HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » progree » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Minnesota
Member since: Sat Jan 1, 2005, 04:45 AM
Number of posts: 7,072

Journal Archives

Fox News mistakenly airs parody of Obama offering to personally fund Muslim museum

Source: Yahoo News - (with video of the Fox News segment)

In a story about the monument closure, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell prey to a false report from a parody site, which claimed that President Obama had offered to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open with cash from his own pocket.

Kooiman was referencing a quote from the National Report, a parody news site that ran the fake story on Obama. The key quote from the story reads:

“The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture.”

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/fox-news-mistakenly-airs-parody-of-obama-offering-to-personally-fund-muslim-museum-233837793.html

Its a 2:21 m:s video. The first 1:30 m:s of the video is about how war memorials are being shut down, even though it doesn't cost anything to keep them open, just to make the shutdown as painful as possible.

Then at 1:30 it gets more interesting and at 1:58 is when they claim Obama is offering to pay out of pocket to keep the International Musuem of Muslim Cultures open.

Yes, I know Yahoo! News, The Sideshow is not a mainstream source, I did look for something more mainstreamy. (Yahoo News did post it as the 3rd main story on its news.yahoo.com home page). But I trust the video is real, and I trust Media Matters. Media Matters packaged the video segment.

Other sources:
Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/05/fox-falls-for-fake-story-about-obama-personally/196304

[font color = red]On Edit 10/6 1023 pm Central (after 26 replies) -- there are several comments directed at this OP about how Fox's "mistake" was intentional. I agree. However, one of the rules of Late Breaking News is that we must use the original title of the article. And also any excerpts we use (above the "Read More:" line) must be unaltered. [/font] Yes, I think a more apt title is one with quotes and a spelling change: [font color = blue]Faux "News" "mistakenly" airs parody of Obama offering to personally fund Muslim museum[/font]

[font color = green]On Edit 10/7 939 am Central[/font] - On October 6, Kooiman issued the following statement via Twitter: "Just met w producers- I made a mistake yday after receiving flawed research abt a museum possibly closing. My apologies. Won't happen again."
Source: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/05/fox-falls-for-fake-story-about-obama-personally/196304
I know "mistake" "flawed research" "apologies" "again"
"a museum possibly closing"
I heard about this update on the Stephanie Miller show.

Gorgeous Time Lapse Video Reveal a Nighttime Sky Free From Light Pollution. Also Stunning Moonrise

Look up at the nighttime sky and what do you see? If you're like most, the answer is probably not "stars," but the orange wash of streetlights reflected in the sky above.

Light pollution from ambient nighttime lighting is an unrelenting drain on energy reserves worldwide, and a problem that's growing at a rate of four percent annually. The consistent glare of illumination can adversely affect everything around it, including ecosystems and wildlife.

But at the Mount John Observatory in New Zealand, star-gazers can enjoy a crystal-clear view from Earth of the solar system above, due in part to the nearby township of Lake Tekapo, which increasingly powers down its ambient lights at night.

The observatory is part of a territory that was officially named an International Dark Sky Reserve in 2012, allowing guests to enjoy soaring and detailed views of the universe that we often forget our planet is a part of.

A bit more: http://news.yahoo.com/gorgeous-photos-show-nighttime-sky-free-light-pollution-194724490.html

(33 seconds)

Related: Moonrise over New Zealand - presented in real-time
This is not a time lapse. This moonrise, Wellington, New Zealand was recorded and shown in real time is positively spellbinding. The mood music adds a lot to it.

Courtesy of: http://www.democraticunderground.com/122815019 (which got 120 rec's)
3 minutes 36 seconds

What ever happened to David Shove's Progressive Calendar?

Probably most of us, as Minnesota activists, are familiar with David Shove's Progressive Calendar.

See http://justcomm.org/mn-prog-events/ and http://lists.justcomm.org/pipermail/mn-prog-events/ for archives of David Shove's Progressive Calendar and a few other calendar items by others.

(By the way, one can subscribe to the mn-prog-events list and get emails. You can also send notices to it -- [font color = red]PLEASE DO SO!!!!!![/font] -- see http://justcomm.org/mn-prog-events/#posts and send to mn-prog-events {at} justcomm.org ).

