Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 115,000 in April, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, retail trade, and health care, but declined in transportation and warehousing.
Meh. Let's look at the internals and the household numbers, because that's actual numbers instead of political crap. Incidentally, my guess was +100k +/- 50, so 115k is pretty close.
In summary for those who don't want to read the entire thing -- this is a weak report.
The annualized improvement is curling over and the monthly number is not going anywhere good. What's worse is that the not-in-labor-force number continues to go the wrong way and was up nearly 600,000 last month.
The employment rate moved upward a touch, but it's still sitting in the ditch and this is the key number for everyone to focus on, as I've pointed out for years -- without this problem being repaired the government must downsize dramatically or we will hit the wall.
And finally, in terms of being screwed, we still are.
This chart is simply the annualized (now .vs. 12 months ago) difference between employment and population. That is, in this case, 242,784 (in thousands) less 239,146 = 3.638 million more people (according to the BLS) in the country compared to 12 months ago, but there are 141,995 - 139,661 or 2.334 million more people employed. That is, on a working age non-institutionalized population-change-subtracted basis we have lost 1,304,000 jobs compared to the same point one year ago.
The last positive number we printed on this series, and that was only 480,000 jobs net of population growth, was in December of 2006. There is no way to sustain the size of the government, say much less its growth given the six-year unbroken record of losses.
Our policy on reciprocal links: Send us an email with your
information and why you think your blog or news site would make a
good addition - in most cases reciprocal link requests will be
granted.
Legal Disclaimer
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Visit the forum to discuss this and other investing-related topics; see the FAQ on the forum for information about Gold Donor status including access to our technical analysis video server.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media.
Submissions may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Leads on stories of current economic and political interest are always
welcome. Our fax tip line is 850-897-9364; please include contact information
with your transmission.
Mortgageguymn
Posts: 1566
Incept: 2009-03-09
North Coast
Karl, you said "the employment rate moved up a tad", but it looks to me like it moved down a tad, with the employed-to-population moving down from 58.5 to 58.4.
"Not in labor force" going up by more than 1/2 million? How long can they assert that? Until November, it would seem. At that matters is "The Number" as Drudge called the 8.1 today. It'll be 7.7 by 11/6/12.
We easily get 7% unemployment before the MSM November erection for Barry "Henry V" Obama. Now, it all depends on how audacious they want to be. Do they go for 6.9%?
I think it will come down to a media consensus on what Barry's actual high unemployment number was, clouded with blame on GW Shrub. Then, the Bull**** Labor Statistics people will work ceaselessly to craft a winning number, several tenths below the phony media Shrub number.
MainScaMedia & Statistics, for the win!
Anybody hearing any rumblings on what the bull**** unemployment target number is?
Mortgageguymn wrote..
It'll be 7.7 by 11/6/12.
That DOES look like a "nice" number, and easily defensible. But the phony media-generated Shrub number will have to be in the mid-8s, to make young Henry of Hawaiian Monmouth look like the savior that he is.
Of course, mayonnaise will still be $6 a jar...
The Shrubster's unemployment rate in 2004 was a "horrible" 5.6%.
By Daniel Gross|Posted Friday, Jan. 30, 2004, at 4:57 PM ET
Quote:
...The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment in two ways. The Establishment Survey gathers data directly from 400,000 companies and then estimates how many Americans have payroll jobs. The Household Survey, based on surveys of 60,000 households, determines how many people are working and produces the unemployment rate. Occasionally, the two surveys show divergent trends in job growth—especially when an economy is coming out of recession. According to the payroll survey, the number of jobs fell 232,000 over the course of 2003 on a seasonally adjusted basis. But according to the Household Survey, which includes farm workers, the self-employed, and people who may work off the books, the number of Americans working rose by 1.03 million in 2003 on a seasonally adjusted basis.
Last October, I dubbed the debate over the two surveys, and the emerging campaign to ignore the payroll numbers and focus on the household numbers,"antidisestablishmentarianism."...
We'll see this week if good ol' Danny Gross has "forgotten" all about his 2004 methodology...
==== If it's true that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war" and don't belong on the streets of America, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with?
The preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people. As long as knowledge and virtue are diffused generally among the body of a nation it is impossible they should be enslaved. - John Adams
Since I do not work for BLS nor am I an economist I want to see if I understand the unemployment numbers so please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.
There are roughly 330 million individuals living in the United States.
64.3% are in the working age group to have a job per BLS.
This would equal 330m x .643 = 212.2m individual who should be working.
Unemployment is 8.1% per BLS so it would equal 212.2m x .081 = 17.2m individuals are out of work.
Yet persons not in labor force is 88.4m which does not equal 17.2m.
So 88.4m / 212.2m equals 41.7% unemployed who could be working.
So what is the real unemployed number and are we worse than Spain?
----------
"Few political gifts are more richly rewarded, than the ability to convince parasites that they are victims." - Dr. Thomas Sowell
Mangoelvis
Posts: 1727
Incept: 2009-07-11
Las Vegas, NV
Quote:
Do they go for 6.9%?
That is the EXACT thing that went through my mind. I figure a sub-8% number is already in the bag and there is still plenty of time before the election. I wouldn't put it past them.
----------
Evolutionarily speaking, sloths must taste terrible.
Antediluvian
Posts: 577
Incept: 2008-03-14
Kirkland, WA
Looking at the Employment Trends 1999-Present chart and we find that every-time the annualized change (red line) dips below 2000 the economy is headed for the ****ter.
Next quarter should be telling. Let's if we dip below 2000.
----------
Socialism was embraced by the greater part of the intelligentsia as the apparent heir of the liberal tradition: therefore it is not surprising that to them the idea of socialism's leading to the opposite of liberty should appear inconceivable. - F.A.Hayek, "Road to Serfdom" 1944
The Addbacks: +22K From Seasonal; +206K From Birth Death
Quote:
The seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll number rose by 115K in April. That's great: it was a miss but such is life. Here is what the unadjusted data that led to this number says. The seasonal addback in April was +22K, a rapid break from the last 3 years when April saw a negative seasonal adjustment following the traditional huge positive adjustments in the January-March period, which in turn means that the record warm winter give back has not even started!As a result, the seasonal addbacks in 2012 are now a massive 4,499,000 jobs: jobs that have not been added but are expected to materialize based on historical seasonal patterns. And just as importantly, in April the Birth-Death addition was a whopping 206K, far greater than the comparable addition in 2010 and 2011, and much bigger than expected, which brings the year total now to a +20K cumulative total. It means, that by rough estimation, the reality is that in April the unadjusted, unbirth/deathed number was a decline of -111,000, and likely far worse once the true weather adjustments start taking place. This number is corroborated by the Household Survey which dropped by 169,000. So much for the recovery...
They're quoting SEASONALLY ADJUSTED "employed" numbers on that drop. Well, which is it guys -- NSA was 141995 up from 141412.
Either use the seasonal numbers for everything and accept their adjustment or call bull**** on all of them and use the NSAs (which is what I do.) If you want "seasonal" then use YOY comparisons which removes seasonality (which I also do.)
Zerohedge has become worthless in this regard and in fact dangerous due to their selective citing of things that support their pre-arranged conclusion.
I stopped reading them for this reason.
FauxNews says mean **** about "Henry V" Obama:
Sickly Job Growth Sets Up Unhappy Choice for Obama
Quote:
...The more important number, the size of the potential labor force that is not employed, remained at a crushing 14.5 percent. Economists are alarmed not only at the puny jobs number in April but at the fact that the difference between the two figures, 6.4 percent, stands near an all-time high.
Having 6.4 percent of the nation’s employable adults out of economic circulation is big trouble. For older adults in that category, they may never be able to return to work. For younger adults, it means a lifetime of lower wages and slower advancement if they eventually get back in the hunt and find a job...
==== If it's true that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war" and don't belong on the streets of America, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with?
They're quoting SEASONALLY ADJUSTED "employed" numbers on that drop. Well, which is it guys -- NSA was 141995 up from 141412.
