Unemployment rate declines to 4.7% in May; payroll employment changes little (+38,000)

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2016, 12:34 PM - Edit history (4)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economic News Release USDL-16-1096

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, June 3, 2016

Technical information:
Household data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: [phone] * [e-mail]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MAY 2016


The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike.

Household Survey Data

In May, the unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent, and the number of unemployed persons declined by 484,000 to 7.4 million. Both measures had shown little movement from August to April. (See table A-1.)
....

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) declined by 178,000 to 1.9 million in May. These individuals accounted for 25.1 percent of the unemployed. The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks decreased by 338,000 to 2.2 million. (See table A-12.)

The number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 282,000 over the month to 3.6 million. (See table A-11.)

In May, the civilian labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 62.6 percent. The rate has declined by 0.4 percentage point over the past 2 months, offsetting gains in the first quarter. The employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, was unchanged in May. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (also referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 468,000 to 6.4 million in May, after showing little movement since November. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In May, 1.7 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 538,000 discouraged workers in May, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.2 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in May had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment changed little in May (+38,000). Job growth occurred in health care. Mining continued to lose jobs, and a strike resulted in job losses in information. (See table B-1.)
....

In May, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 5 cents to $25.59, following an increase of 9 cents in April. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.5 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 3 cents to $21.49 in May. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised from +208,000 to +186,000, and the change for April was revised from +160,000 to +123,000. With these revisions, employment gains in March and April combined were 59,000 less than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 116,000 per month.

_____________
The Employment Situation for May is scheduled to be released on Friday, July 8, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

---

[font color="red"]These will be (or should be) the talking points:

1) A gain of 38,000 is far below Wednesday's estimate by ADP^® of a gain of 173,000 jobs and the estimate yesterday and this morning in TWSJ. of a gain of 158,000.^1,2 As of last Wednesday, MarketWatch was reporting a forecast of a gain of 155,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 4.9% from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).³ ;
2) "In May, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 5 cents to $25.59, following an increase of 9 cents in April. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.5 percent." ;
3) "The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised from +208,000 to +186,000, and the change for April was revised from +160,000 to +123,000. With these revisions, employment gains in March and April combined were 59,000 less than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 116,000 per month." ;
4) "In May, the civilian labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 62.6 percent. The rate has declined by 0.4 percentage point over the past 2 months, offsetting gains in the first quarter. The employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, was unchanged in May. (See table A-1.)"⁴ ;
5) The civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,044,000 in April to 94,708,000 in May, an increase of 664,000.⁵ ; and
6) The number of "{persons not in the labor force} who currently want a job" is 5,923,000. Therefore, the percentage of those not in the labor force who want a job now is (5,923,000/94,708,000) times 100%, or 6.3%.⁶[/font]

¹5 Things to Watch in the May Jobs Report: "Friday’s jobs report from the Labor Department is expected to show a slight deterioration from April’s reading. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expect the report to show employers added a seasonally adjusted 158,000 jobs in May with the unemployment rate steady at 5%. Here are five things to watch in the jobs report, to be released at 8:30 a.m. EDT Friday. 2 Jun 2016 8:20am By Harriet Torry"

²May Jobs Report: Everything You Need to Know

³MarketWatch Economic Calendar

⁴ I've added mention of the employment-population ratio, aka the employment to population ratio, as progree argues that it is more worthy of attention than the labor force participation rate (LFPR). See: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

⁵ The datum "civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force" is in Table A-1. It's also at Not in Labor Force. (Hat tip, progree: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now.) Some people make a big deal out of this number, so to keep them happy, here it is.

⁶ The figure is also found in or derived from Table A-1. Once again, I'm indebted to progree for pointing out the significance of these data: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now).


[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: [phone], Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.


[center]Introduction[/center]

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome our good friends from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so I am absolutely delighted to have you participate in this thread. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.

Full disclosure: I do not work for BLS, nor am I friends with anyone over there. I'm just someone who appreciates the work they do. My sole connection with the agency is that I've been in the building to pick up some publications.

Thank you for being a part of this thread.

If you don't have the time to study the report thoroughly, here is the news in a nutshell:

Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation

It is easy to find one paragraph, or one sentence, or one datum in this report that will support the most outlandish of conclusions, from "the sky is falling" to "we'll have blue skies, nothing but blue skies, from now on." Easy, but disingenuous.

Every month, you can find something in the report that will cause you concern. Take the information in context. Consider not just this month’s data, but the trend.

Please take the time to look at progree's not-to-be-missed thread containing his thoughtful analysis, updated monthly. Here is the latest version:

Economy facts with links to official sources, rev 5/6/16.

This month, he also presented his analysis in the eighth reply in this thread:

Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Thank you so much for that, progree.

Let's begin with a couple of questions:


[center]What Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Why Does It Release All These Numbers Every Month?[/center]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the dates of major data releases are scheduled more than a year in advance, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.

[center]Household Survey vs. Establishment Survey[/center]

From the February 10, 2011, DOL Newsletter:

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The household survey, or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The establishment survey, or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.

[center]Complaint Department[/center]

I post this information on a nonpartisan basis. I am not here to make elected officials of any party or persuasion look good. I am certain that the people who compile these data are of the same outlook. They are civil servants. They do not work for a party; they work for you, the American people.

My only contribution is to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the BLS and then, in the commentary, link to some sources that I feel are trustworthy. I hope people come away with a better understanding of the data after reading this thread. Once again, I do not work for BLS, but I will nonetheless try to assist if I can.

If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here:

Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

Affected persons who believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has disseminated information that does not meet its guidelines or those of the Department of Labor or Office of Management and Budget, and who wish to file a formal complaint may send their complaint by mail, e-mail, or fax to:

Division of Management Systems
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4080
Washington, D.C., 20212-0001
E-mail: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

Complainants should:

Identify themselves and indicate where and how they can be reached;
Identify, as specifically as possible, the information in question;
Indicate how they are affected by the information about which they are complaining;
Carefully describe the nature of the complaint, including an explanation of why they believe the information does not comply with OMB, Departmental, or agency-specific guidelines; and
Describe the change requested and the reason why the agency should make the change.

Failure to include this information may result in a complainant not receiving a response to the complaint or greatly reducing the usefulness or timeliness of any response. Complainants should be aware that they bear the burden of establishing that they are affected persons and showing the need and justification for the correction they are seeking, including why the information being complained about does not comply with applicable guidelines.

[center]We Got the Beat.[/center]

May Jobs Report: Everything You Need to Know

By
WSJ Staff

June 3, 2016 8:01 am ET



PHOTO: REUTERS

Yes, it’s that time again, folks. Jobs Friday, when for one ever-so-brief moment the interests of Wall Street, Washington and Main Street are all aligned on one thing: jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to report that the economy added 158,000 jobs in May, with the unemployment rate flat to 5%. In April, the economy added 160,000, and the unemployment rate was 5%.

Here at MoneyBeat HQ, we will crunch the numbers, track the markets and compile the commentary before and after the data crosses the wires. Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section. And while you’re here, why don’t you sign up to follow us on Twitter.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

You forgot to say "Enjoy the show." Also, "Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section. And while you’re here, why don’t you sign up to follow us on Twitter." (Are they reading this thread?)

Before we do anything else, let's give credit to the workers behind the MoneyBeat blog:

The MoneyBeat Team:

Stephen Grocer
Editor

Phillipa Leighton-Jones
European Editor

Erik Holm
Deputy Editor

Maureen Farrell
Reporter, New York

Paul Vigna
Reporter, New York

David Cottle
Reporter, London

Kristen Scholer
Reporter, New York

Giles Turner
Reporter, London

MoneyBeat Columnists

Ronald Barusch
Dealpolitik

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Francesco Guerrera
Current Account[/font]

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Alen Mattich[/font]

Jason Zweig
The Intelligent Investor

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Michael J. Casey
Horizons [/font]

E. S. Browning


[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

The following link to Barron's might not work for everyone. See progree's tips.[/font] From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from economists John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014


[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 173,000 Jobs in May

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2016:

Payroll employment increases by 160,000 in April; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 156,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 215,000 in March; unemployment rate little changed at 5.0%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 156,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 215,000 in March; unemployment rate little changed at 5.0%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 200,000 Jobs in March

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 242,000 in February; unemployment rate unchanged at 4.9%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 214,000 Jobs in February

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 151,000 in January; unemployment rate changes little (4.9%)

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 205,000 Jobs in January

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 292,000 in December; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 257,000 Jobs in December

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 211,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 217,000 Jobs in November


[center]Why Won't You Talk About the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)?[/center]

Every month in certain circles, someone will cite the labor force participation rate as a cause for concern. Let's look at that right now.

