My regular correspondent Number Cruncher takes a look at the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and notices:
The percentage of the overall population that is employed in March 2010 was 58.6 percent. One year later, the total percentage of overall population employed is . . . 58.5 percent. Conclusion: In a growing population we have produced fewer jobs than the number that the population grew. (For the record, the number of Civilian non-institutionalized population was 237.2 million in March 2010, and is 239.00 million in March 2011.)
The number of people who were “not in the labor force” In March 2010 was 83,264,000 (seasonally adjusted). In March 2011, it was 85,594,000 (seasonally adjusted). If you want to know how unemployment dropped a point, look no further than this statistic.
If you remove 2.33 million people from the labor force within one year, that will indeed help lower the unemployment rate. It is, however, not the same as helping the unemployed find jobs.
I’m scheduled to appear on MSNBC’s Hardball tonight with guest host Chuck Todd, discussing the jobs numbers and the 2012 campaign.
UPDATE: Topic change! I’m now talking about this Ron Brownstein piece on “the changing American electorate.”
Any way to tell how much of this would be due to the aging of the country, ie. a higher % over age 65? Labor force participation peaked during the tech bubble and I doubt it'll reach those levels again, but it certainly seems to have dropped too much over the last 11 years to be entirely explained by boomers starting to retire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was wondering much the same thing, and I would think that the BLS could explain, with some degree of plausibility, the 2.33 million. Otherwise it's just "makin' stuff up."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore precisely, 74% of the unemployment rate drop -- roughly three-quarters -- is because people left the work force. From these numbers employment in March 2011 totaled 139,815,000 people (239 million people times 58.5%), up 816,000 from a year ago, but 2,330,000 people left the work force.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, this NRO reader would appreciate the inside scoop on the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which will be the first meaningful electoral feedback on the November 2010 Republicans.
I've donated to a Prosser ad. I might scrape up a few more nickels if they could make a difference, but don't want to do so if a highly probable outcome is already in the cards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTurn down F. Chuck Todd. Wait for Savannah.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou don't suppose Todd's bookers read Campaign Spot, saw these stats, KNEW you'd have to present them to a wide audience on their show....and hurriedly changed the topic, do you?
Nah, They wouldn't do THAT would they?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell it is a good thing Matthews won't be there, I was going to advise you to put on some goggles or get some sort of spittle guard to put over your face, but if it just going to be Chuck Todd just take a few NO-DOSE pills so you don't fall asleep and you should be fine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNO-DOZ rather...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooking at the data table, I noticed that it's missing what I would consider an important column of data. There needs to be an entry for new Social Security disability and retirement applications. It would allow for greater precision in determining the number of "discouraged unemployed" members of the available labor population.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuring times of personal financial difficulty, people who have been holding on basically give up and finally apply for Social Security disability or retirement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Ron Brownstein piece on the changing American electorate ignores the effect of Tea Party members who refused to respond to the census surveys, and the White House control of the census with a bias to look for more illegal aliens in the census. Normally the US census is a gold standard for statistical analysis, but 2010 was not a normal census for what Brownstein is analyzing.
Taking the "unexpected results" as fact without considering how they could be wrong for evaluating the electorate is not good analysis. The rest on the piece is just obvious comments from crunching questionable numbers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Republicans could add this fact to their talking points? If they ever bother to get around to having talking points?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes this mean people wanted to work under President Bush but not under "spread the wealth around" Obama?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere have been more jobs created under Obama than Bush created in 8 years. Bush has the worst jobs rate on record. Both Bush's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim Geraghty wrote:
"If you remove 2.33 million people from the labor force within one year, that will indeed help lower the unemployment rate. It is, however, not the same as helping the unemployed find jobs."
This is spot on. The large number of people "dropping" out of the workforce is actually a direct consequence of having the extended benefits for unemployment run out for millions of people formerly employed in the automotive industry, many of whom have not been able to find new work:
External Link
Since those receiving unemployment must state they are actively seeking work to claim the benefits, once the benefits run out, they no longer need to claim they're seeking work. With that being the case, they are no longer counted as being part of the workforce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't pay any attention to the unemployment rate, it is highly manipulated and almost meaningless. Lots of people have left the active labor force either because they have temporarily given up looking, or are at an age where they just figured they would retire because they looked at their chances of finding a job, and how long they would be in it if they were lucky, it was smarter to just claim their SS and pension and start withdrawals from the old 401(k).
Pay attention to total non-farm private sector employment and hours worked. Average hourly compensation also worth a look, but the stats aren't as clean. Total private emplopyment and hours are where the value is produced that has to pay for everything including the government.
All the other stuff is just falling for head-fakes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseone should also take into account immigration, which may bring with it increasing numbers of infants and children etc. that plus retirement (with many taking an early retirement because are unemployed) could be factors
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe numbers make perfect sense once you realize it's all according to plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTopic change! Of course. Chris Matthews is going to suppress and ignore this news is favor of . . . anything else. I imagine this fact will never be said or even referred to. The Obama administration is playing a shalll game with the public and getting away with it thanks to a compromised or credulous media.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse