Skip to main content

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced another month of mediocre job growth Friday. The private-sector, it said, added a seasonally adjusted 142,000 new jobs in January and government shed 29,000 jobs for a total of 113,000. That is far below the 185,000 jobs predicted by a consensus of experts surveyed ahead of time. The official unemployment rate—which BLS calls U3 and calculates in a separate survey—fell to 6.6 percent.

It was the second weak jobs report in a row and could presage a slowdown in what seemed to be an acceleration of jobs growth in the second half of 2013. For all of last year, the economy added an average of 194,000 jobs a month. Seasonally adjusted growth in the past three months has been just 154,000.

Many analysts are blaming January's frigid weather. Some are also pointing to the Current Survey Report's increase of 616,000 new jobs. The CPS is more volatile and therefore less trustworthy than the business establishment report which the BLS uses for the job count each month. But, sometimes at least, it is a good predictor of future increases in the latter.

Automatic Data Processing on Wednesday had reported a seasonally adjusted gain of 175,000 private-sector jobs for January.

The civilian labor force rose by 499,000. That rise came after drop of 347,000 in December. The employment-population ratio rose to 58.8 percent. The labor force participation rate rose to 63 percent.

As predicted by many analysts a month ago, the BLS revised its previous report on new job creation for December from the 74,000 that had sparked so much stunned head-scratching to just 75,000. The November figures were revised from 241,000 to 274,000.

As the Economic Policy Institute has pointed out, to get back to pre-Great Recession levels by 2017, we need job growth of 285,000 a month. If that level could be maintained, it would mean the job recovery would have taken 10 years since the Great Recession began. In the post-World War II era, the United States has never gone 10 years between recessions.

The bureau provides several alternative calculations each month. One of those—U6—includes not just Americans without a job but also an estimate of how many workers have given up looking for up to 12 months but still want work, as well as those Americans working part-time even though they want full-time jobs—the underemployed. U6 fell to 12.7 percent in January. U6 does not include workers who have given up looking for a job for more 12 months. Those workers are simply left out of the count even if they still want jobs.

The number of officially unemployed Americans is now 10.2 million. But millions of discouraged workers are left out of that count. The number of long-term unemployed—out of work for 27 weeks or more—fell to 3.6 million. They are now 35.8 percent of the total unemployed. But that drop—of 232,000—could be at least partly due to the fact that unemployment compensation for the long-term unemployed expired in December. To get compensation, recipients must be actively seeking work. Without those government checks, many have decided to stop looking, meaning they are no longer counted as part of the labor force.

For more details about today's jobs report, please continue reading below the fold.

Among other news in the January job report:

Professional services: + 36,000
Transportation and warehousing : + 9,900
Leisure & hospitality: + 24,000
Health care: + 1,500
Retail trade: - 12,900
Construction: + 48,000
Manufacturing: + 21,000
Average weekly manufacturing hours fell to 40.7 hours.
Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose 5 cents to $24.21.
Average hourly earnings of private sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose 6 cents to $20.39

Here's what the seasonally adjusted job growth numbers have looked like in December for the previous 10 years. [UPDATED: Revisions announced this morning have replaced numbers I included earlier.]

January 2004: + 161,000
January 2005: + 134,000
January 2006: + 277,000
January 2007: + 238,000
January 2008: +   15,000
January 2009: -  798,000
January 2010: -    18,000  
January 2011: +   70,000
January 2012: + 360,000
January 2013: + 197,000  
January 2014: + 113,000

The BLS jobs report is the product of a pair of surveys, one of more than 410,000 business establishments called Current Employment Statistics, and one called the Current Population Survey, which questions 60,000 householders each month. The establishment survey determines how many new jobs were added. It is always calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis determined by a frequently tweaked formula.  The BLS report only provides a snapshot of what's happening at a single point in time.
It's important to understand that the jobs-created-last-month-numbers that it reports are not "real." Not because of a conspiracy, but because statisticians apply formulas to the raw data, estimate the number of jobs created by the "birth" and "death" of businesses, and use other filters to fine-tune the numbers. And, always good to remember, in the fine print, they tell us that the actual number of newly created jobs reported is actually plus or minus 100,000.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:59 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is not good. Not good at all. (7+ / 0-)

    We, as Americans first, and Democrats second, really need these numbers to substantially improve this year. First, for the sake of the workforce, bless it's battered soul, and second for our party which is going to need some POSITIVE news rather than waiting for the GOP to wet itself in the run up to November. Not good at all!

    From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

    by satrap on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:03:24 AM PST

    •  The GOP Economic Sabotage Plan is Working Great (6+ / 0-)

      Stimulus? NO
      Infrastructure? NO
      Unemployment Benefits? NO

      It's Bridegate on a national scale.

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:17:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It isn't all bad. (4+ / 0-)

      We're rebuilding our economy after Bush completely wrecked it. Unemployment nationwide was in the teens, now there is no state with double-digit unemployment. Real estate prices actually went up in 2013 for the first year since 2005. The personal savings rate, which was between 0 and 3% during Bush's reign, has bounced up to 5% as American families begin to replenish their savings. Obamacare is starting to have a real impact on the people who needed it most. And while job growth is not what we'd like, initial claims of unemployment are now lower than they've been since 2008 and job openings have climbed almost as high as the number of monthly job losses due to firings and quittings.

      •  We need BLS job creation (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward, MPociask, PrahaPartizan

        above 200k every month from now until summer, and then at a greater-than 250K pace if we're not going to lose the US Senate to more feudal lords.

        From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

        by satrap on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:30:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  feudal lords (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          satrap

          Is that a reference to Republicans?

          I think we should start selecting candidates who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

          by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:32:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know about that. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          satrap, NedSparks

          Elections are more complicated than that (remember the widely-believed prediction that Obama could not win reelection because unemployment was over such-and-such a number?).

          •  Relying on GOP incompetence isn't a long-term (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, satrap, AlexDrew

            strategy.  It can work as a short-term tactic in given cycles, but, eventually a party must give people a reason to vote for them.

            We'll never know for sure how much a hideously weak primary field, a visibly flawed nominee (whose biggest flaw was captured on video), a weak running mate, and a RNC highlighted by an old man talking to a chair hurt the GOP in 2012.  We do know that Reid's tenuous Senate control rests largely on the fact that the GOP fielded incredibly inept nominees in winnable races in states like IN, DE, NV, and MO in the last 2 cycles.    It's bad enough to have to rely upon a flock of DINOs of questionable loyalty to keep your majority--it would be far worse if GOP candidates had been able to keep their mouths shut about ladyparts.

            We're now in the 6th year of a Dem presidency, and U6 is still 12.7%.  As people like Krugman warned in 2009, the Stimulus was too small and relied too heavily on tax cuts.  No attempt was made for an additional package in 2010--we kept hearing about "green shoots."  While there isn't that much that can be passed in the current Congress, little meaningful is even being proposed.  

            Since WW II, the president's party almost invariably fares badly in 6th year elections.  While raising minimum wage to $10.10/hr is long overdue, it's not something that's going to change historic dynamics.  Something that truly addresses the scope of the problem is essential at this point.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:11:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  we should (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, satrap

              pass items in the Senate and blame the House if it does not take them up.  Give the Republicans some bad coverage

              I think we should do candidate selection in a new way, only selecting people who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

              by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:28:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Ummmm....really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson
        " Unemployment nationwide was in the teens, now there is no state with double-digit unemployment."
        I have friends in NC who cannot find work. Teachers. The truth there is that those who's unemployment insurance has run out are just not looking anymore because there is no there there.

        I am willing to bet it is the same in most states where unemployment has gone down... lies, damn lies and statistics.

