The big jobs hole

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
44,482
Reaction score
448
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The government's monthly job report on Friday showed that the disastrous labor situation plaguing the nation's economy is moderating. But the report also underlines an unsettling reality: 8.4 million jobs have been vaporized since the recession began, and digging out won't be easy.

The unemployment rate fell unexpectedly in January to 9.7%. And businesses shed 20,000 jobs for the month, far fewer than the 150,000 jobs that were lost in December.

But, at the same time, the Labor Department revised its previous estimates for the number of jobs that have been lost over the past 25 months. What they found wasn't pretty.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 1.4 million more jobs than previously believed. The adjustments also showed losses for 2009 alone came to 4.8 million jobs, more than 600,000 additional lost jobs than previously estimated.

"We're coming out of a very, very steep downturn," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "The revisions show that we have a really big hole to come out of."

The revision came about because the government had been dramatically underestimating the number of businesses that were closing due to the recession.
Signs of improvement, but steep hill to climb

Economists estimate that the country needs to create at least 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the nation's expanding job force. That translates into 11 million jobs just to get back to the 5% unemployment rate from before the recession.

The downward revisions of past job losses are a stark reminder of how much the economy needs to turn around. There are now 14.8 million unemployed Americans, who have been jobless for an average of 30 weeks -- an all-time high.

"Even as today's numbers contain signs of the beginning of recovery, they are also a reminder of how far we still have to go to return the economy to robust health and full employment," said White House economist Christina Romer in a statement.

"It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative," Romer added. "It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains."

There were signs in January's report that the worst of the labor decline is largely over, and many businesses are beginning to hire again.

The manufacturing industry created 11,000 jobs last month, and the services industry was the biggest jobs creator, with a net gain of 48,000 jobs. Of those services gains, 42,100 came from the retail sector, suggesting businesses are hopeful that the recent growth in consumer spending wasn't a fluke.

Perhaps the most encouraging sign from January's report was the addition of 52,000 temporary workers, whose hiring often signals that employers are starting to gear up again.

Employers also brought many workers on reduced hours back to full-time work status in January, another step seen as a precursor to hiring new workers. The number of workers who were seeking full-time employment but were working only part-time hours plunged by 9%, pushing the so-called under-employment rate down to 16.5% from 17.3% in December.

That resulted in longer hours for workers: The hourly work week rose by an average of 6 minutes to 33.9 hours in January. With a modest 4-cent gain in the average hourly salary, the average weekly paycheck rose by $1.36 to $761.06.
Employers still cautious

Still, it wasn't all good news. Several sectors continued to shed jobs, including the hard-hit construction industry, which shed another 75,000 jobs in January. The transportation and financial industries also lost in excess of 10,000 jobs, and the government shed a net 8,000 positions in January.
0:00 /3:03What is America's middle class?

"Employers are still very cautious about hiring people and adding to their payrolls on a permanent basis," said Joanie Ruge, senior vice president at outsourcing firm Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment staffing firm. "Many companies are looking to make sure they don't aggressively add staff -- and then the economic turnaround doesn't last, and they're force to lay off again."

Economists were cautious in their optimism as well. Though the unemployment rate fell to 9.7% from 10%, economists were skeptical that a month of job loss could muster such a large decline in the jobless rate.

Many experts chalked up the decline to the recent round of revisions impacting the estimated number of people in the workforce.

"January's rate showed an exaggerated sense of improvement in labor market," said Mark Vitner, economist at Wells Fargo. "But there is improvement. I don't want to take that away."

Jobless rate falls but another 20,000 jobs lost - Feb. 5, 2010
 
A slight improvement in the jobless rate but what is the government hiding about the picture for most of 2009?


Most people seem to believe that the number of Americans with jobs is a clearly identifiable number. All you do is count up the number of people with jobs. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it works. The number reported each month is based on surveys, and surveys have can often have problems. As it turns out, the surveys estimating the number of people with jobs reported over the last couple of years suffered from some really big problems. The economy actually lost about 824,000 more jobs during the recession than we previously thought.

But those adjustments have so far only been made through March 2009, and there are strong reasons to believe that the survey data since then also needs to be adjusted downward.

There are two ways economists measure the number of jobs, the establishment survey that asks about 370,000 employers how many people they are employing and the household survey that asks about 110,000 people each month whether they are working. The establishment survey is often given more weight because about 40 million Americans work for the companies surveyed, a lot more than the 110,000 people interviewed in the other survey. But 110,000 people still make up a huge sample (remember that a big survey for a presidential election might involve 2,000 people), and it is hard to ignore its results. The household survey is also what is used to calculate the unemployment rate.

The problem is that the two surveys have reached different estimates, with the household survey showing a significantly greater drop in the number of jobs than the establishment survey. And it turns out that there might be a simple reason for that. For the survey of firms, the list of firms surveyed doesn't change very often. Thus the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which puts these numbers together, can only guess at the number of jobs created by new firms since they don't even know how many new firms have been created each month. To get around this gap in the data, the Bureau makes an assumption that the jobs created at new companies is about equal to the jobs lost at companies that go out of business.

Unfortunately, that assumption hasn't worked during the current recession. Firms have been going out of business and news ones haven't sprung up to take their place. Keith Hall, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said that most of the revisions made up until March 2009 were made because the number of business closing hasn't been matched by jobs create by new businesses.

These recent errors are quite large. The error in estimating the number of jobs from April 2008 to March 2009 was 10 times greater than the average error over the preceding eight years. What does this mean in terms of jobs? Normally the government would underestimate the number of new jobs by 80,000 and this time it was overestimating them by about 800,000.

