Economy shed 651,000 jobs in February

[TomClash]

Source: Reuters

The U.S. economy continued to lose jobs at a fast pace, while the unemployment rate climbed to 8.1 percent.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/

[TomClash]

1. Full Reuters story here

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52517Z20090306

[yourout]

2. I wonder what the real unemployment rate is?

[TomClash]

3. If you count the people who have given up looking

and those who have PT work and want full time work, it is probably about 14%.

[galileoreloaded]

7. Closer to 15-16% SA/NSA

Link to data:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

[TomClash]

12. Merrill's economist said 13.9% earlier this month

14,15,16 - it's all bad.

[indypaul]

30. This figure matters not

just think of the number of households in which
the unemployment rate is 100% Too damn many and
for no credible reason.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Probably as difficult

to judge in the same way it is here in the UK too. It complicated by issues ,for example , like students leaving school or college etc prior to getting work and those able to work but unwilling to do so.

[Doremus]

19. U-6 is 14.8%

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

[The abyss]

20. Question for someone out here?

How were these numbers calculated in the 1930s?


Thanks!

[pinqy]

25. They weren't

There was no systematic measurement of unemployment in the 30's. Census made some attempts, and some guesses, but no reliable figures were produced at the time. The official figures for the 20's and 30's were imputed in 1948.

[The abyss]

34. Thank you

[Igel]

36. Making comparison even more difficult are large-scale changes in society.

Fewer women worked out of the home, fewer kids were in school, and standards of living were radically different.

Even if they were kept, I'm not sure they'd matter much.

[pinqy]

27. Define "real."

The numbers are real based on the ILO definitions. If you prefer to look at a different aspect, it's available in the full report. But difference of opinion over definition and scope doesn't make your preferrence more "real."

[Doremus]

43. "Real," as in how many are no longer receiving benefits

though they still haven't found work, how many are working parttime because they can't find fulltime work, how many have basically given up on the process because they know there's nothing out there to be found, etc., etc.

U-6 is a good snapshot of those numbers vs. the more rosy U-3 numbers the government uses.

[spinbaby]

5. From CNN...

U.S. unemployment rate jumps to 8.1 percent in February, the worst since December 1983.

[newportdadde]

6. Also Jan and Dec were revised up. Imagine what Feb will turn out to be next month.

[conscious evolution]

8. The payroll processing company ADP

said almost 700,000 were laid off according to their records.
If one payroll services company is saying that I have to wonder what the true totals are.

[AnneD]

9. And that doesn't even begin to count those....

that no longer collect unemployment and have been dropped entirely off the roles. I eventually became one of those in 1983-when Reagan-BushI started rigging the books. Thank God I am in better shape today, I totally empathize with those suffering through this job market. That was one of the toughest times, but I came out a better, stronger person.

Edited to add- since the 80's, I always multiply the official number x2 to get a more realistic number.

[pinqy]

31. YES IT DOES

All caps because how many times does it have to be pointed out that the Unemployment Rate IS NOT BASED IN ANY WAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE?

[AnneD]

32. These numbers have always been jacked around with to.......

1) Calm the population.
2) Make the current administration look good.

And YES, when they start reporting reporting Initial Unemployment numbers....those ARE the folks filing for unemployment bebefits.

The way they count unemployed is different now from the way they counted in in the 30's. So compareing todays numbers to then is apples to oranges.

[pinqy]

33. Wrong

You have no evidence that the numbers have ever been altered. Because it doesn't happen. I've been working with these professionally for many years. There has been 1 major (1967) and a few minor definitional changes (1945, once in the 50's, an additional number counting military from 1984-94, and another small definitional change in 1994) in employment and unemployment and that's it. Neither the President nor his staff have any access to the numbers until the night before release.

"Initial Unemployment numbers????" What exactly are you talking about? The National figures that came out today are not. It's a household survey. The Local Area numbers are partially based on UI, and the rest imputed.

You're right about the 30's numbers, they didn't do any systematic collection then. Not until the 40's.

[Igel]

37. True, they report initial claims,

but this isn't horribly relevant.

They report new unemployment claims *and* unemployment numbers because the two are different. You can't get from one to the other in any simple way.

