Jobless rate falls to 9.7 percent, 20000 jobs lost in January

myp · Feb 5, 2010

The Labor Department released their monthly jobs report today in which the jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 9.7 percent. 20,000 jobs were still lost in January though, but those numbers are better than the previous two months. Part of the drop in the unemployment number is due to discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.

ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416882220100205

Thoughts? Any predictions on where the labor market is headed?

David · Feb 5, 2010

myp said:
The Labor Department released their monthly jobs report today in which the jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 9.7 percent. 20,000 jobs were still lost in January though, but those numbers are better than the previous two months. Part of the drop in the unemployment number is due to discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.

ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416882220100205

Thoughts? Any predictions on where the labor market is headed?

Not having a job and not looking for a job because there're non to be had is still being unemployed. Such people aren't counted as it allows the gov't to sugarcoat everything. That 9.7% is propaganda, nothing more.

D'il y a bien longtemps · Feb 5, 2010

myp said:
The Labor Department released their monthly jobs report today in which the jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 9.7 percent. 20,000 jobs were still lost in January though, but those numbers are better than the previous two months. Part of the drop in the unemployment number is due to discouraged workers who are no longer looking for work.

ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416882220100205

Thoughts? Any predictions on where the labor market is headed?

Not really better considering that so many who have given up are not counted and 9.7 certainly isn't anything to be glad about. Thought the stimulus was going to do something.

DodgeFB · Feb 5, 2010

David said:
Not having a job and not looking for a job because there're non to be had is still being unemployed. Such people aren't counted as it allows the gov't to sugarcoat everything. That 9.7% is propaganda, nothing more.

I agree with that! They may do an "updated" version later after putting it through the "spin-cycle".

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

DodgeFB said:
I agree with that! They may do an "updated" version later after putting it through the "spin-cycle".

Right, and I wonder whether it may have something to do with seasonal employment, such as additional staff at the Department stores for Xmas? I wonder how many were permanent appointments?

myp · Feb 5, 2010

Of course the 9.7% is lower than the real percent- most people accept that. Just sharing the news reports guys, don't shoot the messenger

The employment situation is far from good right now.

DodgeFB · Feb 5, 2010

myp said:
Of course the 9.7% is lower than the real percent- most people accept that. Just sharing the news reports guys, don't shoot the messenger

The employment situation is far from good right now.

Heck we would not shoot you, probably.:unsure:

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

DodgeFB said:
Heck we would not shoot you, probably.:unsure:

Definitely not! We are probably just a little cynical of stats.

myp · Feb 5, 2010

deanhills said:
Definitely not! We are probably just a little cynical of stats.

As am I- I know the real unemployment rate is way higher, but either way, this number can serve as a gauge for the real one and it definitely has political relevance as well.

David · Feb 5, 2010

myp said:
As am I- I know the real unemployment rate is way higher, but either way, this number can serve as a gauge for the real one and it definitely has political relevance as well.

Fun fact, the teen unemployment rate is higher now then during the Great Depression. Teen unemployment has been shown to mean lower pay in adulthood.

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

myp said:
As am I- I know the real unemployment rate is way higher, but either way, this number can serve as a gauge for the real one and it definitely has political relevance as well.

Right! No doubt Obama will jump in it, but probably will be good for morale too. 9.7 looks much better than 10%.

David · Feb 5, 2010

deanhills said:
Right! No doubt Obama will jump in it, but probably will be good for morale too. 9.7 looks much better than 10%.

10% looks better then 17.5%, too (the unemployment rate back when the gov't was saying it was 10.2%).

deanhills · Feb 5, 2010

David said:
10% looks better then 17.5%, too (the unemployment rate back when the gov't was saying it was 10.2%).

Good point

dave · Feb 5, 2010

deanhills said:
Right, and I wonder whether it may have something to do with seasonal employment, such as additional staff at the Department stores for Xmas? I wonder how many were permanent appointments?

That is exactly what happened. Its a seasonal fluctuation. Companies (UPS is a good example) expand their workforce for Thanksgiving and Christmas. They all go away in January.

The economy isn't out of the woods yet.

David · Feb 5, 2010

dave said:
That is exactly what happened. Its a seasonal fluctuation. Companies (UPS is a good example) expand their workforce for Thanksgiving and Christmas. They all go away in January.

The economy isn't out of the woods yet.

And it never will be. The USA at this point exist in name only for all practical preposes. We have no money, we've effectively demilitarized the Homeland sending our forces to fight overseas, warlords are overrunning our country killing Americans in American streets in American cities and the last time state gov'ts sounded so anti-Fed, the country split into 3 different parts (1 side neutral and so generally ignored).

dave · Feb 5, 2010

Some believe the govt is manipulating the economic numbers for political reasons.

Look at the unemployment figures. In December, the govt said only 11,000 jobs were lost in November 2009. Nongovernment sources (the ADP National Employment Report, for example) said about 84,000 jobs were lost in November 2009. Thats a big difference. But guess what, after revising the numbers in January 2010, the ADP report says 61,000 jobs were lost in November, and the Dept of Labor changed theirs to 64,000 jobs lost in November.

Why? Christmas was coming, the holiday season can make or break a company financially. That is when most retailers make a major portion of their sales and boost their work force in anticipation of robust sales. Bad economic news makes the consumer spend less, which means a bad sales season, which means companies don't make the money they need to stay in business and keep employees. If people think the economy has turned around and consumers spend freely, it could mean a good year for a lot of companies.

The Dept of Labor knew what it was doing. The govt lied hoping to trick people into spending and thereby jumpstarting the economy.

And here is another data point, the ADP and the Dept of Labor statistics tracked pretty closely for many years until April 2009, when the govt estimates became much more optimistic and showed lower unemployment than nongovt sources.
　
　

DodgeFB · Feb 6, 2010

dave said:
Some believe the govt is manipulating the economic numbers for political reasons.

Naw! Say it ain't so. This government manipulating numbers!

Would they do that?

deanhills · Feb 7, 2010

DodgeFB said:
Naw! Say it ain't so. This government manipulating numbers!

Would they do that?

One of my greatest irritations! Amazing how they are ready to present numbers like these, yet the numbers involving serious trillion dollar expenditure do not get presented? I would like to see a spreadsheet starting with 2.1 trillion dollars, and then breaking it down in how it has been spent. There just does not seem to be a logical type of financial reporting. More like professional presentation on a "need to know" basis only and only little bits and pieces get presented.

DodgeFB · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
One of my greatest irritations! Amazing how they are ready to present numbers like these, yet the numbers involving serious trillion dollar expenditure do not get presented? I would like to see a spreadsheet starting with 2.1 trillion dollars, and then breaking it down in how it has been spent. There just does not seem to be a logical type of financial reporting. More like professional presentation on a "need to know" basis only and only little bits and pieces get presented.

I can think of two reasons that will not happen. Both are bad.

1. They don't really know how and where it was spent.

2. They don't care where it went as long as they got their part.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

DodgeFB said:
I can think of two reasons that will not happen. Both are bad.

1. They don't really know how and where it was spent.

2. They don't care where it went as long as they got their part.

Wow! I've never thought about that, as one always assumes that those guys are experts and are all knowing, but you have to be right. There is just too many Government Departments, too many regulations, too many Chiefs, just like with the December security debacle, so that the left may not know what the right is spending, so they may not know how and where the money was spent. And they also don't care, except to make sure that we get to know as little as possible along "need to know only" basis to keep the illusion of "all knowing" alive.

Jobless rate falls to 9.7 percent, 20000 jobs lost in January

Similar threads