Shove's Progressive Calendar used to be a daily thing listing maybe an average of 5 events. Now it is maybe 3 times a month and lately the only "progressive event" it has been announcing lately is the Midstream Reading Series at the Blue Moon building.

I really miss it (the way it was), in that I have no way of knowing what's going on as far as demonstrations and protests I might attend or other events of the progressive community, except to check say here, AntiWar MN's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/AntiwarMN ), Occupy Homes MN (https://www.facebook.com/OccupyHomesMN ), AM 950 progressive talk radio's page (https://www.facebook.com/AM950Radio ) and that's about it.

Is there some resource I'm not aware of that will keep me notified of progressive events? I'm sick and tired of finding out about some protest only after it has occurred by hearing about it on the news. (By sending notices of progressive events to mn-prog-events {at} justcomm.org , you will help at least those of us that are subscribers to the list.)


No more print magazines, what do I do?

First it was PC Magazine that went from print to digital only. Then Newsweek, and now PC World. And numerous smaller publications have done so, like my city's Crime Watch newsletter.

I'm getting old. I LOVE TO READ IN BED! And it's how I fall asleep. I hate reading long articles and books on my computer screen at a desk.

When PC World recently went all-digital, I signed up for the Zinio subscription service and Zinio Reader for reading downloaded magazines offline on my Windows 7 PC. But that royally sucks:

I cannot underline or highlight, I cannot annotate, I cannot copy and paste anything. What worthless crap.

Whereas in a print magazine I underline and annotate. I underline some really key things darker and harder. I put a star or two in the margin for a really key key thing. Sometimes I use different colors. And I do that all FLAT ON MY BACK IN BED. And though with a print magazine I can't copy and paste electronically either, I do type a few sparse notes on some key articles, and clip the article and file chronologically.

I have not explored any e-book readers or tablets. I know with a Kindle, for example, one can underline and annotate, but don't know if I'd be allowed to do that on my PCWorld subscription from Zinio (probably not)

I have similar issues with books too, but let's make that a separate posting.

Anyone else having trouble coping with the modern world?

Thanks for any insights.

I wonder what the "crazy" ants think of us. 400 ppm CO2 etc. Population video:

The dramatic dot video of population growth. A world map beginning in 1 A.D. with 1 dot = 1 million people

It is about 6 1/2 minutes long but you can skip the first 2 minutes -- the actual dot stuff begins at 2:00 and ends at 5:42. At 5:00 have reached about 1600 A.D. while the population is still quite modest outside of India and China. (So if you are in a time bind, you can start at 5:00 and watch just the last 42 seconds) "As the film neared present day and the dots started flying onto the screen, there were audible gasps, wide staring eyes, and mumblings of "no way" and "I knew we were growing but not THAT much."

Not another head tax - the most regressive tax of all

According to a Pioneer Press article:

“A group of lawmakers will take a second look at a controversial bill to impose a $5 surcharge on homeowners and vehicle insurance policies, raising about $23 million annually for police and fire pensions.”

More at: http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_22768070/insurance-surcharges-boost-pension-plans-gets-second-look?source=rss


Taxing each household the same amount (similar to a head tax) is far more regressive than even a sales tax. Yes, I know, it's households, not people, but it's close. And yes, I know only homeowners pay the homeowner insurance surcharge, but virtually all economists believe that in the long run in a market economy, homeowner costs and taxes are paid mostly by the renters in the case of rental property. And yes, the poorest of the poor probably don’t have a vehicle. But it is still a VERY regressive tax.

In Golden Valley, we’ve been recently hit with new $24 / year surcharges on our electric bill and another $24/year on our gas bill – another similar head / household tax. (I know that's not the legislature's doing, but its an illustration of how our elected officials are adding and increasing the most regressive taxes).

And then don’t get me started on the sales tax increases – the next most regressive tax after head / household taxes. The sales tax on services, besides being extremely regressive, is mostly a tax on local labor.

In an age when inequality is soaring through the roof, I am shocked and horrified that a Democratic governor and legislature seems to be doing all it possibly can to make the situation worse.