        The North Carolina Story

        Real Unemployment Rate Of 11.5% Means Difference To Reported Rises To Record

        "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abbey

        by SaraBeth on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:51:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever. The official unemployment rate (0+ / 0-)

          is way down in those states. So those people who gave up might want to take another stab at getting a job. More people need to consider moving as well from regions in which their skills are not needed to regions where they are.

    •  6.6% Unemployment is NOT GOOD?! (0+ / 0-)

      I just wish they would cut to the chase and stop counting ALL unemployed people to yeild 0% Unemployment. Afterall, if they wanted to work, they could just get a job -- er, somethin  like that. /snark

      Pretzel Logic Economics at work. Don't try to understand.


      No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle. 🍞 & 🎪

      by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 09:32:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ADP rate and BLS private rate not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, PrahaPartizan

    all that different but we're STILL shedding governmnent jobs. It's truly stunning, shocking, and bewildering how the G20 has flailed during and after the great recession.  There's almost nowhere in the world to look for hope.

    From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

    by satrap on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:07:35 AM PST

    •  Elections have consequences (7+ / 0-)

      and we are still paying the price for 2010. Republicans seized control of a ton of state governments then, and their only approach to "governing" is to slash and burn state and local government.

      Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

      by bear83 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:20:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You and I think exactly alike and it's (4+ / 0-)

        true. I no longer broadcast these thoughts when I'm discussing this with people, because it sounds like whining about 'Pubs, but it's true.

        From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

        by satrap on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:26:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a concrete example... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bear83, satrap, Eric Nelson

          Here in Georgia, there was recently a report in the papers about the number of teachers.  Of course, Georgia has been Republican the entire time, so keep that in mind.  But still, from 2009-2012, Georgia lost more than 7800 teachers.  During this time, student enrollment continued to grow.  If the number of teachers had kept up with growth, then, we're looking at least 8000 more teachers across the state.  

          Now, that's not a ton of jobs in a state this size - but it's indicative of across the board hiring decisions.  I don't know enough about economics to talk about multiplier effects, but I assume that's going on as well.  

          The politicians blame it on the need to balance a budget and the recession, but leave out that Georgia has some of the lowest taxes per-capita in the country.  In other words, we weren't forced to cut like crazy (or to pay back federal loans for extended unemployment insurance by whacking the future unemployed, etc. etc.).  

          •  That's a great example (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaraBeth

            and we are seeing the same in NC. Since 2008, teacher pay in NC has fallen from the mid-20s to 48th in the nation with a 1% raise in the past 6 years. Since 2011, the GOP-led legislature has eliminated teacher tenure, cut education funding in a growing state and eliminated the cap on charter schools, resulting in explosive growth of largely unregulated charters that pull largely middle class kids out of the public schools.

            Teachers are now faced with low pay, crowded classes, a higher concentration of poor students and fewer middle class parent volunteers - it's a recipe for a disaster in public education. Teachers are leaving NC in droves.

            Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

            by bear83 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:26:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  And Boehner et al ran on JOBS (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PrahaPartizan, bear83, satrap, Eric Nelson

        The moment these pricks were sworn in, Obama should have put pressure on them to deliver. He STILL can and should do that now, but never uses the bully pulpit (addressing the nation in prime time). Tepid growth is better than no growth at all. But if Obama genuinely believed 2014 was going to be the strongest year of his presidency, economically (as did most analysts), he can't afford to let this slide and hope the public gets a clue and vote the teahadists out in November.

        •  what Obama does (0+ / 0-)

          merely reflects the pressure on him.

          We need to act intelligently to increase the pressure.

          If people are thinking that elected Democrats will automatically do the right thing, they are wrong.

          I think we should do candidate selection in a new way, only selecting people who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

          by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:05:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Shedding government jobs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Aquarius40, satrap

    I agree.  We should be seeing an increase in government jobs.  I do not know if this number includes our military as I know with the wind down of the "war effort", troops are getting out of service.  I do know that this raises the number of unemployed in the private sector though because the private sector jobs just are not there for those leaving the military.  

    Can this be turned around this year?  It is an important question with the November elections looming.