[fasttense]

10. It just gets worse and worse. Welcome to the 2nd Republicon Great Depression.

From the link:

"January's job cuts were revised to show a steep decline of 655,000, while December's payrolls losses were adjusted to 681,000, the deepest since October 1949. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the economy has purged 4.4 million jobs, with more than half occurring in the last 4 months."

[patrice]

11. I have a friend who just lost a job that she had for 20 years in a local

warehouse management software development company that had customers allover America and some international too. She's in her mid-40s and has NEVER looked for work before. She helped make that company what it is. It was successfull, so it was sold, basically to kill the old code that they were using and move everything to being web-based and now she's out.

[thesquanderer]

13. Unemployment Now Worst Since Reagan (1983)

Source: Chicago Tribune

Unemployment 8.1 pct, highest since '83

The nation's unemployment rate rose to 8.1 percent in February, the Labor Department reported this morning, adding another grim indicator to an economic picture already darkened this week.

More than 650,000 people lost their jobs last month, pushing the unemployment rate up from 7.6 percent in January.

The jobless rate stood at its highest point since 1983.

Read more: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/unemployment_81_pct_highest_si.html

---

Yes it's bad. Maybe this will also remind people that the Reagan years weren't as rosy as some people think they were.

[WI_DEM]

14. And that is just the official unemployment rate.

[liberal N proud]

15. I spent much ot 1982 and all of 1983 without a job

I had under $700 reported income in 1983.


Reagonmics coming home to roost

[bemildred]

16. And we are not done with it yet, either. nt

[madrchsod]

17. i was "unemployed" from 80-88...

my wife and i started a business that kept us above water during those years. no one would hire me because i used to be a union worker who made 14 hr. i finally found another job in 88 working at a union steel mill. my daughter was making 13+ at a auto supplier plant..not enough years to stay on...

[Renew Deal]

18. That's pretty much good news

The rumors were much worse.

[blueclown]

21. Yeah, 650K job losses are just great!

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Not to mention the fact that December and January's unemployment numbers were revised downward.

[Renew Deal]

22. The numbers were in the range of what was expected.

If the numbers were worse than expected, today would be an even worse day for the market. The funny thing is the rumors were for 700K+ jobs lost. I wouldn't be surprised if that showed up in the revision.

[blueclown]

23. So you are falling for Wall Street propaganda?

There were no rumors of 700k job losses. Private industry estimates were in the 600k range. The 700K figure was being floated so no reasonable amount of job losses could be spun as something bad.

Wall Street would have rallied whether or not the unemployment figures were 600,000 or 800,000.

I cannot believe that you are acting like 650k jobs lost is something to be celebrated....

[Renew Deal]

24. It's not my fault you're that uninformed

There were rumors of 700K and 800K in job losses. Some of that info was posted on DU yesterday. Maybe someone over counted, or was spinning, but the rumors were there. I am not in any way acting like 650K should be celebrated. I'm just saying that 650K losses is better than 700K losses. :party: :eyes:

[blueclown]

26. Ok, show me a link to those rumors.

It's not me who is uninformed, it is you who is spouting Wall Street propaganda.

[Renew Deal]

28. Found it

It took a little while, but here it is... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8245683

[blueclown]

40. One source?

That's it?

800k certainly wasn't the consensus.

[Skittles]

39. hey blueclown

you want I should kick your ass and show you how to put assholes on ignore?

[blueclown]

41. What?

I didn't understand what you were saying...

[Pale Blue Dot]

29. Bullshit. If you add on the losses that were ADDED to the January numbers

(they increased the January numbers by 70,000) then it's even WORSE than they expected.

Wall Street seems to have realized this, too.

[AnneD]

35. I am agreeing with you.....

We also will be new kids coming out of college unable to even find work. I don't believe for a minute that unemployment is even close to 8 something-it's higher.

[blue_onyx]

38. I'm one of the people...

who has graduated college and hasn't been able to find a job. I agree, unemployment is at least 10-15% nationally. It's probably over 20% in some states (Michigan, California, Rhode Island).

[pinqy]

45. By what definition?

And what makes that definition better? And if better, why don't most statistical agencies in the world use that definition? Most use a similar definition to the US.

[FVZA_Colonel]

42. I will be graduating in June.

This really is a frightening time.

[barbtries]

44. bad news, bad news

hope it turns around soon

[GeorgeGist]

46. Capitalism shed 651000 producers in February ...

because they weren't profitable.

[Omnibus]

47. One of them was mine. n/t

:(