So what is the error rate from April to December 2009? We won't have a good idea until the numbers are revised again in February 2011. In the meantime, we should look at the establishment survey numbers with a great deal of skepticism. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics assumes that new firms generated almost a million new jobs over those nine months. As it turns out, the household survey just happens to show that about a million more jobs were lost than the survey of firms indicates.

Given these problems, what should people look for to understand what is happening to the economy? The most accurate measure of how well things are going is the unemployment rate and the numbers showing how many people have been so discouraged while looking for a new job that they have left the labor force altogether. With today's numbers showing that the unemployment rate is now at 9.7 percent and that 200,000 fewer Americans have stopped looking for work, the recent picture has finally improved slightly.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."
 
I'm working on a project for this thing. I am going to try and make the Deaf prioritized for jobs. Discrimination stops NOW.
 
um, you really think that if we stop deaf discrimination, it'll help our economy? No.
 
I'm working on a project for this thing. I am going to try and make the Deaf prioritized for jobs. Discrimination stops NOW.

Funny you should mention that. I am in the "idea" stages of a plan to help as well.

I am thinking of re opening the Business as a not for profit and hiring only deaf workers.......
 
A slight improvement in the jobless rate but what is the government hiding about the picture for most of 2009?


Most people seem to believe that the number of Americans with jobs is a clearly identifiable number. All you do is count up the number of people with jobs. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it works. The number reported each month is based on surveys, and surveys have can often have problems. As it turns out, the surveys estimating the number of people with jobs reported over the last couple of years suffered from some really big problems. The economy actually lost about 824,000 more jobs during the recession than we previously thought.

But those adjustments have so far only been made through March 2009, and there are strong reasons to believe that the survey data since then also needs to be adjusted downward.

There are two ways economists measure the number of jobs, the establishment survey that asks about 370,000 employers how many people they are employing and the household survey that asks about 110,000 people each month whether they are working. The establishment survey is often given more weight because about 40 million Americans work for the companies surveyed, a lot more than the 110,000 people interviewed in the other survey. But 110,000 people still make up a huge sample (remember that a big survey for a presidential election might involve 2,000 people), and it is hard to ignore its results. The household survey is also what is used to calculate the unemployment rate.

The problem is that the two surveys have reached different estimates, with the household survey showing a significantly greater drop in the number of jobs than the establishment survey. And it turns out that there might be a simple reason for that. For the survey of firms, the list of firms surveyed doesn't change very often. Thus the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which puts these numbers together, can only guess at the number of jobs created by new firms since they don't even know how many new firms have been created each month. To get around this gap in the data, the Bureau makes an assumption that the jobs created at new companies is about equal to the jobs lost at companies that go out of business.

Unfortunately, that assumption hasn't worked during the current recession. Firms have been going out of business and news ones haven't sprung up to take their place. Keith Hall, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said that most of the revisions made up until March 2009 were made because the number of business closing hasn't been matched by jobs create by new businesses.

These recent errors are quite large. The error in estimating the number of jobs from April 2008 to March 2009 was 10 times greater than the average error over the preceding eight years. What does this mean in terms of jobs? Normally the government would underestimate the number of new jobs by 80,000 and this time it was overestimating them by about 800,000.

So what is the error rate from April to December 2009? We won't have a good idea until the numbers are revised again in February 2011. In the meantime, we should look at the establishment survey numbers with a great deal of skepticism. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics assumes that new firms generated almost a million new jobs over those nine months. As it turns out, the household survey just happens to show that about a million more jobs were lost than the survey of firms indicates.

Given these problems, what should people look for to understand what is happening to the economy? The most accurate measure of how well things are going is the unemployment rate and the numbers showing how many people have been so discouraged while looking for a new job that they have left the labor force altogether. With today's numbers showing that the unemployment rate is now at 9.7 percent and that 200,000 fewer Americans have stopped looking for work, the recent picture has finally improved slightly.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."



Interesting. What surveys are they, though? I always had the impression that the official unemployment rate is derived from the number of unemployment checks issued. When the unemployment benefits run out, you are automatically "employed" again. Sounds fatal and screwy but there you have it.
 
Funny you should mention that. I am in the "idea" stages of a plan to help as well.

I am thinking of re opening the Business as a not for profit and hiring only deaf workers.......

Great! PM me if you have any more ideas to make it accessible for the deaf population to get jobs. I need more suggestions, they can never hurt.
 
Interesting. What surveys are they, though? I always had the impression that the official unemployment rate is derived from the number of unemployment checks issued. When the unemployment benefits run out, you are automatically "employed" again. Sounds fatal and screwy but there you have it.

True that. I've seen a credible source saying that unemployment is actually 29%.

You take what you believe.
 
Yeah, so when you guys get it all worked out, hire me. I just got word that we will be laid off in 3 months.
 
Yeah, so when you guys get it all worked out, hire me. I just got word that we will be laid off in 3 months.

I remember you saying that in another thread, LDNanna. :( Sorry to hear that! I hope you find something else soon! :)
 
um, you really think that if we stop deaf discrimination, it'll help our economy? No.

I dont see anywhere on PFH's post that suggests that he is working on a plan to help the economy.

He is doing it to stop discrimination.
 
How about this? ---
1) Fire every worker over age 50. Bingo, employment problem solved!
2) Give each fired worker a million dollars with the stipulation they do two things:
Buy a car. Bingo, the auto industry back to work!
Buy a house. Bingo, housing industry busy again.


Well, I can dream, can't I? :lol:
 
Back
Top