    •  The military is not included. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PrahaPartizan, Eric Nelson

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:24:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  is there any sign (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        that elected Dems are likely to endorse another stimulus?

        I think we should do candidate selection in a new way, only selecting people who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

        by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:36:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The only stimulus we're likely to get... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GideonAB, PrahaPartizan, Eric Nelson

          ...is continued low interest rates and the problematic quantitative easing of the Fed. Problematic because it's giving banks cheap money that they can then lend a higher rates or, as has been happening quite a bit, use it to buy back their own shares of stock.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:57:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  we need to win the media (0+ / 0-)

            battle.

            I am not sure that Robin Kelly is doing enough to push on economic issues.  We need a strategy to choose good candidates

            I think we should do candidate selection in a new way, only selecting people who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

            by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:02:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  There is also the stimulus from the budget deficit (0+ / 0-)

            which is a stimulus, which has been declining from very high levels.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:48:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  seems to me (0+ / 0-)

            like they should not buy their own shares

            I think we should do candidate selection in a new way, only selecting people who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

            by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:00:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  also hidden stimulus from the ACA (0+ / 0-)

            as I think the CBO report indicated. People who are spending less on health insurance, or who now have health insurance and therefore will spend less out of pocket for medical care, have a bit more money in their pockets to spend on other things. So the ACA subsidies and expanded Medicaid are a form of stimulus, and they're going to the bottom half of the income tiers where the extra money will get spent quickly.

        •  Makes No Difference (0+ / 0-)

          The Democratic caucus in the House can "endorse" the need for a new stimulus all it wants, but it won't get any traction with the Republican leadership and our national MSM is so worthless that any stimulus call would be totally mis-characterized.  The Republicans would demand that something else be sacrificed on the austerity altar in the budget wars and then renege on the deal anyway, while claiming their "due" (or "do" as the case may be).  

          We should all understand that if the economy begins to drift lower and tax receipts falter that the Republicans are going to be calling for further budget cuts because we have to "...run the nation like a family."  Actually, the Republicans are running the nation more like a badly managed business dominated by accountants and financial engineers who put an enterprise into a death spiral by reducing expenditures on everything which helps to make the business run rather than just serve the interests of the newly installed executive suite.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:06:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  on the contrary (0+ / 0-)

            history shows that rows with Republicans can work out for us.

            There is the example of the payroll tax cut.

            The media is not the problem.  The lack of fight is.

            I think we should do candidate selection in a new way, only selecting people who will speak out to get the Senate leadership to push the Republicans hard in the media

            by GideonAB on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:08:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  An additional stimulus is needed (0+ / 0-)

            The stimulus that is needed can not come from just printing more money to shore up the economy and keep interest rates low.  There is an end game there of course.  It does not take an accountant or an economist to know that we can not just continue to print more and more money to maintain our economy.  Sooner or later (and it will probably be sooner than later), rampant inflation will result.  

            Stimulus must come from government investment in both the private sector and government-led actions that create jobs that help both our economy and the infrastructure.  The pay back through increased employment that brings in more revenue through taxes from all of the entities that will support government infrastructure investment will be huge.  

            We have to be intelligent enough to know that just throwing printed money into the economy is not a good long term solution.

      •  Some military included some not included (0+ / 0-)

        Active duty military (ie, those in uniform) are not included, but the civilian workers in the military are included.

        See http://www.bls.gov/...

        With the wind down in Iraq and Afganistan, there may also be a decline in employment from companies providing goods and services to the military.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:45:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Record Difficulty In Recovering Is (4+ / 0-)

    to an increasing degree the result of feudal practices.

  •  Quick Question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, Victor Ward

    If the weather affected the hiring, why was construction hiring the strongest in this report? Not looking to stir the pot. Just looking for possible explanations.