We're half way to replace electoral college with national popular vote, MN may join that effort

This from state Senator Ann Rest, DFL, New Hope

S.F. 585 would add Minnesota to a national compact of states agreeing to elect the President of the United
States by a national popular vote as opposed to the current Electoral College system. If enough states adopt
this compact to account for 270 of the nation’s electoral votes, they would effectively be able to enforce
the new process. Currently, eight states and the District of Columbia have agreed to the compact, accounting
for approximately a quarter of the Electoral College votes.

Source of above (no more info on this topic, the above blurb is the whole thing) : https://www.senate.mn/members/newsletter/1051_Rest_Ann/CapitolUpdate07February232013.pdf

The above says the proposal already has about a quarter of the electoral votes. Once we reach 270 -- half of the total electoral votes, then that will be enough to choose the president no matter what the other states do with their electoral votes (The ones agreeing to this compact will assign all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote). Anyway, since the proposal has got 1/4 and needs 1/2, that's why my title line says that the proposal is half way there (1/4 is half way to 1/2 -- maths is hard).

So anyway this looks like something that could happen. Compared to what we have now (winner take all in all states except Nebraska and Maine), it might not make much practical difference. But if the RepubliCONs succeed in changing some blue swing states that they control from winner-take-all to allocating electoral votes by congressional district, then it will be a big, big difference. If the RepubliCONs had had their way on this in 2012, Romney would be president by 16 electoral votes, instead of losing by 126 electoral votes and by 3.7% of the national popular vote ( https://www.freespeech.org/text/rigging-democracy )

Great stuff. There's also that at-night lighted version - Overpass Light Brigade

The overpass light brigade http://overpasslightbrigade.org/
Their facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/OverpassLightBrigade
Their tumbler page -- 4 pages of photos: http://overpasslightbrigade.tumblr.com/

This by the way, is the freeway blogger's website for anyone hunting for the URL - lots of great pictures: http://www.freewayblogger.com/

Voting Rights/Voter ID - heartening to see so many "getting it"

I know very few to none who are in the area will see this in time (on edit - the event was Oct 11), I wouldn't have bothered posting except it was nice to see such a widely diverse group of sponsors that are involved. To me, this amendment is the most important constitutional amendment on the ballot because if we have strict voter ID (and that's what the constitutional amendment calls for), then the civil rights of EVERYONE, and ALL progressive causes will be negatively impacted by the disproportionate disenfranchisement of progressives.

Voting rights 10.11 6:30pm

Voices for Voting Rights Red Carpet Event
Public Event • By Organizing Apprenticeship Project
Thursday, October 11, 2012
6:30pm until 8:30pm at PARKWAY THEATER
4814 Chicago Ave. South, Minneapolis

A Red Carpet Event and Film Screening.
...Come hear the voices of multiracial, multicultural leaders in our communities who are standing up for voting rights.
...Eat popcorn and enjoy artistic performances as well as the screening of several short social justice films featuring local celebrities.
...Dress to impress (optional)
...VOTE NO on VOTER ID (mandatory).

Contributing Partners:
African American Leadership Forum
Be the Vote Coalition 2012
Community Action of Minneapolis
Centro Campesino
Color the Vote
Lao Family Community
Main Street Project
Native Vote Alliance of Minnesota
Organizing Apprenticeship Project
Sagrado Corazón de Jesús
Somali Action Alliance

EF-0. Economic Statistics with links to official sources, 2/9/20. Plus April 2020 jobs report 5/8/20

Major updates were done to all pages on February 8, 2020. For additional updates that were done since then, please click this link:   EF-U. Updates List

LBN Threads that discuss the latest monthly jobs reports (the one with the unemployment rate and the payroll jobs numbers that usually comes out the first Friday of the month, but sometimes the second Friday)

For SEPTEMBER 2020 jobs report (dated 10/2), see: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142594312

New presidential jobs creation table updated 10/2/20 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142594312#post18

Since I'm not doing monthly updates anymore, the links below are the place to look for discussions of the numbers. I generally contribute to these threads, but it takes some time (like most of the Friday when they come out). I will at least add the latest link ASAP to the below. One can also look in the Latest Breaking News forum at shortly after 8:30 A.M. Eastern Time on the first Friday of the month (or the second Friday of some months) and find it.

