November unemployment rate down to 8.6%, 120K jobs added; More Updates
posted at 10:05 am on December 2, 2011 by Steve Eggleston
Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics site is down, I’ll be adding updates when that comes back up and I can confirm a couple more items for myself. However, I will go with what I managed to find before everything crashed.
There’s two things I can deal with right now; the U-3 unemployment rate, and the non-farm jobs added. While the official unemployment rate dropped down to 8.6%, that is much more a function of people departing the workforce than people finding a job. The Atlantic managed to screen-cap the major parts of the household data, the basis of the unemployment figures (H/T – Jason Whitman.) The civilian labor force dropped by 315,000, which caused the participation rate to drop to 64.0%, down from 64.2% in October. James Pethokoukis ran the numbers, and declared that if the participation rate were the same as last month, the unemployment rate would be 8.9%. Worse, if it were the same as when President Obama took office, it would be 11%.
Things are a bit better on the jobs added front. Tom Blumer noted that the seasonally-adjusted jobs created numbers were revised upwards for both September (for the last time) and October (for the first time). September’s job growth jumped from 158,000 to 210,000, while October’s jumped from 80,000 to 100,000.
Do expect updates as the Hot Air team can dig deeper into the BLS data.
Update (Allahpundit): Derek Hunter captures the insanity of the unemployment rate dropping as more people drop out of the labor force in despair: “If we’d just kill all the sick people we’d be the healthiest country in the world!”
I wonder how many would have to quit looking for work to get unemployment back down to five percent. Start calculating, White House spin team.
Update (Allahpundit): Smirnoff-ian perfection from Anthony Fisher: “In United States, unemployment drops you!”
Update (Steve): The BLS site is back up, and the press release, along with the various charts, is here.
The 315,000 seasonal drop in the civilian labor force is almost unprecedented for a November. Since 1982, there have been only 7 times the labor force has dropped between an October and a November, and only 3 times has the drop been even close to this steep. In 2002, 273,000 departed the labor force, in 2008, 332,000 departed the labor force, and in 2009, 227,000 departed the labor force.
Related to that, the number of people not in the labor force, but who want a job now, rose to a seasonally-adjusted 6,595,000, the highest since the first month that statistic was tracked, January 1994. As a percentage of the civilian population, the 2.74% rate is the highest since June 1996.
The final bit of bad news was dug up by Zero Hedge – the average duration of unemployment rose to a new record of 40.9 weeks from the prior 39.4 weeks.
On the other hand, the number of employed persons did go up by 278,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 140,580,000. That drove up the employment-population ratio to 58.5%, the best it has been since May 2010.
Update (Steve): Stvnscott noted down in the comments I forgot to mention the U-6 number. It is 15.6%, down significantly from the 16.2% it was in October.
However, that requires a longer explanation. There are three elements that U-6 tracks that the official U-3 does not – “discouraged” workers (which is not nearly the same as the “want a job but haven’t looked lately” number mentioned above), those who hadn’t searched for work in the last 4 weeks because of reasons other than the job market (both not seasonally adjusted, and together being the number of those marginally attached to the workforce), and those employed part-time because of economic reasons.
The number of “discouraged” workers rose from October’s 967,000 to 1,096,000 in November, though the BLS does note that November 2011′s number is less than November 2010′s 1,282,000. Hence, the U-4 unemployment measure, which adds in said discouraged workers, only dropped by 0.3 percentage points to 9.3%.
The total number of workers marginally attached to the workforce increased by 36,000 to 2,591,000 in November. That brought the U-5 unemployment measure down by 0.3 percentage points to 10.2%.
The number of people working part-time due to economic reasons, especially because of slack work, dropped significantly on a seasonally-adjusted basis. Those working part-time because of slack work dropped from 5,901,000 in October to 5,605,000 in November, the lowest level since November 2008. Those working part-time because that’s the only work they could find dropped from 2,631,000 in October to 2,526,000 in November, which though significant is higher than it was in June 2011.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI, and my Congressman) discussed the unemployment numbers on WIND-AM’s Big John and Amy Show this morning.