    •  As usual, we're immersed in tea leaves... (4+ / 0-)

      ...when analyzing this report. You raise a fair point. One thing to keep in mind that during the BLS survey week in mid-January, the weather wasn't so cold. But, we're faced with the same commentary from many experts as we have been a score of times in the past four years: Wait until next month to get a true picture.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:28:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I found an answer listening to, of all places, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zubalove

      CNBC yesterday AM.  The BLS survey is always conducted ont the week that includes the 12th of the month and, without knowing the exact BLS methodology, the BLS must extrapolate based on that week.  Apparently that week of January was actually mild and so construction employers were hiring then.  

      THis all sucks.

      From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

      by satrap on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:28:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I always found ADP more reliable. (0+ / 0-)

    It is based on actual payroll data from their clients and not from survey answers.  And the differences between BLS and ADP for December and January is dramatic.  The truth is probably somewhere in between, which is in line with predictions.  Also, BLS just raised November figures by a lot, indicating unreliability of their numbers even after several months.

    •  ADP makes large revisions almost every month. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobswern

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:34:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How does that happen??? (0+ / 0-)

        If ADP is based on REAL PAYROLL data how can there be significant adjustments? Seems to me the only way is if ADP doesn't include
        all its major customers on a monthly basis.

        •  ADP's claim is that its original figures... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson

          ...are a close match for BLS's final revised figures. I've followed ADP's calculations closely for three years and that argument is bogus. The methodology:

          The enhanced ADP National Employment Report is comprised of ADP transactional payroll data, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data, and the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank's Aruoba-Diebold-Scotti Business Conditions Index. The sample size of the ADP data set from which the newly enhanced report is derived has been expanded from 344,000 to 406,000 U.S. companies, and from 21 million employees to 23 million, which accounts for more than 20 percent of all U.S. private sector employees.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:20:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The new normal. Just a week or so ago we got news (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson

    that US mfg levels have fallen off a cliff.  And yet the employed labor force is at about what it was in Oct '06 - with ~3.5 million more people in the available work force compared to then, thus the current unemployment rate is 2.2 points higher. Add to that the fact that the government sector has shed (and continues to shed) jobs like there's no tomorrow, and you have the current wealth disparity disaster: the predominant work - that's still available - is service sector work  that pays, on average, barely enough to get by.  

    So let's screw the unemployed by stripping benefits!

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

    by nailbender on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:26:16 AM PST

    •  Just a quick question... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kvetchnrelease

      How are parents who choose to stay at home counted in these various measures?  I can see arguments for both ways, but I was thinking in terms of the labor-force participation rate.  If someone is doing what they want to be doing, which by the way takes a lot of work, it seems... odd to say they're not part of the labor force, and that we need to get them into a wage-paying job.

      •  Oops! (0+ / 0-)

        Thought I hit post a comment - didn't mean to reply.  

      •  marginally attached workers (5+ / 0-)
        In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

        Among the marginally attached, there were 837,000 discouraged workers in January, about unchanged from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.8 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

        So parents that have recently decided to stay home are among the 1.8 million non-discouraged marginally attached.
      •  unemployed is defined as (0+ / 0-)

        those wanting work without a job; it's been defined that way since, what, the 40s?, good to be consistent

        if you don't want a job you're not counted as unemployed

      •  Unemployed are people looking for work. No job (3+ / 0-)

        Is not unemployed. Staying home and not looking for work is not unemployed. Only people looking for work are unemployed so if you don't have a wage paying job you are not unemployed unless you are looking for a job that it turns out you can't get, at least according to yesterday's Wall Street journal.

        “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Richard Nixon, 1977.

        by Kvetchnrelease on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:40:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  december (0+ / 0-)

    December was revised upwards 509,000.  The change was just 1,000 because November was revised upwards 508,000.   October was revised upwards 475,000[every month of last year was revised upwards as well as some from 2012].  Hard to imagine that we hang on 50,000 jobs here or there, but over half a million jobs warrants just a footnote.