When the jobs reports come out: https://www.bls.gov/schedule/news_release/empsit.htm
. . . for the rest of 2020: October 2, November 6, December 4

JANUARY 2020 (dated 2/7) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142430036
FEBRUARY 2020 (dated 3/6) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142442171
MARCH 2020 (dated 4/3) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142462375
APRIL 2020 (dated 5/8) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142489386
MAY 2020 (dated 6/5) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142507819
JUNE 2020 (dated 7/2) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142528426
JULY 2020 (dated 8/7) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142555568
AUGUST 2020 (dated 9/4) : https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142575568
SEPTEMBER 2020 (dated 10/2): https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142594312

Handy key links to BLS data series / graphs pages, some with the latest year or two of monthly numbers: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142575568#post24

9/19/20 note - this delves into the discrepancy between the 29.6 million collecting benefits in all programs (aka continuing claims) as of week ending August 29 (the latest for this data as of 9/19/20 -- there's a 2 1/2 week lag in this statistic -- and the 13.2 million unemployed figure in the August 2020 BLS monthly jobs report (that came out 9/4/20)
. . . https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142575568#post39
. . . https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214030232#post3

5/12/20 note : Scroll down a a few inches to see a summary of the horrific April 2020 jobs report.


April 2020 Jobs Report that Came out May 8, 2020

I normally don't do monthly jobs reports anymore, but I'm making an exception for this historic jobs plunge we suffered in April.

The headlines are that non-farm payroll jobs dropped by 20.5 million in April, while the unemployment rate rose to 14.7%, the worst since the 1930s.

See the Latest Breaking News thread reporting this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142489386

Per Bureau of Labor Statistics May 8, 2020, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm :

In April the employment-to-population ratio is the lowest since records of that began in January 1948 (72 years ago)

Ditto the unemployment rate (except it is at the highest, not the lowest, since that seasonally adjusted series began in January 1948)

Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics admits the official unemployment rate is almost 5 percentage points higher than the 14.7% reported due to classification errors of some of the household survey interviewers (making it close to 20%)

As was the case in March, special instructions sent to household survey
interviewers called for all employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business
closures to be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all
such workers were so classified.

If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other reasons" (over
and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical April) had been classified as unemployed
on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been almost 5 percentage points higher
than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data
from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions
are taken to reclassify survey responses.

And the April numbers come from a sample week of April 12-18. Many more millions of jobs were lost since then, according to the weekly new unemployment claims reports

Putting all of the above together, it is a virtual certainty that the unemployment rate was over 20% at the end of April.

As for the nonfarm payrolls job number being down 20.5 million in April -- that's from a different survey, the Establishment Survey. The key thing to know about that survey is that it is based on pay periods that include the 12th (some employers pay monthly but most pay every 2 weeks, some pay weekly). Anyway, most of that missed the further job losses that occurred in the second half of April.

More Details:


I won't be doing monthly updates, but rather annual updates of the jobs number, so if the job statistics are somewhat out of date in the future, I hope people will read "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there". The other pages (EF-1 through EF-10) also has information about the economy that is still relevant or relatively timeless. I also make occasional changes to some of the other pages, particularly the debt and deficit information on the EF-5 page http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post5
and EF-9 Income and Inequality pages http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post9
. Again, please check out the   EF-U. Updates List

Another key purpose of this page is to provide links to the official sources of economic statistics and other resources for people to use in the message board / social media wars with the righties (and each other) about the economy.

Almost all sections have where to find the official numbers, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Treasury.gov, or widely cited non-partisan sources. Hopefully people will find these pages a useful reference for finding information. These are the numbers that are cited, and which virtually all analysis of the U.S. economy derive from. The rest is pretty much anecdotal (like "the prices in my grocery store have doubled in the past year" )

There are some amazingly distorted presentations of what their numbers are and what they mean that you find on the web, and yes, DU too. Please see the "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" section in the bottom half of this page for examples of what I mean by distorted presentations of BLS statistics.