EDIT: (Jazz) “both not adjusted for inflation” changed to “both not seasonally adjusted”









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Not exactly. Both the household survey (the basis for the employed/unemployed numbers) and the establishment survey (the basis for the jobs created numbers) do count the self-employed, though the establishment survey has historically undercounted the self-employed.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:20 PM
If the dems brag about this…Rick Perry could always say it is due to Texas…
tinkerthinker on December 2, 2011 at 1:22 PM
I haven’t read the whole thread so I’m sorry if you have answered this already….how do they determine who is no longer looking for employment?
Cindy Munford on December 2, 2011 at 1:24 PM
I haven’t quite answered it; they ask the survey answerers who say that they are not employed whether they searched for work in the past 4 weeks.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM
Self employed are not counted as unemployed when they stop working. Self employed also do not collect UI benefits so they aren’t counted in the Weekly Jobless Claims numbers either.
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 1:30 PM
I’ve been saying this for a couple of years now. The Regime just arbitrarily reduces the size of the US labor force to make the numbers look better, when in reality the labor force is actually growing every month.
At this rate, Emperor Zero will be able to claim unemployment is at 4% by the time of the election, even with 50 million people out of work.
dogsoldier on December 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM
I do not think that the participation rate (currently 64%) measures what I described.
From data BLS Table A-1, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
We can derive this: The number of employed persons divided by the number of non-instituionalized [at least 18 years old] civilians (using the BLS’s seasonally adjusted numbers)–
Nov. 2010: 138909/238715=0.58190310621
Oct. 2011: 140302/240269=0.58393717042
Nov. 2011: 140580/240441=0.58467565848
So, Oct. ’11 and Nov. ’11 both seem to have had about a 58.4% employment rate for non-institutionalized civilian adults, and both were at least 0.2 percentage points better than Nov. ’11.
Ira on December 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM
Half-right, assuming they mention they are looking for work in the CPS. We who pay SECA don’t get unemployment.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Have you looked at the youngstown state study on unemployment or shadowstats.com?
dogsoldier on December 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM
It’s all a bunch of BS propulgated by the Admin to make Odumbo look good. The real number should reflect the number of work eligible people who are not working. If so, the number would be around 22%.
rjoco1 on December 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM
What’s SECA?
angryed on December 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM
Rueters should freely sprinkle “unexpecteds” on this report. After all, the CNBC survey group of economists (which may well be the same survey Rueters uses for all I know) expected 125,000 new jobs and no resulting change in the unemployment rate. We hit slightly fewer jobs created number but, as everyone has been discussing, the BLS has managed to whimsically turn that into a lower unemployment rate. That’s the “unexpected” part. Election year level “unexpected”.
MTF on December 2, 2011 at 1:48 PM
There is no more misleading statistic published than unemployment data based on applications for unemployment insurance.
You might as well report a decline in the number of customers at all the burger joints in the country as the total number of people out there who don’t eat hamburgers. It’s nonsensical.
Check this out (and don’t think it’s that crazy if you talk to some of BHO’s advisors): If the government just sent everybody a check every month so they didn’t need a job, they could stop looking for a job and stop applying for unemployment benefits, and the unemployment rate would go to ZERO.
Perfect, right?
And we can dig up Karl Marx, have him stuffed and install him in the Oval Office. He’d love it.
IndieDogg on December 2, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Sorry about the misunderstanding. You just described the employment/population ratio, which is reported by the BLS.
Let’s go a bit further back in history on that:
January 2009 (the month Obama took office) – 60.6%
June 2008 (just before the start of the “traditional” definition of the last recession) – 62.4%
November 2007 (just before the NBER definition of the last recession) – 62.9%
The last time prior to the current recession the employed/population rate was this low or lower was October 1983, when it was 58.4%. BTW, there were still far more stay-at-home parents (mostly moms) back in 1983.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM
Self-Employment Contributions Act, the self-employed coutnerpart to FICA. We get to write out a check for an estimated amount of that, as well as an estimated amount of our income taxes, each quarter.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:53 PM
I’ve seen ShadowStats’ summaries (not subscribed so I don’t get the details), but not Youngstown State’s stuff.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 1:54 PM
I think it’s something like KY Jelly, but costs twice as much.
forest on December 2, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Interesting, so it’s like polls? I have not worked in over two years, did not take any extension on unemployment and have not answered any survey. I’m feeling under represented. I thought maybe the number no longer looking for work was based on applications for Social Security or pensions, but that doesn’t cover the younger folks. This seems an odd way to run a circus.