    •  No. The 1,000 increase in December is to 75,000... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satrap, Eric Nelson

      ...from the 74,000 reported by BLS last month.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:40:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not sure what you are disagreeing with (0+ / 0-)

        Or if I was unclear.  December originally was 136,877,000 jobs.  Now it has been adjusted to 137,386,000.  An increase of over half a million.  Granted most of those jobs didn't appear in December or even November, but I think it is safe to say they have all appeared since the bottom of the recession.  And they are jobs we didn't know about yesterday.  

        •  I am disagreeing with what you said... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson

          ...about the BLS jobs revision for December because it's not accurate.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:33:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  not sure what was inaccurate (0+ / 0-)

            I keep looking at it, and it is still completely accurate.  I understand the confusion and perhaps I wasn't precise since we are dealing with a lot of 'changes'.  The change from the previous december numbers to the current ones, the change from the november numbers to the december numbers, and the change from the old difference of November/December to the new difference of November/December.

  •  Am I reading that right? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, MPociask, Eric Nelson

    that would be 84 months(7 years) to get back to "Normal";assuming things don't get worse; when reading the recovery curves compared to other recessions.

    As the Economic Policy Institute has pointed out, to get back to pre-Great Recession levels by 2017, we need job growth of 285,000 a month. If that level could be maintained, it would mean the job recovery would have taken 10 years since the Great Recession began. In the post-World War II era, the United States has never gone 10 years between recessions.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:28:13 AM PST

    •  Yep. Four years ago, when I predicted it would... (8+ / 0-)

      ...be at least 60 months, I caught a fair amount of ridicule.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:33:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is something called 'hysteresis' which (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, JML9999, PrahaPartizan

      means that when unemployment is and remains very high for a long time, it permanently scars the economy.   In terms of the economy that you and I 'know' today, it will never get back to normal.  

      Someday the US economy will get back to normal (boom again) but it will be a different economy and with a different worker mix.  The current workforce is ossified into it's current mold probably.

      From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

      by satrap on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:34:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it was an historically (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      satrap, sulthernao, JML9999

      deep and long recession. It was both a cyclical recession and a financial crisis replete with falling asset prices and extraordinary amounts of both public and private debt writedowns. We still haven't waited long enough for the Eurozone's banks and sovereigns to clean up their balance sheets (while the US banks have actually turned the corner and added substantially to their capital).

      The (very) positive news in all of this is that the new economy is built on reasonable debt levels, a higher personal savings rate, and better financial regulations. This economy may be unimpressive in terms of go-go growth, but it is at least a fundamentally sound economy.

      •  The savings rate has fallen recently... (5+ / 0-)

        ...at the same time that some economists have cheered the fact that consumers have maintained "robust" spending during the last quarter of 2013. But they did so not because their wages are rising robustly but by spending down those savings. That rate dropped from 5.2% in September, its high point for the year, to 3.9% in December.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:45:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The savings rate is notoriously (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          satrap, JML9999

          difficult to measure (they take other estimates, of things like income, debt repayments, etc. and combine them formulaically to estimate savings). So the variance is large. Monthly and quarterly changes are suspect.

          •  Okay. For all of 2012: Savings rate was 4.0% ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JML9999, Eric Nelson

            ...For all of 2013: 3.8%.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:02:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right. So it's been around 4%. (0+ / 0-)

              Compare that to the rates during the 90's and 00's. We were on the highway to hell, with tiny or negative savings rates. Today we are consistently in that 4% range.

              •  The personal savings rate in the '90s was... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                doc2

                ...higher than it is now except for 1999. That 4% is well below the average since the end of 2007.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 11:13:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  True abut the 90s, (0+ / 0-)

                  but since jan 08 the avg. has been about 4.5%. 3 months ago it was at 5%, this month it is at 4%. Given the volatility of the measure, I don't think we can say that the rate is down. During the oughts it hovered between 2 and 4%, except for 05-07 when it dropped below 2% for a year then popped back to 2%. so the trend, as I see it, is that the PSR went down from 10% in 1980 to 1% in 2005, after increasing from 8% in the 1950s, and since the recessiin has popped back up to 4-5%.

