January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent

excuse me????
a drop in unemployment????

joe, you need to post something that'll give 'em something to squawk about.

leslie

Don't worry, we're very resourceful; we'll come up with something.

Actually . . . .there is some fudging around with those numbers . . but then the government always does that.


steph

where did you read about the fudging?
please...no townhall, heritage or other right-wing sources.
we need reputable sources.

leslie

I'm at work . . .can't google right now.


steph

This article sums up the inconsistencies in the reporting of a decreased unemployment rate in a month when 20K jobs were lost:

1. Seasonal employment temporarily improved job numbers.

This positive news could have a lot to do with seasonality. Remember, the reported number is seasonally adjusted. It says that in January, we had 14.8 million unemployed Americans, which is about a half million fewer than the 15.3 million unemployed in December. Sounds great, right?

Maybe, maybe not. If you don't adjust for seasonality that changes. A lot. Then, January had 16.1 million unemployed, while December had 14.7 million -- an increase of 1.4 million jobless Americans.

There's a similar story with rates. Seasonally adjusted, the national rate dropped to 9.7% from 10.0%. If you don't adjust for seasonality, then the unemployment rate rose from 9.7% in December to 10.6% in January.

2. This rate fails to account for worker who remain unemployed but have given up looking for a job and those who desire full-time employment but have to settle for part-time.

The trend of additional discouraged workers also doesn't paint a very positive picture. They leaped to over 1 million:



This isn't what you'd like to see. It's the largest month-over-month increase in discouraged workers since the start of the recession. If you thought a new year might encourage more unemployed Americans to decide to try to find a job, you'd have been wrong. And don't forget: those 1 million Americans will need to enter the work force eventually, which will cause the rate to rise.

The non-seasonally adjusted rate that takes into account discouraged workers rose a full percentage point from 10.2% in December to 11.2% in January. If you want to take seasonality into account, the news is better, but even there the rate only came down from 10.5% to 10.3% from December to January.

The broader marginally attached unemployment rate continues to be very ugly. The number of jobless there are essentially unchanged, but that rate is 11.2% seasonally adjusted and 12.0% unadjusted. Adding in those forced to work part time brings those rates up to 16.5% and 18%, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted.

3. Jobs continue to be lost at a high rate in well-paying construction and manufacturing areas, while those being created tend to be low-paying temporary and retail positions.

For a little industry-level detail, construction is still losing jobs, with the sector shedding 75,000. Manufacturing also continues to lose jobs, but the numbers aren't looking as bad, with only 11,000 lost in January.

Temp and retail added jobs: 52,000 and 42,000, respectively. I noted the increase in temp jobs last month. This trend is an indicator that employers will probably begin hiring more permanent workers before too long. The most resilient sectors, health care and the federal government continued to add jobs. They grew by 15,000 and 33,000 jobs, respectively.

5. The duration of unemployment is long.

The duration of those unemployed also continues to be troubling. Those unemployed for more than 27 weeks increased again. 6.3 million Americans have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks.

To summarize:

I think you should look at this confusing report today in two ways. Seasonality is useful for recognizing trends. As a result, the trend is clearly positive. But unadjusted unemployment shows total worker suffering. And that's quite awful, as the broader rate including marginally attached unemployed who can't find full time work is up to a whopping 18% -- the highest we've seen since the beginning of the recession. So while the economy is beginning to make a turn, things are still very, very bad on the actual employment front.

from:http://business.theatlantic.com/2010..._were_lost.php

Note to leslie: not an "unreliable" conservative news source

to clarify, you don't believe the numbers or, do you know for a fact the numbers have been "fudged"?
i just don't know what you're saying.

and you're at work, still playing on an's, yet you can't google??
hmmm...

leslie

Allnurses is considered a medical site that is ok to use

And Jolie did my work for me . . . that's the article!

2. This rate fails to account for worker who remain unemployed but have given up looking for a job and those who desire full-time employment but have to settle for part-time.

That is a HUGE fudge.





steph

Unlike left-wing sites such as daily kos, huffington, media matters and common wealth which are always reputable...