Cindy Munford on December 2, 2011 at 2:01 PM
test.
Cindy Munford on December 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM
It is a poll, though with far more respondents. The Current Population Survey (the one that determines the unemployment rate) surveys about 60,000 households, and the Current Estabilshment Survey (the one that provides the jobs numbers) surveys about 140,000 businesses/government agencies.
I do need to make a correction to an earlier response – the CES does not count the self-employed, or at least the self-employed that are not contractors of a CES respondent.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 2:26 PM
That’s a healthy sampling, thanks for the information, I don’t know how you keep it all straight.
Cindy Munford on December 2, 2011 at 2:36 PM
The U3 report is reported but does not consider the 315,000 no longer searching for jobs. The U6 does, but that one is not reported.
easyt65 on December 2, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Take a look at the 2nd-last update. I had to get the initial post out while the BLS site was down, so I couldn’t get a handle on the U-6 number.
When I finally did, I realized I had to do a lengthier explanation of how that fell by a larger amount (at least in absolute terms) than the U-3 number.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM
If it’s going great, then why do we need a jobs bill?
rjoco1 on December 2, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Steve, I think you and I are in agreement that the recent “official unemployment rate” drop is not as impressive as an change from 9.0% to 8.6% might otherwise appear. And, I believe that you, like me, believe the USA will be better off with someone other than Obama or another Dem being sworn in as president in Jan. ’03. On the other hand, when things do start to get better, it will be small gains like we’ve just experienced in the employed/population rate (both year over year and month over month) that will be the among the initial signs of improvement.
Hopefully, this is the start to economic improvement. And, let’s hope folks realize that such improvement is despite the rescues, bailouts and stimuli.
Ira on December 2, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Fixed:
Steve, I think you and I are in agreement that the recent “official unemployment rate” drop is not as impressive as
ana change from 9.0% to 8.6% might otherwise appear. And, I believe that you, like me, believe the USA will be better off with someone other than Obama or another Dem being sworn in as president in Jan.’03’13. On the other hand, when things do start to get better, it will be small gains like we’ve just experienced in the employed/population rate (both year over year and month over month) that will be the among the initial signs of improvement.Hopefully, this is the start to economic improvement. And, let’s hope folks realize that such improvement is despite the rescues, bailouts and stimuli.
Ira on December 2, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Ira on December 2, 2011 at 3:59 PM
Because the govbernment jobs that were saved and created by Porkulus I are disappearing right on schedule. </Rat_to_English_translation>
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM
Ditto.
Steve Eggleston on December 2, 2011 at 4:23 PM
Fox just couldn’t bring itself to put 8.6 percent on the screen. They helpfully rounded up to 9%.
Seriously.
chumpThreads on December 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM
The White House knows damn well that there’s a difference between unemployment and unemployment claims. This is just another example of how Hope & Change is just Smoke & Mirrors.
Crusty on December 2, 2011 at 9:44 PM
See the stimulus is WORKING!!!! Spend another trillion and wait….when x-mas season is over it will be back above 9%. Boo hoo!
nazo311 on December 2, 2011 at 10:59 PM
Like the official infant mortality rate in the U.S. being higher than Europe, which sounds bad except that Europe doesn’t count infant mortalities younger than a certain age, so naturally the two rates are not actually comparable.
didymus on December 3, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Heh.
400,000 people applied for unemployment benefits; 120,000 people found jobs; and the unemployment rate in a country with 300,000,000 people went down?
If you believe this, you must be a Democrat.
Jaibones on December 3, 2011 at 11:53 AM
I tend to think the seasonal adjustment is now out of date. Businesses were getting along fine, basically, with a reduced workforce. But for the holidays, they have chosen to staff up to their normal holiday levels. Thus, the seasonal adjustment should be bigger.
Frankly, I don’t think for a second that we won’t be right back to where we were a month or two ago, by the time January or February rolls around.
deadrody on December 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2