      •  Hey. (0+ / 0-)

        Don't forget there was an oil shock in 2008 as well. We hit a trifecta. Give credit where credit is due.

  •  For me, this is the most discouraging thing (7+ / 0-)
    As the Economic Policy Institute has pointed out, to get back to pre-Great Recession levels by 2017, we need job growth of 285,000 a month. If that level could be maintained, it would mean the job recovery would have taken 10 years since the Great Recession began. In the post-World War II era, the United States has never gone 10 years between recessions.
    It seems we are more likely to have another recession than to get back to pre-2007 levels.  

    The labor participation rate is also an important number as far as I'm concerned -- we're not likely to see the economic growth we want when fewer and fewer of us are working.

  •  Meanwhile, on Park Avenue.. (7+ / 0-)

    Between dainty nibbles of foie gras after hours spent shopping for haut cotieure and politicians, and days spent "slaving" at their vulture capitalistic enterprises from their private jets - The 1%ers who broke the economy and the job market..

    are complaining because they have to work too hard.

    Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies, We were roaring drunk on petroleum -Kurt Vonnegut

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:32:30 AM PST

  •  You know what this shows we need? (5+ / 0-)

    MORE AUSTERITY, of course!

    "I'm not trying to prove anything, you phenomenal douchebag!" - Green Lantern, to Batman

    by Fordmandalay on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:33:35 AM PST

  •  Construction and manufacturing up . . . (0+ / 0-)

    retail and government down.

    Not great, but I don't know whether it's a basis for pessimism.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:34:19 AM PST

  •  Oh dear, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, PrahaPartizan, TJ, Eric Nelson

    There's an iceberg ahead.
    We need new democrats, focused on employment, inequality and restoring the american dream.

    Enough austerians, enough austerity.

  •  This is how shrinking the government 'works' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    satrap, PrahaPartizan, Eric Nelson

    every time.

  •  Notice how all the most recent... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrahaPartizan, Eric Nelson

    ...recessions have been taking us longer and longer to bounce back from? (Assuming I'm reading that graph right.) So what changed? I'd say the biggest thing is that the Republican Party changed, and became much more of an economic extremist party. In the past, government spending and hiring has been used to help offset the effect of private sector job losses and jump-start the economy. And even Republicans used to support that, at least in the form of things like infrastructure spending. It made sense to do so, in part because recessions are the cheapest time to invest in big new infrastructure (in terms of debt financing).

    Now, the GOP doesn't support ANY economic stimulus, and just wants to stick it to the working and middle class, ALL the time. And they've only become more extreme in that attitude over time. This has undermined sane economic policy that we know works to reduce unemployment in recessions and rebuild our infrastructure for the lowest possible cost.

    This isn't your father's Republican Party (and it's certainly no longer the party of Eisenhower, the president who brought us the interstate highway system).

  •  Could it be--the austerians are killing us? (3+ / 0-)

    You gotta cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut cut your way to prosperity! It's the austerian way!

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:55:38 AM PST

  •  A Jobs Bill, pushing hard for a minimum wage hike (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    ..and highlighting the republicans Public sector slashing of jobs. - the deliberate sabotage by republicans who would rather defeat the economy that lose another election
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "Because we need the bucks" - (tee shirt logo) - and I couldn't think of anything else useful to add - so if it's okay I'll say what I wish more said in the MSM much more often
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Those are some of the main things that Dems should hammer on - imo

    Because of this:

    The number of officially unemployed Americans is now 10.2 million. But millions of discouraged workers are left out of that count.
    And this:
    To get compensation, recipients must be actively seeking work. Without those government checks, many have decided to stop looking, meaning they are no longer counted as part of the labor force.
    For the first time (that I can remember this clearly) wealth disparity, which has briefly made it into the national dialogue in the past, now seems to have tapped into something deeper

    #OWS played a big part in recent years, but there is something more at work here.

     I'm kind of optimistic about the minimum wage fight (which has sometimes been used as rhetorical device as much as an actual policy goal).