[font color="red"]New material, added June 27, 2016:[/font]

Wonkblog

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/20/why-americas-men-arent-working/|
Why America’s men aren’t working]

By Ylan Q. Mui June 20

The national unemployment rate has fallen by more than half since the nation emerged from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It peaked at 10 percent in 2010 and stood at just 4.7 percent last month.

That’s mostly good news: Private employers have added more than 14 million jobs. About 2 million people have been out of a job for six months or longer, far too many but only about a quarter of the number of long-term unemployed people seven years ago. By almost every measure, the labor market has made incredible progress.

But there’s one statistic that has been vexing economists. The size of the nation’s workforce -- known as the labor force participation rate -- continues to fall. Since the start of the downturn, the percentage of that population that has a job or is looking for one has dropped more than 3 percentage points, to 62.6 percent, a level not seen since the 1970s.

{America’s jobs market has had a great 2016. Will it last?}

The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for “prime-age men” among the world’s developed countries.
....



....
People in prison are not counted as part of the population for the purposes of labor market statistics. At first blush, that would actually boost the participation rate: A smaller population means the share in the workforce is larger. But in reality, there are immense and well-documented barriers to the job market for workers once they leave prison. And the gloomy prospects of the formerly incarcerated outweigh the statistical benefit of having a large prison population.



....
Ylan Q. Mui is a financial reporter at The Washington Post covering the Federal Reserve and the economy. Follow @ylanmui

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

Beyond the Numbers

December 2015 | Vol. 4 / No. 15

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT

People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

By Steven F. Hipple

People who are neither working nor looking for work are counted as “not in the labor force,” according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2000, the percentage of people in this group has increased. Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and its Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) provide some insight into why people are not in the labor force. The ASEC is conducted in the months of February through April and includes questions about work and other activities in the previous calendar year. For example, data collected in 2015 are for the 2014 calendar year, and data collected in 2005 are for the 2004 calendar year.1 In the ASEC, people who did not work at all in the previous year are asked to give the main reason they did not work. Interviewers categorize survey participants’ verbatim responses into the following categories: ill health or disabled; retired;2 home responsibilities; going to school; could not find work;3 and other reasons.

This Beyond the Numbers article examines data on those who were not in the labor force during 2004 and 2014 and the reasons they gave for not working. The data are limited to people who neither worked nor looked for work during the previous year.

This July 2014 report from the Council of Economic Advisers addresses the LFPR:

THE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE SINCE 2007: CAUSES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

(Hat tip, Adrahil: Look deeper.)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Here's a Power Point (or equivalent) presentation given by Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, before the National Press Club on August 6, 2015. If you go to the next-to-the-last slide, you'll see that the long-term projected trend is down:

"Trends in Labor Force Participation", 8/6/15

(Hat tip, progree: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Paul Vigna had a comment about the LFPR in the December 4, 2015, MoneyBeat column about the November figures:

8:55 am

Breaking down the participation rate
by Paul Vigna

Here’s what we mean when we talk about the participation rate and employment-population ratio.

There are 251.7 million people in the “civilian noninstitutional population,” according to the BLS (this is all contained in this chart). This is the number of people over age 16 who are not in jail or health-care facilities or the military.

Of that group, 157.3 million comprise the civilian labor force. The ratio of the second group to the first is 62.5%. This is the labor force participation rate, the number of people who could be in the labor force – either working or looking for a job – who are in the labor force.

There are 149.3 million people working. The ratio of that group to the overall civilian population is 59.3%. This the employment-population ratio, the number of people who could be working who actually are working.

Why do these number matter? Well, if you just looked at the raw data, you’d see the numbers rising, more or less, month after month. That’s not because the economy’s so rip-roaring, but because the number of people in the nation keeps rising. So you need the ratios to get a sense of how strong the labor force really is.

The labor-force participation rate remains near multi-decade lows, and whether that’s due to demographics, as in people retiring, or weak job opportunities, or whatever, it points to one sort of unavoidable problem: the economy cannot grow at its full potential if you simply don’t have enough people contributing.

Oh, and for the record, there are 94.4 million people not in the labor force.

