Meh, not so much. I see my "8.3% (BLS) 9.1% (Gallup)" post got a few of the folks here all in a lather of righteous indignation or sommat, so let me dilate on the theme further. Chart #1 (courtesy, James Pethokoukis, who provided much of what you see below):
Even if the number -- the official number from the BLS, of course -- were real, it would STILL drag out the longest streak of 8-plus percent joblessness we've had since FDR's Great Depression, a point which I took care to point out to one of my many admirers over in the post mentioned above (he probably won't get it because he just isn't able to get those sorts of things, I guess). In fact, since January 2009 we've never been below 8% when it comes to the unemployment rate but I'm sure that's nobody's fault in particular. It's just "bad luck," right? I actually heard one of President Obama's big cabinet guns (Vilsack, I think) make that claim ("we've had a run of bad luck...") a couple of weeks ago. Maybe somebody needs to read him Heinlein's observation about "bad luck" (Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." ).
Again, let's take a quick look at what the BLS calls the "labor force participation rate," which is 63.7% (and a slight improvement over last month's number, to be fair -- which I always am). Factor that in properly and the BLS's U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%. OUCH!!
So, okay: I'm sure my fans will rush in to proclaim something subtle, like the fact that the Baby Boomers (of which I'm a proud, though on the younger end of that cohort, member) have been aging, and their leaving the workforce for retirement or to think deep thoughts and sail cool-looking boats around the world instead of trying to live off their meager retirement savings accounts and cat food (yummy!) is what should also be factored in? Well, my fans' wish is my command. Factor that in and you get a super-low rate of...10.4%! Sweet ASS sweet!
Now, now kiddies. I know what you're saying: "Well the participation rate usually falls during recessions, duh!" Y'know, yer right. Okay, let's put that into Big Kahuna's magic calculator (just kidding...I usually only use my fingers and thumbs in an abacus-like fashion to do all this higher math stuff), then. Well, it's looking a little better, I gotta say. That'd put it right at about, maybe, sorta...9.5%, when you add in the Boomers all going off on their magic carpet ride to the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Cool beans.
But ya know, that dang U-3 rate is, in your humble correspondent's opinion, just a bit too rosy under most any scenario and under most any president's somewhat deluded way of thinking. For example: Today, the current guy said that the jobs report released by BLS was a sign of good things to come, which was also perhaps an unknowing homage to Herbert Hoover's observation way back in 1932 that "prosperity is just around the corner." What can I say? Not much, and I didn't really expect him to say anything else because part of good leadership has to do with keeping morale high in the face of trying circumstances, which today's economic environment most certainly is, all things being equal.
Anyhoo...why don't we take a look at the BLS's U-6 measure of unemployment, which is actually the more honest of the two indicators (U-3 vs. U-6). The U-6 includes part-time workers plus all those folks who are discouraged and out of work or underemployed but would also love dearly to get some full-time work action that ain't related to flipping burgers at some Mickey D's somewhere (and even that job, no matter how many hours you work, typically counts as part-time except for management types doing it at the restaurant). Well, the U-6 rate is at 14.9%. DOUBLE OUCH!! I mean, it's gone down slightly, too, which is to be applauded, but is there anybody here what thinks a 14.9% unemployment rate is good news? Hello? Anybody?
I did some searching around today (after going through the Pethokoukis stuff to validate it), especially after the post I referred to above hit the desktops of y'all earlier today, and I learned that it's been 49 months since the peak employment rate we enjoyed back in January of 2008. Thass a looooooong time. And average job recovery time since 1980? 29 months, so something is clearly out of joint here. And in order to get back to the 4.4% unemployment rate (the U-3, not the U-6) enjoyed under old Dubya Bushitler for much of his presidency? At the current rate, we'd need 225,000 jobs added to the workforce for 60 months (that's 5 years, for you math-challenged folks, uh-huh uh-huh ;-) to get back to what we once had, like memories. misty water-colored memories...of the way, we were.
And lookit this: JPMorgan predicts GDP for this quarter to be 1.5% from its previous guesstimate of 2.0%. TRIPLE OUCH!!! Well, I guess under the most fair assessment I could give (and like I said: I'm always fair), I would say that, yes, the labor markets are getting healthier. But, that health is returning at a too-slow pace, especially when compared to previous recoveries. Now why is that, do you suppose? Bad luck?
