Employment grew solidly in March; jobless rate declined

Employment grew solidly in March; jobless rate declined
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42373010/



THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2011
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

If they think one tenth of one percent is huge, then it just goes to show how big a problem we have. I mean c'mon! 3.5% to get us back to where we should be will take years, and years. At this rate we are talking 35 months if we are lucky.

CNBC 9 35 White House reaction to the jobs report.

I wish it really was getting better but, I just don't believe their lies.

Jen wrote:I wish it really was getting better but, I just don't believe their lies.

No one has given us a solid reason to believe a word they have been telling us. We really need to clean the slate of all these deadbeat corporate loving politicians. The sooner the better. We the people have become a bunch of chumps.

knarf wrote:If they think one tenth of one percent is huge, then it just goes to show how big a problem we have. I mean c'mon! 3.5% to get us back to where we should be will take years, and years. At this rate we are talking 35 months if we are lucky.

This pretty much reflects what I had said above.

Job increase slightly above expectations, unemployment rate falls
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/01/962289/-Job-increase-slightly-above-expectations,-unemployment-rate-falls

At the current rate of hiring, however, the number of Americans with a job will not reach the pre-recession peak until January 2014. And the current rate of hiring is exactly what most analysts predict will be the case. By the end of the year, that might mean 2.5 million new jobs. But 8.4 million jobs were lost in the downturn, which began in December 2007. The unemployment rate is now at the same level as it was two years ago. But that's partly a reflection of the fact so many people have stopped looking for work, which means they're no longer counted among the unemployed. If they rejoin the labor force but can't find jobs, the unemployment rate will rise.

Remember when 6.5% unemployment rate was considered an emergency? That was the rate when the first emergency extension was passed during the Bush Admin.

Every single media outlet reported "solidly." It's so obvious that they are told what to say. I don't think very many people believe these lies anymore. There have not been anywhere near enough jobs created for the unemployment rate to have gone down at all this whole entire time.

knarf wrote:

knarf wrote:If they think one tenth of one percent is huge, then it just goes to show how big a problem we have. I mean c'mon! 3.5% to get us back to where we should be will take years, and years. At this rate we are talking 35 months if we are lucky.

This pretty much reflects what I had said above.

Job increase slightly above expectations, unemployment rate falls
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/01/962289/-Job-increase-slightly-above-expectations,-unemployment-rate-falls

At the current rate of hiring, however, the number of Americans with a job will not reach the pre-recession peak until January 2014. And the current rate of hiring is exactly what most analysts predict will be the case. By the end of the year, that might mean 2.5 million new jobs. But 8.4 million jobs were lost in the downturn, which began in December 2007. The unemployment rate is now at the same level as it was two years ago. But that's partly a reflection of the fact so many people have stopped looking for work, which means they're no longer counted among the unemployed. If they rejoin the labor force but can't find jobs, the unemployment rate will rise.

I don't see how they can still keep saying that only 8.4 million jobs were lost. That number is three years old. Even their own numbers admit that there are 13.5 million unemployed in the BLS report and that's just the people that they count. How do they explain that there are way, way, way more unemployed people than jobs that were lost? It doesn't make any sense.

Jen wrote:]I don't see how they can still keep saying that only 8.4 million jobs were lost. That number is three years old. Even their own numbers admit that there are 13.5 million unemployed in the BLS report and that's just the people that they count. How do they explain that there are way, way, way more unemployed people than jobs that were lost? It doesn't make any sense.

Some might say that they are "cooking the books."

Underemployment Rises to 20.3% in March

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127091/underemployment-rises-march.aspx

Let's just say for the sake of argument that around 200,000 jobs were created.....sending the BLS U3 unemployment rate to 8.8% & the U6 rate that includes the p/t workers & discouraged workers to 15.7%. As Knarf points out.....that's nowhere near enough jobs to make a substantial difference in the large numbers of suffering unemployed.

Certainly the BLS itself admits on its website that its data-collection methods have drawbacks. That's why it uses *2* methods.....the Household Survey (CPS) & the Employers Survey (Nonfarm Payrolls). Some years back a few corporations started their own data collecting--Gallop does a Household Survey with data that often does not match the BLS data--for example for U3 in Dec. it said 8.8% while BLS said 9.8% yet for Mar. it said 10.0% while BLS said 8.8%. Similarly ADP's Employers Survey always show much better hiring data than the BLS.

Imo merely asserting that the BLS lies or is not to be trusted.....without backing up those assertions with any kind of proof or argument.....is a typical tactic used by teaparty types. *Not* saying any DAWU members are teapartiers--just saying if Americans want to successfully advocate for jobs creation, help for the unemployed, etc. then unsubstantiated accusations are fruitless.

