US employment data (updated for April)

Post Reply New Topic

Labor-force participation: 58.9% (up 0.7% from a low in November 2010 and 0.3% from this time last year).
10 million unemployed workers.
3 million people not counted as unemployed still actively seeking a job.

Current unemployment rates for:
African Americans: 11.6%
Latinos: 7.3%
Whites: 5.3%
Young workers (20 to 24): 10.6%
Older workers (55+): 4.7%

Jobs added in April:
Manufacturing: 12,000 jobs.
Health-care: 19,000 (since February 2010, health care has accounted for 12% of all jobs created).
Retail sector: 35,000.
Accommodation and food services: 38,000.
Employment and temporary help services: 28,000.
Minimum-wage employment accounted for 40% of private-sector, non-healthcare jobs created.

Also during April:
Number of workers quitting jobs fell 4%.
Number of workers re-entering or newly entering the labor force fell 13%.
Flat average work hours.
Flat percentage of people working part time.

Today's bonus stat:
Number of people holding multiple jobs: up 133,000 in the past year.

I wonder about your numbers ...

Quoted: " The U.S. labor-force participation rate sank to 62.8% in April from 63.2% in March to match a 35-year low, the government reported Friday. The commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erica Groshen, said: "Our analysis of the household survey suggests the labor force decline was mostly due to fewer people entering the labor force than usual, rather than more people exiting the labor force."

source, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-lab ... 2014-05-02

You are correct. I mislabeled. It should read "employment-population ratio" instead of labor-force participation.
A different measure. Labor-force participation is for those over the age of 16, which is 62.8%. Thanks for catching that!

Do you see something strange about the government's numbers then ?

The labor force participation is the lowest in 35 years, and yet, the % of people unemployed is dropping ?

These would seem like contradictory statistics.

It is because the unemployment numbers are based on the number of people are collecting unemployment benefits, which is dropping.

All of the government economic figures are based on specific variables, which tend to be skewed one way or the other, depending on current conditions.

That's why I like the employment-population ratio. It only compares the number of people collecting wages to the number of people those wages must support. A lot better than the various official stats that try to factor in ages, adult students, those seeking work vs those who have given up, etc.

The comparison to historical 'employment-population ratio' percentages does not seem fair, because many Americans are transitioning from higher paying jobs to lower paying service work. Looking at only '% employed' does not appear to recognize this change.

The % working is likely to become more and more lower wage service workers. These workers may qualify for welfare (e.g., Walmart workers are known to qualify for welfare to subsidize their pay) and probable will be less and less likely able to 'support' the non-working.

The unemployment numbers do not either. It is more of an economic indicator of the labor market vs availability of jobs over time. It is a way to try to explain to those who think that the unemployed just aren't looking hard enough or that they are just too lazy.



Definitely true. A minimum wage hike would help to alleviate this problem. As would stricter tax regulations and enforcement of those regulations on large corporations that have a direct impact on the overall economy. As would a progressively higher tax rate with progressively higher earnings. As would a stop to the fed loan brand new money to banks with no interest and laws to stop them from using that interest free money to siphon off federal cash by buying government backed securities.