[font color="red"]New material, added December 2015:[/font]

3:12 pm ET
Dec 8, 2015
economics

As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

By Jeffrey Sparshott
[e-mail]
@jeffsparshott

The U.S. labor force is expected to expand only slowly over the coming decade as the country ages and more Americans give up on holding a job, a potential drag on broader economic growth.

The economy is expected to generate 9.8 million new jobs, a 6.5% increase, from 2014 to 2024, the Labor Department said in new projections released Tuesday. While steady, that is a historically slow pace. By comparison, 10-year job creation averaged almost 14% during the 2001-07 expansion and close to 17% during the 1990s.

The slowdown highlights declining participation as baby boomers retire and younger Americans opt out of the workforce. Those two trends are expected to continue to push the labor-force participation rate lower, to 60.9% in 2024 from 62.9% in 2014, Labor estimates. If realized, that would be the lowest level since 1973, when Richard Nixon was president.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen at a congressional hearing last week held out hope the participation rate would hold near current levels as people came off the sidelines and into jobs.

[center]Nattering Nabobs of Negativism[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 26, 2016:[/font] More High-Wage Employment Doesn't Mean the Job Market's Out of the Woods

That's the print edition title.

Wonkblog

The recovery is generating more high-wage jobs — but does that matter?

The U.S. is still digging out of a big hole, and isn't creating new opportunities for those whose jobs disappeared.

By Lydia DePillis February 24
@lydiadepillis

A couple of weeks ago, some economists from Goldman Sachs came out with a rosy pronouncement: "Millions of new jobs and plenty of good ones," read the headline on a note to investors. High-wage employment appeared to pick up from 2013 to the present, a change from the early years of the economic recovery, which generated a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs.



And you don’t have to just take it from an investment bank. The Department of Labor has run its own numbers, and saw similar growth back in October, rendered in absolute numbers rather than growth rates (which Labor’s Chief Economist Heidi Shierholz says held through the end of 2015 in an analysis the department completed last week).

The green bars in the graph below show changes in actual employment, and the orange line shows what it would have been if the growth had been evenly distributed. Shierholz says the loss of low-wage jobs is likely a result of workers in those categories having their wages bumped up above $10 an hour, as the huge growth in low-wage sectors from 2009-2013 led to competition for people in restaurants and retail, or finding better jobs.



That renewed growth in high-wage jobs, which started to show up in 2014, is typical of recoveries from recessions: Low-wage retail and restaurant jobs come back first, as consumers start to buy small-ticket items and go out to eat again. Later on, the profitability trickles up, leading firms to make more expensive hires. Overall, the trend could be responsible for the small uptick in wages that's become evident in recent months, as well.

[font color="red"]Revised material:[/font] Here’s a grim thought:

Fed economists: America’s missing workers are not coming back

Wonkblog

By Max Ehrenfreund September 12 {2014}

A paper by Federal Reserve staff that will be discussed at the Brookings Institution on Friday {September 12, 2014} possibly hints at the central bank's thinking on interest rates and employment in advance of a consequential Fed meeting next week. The findings support [links:http://online.wsj.com/articles/fed-minutes-rate-hike-debate-heating-up-1408557628|hawks] on the Federal Open Market Committee, who feel that the Fed needs to prepare to raise rates sooner than expected, although the results are still being debated and might not persuade the committee's more dovish members.

The paper discusses the number of people who consider themselves part of the workforce -- including both people who have a job and those who are looking for work. It is a measure of the total manpower available in the U.S. economy. This number, the labor force participation rate, has been decreasing steadily since 2000. Americans who can't find work have been leaving the workforce, as have more and more retirees as the population ages.

Let’s follow that with another grim thought:

Why wage growth disparity tells the story of America's half-formed economic recovery

By Chico Harlan November 21, 2014
@chicoharlan
[e-mail]

....
With unemployment down to 5.8 percent, the country’s half-formed recovery is often described with a convenient shorthand: We have jobs but little wage growth. But stagnancy is just an average, and for many Americans, the years since the financial crisis have pushed them farther from the line, according to a detailed analysis of government labor statistics by The Washington Post.
....

Among the winners in this climate: Older workers, women and those with finance and technology jobs. ... Among the losers: Part-timers, the young, men, and those in the health, retail and food industries.
....

Chico Harlan covers personal economics as part of The Post's financial team.

Dissenters, take note:

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate

David Leonhardt
AUG. 26, 2014

The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report has been the subject of some wacky conspiracy theories. None was wackier than the suggestion from Jack Welch, the former General Electric chief executive, that government statisticians were exaggerating job growth during President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Both Republican and Democratic economists dismissed those charges as silly.

