, now all the pensions have been wiped out by Wall St and it's the low paid government workers fault!  So we're going to screw them out of a pension (which is a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION) while we're going honor the contract bonuses of the Wall Streeters that screwed the world's economy.

This is tantamount to watching the ruling plutocracy going after the remain good jobs in America because "they cost too much".  I'm sorry, but costing more than being a greeter at Walmart with no benefits and no future is the definition of a good middle class job.  Wiping them out is not fixing the problem - suing the shit of of the Wall St hucksters that sold AAA rated junk bonds to the pension funds and ran off with the loot is the solution to the pension problem (but don't look for the SEC, FBI or ANYBODY to actually get our money back!)

One of the fundamental "free market" changes that has to happen to truly invigorate the American economy is to have the financial investment companies, banks, and insurance companies that created this economic crisis go broke.  These companies were bailed out ONLY to maintain the stability of the financial system, once that has happened (and it has), these companies still represent fundamentally FAILED industries that need to be flushed out of the market so that new companies with new leaders and better ideas can take their place.  If we don't break up the TBTF companies, then economic reform remains a sham.  Bankruptcy is not a problem in a well regulated and functioning free market, it's the creator of new jobs, companies and opportunities.

---

by: glenjo @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:05:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You point out some interesting points... (0.00 / 0)

...it was not that long ago that government jobs were considered low paying etc, now they are considered high paying jobs with great benefits, and people are fighting for them like rats on a sinking ship.  It shows you how far wages and benefits for private sector jobs have fallen.  The problem now will be the much poorer private sector will not be able to afford the high paying government jobs with good benefits, so in the end they will have to lowered and eliminated.  It is really a no win situation.

Regards,

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred. - FDR

---

by: FLGibsonJr @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 01:28:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

27 seats (4.00 / 3)

Republicans lost 27 House seats in 1982.  Republicans in Congress, not Reagan, took the hit for his deliberate recession "to break the back of inflation."

If you use real unemployment numbers, not the ones Reagan created in 1986, this is clearly worse than that recession and unlike the last half dozen it will last longer than the 22-26 months of the last six recessions.  We may be really out of it in 2012 and Obama, like McKinley may survive politically.  The House, during that time went through a real roller coaster including the one election with the most House turnover in US history (Democrats lost 125 net seats in a 357 seat House in 1894).

My guess is that Democratic losses will bed in the 20-30 seat range and Democrats will retain the House by a smaller margin.  Blue Dogs and Conservadems will be scalped and the actual number of Progressives will increase.  Hopefully, Rahm will get sacked and I'd love to see Steny Hoyer get the boot as well.  

I think we threw away the chance for a real 40 year change because there was too little difference between Democratic policies and Republican policies and not nearly enough partisanship.  Just thrown down the toilet.  I don't expect to see another such opportunity in my lifetime and I'm 58.

Darned.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 19:47:36 PM UTC

Yes, we're really in a depression of sorts or at least getting there. (4.00 / 2)

Which is why I wouldn't be too attached to 40-year cycles and such. The situation is very different than even in '82 or '94, or whatever.

Given the fluidity of the situation out on Main Street, I'm even not placing too much importance on a lot of polling. The only ones I'm interested in right now are attitudes and beliefs, like the poll showing 40% Dems thinking about sitting out the next election. This can all change, but photo ops and phony "summits" aren't going to do the trick.

And yes, oh wouldn't it be nice to make Hoyer the poster boy for corruption and send him home to spend more time with his valuable cash and prizes? That in itself would be a huge favor for the CPC, CBC and others.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:30:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need to call for Rahm's head anyway (4.00 / 1)

2006 was a triumph for Democrats. Carville still immediately called for Dean to be replaced by Harold Ford, because it was a matter of outlook and ideology rather than results.

We need to do the same thing with Rahm. Any time it makes any sense whatsoever, call for him to be sacked. Democrats failed? Rahm's fault. Democrats didn't succeed enough? Rahm's fault. The weather's been bad lately? You get the idea.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 15:23:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But if fewer Republicans take over Democratic seats (0.00 / 0)

doesn't that make it harder for us to unseat them later with more progressive candidates?

This isn't snark. I'm honestly curious about the nuances of your position and how you reconcile these seemingly difficult-to-reconcile things.