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Even if the number -- the official number from the BLS, of course -- were real, it would STILL drag out the longest streak of 8-plus percent joblessness we've had since FDR's Great Depression, a point which I took care to point out to one of my many admirers over in the post mentioned above (he probably won't get it because he just isn't able to get those sorts of things, I guess). In fact, since January 2009 we've never been below 8% when it comes to the unemployment rate but I'm sure that's nobody's fault in particular. It's just "bad luck," right? I actually heard one of President Obama's big cabinet guns (Vilsack, I think) make that claim ("we've had a run of bad luck...") a couple of weeks ago. Maybe somebody needs to read him Heinlein's observation about "bad luck" (Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." ).
Again, let's take a quick look at what the BLS calls the "labor force participation rate," which is 63.7% (and a slight improvement over last month's number, to be fair -- which I always am). Factor that in properly and the BLS's U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%. OUCH!!
So, okay: I'm sure my fans will rush in to proclaim something subtle, like the fact that the Baby Boomers (of which I'm a proud, though on the younger end of that cohort, member) have been aging, and their leaving the workforce for retirement or to think deep thoughts and sail cool-looking boats around the world instead of trying to live off their meager retirement savings accounts and cat food (yummy!) is what should also be factored in? Well, my fans' wish is my command. Factor that in and you get a super-low rate of...10.4%! Sweet ASS sweet!
Now, now kiddies. I know what you're saying: "Well the participation rate usually falls during recessions, duh!" Y'know, yer right. Okay, let's put that into Big Kahuna's magic calculator (just kidding...I usually only use my fingers and thumbs in an abacus-like fashion to do all this higher math stuff), then. Well, it's looking a little better, I gotta say. That'd put it right at about, maybe, sorta...9.5%, when you add in the Boomers all going off on their magic carpet ride to the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Cool beans.
But ya know, that dang U-3 rate is, in your humble correspondent's opinion, just a bit too rosy under most any scenario and under most any president's somewhat deluded way of thinking. For example: Today, the current guy said that the jobs report released by BLS was a sign of good things to come, which was also perhaps an unknowing homage to Herbert Hoover's observation way back in 1932 that "prosperity is just around the corner." What can I say? Not much, and I didn't really expect him to say anything else because part of good leadership has to do with keeping morale high in the face of trying circumstances, which today's economic environment most certainly is, all things being equal.
Anyhoo...why don't we take a look at the BLS's U-6 measure of unemployment, which is actually the more honest of the two indicators (U-3 vs. U-6). The U-6 includes part-time workers plus all those folks who are discouraged and out of work or underemployed but would also love dearly to get some full-time work action that ain't related to flipping burgers at some Mickey D's somewhere (and even that job, no matter how many hours you work, typically counts as part-time except for management types doing it at the restaurant). Well, the U-6 rate is at 14.9%. DOUBLE OUCH!! I mean, it's gone down slightly, too, which is to be applauded, but is there anybody here what thinks a 14.9% unemployment rate is good news? Hello? Anybody?
I did some searching around today (after going through the Pethokoukis stuff to validate it), especially after the post I referred to above hit the desktops of y'all earlier today, and I learned that it's been 49 months since the peak employment rate we enjoyed back in January of 2008. Thass a looooooong time. And average job recovery time since 1980? 29 months, so something is clearly out of joint here. And in order to get back to the 4.4% unemployment rate (the U-3, not the U-6) enjoyed under old Dubya Bushitler for much of his presidency? At the current rate, we'd need 225,000 jobs added to the workforce for 60 months (that's 5 years, for you math-challenged folks, uh-huh uh-huh ;-) to get back to what we once had, like memories. misty water-colored memories...of the way, we were.
And lookit this: JPMorgan predicts GDP for this quarter to be 1.5% from its previous guesstimate of 2.0%. TRIPLE OUCH!!! Well, I guess under the most fair assessment I could give (and like I said: I'm always fair), I would say that, yes, the labor markets are getting healthier. But, that health is returning at a too-slow pace, especially when compared to previous recoveries. Now why is that, do you suppose? Bad luck?
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