But to call the people who compile the jobs report honest, nonpartisan civil servants is not to say that the jobs report is perfect. The report tries to estimate employment in a big country – and to do so quickly, to give policy makers, business executives and everyone else a sense of how the economy is performing. It’s a tough task.

And it has become tougher, because Americans are less willing to respond to surveys than they used to be.

A new academic paper suggests that the unemployment rate appears to have become less accurate over the last two decades, in part because of this rise in nonresponse. In particular, there seems to have been an increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work.

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] From July 2013:

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

Commentary

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

More people have left the workforce than got a new job during the recovery—by a factor of nearly three.

By Mortimer Zuckerman
July 15, 2013 7:09 p.m. ET

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.
....

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

[center]On the Road Again[/center]

The DOL Newsletter - October 6, 2011

DOL Data: There's an App for That
Have an iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone? Now you can access the latest labor data and news from the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment and Training Administration in the palm of your hand. The latest free mobile app displays real-time updates to the unemployment rate, Unemployment Insurance initial claims, the Consumer Price Index, payroll employment, average hourly earnings, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, productivity, the U.S. Import Price Index and the U.S. Export Price Index in real time, as they are published each week, month or quarter. News releases providing context for the data can also be accessed through the app and viewed within a mobile browser or as PDF documents.

US Labor Department launches economic and employment statistics app

Smartphone users gain mobile access to latest labor data and news

WASHINGTON — The most up-to-date employment data and economic news releases from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Employment and Training Administration now can be viewed using a new mobile application.
....

The new app is currently available for the iPhone and iPod Touch as well as Android phones. The Labor Department is working to develop versions for BlackBerry and iPad devices. Visit http://m.dol.gov/apps/ to download this and other mobile apps.

Download the Data, Other Mobile Apps


[center]A Few More Things[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 4, 2016:[/font] This article appeared as "Stocks vs. the Economy: Which Ruins Which?"on page C2 of the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. on Tuesday, February 2, 2016.

Does the Economy Ruin the Stock Market or Does the Stock Market Ruin the Economy?

2:49 pm ET
Feb 1, 2016
Markets

By John Carney

Don’t confuse the market for the economy. Markets have overshot fundamentals. There are no signs of contagion into the real economy. ... Anyone paying attention has heard some version of these sentiments lately. Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that the market has predicted nine of the past five recessions is once again on the lips of the wise men and women of Wall Street.

But what if the stock market is more than just an indicator? What if a stock selloff can actually cause unemployment and recessions? ... That’s exactly what historical data on the stock market and the unemployment rate running back to 1929 seem to suggest. A persistent 10% decline in the stock market pushes unemployment up three percentage points.

That, at least, is the finding of University of California Los Angeles economist Roger Farmer. Currently a Distinguished Professor of Economics at UCLA and a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mr. Farmer has been a fellow at the Bank of England and has won awards for his work on inefficiency in financial markets and self-fullfilling prophecies.

In a pair of academic papers written in the wake of the financial crisis, the first published in 2012 and the second published this year, Mr. Farmer has argued that changes in the value of the stock market cause changes in the unemployment rate. The idea will be expanded upon in Mr. Farmer’s forthcoming book, Prosperity for All.

[font color="red"]Moved here, February 6, 2016:[/font] The Federal Reserve looks at, among many other things, the BLS employment reports when it decides what to do with "the interest rate." The interest rate in question is the federal funds target rate. Here is some information about that:

Federal funds rate

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

Meet FRED, every wonk’s secret weapon

Storyline ? Meet the wonks

By Todd C. Frankel August 1, 2014

FRED stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data. It serves as an online clearinghouse for a wealth of numbers: unemployment rates, prices of goods, GDP and CPI, things common and obscure. Today, FRED is more than a little bit famous, thanks to the public’s fascination with economic data.

Federal Reserve Economic Data

So how many jobs must be created every month to have an effect on the unemployment rate? There's an app for that:

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jobs Calculator™

(Note new link for Jobs Calculator™. Hat tip, progree.)