I don't claim that the BLS and other government sources are inerrant, or even unbiased, e.g. whoever came up with some of the definitions like the official (U-3) unemployment rate being a count of jobless people who looked for work sometime in the past 4 weeks. And it is obvious that most of the Household Survey numbers have a lot of statistical error, considering how they wildly bounce around from month to month.

I'm just saying all of this is a presentation of the actual BLS and Commerce Department numbers (for the most part) with links to the statistics being discussed, so that you can check it out for yourself.

Most of what you read about economic statistics, including those skeptical of the BLS and Commerce Dept numbers (e.g. GDP), rely on these same statistics, since there aren't many comprehensive non-governmental sources of economic statistics available. In other words, they use these statistics to criticize these statistics. So by giving you the links, you can see the full context -- as many polemicists cherry pick here and there to give a misleading picture.

Again, see the "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" section in the bottom half of this page for examples of what to watch for.

Unfortunately, a lot of the formatting has been lost because of the May 2017 hack of the DU website. For the latest version at archive.org -- WHICH SHOWS THE ORIGINAL FORMATTING -- see:


Unfortunately the latest archive.org snapshot that shows the original formatting is April 2016. Oh well. There is a way to ask archive.org to save a current snapshot ... the "Save Page Now" feature at https://archive.org/web. But unfortunately any snapshots made after the May 2017 hack of the DU website appear the same as what you are looking at -- with only selected formatting restored.

For more on what formatting does and does not work at DU, see https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=13211

Here is a table of contents of this thread:

{#} EF-0. Economic Statistics with links to official sources (this post)

{#} EF-1. Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Employment. At the bottom all post-WWII presidents with completed terms are compared

{#} EF-2. Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Insurance Claims

{#} EF-3. Recessions and Expansions - Official (NBER.org). Also GDP (Gross Domestic Product)

{#} EF-4. U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Avg

{#} EF-5. National Debt. Budget Deficits and Surpluses

{#} EF-6. U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Oil Prices

{#} EF-7. In Progress (mostly Dem presidencies v. Repub presidencies. Also Inequality)

{#} EF-8. In Progress - Some canned excerpts to use in the message board wars

{#} EF-9. Incomes and Inequality and Consumer Prices and Poverty (in progress)

{#) EF-10. Definitions, Links (In Progress)

{#) EF-U. Updates List

I use facts from these in mixed message boards and in comments on news articles such as at news.yahoo.com. Be aware that I have included a few statistics that are not so pleasant as far as Obama's record, ones that anyone debating with others should be aware of because occasionally you will see these points or they will come back at you with these statistics (forewarned is forearmed).


Here are some summary tables of the key jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on February 7, 2020.

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%).

Before each item, (F) indicates very bad, (D) indicates bad, (C) indicates neutral, (B) indicates good, (A) indicates very good. (Edit: I haven't been putting these "grades" on the items lately)


The links to the data below in the "over the last year" etc. tables

# Nonfarm Employment (Establishment Survey), https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001  monthly change

# . . . the raw (not seasonally adjusted numbers) are at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0000000001   monthly change

# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000   monthly change

# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000   monthly change

# . . . the raw (not seasonally adjusted numbers) are at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000   monthly change

# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000   monthly change

# ETPR (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 -- Not in Labor Forcehttp://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000   monthly change

# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639   monthly change

# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194 monthly change

# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000   monthly change

# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000   monthly change

# Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed (Table A-9) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026620   monthly change

# Civilian non-institutional population https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS10000000   monthly change

Some statistics by age group
The ones beginning with "LNS" are seasonally adjusted (SA).
The ones beginning with "LNU" are not seasonally adjusted (NSA)
16+ is the default one that the BLS and the media report.
16+ means every civilian non-institutionalized person age 16 and over, including centenarians. So it is misleading -- the population is aging and there are about 10,000 boomer retirements a day (which comes to 3.6 million/year). That's why I show other age groups.

Age 25-54 is what the BLS calls the "prime age". It isn't contaminated by a lot of voluntary retirements.

