Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

[dummass]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

Month 26 and counting...

Just wait 'till the State government sector layoffs really start to bite.

The bigger the boom, the bigger the bust?

Perhaps the stock market is digesting the news properly. Cost of production is reduced by cheaper labor costs, which then translates into high profits.

[GRG55]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

Perhaps the stock market is digesting the news properly. Cost of production is reduced by cheaper labor costs, which then translates into high profits.

Really?

The last data that I recall seeing [here on iTulip as I recall] was that employment income in the USA for those still employed was RISING. At the moment the cost of production is falling because "productivity" is rising - basically the person in the next cubicle or factory work station gets laid off and you get to do their job, as well as yours. Enjoy that 0.5% raise for doing double-time... ;)

[charliebrown]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

New numbers for feb.
1) % population employed 58.5% feb up, How?? the number employed is down. rounding error?, big decline in population?

2) num employed 136.7M, down from jan, down every month since june
3) total employed x weekly wages 85.5B, both wages and number employed down. This is the second lowest number in the last 8 months.

From December to January when there was a change in the format of the report, weekly wages jumped 14%. Does anyone know why? I assume they are counting a slightly different set of people.
I'm am now using this 14% as a fudge factor to compare new to old data.

4) u6 17.9%, down .1% from Jan.
5) employment duration. 19.6, Up from Jan, rolling average barely down.

I don't see why everyone is so giddy about U3 holding steady.

[don]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

Oh, it gets better...much better...:rolleyes:

From the BLS:

January 8, 2010

Payroll survey benchmark revisions

Benchmark revisions are a standard part of the payroll survey estimation process. The benchmark revision represents a once-a-year re-anchoring of the sample-based employment estimates to full employment counts primarily available through unemployment insurance (UI) tax records that
nearly all employers are required to file with State Employment Security Agencies.

Following standard BLS methodology, the sample-based estimate for the month of March is replaced by the March UI-based employment level and estimates for the 12 months preceding and the months following the March benchmark reference month are recalculated.

Estimates for the 12 months preceding the March benchmark are recalculated by wedging back the difference between the UIbased employment level and the sample-based estimate: 1/12 of the difference is applied to April of the prior year, 2/12 to May, and so forth, through February of the benchmark year which receives 11/12 of the difference.

Estimates for April of the benchmark year forward are recalculated by applying the over-the-month changes from the sample to the new benchmark level, along with recomputed net birth/death factors. (See “New business births” below.)

The payroll survey’s most recent benchmark—to March 2008 employment records—resulted in a downward revision of 89,000 (17,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis), or about -0.1 percent of total nonfarm employment.

The average benchmark revision over the past decade has been plus or minus 0.2 percent. Detailed information about this and previous benchmarks can be found on the
BLS website at http://www.bls.gov/ces/tables.htm#benchmark.

The preliminary estimate of the next benchmark revision is for a downward adjustment of 824,000, or 0.6 percent of total nonfarm employment, for the March 2009 reference month. The final benchmark revision will be incorporated into the payroll survey with the publication of January
2010 data on February 5, 2010.

What a day for a daydream
What a day for a day-dreamin' boy

be sure that if you're feeling right
A daydream will last long into the night
Tomorrow at breakfast you may prick up your ears
Or you may be daydreaming for a thousand years

[flintlock]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

I've personally lost confidence in most economic statistics. +/- a few halves of a percent too easy to manipulate. And the shadow economy of illegals, criminals, etc is too hard to measure. I think what you have shown is that the overall trend is lower employment, which I think we all can acknowledge is no surprise. There is only so many times the government can trump out these statistics to show "recovery". At some point, it will become obvious you can't have 10% unemployment and call it a good thing, month after month.

[GRG55]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

Another month...another updated chart from Calculated Risk:

[Rajiv]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

What is interesting is that the four longest are all post 1980 as FIRE became ascendant, and increasing in duration with each new recession.

Least --> 1981 1990 2001 2007 <-- most

[GRG55]

Re: Unemployment December 2009: a rhyme not a repeat

What is interesting is that the four longest are all post 1980 as FIRE became ascendant, and increasing in duration with each new recession.

Least --> 1981 1990 2001 2007 <-- most

Exactly.

It would seem that as policy makers became increasingly bold in their application of post-WWII Keynesian stimulus from 1948 each successive recession became shallower and shorter.

Until we entered the 1970s and began the era of "perpetual stimulus" wherein politicians and ambitious Central Bankers discovered that if fiscal stimulus [fiscal deficits] and loose monetary policy [negative interest rates] are a "good thing" to recover from recessions then they must be good things to goose economic growth rates even when one is not in recession.

And that in turn begat...ta da...the "Jobless Recovery".

Now we have the worst of all situations...a recession even deeper than the 1948 post-war record, and a recovery duration that will surpass the worst "jobless recovery" so far.