Monthly Employment Reports from BLS

The U.S. Census Bureau has its own releases:

U.S. Census Bureau Latest News

U.S. Census Bureau Economic Indicators

For people who need a daily fix:

BLS-Labor Statistics Twitter feed

Read tomorrow's news before it happens. Here's the schedule for all economic reports:

MarketWatch Economic Calendar[font color="red"]

[philosslayer]

1. 4.7% Unemployment!!!!

AWESOME number. Congratulations Mr. President!!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Thanks for posting!

Wonder if there were any reports missing from the tally due to the holiday, etc.

[IronLionZion]

3. increase in health care jobs

but decreases in mining and manufacturing and a strike in telecom. Also downward revisions in March and April's job increases.

It's good to see a decrease in long-term unemployed and a slight increase in hourly wages.

I think people are retiring. And I'm betting on a fed rate hike soon.

[Recursion]

4. Nice

Good numbers to start out on, at least.

[rladdi]

5. And Trump was trashing Obama on TV about how poor he has done

on jobs and the economy. Really Trump? Trump says he can do much better then Obama. Tell me a Republican that has help Obama recover from the huge jobs losses under G. Bush. All I have heard are complaints about how bad Obama has done. Show me a bill, or any action that any Republican has taken in the house or senate to improves jobs. America needs a huge reconstruction on roads, bridges, rails and seaports, but the GOP has blocked them. This would really increase the job rate.

[IronLionZion]

6. Trump and the GOP claim these numbers are BS

cooked up by the socialist sounding Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Republicans are against government building roads, bridges, rail, and seaports because of the socialism. I actually had someone who was on Medicare and Social Security after a long career in government contracting tell me that if the private sector won't do something than it doesn't need to be done by anyone.

[Dhantesvz]

7. my quick take away?

really great post, which has a lot of information that at the moment I don't have time to read, but my quick take away from the information I did read is that the unemployment rate went down because of less labor participation, 0.4 percent decline over the last 2 months?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. Thank you. Welcome to TLF.

Most DUers cancel all other planned activities and stay inside the house all weekend to digest the material in this report.

Or not.

Best wishes.

[progree]

11. Yup, that's this month's report in a nutshell

[font color = blue]>>my quick take away from the information I did read is that the unemployment rate went down because of less labor participation, 0.4 percent decline over the last 2 months?<<[/font]

I wish I could disagree. The only thing I would add is that the Household Survey statistics are extremely volatile from month-to-month. Month-to-month changes in Household Survey numbers are more statistical noise than what really is happening in the real world that the statistics are trying to measure. I focus on a year or longer, with the hopes that month-to-month zigs and zags will mostly average out and underlying trends are more visible. But some people try to make the latest bad month's report out to be Obama's 7+ year record.

As an example of month-to-month volatility, here is the monthly changes in "Employed" from the Household Survey, in thousands
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000?output_view=net_1mth

[font face = "courier new"]
` ` Jan Feb Mar Apr` May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2014 408` 93 587 -95 115 422 224` 26` 370 540` 15` 50
2015 665 127 102 176 239 -26 144 177 -101 255 247 485
2016 615 530 246 -316 26 [/font]

(Please ignore the backquote (`) marks - they are put in to add spaces to the table and keep it aligned, because DU software compresses two or more consecutive actual spaces into one space)

and here are the non-farm payroll numbers from the much larger and thus statistically less volatile Establishment Survey
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

[font face = "courier new"]
` ` Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2014 187 168 272 310 213 306 232 218 286 200 331 292
2015 221 265` 84 251 273 228 277 150 149 295 280 271
2016 168 233 186 123` 38 [/font]

Back to the May report, it's also worth highlighting that there are 21,000 fewer non-farm payroll jobs than there were in last month's report (the 38,000 gain in May was more than offset by the combined 59,000 downard revision of March and April).

The Verizon strike was a modest 35,100 drag on May's report, so it can't all be blamed on that, per https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/03/employment-situation-may

[progree]

8. Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Here are some summary tables of the key May 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on June 3, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

In the below tables, all "%" ones are percentage point changes, *not* percent increases or decreases. FOR EXAMPLE, when you see something like this:

+0.1% Unemployment rate

It means that the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (this EXAMPLE is from March 2016 when the unemployment rate rose from 4.9% to 5.0%).