By default, the graphs are 10 - 11 years, specifically they begin in the January of the year that was 10 years ago -- meaning in this case they begin January 2009 (which happens to be near the bottom of Great Recession job market -- well actually the job count fell for another 13 months to its lowest point in February 2010)

You might want to set the start date of the calendar back to, oh, whatever. 1989? 1979? 1969? In order to get a more historic view. 1989 is about when the rapid growth of female workforce participation began to level off

LFPR - Labor Force Participation Rate for some age groups
The LFPR is the Employed + jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks (and say they want a job and are able to take one if offered). All divided by the civilian non-institutional population age 16+.
SA means Seasonally adjusted. NSA means Not Seasonally Adjusted
16+: SA: LNS11300000 NSA: LNU01300000
25-34: SA: LNS11300089 NSA: LNU01300089
25-54: SA: LNS11300060 NSA: LNU01300060
55+: SA: LNS11324230 NSA: LNU01324230
65+: SA: ---------------- NSA: LNU01300097

ETPR - Employment to Population Ratio for some age groups
SA means Seasonally adjusted. NSA means Not Seasonally Adjusted
16+: SA: LNS12300000 NSA: LNU02300000
25-34: SA: LNS12300089 NSA:
25-54: SA: LNS12300060 NSA: LNU02300060
55+: SA: LNS12324230 NSA: LNU02324230
65+: SA: ---------------- NSA: LNU02300097

OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months), i.e. Trump's 3rd year:
Updated to include the January 2020 jobs report that came out on Feb. 7, 2020
+2,052,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
-0.16% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 ) - YES, A DECLINE
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru December because no CPI data for January yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+1,464,000 Labor Force = Employed + jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks
+2,087,000 Employed
-624,000 Unemployed (jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+0.5% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.4% Unemployment rate
-1.1% U-6 unemployment rate (It includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year,
` ` ` and part-timers who say they want full-time work) (It's at 6.9%)
-1.2% "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 8.8%)
-335,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-923,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+759,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+1,324,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

OVER THE LAST 3 YEARS (last 36 months), i.e. Trump's presidency:
Updated to include the January 2020 jobs report that came out on Feb. 7, 2020
+6,559,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+2.84% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 23 months thru December because no CPI data for January yet
......... Incidentally in Obama's last 3 years, this measure increased by 4.48%
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+4,959,000 Labor Force = Employed + jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks
+6,585,000 Employed
-1,626,000 Unemployed (jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+1.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.6% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-1.1% Unemployment rate
-2.3% U-6 unemployment rate (It includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year,
` ` ` and it includes part-timers who want full time work) (It's at 6.9%)
-2.6% "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 8.8%)
-835,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-1,552,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+83,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+6,536,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

Commentary: usually I have more to say because reports are usually more mixed. But as far as over the past year numbers (thru January 31, 2020), the only one that looks bad or disappointing is the slight 0.16% drop in the inflation-adjusted weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers. But over the past 3 years (Trump's presidency) it has gained 2.84%. (In Obama's last 3 years it gained 4.48%). As for the past 3 year numbers, I don't see anything that looks bad.

Interestingly, over the past year, the civilian non-institutional population age 16+ incresed 1,263k while payroll jobs increased by 2,052k and "Employed" increased by 2,087k.

The past 3 year numbers are more rational but still surprising: the civilian non-institutional population age 16+ increased by 5,420k, while payroll jobs increase by 6,559k, and the number of employed increased by 6,585k.

(This paragraph was written during Obama's 2nd term) On a separate topic, in general, it 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 highlighting 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?

This was particularly irritating during the 2nd term of the Obama administration when the labor force participation rate was barely off its Great Recession bottom, while the employment to population ratio was definitely and steadily increasing since fall 2013.

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

Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed
Jan'17 Jan'19 Jan'20
3.8% ` 3.3% ` 2.6%

Aren't most of the new jobs part-time?

No. This excellent post from early July 2015 show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves

Since February 2010 (the bottom of the Great Recession job market) through January 2020, part-time workers have DEcreased by 98,000 while full-time workers have INcreased by 20,321,000. (Table A-9).

Chart 7 of the below link shows Part-time workers as a percent of total employed, Seasonally adjusted, 1990–2020. In recent years it has ranged from 20.1% at the height of the Great Recession to around 17% now.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »