[Toshi]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/best-jobs-report-in-long-time.html

Key things imo:

It appears the unemployment rate has topped out in the 9.5%-10% range. While we're not seeing any downward momentum, we aren't seeing anymore strong upside moves either.

Also note the unemployment rate continues to be high for those with low educational achievement and low for those with high educational achievement:

Unemployment rate for

Less than a high school diploma: 14.5%
High school with no college: 10.8%
Some college or associates degree: 8.2%
Bachelor's or higher: 4.9% (this is near full employment from an economic perspective).

…

In addition, according to the household survey, the number of people employed increased by 264,000. This led to an increase in the employment to population ratio of .1%, from 58.5% to 58.6%.

Those "not in the labor force" decreased 238,000.

Finally a final graph that shows the extent of the recession, and also shows how illusory those job gains under the W administration were. Yeah, ALL the jobs gained since 2003 went "poof" just like that…

 

[Silver]

Keep in mind that with population increasing, jobs staying even is a net loss.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Keep in mind that with population increasing, jobs staying even is a net loss.

Yet another reason Im pro choice and want to wall off mexico.

 

[$tinkle]

since the article was mostly a wrap-up of raw data, i wonder how these things play into these numbers now, and how they've played into numbers past:
- temp workers
- no longer looking for work
- been out of work for so long they cannot receive benefits & be counted on the unemp roll
- underemployed
- underground/self employed (working for beer/weed money)
- seasonal (construction, roads, agr., etc.)
- returning/new students who gave up looking for work

with almost 7 million looking for work for 6 mos+, i think they've lost a significant share of their marketable edge. that, and hope. i wandered the wilderness of unemployment for the 2nd half of last year. if you thought not going to the gym for 6 mos will make you weak, try bouncing around job fairs & trying to pimp yourself for 180 days. easy to get discouraged.

 

[Westy]

A lot of folks here were stumbling over themselves a few years ago saying that unemployment was much higher than reported, now the numbers aren't as bad as they seem?

Having a degree and no job I can say things really suck if you have always worked in manufacturing. The magic number for manufacturing jobs is factory utilization which is at a rather sad 69%. Traditionally things have to be at in the 80% range to maintain jobs/capital expenditures and higher than that to expect any kind of growth.

 

[$tinkle]

Having a degree and no job I can say things really suck if you have always worked in manufacturing.

assuming that it wasn't part of your plan to be in this situation, sorry, dude.

as someone who was out of work for the 2nd 1/2 of '09, gotta ask:
- for how long?
- anticipated re-employment date?
- would you move to follow work?
- do you think you may have to change industry, or go back to school?
- would you consider joining gov't ranks? (usajobs.gov or something)
- do you find linkedIn as useful as rear cantilever brakes in the rain?

if there's a lounge thread that already has this, direct me

good luck.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

assuming that it wasn't part of your plan to be in this situation, sorry, dude.

as someone who was out of work for the 2nd 1/2 of '09, gotta ask:
- for how long?
- anticipated re-employment date?
- would you move to follow work?
- do you think you may have to change industry, or go back to school?
- would you consider joining gov't ranks? (usajobs.gov or something)
- do you find linkedIn as useful as rear cantilever brakes in the rain?

if there's a lounge thread that already has this, direct me

good luck.

No lounge thread that I've seen lately...

-going on 6mos. myself
-end of this year if I'm lucky
-no (but might have to)
-industry change is non-negotiable now...
-gov't is where I'm headed...along with a sh*t-ton of others
-yes. yes I do.

 

[Westy]

assuming that it wasn't part of your plan to be in this situation, sorry, dude.

as someone who was out of work for the 2nd 1/2 of '09, gotta ask:
- for how long?
- anticipated re-employment date?
- would you move to follow work?
- do you think you may have to change industry, or go back to school?
- would you consider joining gov't ranks? (usajobs.gov or something)
- do you find linkedIn as useful as rear cantilever brakes in the rain?

if there's a lounge thread that already has this, direct me

good luck.

It was partly my decision. Company got sold. We were told that the new company would like us to move to suburban Illinois but we didn't have to move. 6 months later the day the sale was official we were told we had to move and we had 2 days to decide and no chance of even visiting our new home. We were given no official details of the new jobs/benefits, just given the word of the person that lied to us for the past 6 months. I told them to **** off. I've been saving money and can live on the cheap so cashflow isn't that big of a problem.