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Before each item, (vv) indicates very bad, (v ) indicates bad, (0 ) indicates neutral, (^ ) indicates good, (^^) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(vv) +38,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(vv) -458,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(vv) +26,000 Employed

(^^) -484,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` The last 3 lines overall is bad news: 458,000 fewer people either employed or
` ` ` looking for work in the past 4 weeks, and only a 26,000 increase in employment.
` ` ` The difference is the officially unemployed. In short, only 26,000 more people are
` ` ` employed and an additional 458,000 jobless people stopped looking for work
` ` ` in the past 4 weeks. But like all Household survey raw numbers, it is wildly volatile
` ` ` from month to month

(0 ) -0.0% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.7%)

(vv) -0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.6%)
` ` ` It is only 0.2% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.

(0 ) -0.3% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.7%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` By itself, it looks great, a huge decline to a multi- multi- year low. But this month's
` ` ` decline is caused mostly by a 458,000 drop in the labor force - fewer people looking for
` ` ` work in the past 4 weeks. So I'll give this a neutral rating. Its mostly monthly volatility
` ` ` anyway.

(0 ) 0.0% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.7%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

(v ) +0.1% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work (it's at 12.0%)

(vv) +130,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639

(vv) +468,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
` ` ` An astonishing increase (volatitlity, volatility). Over the past 12 months its declined
` ` ` by 170,000.

(0 ) +139,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9).

(vv) -59,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) - Ruh Roh, the righties will be making an enormous
` ` ` hoohah about this as they always do when some number in the extremely very volatile
` ` ` Household Survey comes out the way they want it to come out. And then they will try
` ` ` to make it seem like this is the story of the whole Obama administration. Well, not
` ` ` quite. Over the past year, full-time workers went up by 1.7 million, and since the jobs
` ` ` market bottom in Feb 2010, it went up by 12.4 million.

^--Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "bad" months and in "good" months

The "U-7" unemployment rate is a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour, not a BLS number. The above number is one I calculated, because he doesn't update his number every month, and when he does, it is about a day after the jobs report comes out. My number has consistently matched his within 0.1 percentage points (and mine has always been a bit higher). The "U-7" unemployment rate counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job, no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want full time work

For more background on the U-7 number, see: "If you count everyone who says they want a job, even if they have made no effort to find one in many years" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2

[font color = magenta]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010[/font]

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,398,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.70% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru April because no CPI data for May yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+1,099,000 Labor Force
+2,282,000 Employed
-1,183,000 Unemployed
+0.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
-0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.8% Unemployment rate
-1.0% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-1.0% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-124,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-170,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+484,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+1,720,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for May yet for the inflation-adjusted Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for May is not yet available.

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate shows a 0.2% drop to 62.6% which is only 0.2 percentage points above a multi-decade low. Interesting though that there was a 0.3% percentage point INcrease in the Employment To Population Ratio. So we have the labor force participation rate going in one direction, and the employment to population ratio going in another direction. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians .

Seems to me that there is too much discussion in the media of the Labor Force Participation Rate -- aka the Labor Force to Population Ratio -- (the employed plus the jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, all divided by the population), and not enough attention to what seemingly matters more -- the Employment to Population Ratio. Why aren't we celebrating the increase in the percentage of the population that is employed (the employment to population ratio)-- a figure that has been slowly moving up since the job market bottom, despite the growing wave of baby boomer retirements?

(As always, the population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, including the elderly, even centenarians).

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 75 months thru May 31, 2016: 5'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru May 31, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+14,245,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.37% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru April 2016 because no CPI data for May yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+4,772,000 Labor Force
+12,449,000 Employed
-7,677,000 Unemployed
+1.2% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.3% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-5.1% Unemployment rate
-7.3% U-6 unemployment rate
-6.8% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-175,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-2,506,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+309,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+12,357,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

[font color=blue]Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]May'15 Feb'16 Apr'16 May'16
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 4.3%
A very nice decrease from May 2015 through April 2016, but unfortunately a big jump in May -- to almost the same level as a year ago.
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]

Umm, but aren't most of the new jobs part-time? (umm, no)

A graph of part-time and full-time workers (from June 2009 through November 2015)


CLARIFICATION: in the above, these are part-time workers and full-time workers, not part-time jobs and full-time jobs.

This excellent post from early July show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post12

What kind of Wages?

INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average Weekly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

Again, the above are INFLATION-ADJUSTED earnings

Here is the nominal, i.e. not-inflation-adjusted version of the above:
Weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
Hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010

The links to the data above
# Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639
# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/03/employment-situation-may . (find this at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog or http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in May}

Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141474623

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"][font size=4 color=blue]Detailed Discussion[/font]

6/3/16 -

At best an abysmal jobs report this month Just 38,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in May. March and April were revised down by a combined 59,000. So we have 21,000 FEWER payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 38 - 59 = -21 ).