    This time the fight has deeper meaning it seems. In the aftermath of the deep years long recession Wall Street caused with their default swaps, various financial "instruments" being foisted onto the public -  their is now a deeper suspicion of the 1%ers, their golden parachutes, and more attention to what the minimum wage means

    That suspicion of the money handlers has left a mark.

    So I think that the minimum wage issue this time around means something more to working people than just making a few more bucks; It has something symbolic behind it in these times with 35 years of wage stagnation people are feeling and knowing - working more of their life and getting less & less for it

    Tie the minimum wage into a WPA re-dux Jobs program

    While their are many important changes needed the minimum wage/Jobs Program could have a real effect at the polls if Dems keep hammering it home and the republicans keep defending the wealth disparity it has now come to represent

     - imo

    Thx MB for this information and analysis; also in comments
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    From awhile back:

    •    Paul Krugman: "If public employment had grown.. ..the way it did under Bush, we’d have 1.3 million more government workers, and probably an unemployment rate of 7 percent or less."
     Brewtown Gumshoe - Wednesday, April 25, 2012
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

     •  Chris Hayes @ UP had a chart & quotes from Justin Lahart (not this chart but similar - I couldn't find Laharts's) @ WSJ not exactly a liberal outfit bringing this fact too - good

     • Public employment has, for the majority of the last recessions under different Presidents, increased during recessions softening the unemployment numbers - except for this administration - according to Chris hayes noting Justin Lahart. It's the purpose of David Vitter et al. and the teabag congress to hurt this economy for political gain. I know, what else is new.
    ..a minimum wage hike could mean more this time around.

    Even Reagan knew that stimulus spending was necessry during recession times and GWB too.
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    It shows once again the economy does better under Democratic Leadership even coming out of a republican recession, despite those republicans best efforts at sabotaging it.

    My comment @ Daily Kos:   http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Also too: immigration reform. It will boost the.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..economy. Keep hammering on it
      Immigration Reform Could Boost U.S. Economy - By Lauren Fox Aug. 20, 2013 | Immigration bill could put economy into overdrive.
      Study:

      From California to South Carolina, the report shows that the Senate's immigration bill would create an average of 14,000 jobs per congressional district in the next decade.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Whitehouse link from 2 years ago: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

      It's time:

      “The lesson of these 236 years is clear – immigration makes America stronger. Immigration makes us more prosperous. And immigration positions America to lead in the 21st century.”

      President Obama, July 4, 2012

      That's another issue that needs major coverage - imo and Diary pimping - and an issue that republicans are worse than weak on.

      Thx again MB

  •  Unemployment Insurance Cutoff? (0+ / 0-)

    Is it possible that the economy is feeling the effect of the end of the unemployment insurance extension, and perhaps a reaction to prospective SNAP cuts as well? People may be spending less in preparation, and thereby aggregate demand would be reduced.

  •  Shadow economy must be doing great (0+ / 0-)

    Since long-term unemployment checks stopped, and food stamps cut back, I haven't seen any signs of a huge upswing in people homeless or whatever. (Maybe the media just aren't covering it, but given the weather, you would think there would be a story there.) What I suspect is that people left without resources go out and find a way to eat -- but they're not showing up in the figures as "working," because prostitution, drug dealing, street-level gambling, and petty theft and fraud aren't considered "jobs." And hairdressing, babysitting, and day labor for cash off the books also won't show up in the official statistics.

    I just don't see any other way to reconcile the lack of jobs, and shrinking of the safety net, with these official statistics.

    •  the impact of loss of UI has yet to show up,... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I suspect, in these stats. The BLS report ends around Jan. 12, and UI only expired on Dec. 28. Food stamp cuts have not taken effect yet.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 11:01:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obamacare and the "Discouraged" (0+ / 0-)

    When I see these posts, I wonder to what extent the CBO's prediction that workers would voluntarily withdraw from the workforce when they can find affordable healthcare is already being manifested in these labor participation rates?

    Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by enigmamf on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:12:09 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site