November jobs report – 203,000 jobs added, unemployment rate 7.0%

posted at 9:41 am on December 6, 2013 by Steve Eggleston

Going into today’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there have been several rounds of good economic news, from ADP’s 215,000 private-sector jobs added to a strong ISM manufacturing index of 57.3. Gallup’s measure of adult unemployment, an increase to a seasonally-unadjusted 8.2% from October’s 7.3% and last November’s 7.8%, was the outlier in this week’s economic news.

The predictions from the expert economists ranged from 180,000 jobs added and a 7.2% unemployment rate at Reuters to a 185,000 jobs added and a 7.2% unemployment rate at Bloomberg.

As CNBC’s Rick Santelli says, the survey says…:

The unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent in November, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 203,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.9 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.0 percent, declined in November. Among the unemployed, the number who reported being on temporary layoff decreased by 377,000. This largely reflects the return to work of federal employees who were furloughed in October due to the partial government shutdown….

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 203,000 in November. Job growth averaged 195,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred in transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing.

The return of the federal workers accounted for nearly half of the 818,000 increase in the number of employed from October to a seasonally-adjusted 144.4 million, and the entirety (and then some) of the decrease in the number of unemployed of 365,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 10.9 million.

While the labor force participation rate increased by a seasonally-adjusted 0.2 percentage points to 63.0%, it is still 0.6 percentage points lower than it was in November 2012 and 0.2 percentage points lower than where it was in September.

Between October and November, part-time workers increased by 174,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 27.5 million. Those who claim to be part-time due to economic reasons declined by 331,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 7.7 million. Those who last looked for work between 5 and 52 weeks prior to mid-November but want to work declined by a seasonally-unadjusted 409,000 between November 2012 and November 2013 to 2.1 million. Those factors drove the U-6 unemployment rate down to 13.2%

Going back to September to take the effects of the partial government shutdown out of the equation, the number of employed increased by only 83,000, while the number of unemployed decreased by 348,000, which explains the continued labor force participation rate drop. Part-time workers accounted for 47,000 of that 83,000 employment increase, though those who claim to be part-time due to economic conditions decreased by 207,000.

On the establishment survey side, the private sector provided 196,000 of the 203,000 non-farm payroll increase. Transportation and warehousing contributed 30,000 of that increase, manufacturing 27,000, retail trade 22,000, and temporary help services 16,000.

The average hours worked per job crept up by a seasonally-adjusted 0.1 hours to 34.5 hours for all workers and 33.7 hours for production/non-supervisory workers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

if the participation rates of each 5-year age group had remained where it was prior to the Great Recession, the unemployment rate would still be over 9%.

Steve Eggleston on December 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM

If the participation rate now, after almost 7 straight years of Democrat majority control, was the same as it was in December 2006 (after 12 straight years of Republican majority control), then the unemployment rate would not be 7.0%, it would be 11.8%!

I’ll show the math in my next comment, but for now I just want to emphasize that if the Labor Force Participation Rate had stayed constant between December 2006 and November 2013, the unemployment rate would have gone from 4.4% in December 2006 to 11.8% in November 2013 after nearly 7 years of continuous Democrat majority control (Dems have held 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate and Presidency continuously since January 3, 2007)!

ITguy on December 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Here’s the math… first the current numbers…

According to BLS table A-1, the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in November 2013 was 246,567,000.

The number considered to be in the civilian labor force was 155,294,000 representing 63.0% of the population (155,294,000/246,567,000 = 0.62982, which rounds to 63.0%).

The other 37% of our population (91,273,000) was considered “Not in labor force”.

The number employed was 144,386,000.

The number considered unemployed is calculated as the workforce minus the number employed.

number Unemployed = workforce – employed =
155,294,000 – 144,386,000 = 10,908,000 (shown as 10,907,000 in Table A-1, likely due to rounding)

The percentage considered unemployed is calculated as the number considered unemployed divided by the size of the workforce:

Unemployment % = Unemployed Percent of labor force =
number Unemployed / workforce =
10,907,000 / 155,294,000 = 0.0702, which rounds to 7.0%.

ITguy on December 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Considering that we have to add about 300,000 jobs per month, on average ‘just to break even’, the whole thing is ridiculous.

And since the two months before Christmas are when most retailers and shipping companies hire on many, many temporary workers, this is actually disastrous news.

LegendHasIt on December 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Now consider what the unemployment rate would be if the labor participation rate (the % of the Civilian noninstitutional population considered to be in the Civilian labor force) were the same now as it was when Republicans last held majority control in December 2006 (66.4%).

The civilian noninstitutional population age 16 years+ in November 2013 would still be 246,567,000.

The number employed would still be 144,386,000.

However, the number considered to be in the civilian labor force would be 246,567,000 * 66.4% = 246,567,000 * 0.664 = 163,720,488

Round that down to 163,720,000

The number considered unemployed is calculated as the workforce minus the number employed.

number Unemployed = workforce – employed =
163,720,000 – 144,386,000 = 19,334,000

The percentage considered unemployed is calculated as the number considered unemployed divided by the size of the workforce:

Unemployment % = Unemployed Percent of labor force =
number Unemployed / workforce =
19,334,000 / 163,720,000 = 0.11809, which rounds to 11.8%.

I repeat what I said above:

If the participation rate now, after almost 7 straight years of Democrat majority control, were the same as it was in December 2006 (after 12 straight years of Republican majority control), then the unemployment rate would not be 7.0%, it would be 11.8%!

ITguy on December 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

If you like your job, you can keep it” until the day after Christmas.

RADIOONE on December 6, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Egg, Rush quoted a statistic that something like 40% of the “new” jobs were government positions (which produce nothing of inherent value). I would guess that some of those were closure “rehires”. The rest only increase government domination of a beholden labor market.

As expressed above, who can trust anything the lying, manipulating, self-serving BLS/Census puts out? Rush asked where the unemployment number would be in October 2014 to assure Democrats don’t take a beating. I say that they will manufacture 6% and the claim will be that the regime has brought the country back to “full employment” despite the hidden massive statistical loss to the work force.

The Obama Depression continues.

ironked on December 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

It is clear that these numbers don’t mean much at all. Obama and his Administration is simply doing whatever they can to make sure the unemployment number is lower so that low-information voters can feel like the recovery is in full effect. The media will fall into line today.

Darin on December 6, 2013 at 9:45 AM

One would think that even low information voters would notice that they have lost their jobs, perhaps lost their homes and have less spending money.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Oct 2009: 10% unemployment, 58.5% employment
Nov 2013: 7% unemployment, 58.6% employment

There has been no real improvement in employment in the last 4 years.

The ONLY reason that the reported unemployment number dropped from 10% to 7% is because the Labor Force Participation Rate dropped from 65% to 63% during that time period.

The unemployment rate did NOT drop because of people moving from unemployed to employed.

The unemployment rate dropped because people moved from unemployed to “not in labor force”.

Repeating one more time for emphasis:

If the participation rate now, after almost 7 straight years of Democrat majority control, was the same as it was in December 2006 (after 12 straight years of Republican majority control), then the unemployment rate would not be 7.0%, it would be 11.8%!

December 2006:
Unemployment: 4.4%
Employment: 63.4%
Participation Rate: 66.4%

November 2013:
Unemployment: 7.0%
Employment: 58.6%
Participation Rate: 63.0%
Unemployment rate if Participation Rate had matched Dec 2006 (66.4%): 11.8%

Using that to compare apples to apples (participation rate 66.4% in both cases)…
Unemployment at the end of 12 straight years of Republican majority control: 4.4%
Unemployment now, after nearly 7 straight years of Democrat majority control: 11.8%

ITguy on December 6, 2013 at 6:35 PM

October 2009:
Unemployment: 10.0%
Employment: 58.5%
Participation Rate: 65.0%

November 2013:
Unemployment: 7.0%
Employment: 58.6%
Participation Rate: 63.0%

In the last 4 years, as unemployment dropped from 10% to 7%, people haven’t gone from unemployed to employed, they have left the work force.

ITguy on December 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Chart Of The Day: US Labor Force Declines By 25,000 In Past Year Despite 2.4 Million Rise In Employable Americans

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-07/chart-day-us-labor-force-declines-25000-past-year-despite-24-million-rise-employable

As today’s chart of the day shows, while the civilian noninstitutional population (i.e. employable Americans over the age of 16) grew by 2.4 million in the past year (from 244.2 million to 246.6 million), the US labor force somehow, very mysteriously, declined.

Murphy9 on December 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Since the Democrats (Pelosi, Reid, then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc.) took majority control of Washington, D.C. on Janaury 3, 2007:

The Civilian noninstitutional population has grown by 16.5 Million people,
but the number of people actually employed has DROPPED by well over 1.5 Million people.

So, what happened to those 18 Million people?

The answer will be my next comment.

ITguy on December 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Since the Democrats (Pelosi, Reid, then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc.) took majority control of Washington, D.C. on Janaury 3, 2007:

The Civilian noninstitutional population has GROWN by 16.5 Million people,
but the number of people actually employed has DROPPED by well over 1.5 Million people.

So, what happened to those 18 Million people?

The answer is:

The number considered unemployed has grown by 4.1 Million people,
and the number considered “Not in Labor Force” has grown by 13.9 Million people.

ITguy on December 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Over the course of nearly 7 years of Democrat majority control, nearly 14 Million people have given up hope of finding a job.

ITguy on December 7, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2