Employment is going up? Really? See this chart

[dixiegrrrrl]

How can we fund anything, including the debt, with fewer and fewer workers?

[Ian David]

1. For every time Private Sector employment increases, there is a drop in Public Sector employment.

All those cuts the GOP keeps insisting on increase the number of unemployed.

[TheWraith]

2. Yes, really. And forged numbers with an axe to grind don't change that.

The spin from "ZeroHedge" and the like claiming that a huge number of people dropped out of the work force last month has been debunked a bunch of times already.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. BLS is forged numbers? Really?

Well, true, they DO tend to put out numbers with a positive spin and then, quietly, "revise" those numbers a few weeks later. So, yeah, I guess you could say Bureau of Labor Statistics has an axe to grind.

But I don't believe they go as far as forging them. However, you never know, now days.

[InkAddict]

8. Well, grind my axe then...until that blade is sharp as can be

DH and I both got new FTE jobs 10-10-11. I lost mine at 88/90 days. LHFF, I guess. DH has apparently lost his 1099 gig as of yesterday (privatized for the public sector). I've only a year to go until early retirement SS - so I'm thinking I'll just drop out--push up job hunting for a C-note sure doesn't make much sense to me and it would be a re-opened claim with just a few weeks left.

His forced early SS will kick in eventually, if that contract renewal doesn't materialize. I saw they've apparently got plenty of funds for a brand new museum though. Ah, yes, the irony of nostalgia...the way we were, LOL, and welcome to poverty.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/city-set-to-receive-national-va-archive-1322921.html

[jtuck004]

9. The criticism, what was debunked, was not the number but his characterizing

the increase as a conspiracy where perhaps none exists.

The gov still stands by that number. There was an adjustment which added 1.2 million people to the number not in the workforce meaning that they are just now recognizing them. Even reading the BLS explanation in the report (really? people are retiring so they can sell their underwater homes and live on no income at record levels?) it leaves us with ANOTHER 600,000 added to those "not in the workforce" who want to be, but they are just too dispirited and not stupid enough to keep looking for jobs that don't exist.

Another line not debunked:

"...yet only to arrive at an employment number last seen ten years ago, when the US population was about 30 million lower (think about that: 30 million increase in population and no change in the total employed)"

Maybe no conspiracy, but certainly a daily tragedy for millions of people, and a terrible cost to this country.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. ahh..that last point

is good, I had missed that one.

30 million increase in population and no change in the total employed

I could cry.

The BLS explanation is BS...it is not like all the baby boomers decided to retire all at once, it don't work that way.
Boomers have a 10 year date curve, depending on how they are defined.

[Yo_Mama]

14. Huh?

That graph is of the labor participation rate as reported by BLS. There is nothing false about it at all. In Jan the labor participation rate dropped to 63.7%, which is half a percentage point below the previous January. Since you are accusing the OP of false information, here is the BLS-generated graph:


And this is the BLS-generated graph of employment/population ratio:


It is very true that when you step back and look at the ratios, the employment situation is NOT improving.

The full-time working population shows some improvement in terms of ABSOLUTE numbers - but in relation to the total population the ratio is still dropping:


Before you start accusing people of making things up you ought to go look at the data yourself.

[MjolnirTime]

3. Did you get that from Mitt Romney?

Some people just can't handle good news very well, huh?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. It is from the government.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, official figures.
That is what BLS means on the chart, lower left hand corner where it says " data source BLS"

[leveymg]

5. The next time I see the phrase "created millions of private-sector jobs", I'll explode.

A job is a job. If you lose it -- regardless of whether you're an auto worker, a public school teacher, or a postal worker -- you still don't have a job.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. And you have so much less chance of getting another one, now.

One reason I took early retirement. I worked in the non-profit sector, and could see clearly where that was heading.

[leveymg]

10. Exactly. Same thing in this family.

More experienced, higher-income workers are particularly unlikely to find a private-sector job with comparable compensation and benefits. So, those "new" private-sector jobs we're hearing about are, net, less than what they replaced.

In other words, less money for the middle-class, and more in the pockets of the global banksters. So, when you peel this back, its actually just a continuation of the same process of upward transfer of income and downward living standards for most Americans.

[eridani]

11. Me too

I could see the what my chances of getting another high level scientific job were at age 62 with some health problems--exactly zilch.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

13. People who get excitied about the monthly un-employment stats

remind me of those that cheer everyday when the stock market goes up, and gripe the next day when it goes down. A chart such as the one above, to me, indicates that there is something systemically wrong in the labor market and/or signals that there will be less consumer-buying power, and more stress on long term social program funding. While monthly numbers may improve, the longer term trend does not look positive.

[Yo_Mama]

15. Someone who finally deals with the excellent question in the original post

The import of all this - none of which is made up - is that our tax basis in relationship to our population is steadily declining. Our expenditures are of course rising with population. If they're young, they need schooling, if they're old, they need retirements, and if they are jobless or the working poor, they need social benefits to stave off disaster.

This is insidious and threatening, and it is a major source of the very high continuing deficits. Until we could see an improvement in inflation-adjusted wages in ratio to population, we cannot expect anything but an economy moving sort of sideways.

To really drive that point home, total wages and salaries taken from the Treasury monthly reports only increased 2% from December 2010 to December 2011. That means that total REAL wages dropped over the year, and that per capita real wages dropped even more.

This is an economy that's going nowhere fast. I have some hopes that January's totals will look better because of seasonal factors. When they come out I'll try to remember to post them here.

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Agreed.

[Po_d Mainiac]

17. Just a little breakdown in the com room

&feature=player_embedded

[hay rick]

18. A sharp drop from 2008 to 2010.

And then leveling off during the "recovery" to a new, poorer normal.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. exactly.

the two things necessary to deal with the numbers -- perspective and context. You can't get perspective unless you stand back and look at more than just a one month rise or drop in ANYTHING. And once you step back to look at the trend, you get the context.

Right now, neither is very pretty or promising.

[fasttense]

20. If the BLS keeps "adjusting" the laborforce participation rate down, we'll be at 3% unemployment

without creating a single job. Yes, you can fiddle with the denominator and lower your unemployment rate without really changing a thing.

In 2000 we had a laborforce participation rate of 67.3%. Today, after "adjustments" by the BLS we have a 63.7% participation rate, a 3.6% decrease. If they lower the participation rate to 60% we will be at 3% unemployment without ever having created a job.

[dmallind]

21. When did the baby boom start again?

About 1MM more in 1947 than 1945.....

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. I thik there are a couple of definitions of that cohort.

Some say 1947 as a start, but others call 1945-47 as the "early boomers".