Unless there's a 'method to the madness' so to speak. Unless it's a *tactic* with the purpose of spreading fear & uncertainty among the unemployed by making them distrust what is called 'The Government.' Maybe that would be a viable way to proceed but you probably already know by now that I don't think so. Looking back in history.....those kinds of tactics usually have undesirable results.

I'm curious to hear more from the posters who call the BLS data 'lies' &/or say they don't 'trust' the BLS data.
--Does that mean Americans should ignore *all the data* released by the BLS since 1946??
--Or does that just mean Americans should ignore *only* the data released by the BLS since Obama became President??

If we discount all of the BLS data since 1946.....then what would we use in its place to gauge levels of employment since that time?? If Americans decide to ignore the BLS data.....then wouldn't that mean also ignoring the Gallop & ADP data??

These are NOT rhetorical or sarcastic questions.

Our local paper reported that the local unemployment rate went down too- from 16.5% to 15%- at least that is a more honest rate than the big papers and media report!

mawinz wrote:Our local paper reported that the local unemployment rate went down too- from 16.5% to 15%- at least that is a more honest rate than the big papers and media report!

Each state develops & reports to the BLS its *own* state & local unemployment rates equivalent to U3.....using its own methods. The statistic you cite came out last month for February. The state & local rates for March won't appear till later this month. The big papers & media recently reported on the national U3 rate which is calculated differently than many states calculate their U3-equivalent rates. Since 1946 the federal Board of Labor Supply has used basically the same way to calculate the U3 rate that today is 8.8%.....& at the same time various states have used different ways to calculate their U3 equivalents. There are always individual places around the nation that show very high ue rates.

Info on the National Unemployment Rate that comes out at start of each month--
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Info on the State & Local Unemployment Rates that come out at mid-month--
http://www.bls.gov/lau/

It's not a matter of dishonesty just a matter of difference in the way that certain states have chosen to calculate their rates as well as the fact that particular areas around the nation always do have higher levels of unemployment.

There are so many ways to twist the facts to suppoprt a story it is riduculus. The true measure is what is happening in your comunity and is it getting better? I will admit mine, Charlotte, is getting better slowly.

I agree Boonie that article writers can spin facts esp. numerical data any way they want. Absolutely they do. Yet the facts do remain facts that influence people's lives in real tangible ways. When the state ue rates go down.....various states become ineligible for the tiers & EB. That's why I think it's dangerous to simply dismiss the factual BLS numbers as lies, untrustworthy, or dishonest. That data exists & it's important for the unemployed to know as much about the data as they can find out. Knowledge is power.

Setting aside for a moment questions about the validity of the way the BLS compiles & reports the U3 & U6 rates.....let's take a look at the data since 1994--



America surely has quite a long way to go before we're out of the ditch.

Phillymg wrote:Setting aside for a moment questions about the validity of the way the BLS compiles & reports the U3 & U6 rates.....let's take a look at the data since 1994--



America surely has quite a long way to go before we're out of the ditch.

Well, that explains the reason that I had such a hard time finding jobs in 1994 and 2004. I didn't realize the rate was so high in those years. I knew it was in 1991-1992 and 2001-2002 but, didn't realize it lasted so long. I did realize the economy was bad, just didn't realize it was that bad. According to this chart, it's been bad for a very long time. I guess I really did know in a way.

Hired f/t in 1994 & laid off 2001.....hired f/t end of 2003 & laid off 2008.

Follows the chart's patterns exactly--hired when hiring started increasing & laid off when hiring started decreasing. In between & since the last layoff have only had varying degrees of p/t work.

It's *scary* how my life follows those lines on that chart.....

I trust that the data from bls is as accurate as can be. I think it is credible. Intrepreting can be tricky and when I have gone on the bls website I get frustrated trying to find things and trying to interpret data but I have not doubted it's authenticity. It looks like we still have a ways to go. I wonder how all this bodes for hr 589 with all these states triggering off EB and stupid states like my state (MO) not accepting EB. It would seem that the whole system is in need of revamping. Although I am not quite 50 has anyone noticed that it seems to be people 50+ that are really having a hard time getting a decent livable wage job. I mean no disrespect it is just something I have noticed and it is very concerning to me.


What I don't trust is the way journalists or politicians spin the data. You can take the same exact set of numbers and give it to a Democrat, Republican, and a Journalist and all three will come up with a different interpretation. Unfortunately, we Americans have to be at the receiving end of that data spin.