The Household Survey shows an employment increase of just 26,000. This on top of a DEcrease of 316,000 in April. (For a longer perspective, employment has grown by 2,282,000 over the past 12 months, pretty closely matching the 2,398,000 payroll jobs increase in the Establishment Survey)

Also the labor force went down by 458,000 (mostly due to a drop in the number of people looking for work -- 26,000 stopped looking for work for a happy reason -- because they found employment. But the rest is a net reduction in the number of jobless people who looked for work in the last 4 weeks, and so who are no longer counted as officially unemployed in the headline unemployment statistic.

(For a longer perspective, the Labor Force has grown by 1,099,000 over the past 12 months). The labor force is essentially the sum of the employed plus jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

Anyway, the reason I'm not celebrating the drop in the official unemployment rate from 5.0% in April to 4.7% in May is because it was mostly produced by a massive drop in the number of people looking for work in the past 4 weeks. (But month - to - month changes in Household Survey statistics are more statistical noise than real changes to what it is that we are trying to measure).

The number of part-time workers wanting full-time work increased a massive 468,000. Over the past 12 months, there has been a decline of 170,000 in this number.

The broader measures of unemployment -- U-6 and U-7 -- were roughly stable -- U-6 stayed unchanged at 9.7%, while Paul Solman's "U-7" increase by 0.1 percentage points to 12.0%.

(Both U-6 and U-7 count part-timers wanting full-time work as unemployed. As for what U-7 is, that's a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour that counts every jobless person who SAYS they want work as unemployed, no matter how long it has been since they last looked for work. Plus part-timers wanting full-time work are also counted as unemployed.)

Perhaps the worst number in today's Household Survey, besides the massive increase in part-timers wanting full-time work, is that there are 59,000 FEWER Full-Time Workers in May than in April. Ruh Roh, the righties will be making an enormous hoohah about this as they always do when some number in the extremely very volatile Household Survey comes out the way they want it to come out. And then they will try to make it seem like this is the story of the whole Obama administration.

Well, not quite. Over the past 12 months, part-timers wanting full-time work went down by 170,000. And full-time workers went up by 1.7 million. And since the jobs market bottom in Feb 2010, part-timers wanting full-time work went down by 2.5 million, while full-time workers went up by 12.4 million.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. Links to charts and graphs and another article

BLS:

Charts related to the latest "The Employment Situation" news release

Current Employment Statistics Highlights May 2016 Release Date: June 3, 2016

The Wall Street Journal.:

U.S. Added Only 38,000 Jobs in May

Real Time Economics | Employment
The May Jobs Report in 12 Charts

By Josh Zumbrun and Nick Timiraos
[e-mail]
@JoshZumbrun
[e-mail]
@NickTimiraos

Jun 3, 2016 9:16 am ET

U.S. employers added only 38,000 jobs in May, the worst month since September 2010. The unemployment rate, however, fell to 4.7%, the lowest since November 2007. Here’s a look — in charts — at some of the other key trends to follow in the monthly employment report.

Including May’s weak reading, so far this year the economy has added 149,600 jobs per month on average. That’s the worst start to a year since 2009.
....

The share of Americans who went from not being in the labor force—that is, they weren’t actively looking for work—to finding a job surged over the last two years, but it has stabilized this year.

[GummyBearz]

12. Your thesis in economics looks nearly complete

That was a heck of a post...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Pssssst: It's mostly cut and paste.

This is the one thing I make sure I do every month.

I come in early to get a head start on it. I link to the blog in TWSJ. and copy the bulk of the matter from the previous month. I make a few changes to that - throw out the old links and make sure the new links are in place.

When 8:30 arrives, I start to hit "refresh" at the BLS website. And hit it. And hit it. And ... bingo. I post just enough to get the article posted. Once it's in place, I add more.

After that, I churn through the highlights, do a little bit of arithmetic, and post that. Then I can wait an hour or two for the charts and graphs to go online.

This thread is the highlight of the month for me. I wouldn't know what I'd do without it.

Thanks.

[GummyBearz]

14. This is the first one I've come across. Copy/paste or not, it is a lot of info and hard work

Good work