---

by: illissius @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 19:53:04 PM UTC

Quite possibly (4.00 / 2)

Especially given that the first line of seats Democrats lose are the least likely for progressive Dems to win in 2012 (when the electorate will be more progressive, and the overall political situation will be much better).

However, keep in mind that we weren't going to help those Dems lose their seats. We just weren't going to get involved. So really, it was always a crapshoot.

Still, a Democratic majority, along with a more progressive caucus, is necessary for a progressive governing majority.

I guess what I am saying is--don't worry about the non-progressive seats Democrats lose.  Its out of our hands.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:00:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay. (0.00 / 0)

I basically agree with that. Money and effort spent to save Blue Dogs is money and effort wasted; we should protect the people who actually vote with us.

(On the other hand, I'm not sure I would've agreed that Blue Dogs losing is actively a good thing (whether or not we enable it); and if it comes at the price of losing even one progressive, then I definitely disagree.)

---

by: illissius @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:37:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Benefits (4.00 / 3)

1.  Blue Dogs losing can open up committe chairs.
2.  The messages of the two parties will be clearer.
3.  Re-districting away from neutral, will allow more progressives to be elected from 2012-22.
4.  Most importantly, it may well push safe Blue Dogs away from the Dogs and towards the left.  We see that after even unsuccessful primary challenges and so does the Club For Growth.  Scozzafava has become an object lesson and a verb.  There is no reason for Joe Baca to be a Blue Dog member from a 68% Obama district.  There is no reason for 7 California Blue Dogs.  Sure, they tend to be weak Dogs but their numbers give huge unmerited power to conservadems generally and the Dogs in particular.

Btw, why doesn't anybody poll on whether Obama is too far to the right?  A five part scale with way too conservative, too conservative, about right, too liberal and way too liberal with Party breakdowns would be valuable.  Personally, I'm for way too conseervative.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 22:31:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris is right (4.00 / 2)

The real battleground here is between progressives and regressives intra-party. The Dems can lose quite a few seats and still maintain majority. So picking off regressives, even if some of those seats go to God's Own Perverts, well... it would actually help progressives.

Who knows, Nancy Pelosi might even find that arrangement more agreeable as well. Indeed, giving Hoyer the heave ho would no doubt make Pelosi most happy. But now I'm just waxing dreamlike, so I'll let it go at that.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 20:35:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

TN-8: What's the progressive plan? (4.00 / 1)

Seems like the retirement of Blue Dog John Tanner should provide an early opportunity to test theory that removing centrists from office will give us opportunities to get more progressive Democrats elected. In this case we don't need the GOP to unseat the centrist BD -- he's unseating himself -- so it seems we have one opportunity right now in 2010.

The only name I've seen mentioned as a possible replacement is DLC member and Pro Life Democrat, state Sen. Roy Herron. Not exactly the progressive change we're looking for...

So I guess my question is, how can we at a minimum use TN-8 in 2010 to help us be better positioned to replace retiring or defeated centrists/BDs with better Democrats in 2012 and beyond?

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 22:04:00 PM UTC

The Timing Will Be Close (4.00 / 2)

First don't forget that there is a big public hiring surge coming in the spring. The census will add between 300,000 - 400,000 jobs in the spring. With a clear bottom in unemployment and the continuing roll out of stimulus money, real positive numbers should hit in the spring. That will reinforce the general positive outlook that comes with spring.

So six months out from the election we should begin to see some real changes in right track/wrong track. With that Democrats and incumbents in general will have a better base to their arguments.  

---

by: Judeling @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 22:11:28 PM UTC

If these numbers really (4.00 / 1)

are a turn in the tide, which I doubt, it is hard to overstate how powerful Obama will be.

I am not sure what that will mean for Progressives.  Certainly people like Summers will feel vindicated and will likely be viewed generally as vindicated.  The Clinton recovery of the late '90's made it hard for people to his left to get heard and I would not be surprised if that would be the result again.  

If Obama wants to revist things like the public option my guess is that he will have the political capital and space to do so. But it will be his option and the ability of the left to pressure a popular President will be more marginal than is possible currently.

 

---

by: fladem @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:51:57 AM UTC

The Trend is The Trend (0.00 / 0)

It really doesn't matter what house effect the BLS has.

What we are concerned with in this discussion is the intersection between the perception of the economy and the election. In that context the only numbers that matter are the BLS's. They are what are reported and what policy makers  and the rest of the chattering class uses.

---

by: Judeling @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 04:24:12 AM UTC