Either use the seasonal numbers for everything and accept their adjustment or call bull**** on all of them and use hte NSAs (which is what I do.) If you want "seasonal" then use YOY comparisons which removes seasonality (which I also do.)
Zerohedge has become worthless in this regard and in fact dangerous due to their selective citing of things that support their pre-arranged conclusion.
I stopped reading them for this reason.
----------
I don't care if it makes sense -- only if it makes money. -- Me Bank (n): See scam, fraud and theft.Eat a bankster -- they're low-carb. What part of "shall not be infringed" was unclear?
Advise1, your figures are wrong. The census bureau has the following listed for population:
USA
Further information People QuickFacts USA Population, 2011 estimate 311,591,917
Population, 2010 308,745,538
Population, percent change, 2000 to 2010 9.7%
Population, 2000 281,421,906
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2010 6.5%
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2010 24.0%
Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 13.0%
IF the population is 312 million, more or less, and you remove 37% of that number (24% for 18 and under and 13% for 65 and over), then it's more like 197 million in the working aged population, including those who choose not to work or can't work (stay at home parents, disabled, in prison, etc.) I'm not sure where illegal immigrants fall into this population and I don't have time to look at the BLS stuff right now to try to square their figures with the unemployment numbers, but I wanted to let you know that we don't have a working population of 330 million.
If enough of them continue onto grad school, can get a mcJob or stay in mom's basement and just play video games - the unemployment rate should continue to drop.
Should also help - as our seniors in the public sector [federal, state and local] are retiring in record numbers to [foolishly] preserve their entitled pension and benefits.
If enough of them continue onto grad school, can get a mcJob or stay in mom's basement and just play video games - the unemployment rate should continue to drop.
Ha! So that's the plan? Makes sense I guess. There are a lot of 20 somethings hiding out in their mom's basement addicted to video games. Perhaps this addiction is being encouraged? A lost generation dependent on their parents.
I bet we are closer to 9% than 7% come the end of the year. Of course, we are already higher than that. I am hearing from a lot of people how bad the economy is, how bad business is.
----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
The stats that make up the 'headline' UE number is such bull****. I don't know why everyone looks to it.
By using their metrics, if every single worker in the US lost their job and 'gave up' looking for another one, the "Unemployment Rate" would be 0.0.....
"is chart is simply the annualized (now .vs. 12 months ago) difference between employment and population. That is, in this case, 242,784 (in thousands) less 239,146 = 3.638 million more people (according to the BLS) in the country compared to 12 months ago, but there are 141,995 - 139,661 or 2.334 million more people employed. That is, on a working age non-institutionalized population-change-subtracted basis we have lost 1,304,000 jobs compared to the same point one year ago."
Karl, population growth includes < 16/18 year olds though, correct? Is there away to adjust for that or have you already done so? Thanks
----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
I don't care if it makes sense -- only if it makes money. -- Me Bank (n): See scam, fraud and theft.Eat a bankster -- they're low-carb. What part of "shall not be infringed" was unclear?
My wife is a systems analyst here in our State DOL. The last SEB tier three checks went out the Week of the 21'st. Due to the drop in UE rate it triggered off. The calls complaining about that are pouring in to the DOL. Most didn't bother to read the mail or they would have known. Another round of shut offs will occur later this month and the total amount of weeks will drop as well. Our new state Law dropped the max weekly benefit as well as the maximum number of weeks. This will accelerate for a month or two then level off. It will also pull cash out of the economy this quarter. Third quarter will be tough on local businesses that cater to low income customers. Late August and September will probably see unemployment begin to trickle back up as a result. By election time I think it will be very difficult to ignore the out of work force, but hungry and destitute people. The law that was signed in February to extend benefits was a sick joke. It has so many gotcha's in it that it was obviously designed to squeeze people off of the unemployment rolls. The wife said it was like throwing a drowning person a life jacket made out of lead. The States and President will both benefit from the artificially lowered unemployment rate. He gets a political boost from seemingly low numbers and the States get a chance to rebuild the depleted trust funds while blaming Congress for changing the rules.
----------
What I do is fairly simple. People need their stuff. It is my job to get it to them.
Statistics, for the win!