-Been out of work since the first of the year.
-No idea when I will work again, ASAP if it was up to me. If I get accepted to grad school will do that for the next 2 years.
-Trying to change industries/jobs. Job market is in a position where if you haven't had prior experience in the exact position and industry they are trying to fill they pretty much immediately toss your resume.
-Will move, just not to the ****ing mid-west.
-There are ****load of gov jobs around here, unfortunately they all require prior experience with weapon systems. My only experience is with home-made pipe bombs and potato guns.

 

[sanjuro]

Well, let's see what happens after the census takers are laid off.

 

[Toshi]

A lot of folks here were stumbling over themselves a few years ago saying that unemployment was much higher than reported, now the numbers aren't as bad as they seem?

That bit was (very) peripherally addressed through this quoted line:

'Those "not in the labor force" decreased 238,000.'

Sorry to hear about your job-related suckage, btw. If it comes down to couch surfing you can always stay with us in suburban hell.

 

[$tinkle]

Well, let's see what happens after the census takers are laid off.

my understanding is it's statistically irrelevant (~30k or so)

That bit was (very) peripherally addressed through this quoted line:

'Those "not in the labor force" decreased 238,000.'

but does that happen via new-found employment, or falling off teh rolls, imprisonment, newly enrolled students, or some combo of them? i've often wondered how it's defined

 

[Westy]

There is also the problem of people working well below their experience level. Interviewed with a company last week that admitted to having recently hired several research scientists to do fill some rather simple roles.

 

[$tinkle]

job tip:
http://shanghai.urbanatomy.com/index.php/life-a-style/health-a-beauty/3107-a-call-to-palms

i'd aim for the fortune cookies, m'self, and this should be right in your wheelhouse

 

[jonKranked]

There is also the problem of people working well below their experience level. Interviewed with a company last week that admitted to having recently hired several research scientists to do fill some rather simple roles.

you mean "underemployed"?

 

[kidwoo]

my understanding is it's statistically irrelevant (~30k or so)

Damn.


Fox business channel done steered me wrong! I was under the impression that these numbers were EXCLUSIVELY a result of census workers. I'm lost in the forest......

 

[$tinkle]

Fox business channel done steered me wrong!

stuart varney just told me of the emerging overseas market in canolis converted from overstocked fortune cookies

(see prev link if confused)

 

[$tinkle]

Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The increase also may result from the difficulty the Labor Department has in seasonally adjusting the claims around the Easter holiday, which falls on different weeks each year.

"This is ... a volatile time when the numbers move around quite a bit," a department analyst said.

and that's just it. so what i'm wondering is, when's it safe to make a proper analysis?

and how does easter factor in? here in fundyville, we weren't down to a skeleton crew on good friday.

 

[$tinkle]

re: "the reservation wage", larry summers, current WH eco advisor, said this in 1999 in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."

which is pretty much the conservative/free market philosophy (when conservatives aren't operating politically, that is)

although, this may not fully apply, as there are more seekers than positions. maybe there could be another tandem sol'n, like debt vouchers: no one can collect while you're unemployed, but the interest accrues upon acceptance of an offer & balance becomes due within X amt of time after employment. kinda like student loans.

there.

 

[Silver]

re: "the reservation wage", larry summers, current WH eco advisor, said this in 1999 in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
which is pretty much the conservative/free market philosophy (when conservatives aren't operating politically, that is)

I would assume that the assumption there is an economy without a demand deficit.

Note that increasing the minimum wage significantly (doubling or tripling, for example) without increasing unemployment payments would reduce the reservation wage effect...

 

[$tinkle]

business insider: 12 Charts That Show The REAL State Of Unemployment In America

 

[$tinkle]

heard about this on npr on the drive in: Job growth weakens in May despite surge in census hiring

The unemployment rate fell to 9.7% last month from 9.9% in April, due mainly to new, but temporary, census jobs, the Labor Department reports. Business payrolls grew by only 411,000 jobs, far fewer than expected and raising questions about the strength of the recovery.

A burst of hiring of temporary census workers helped push down the unemployment rate in May, but the nation's private-sector employers added a mere 41,000 new jobs last month

so 90% was gov't sector? and temp jobs at that?

you're killing me, gov't