Nonfarm Payroll employment Increased by 211,000, Unemployment Rate stays at 5%

[pinqy]

Not the greatest, but a solid report. (though I know at least one person will leap on the fact that part time for economic reasons has gone up.)

Employment Situation Summary
Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons, at 7.9 million, was essentially unchanged. Over the past 12 months, the
unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons are down by 0.8 percentage
point and 1.1 million, respectively.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.1 million in November and has shown little movement since June. In
November, these individuals accounted for 25.7 percent of the unemployed.

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.5 percent, changed little in
November. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.3 percent and has
shown little movement since October 2014.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 319,000 to 6.1 million in
November, following declines in September and October. 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. Over
the past 12 months, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons
is down by 765,000.

In November, 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down
by 392,000 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.

Among the marginally attached, there were 594,000 discouraged workers in November,
little changed 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 1.1 million persons marginally
attached to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 211,000 in November, about in line with the
average monthly gain of 237,000 over the prior 12 months. In November, job growth
occurred in construction, professional and technical services, and health care.
Employment in mining and information declined over the month.

Employment in construction rose by 46,000 in November, with much of the increase
occurring in residential specialty trade contractors (+26,000). Over the past year,
construction employment has grown by 259,000.

 

[David_N]

WE'RE DOOMED. THE SKY IS FALLING. :roll:

 

[Beaudreaux]

WE'RE DOOMED. THE SKY IS FALLING. :roll:

What's your concern(s)?

 

[donsutherland1]

It was a sufficiently strong report so as to all but assure that the Fed will hike rates on 12/16. Employment growth remained well above what's needed with respect to population changes and wage inflation was again above 2% on a year-to-year basis (which bolsters the Fed's confidence that inflation will move toward 2% in the medium-term). Although U-6 ticked up, the 0.1% increase could well be statistical noise. October's change was also revised up to 298,000. All said, the moderate rate of expansion is ongoing and should persist.

 

[mac]

Not the greatest, but a solid report. (though I know at least one person will leap on the fact that part time for economic reasons has gone up.)

Employment Situation Summary
Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons, at 7.9 million, was essentially unchanged. Over the past 12 months, the
unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons are down by 0.8 percentage
point and 1.1 million, respectively.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.1 million in November and has shown little movement since June. In
November, these individuals accounted for 25.7 percent of the unemployed.

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.5 percent, changed little in
November. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.3 percent and has
shown little movement since October 2014.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 319,000 to 6.1 million in
November, following declines in September and October. 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. Over
the past 12 months, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons
is down by 765,000.

In November, 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down
by 392,000 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.

Among the marginally attached, there were 594,000 discouraged workers in November,
little changed 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 1.1 million persons marginally
attached to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 211,000 in November, about in line with the
average monthly gain of 237,000 over the prior 12 months. In November, job growth
occurred in construction, professional and technical services, and health care.
Employment in mining and information declined over the month.

Employment in construction rose by 46,000 in November, with much of the increase
occurring in residential specialty trade contractors (+26,000). Over the past year,
construction employment has grown by 259,000.

90% of which were in Texas...

 

[DA60]

Not the greatest, but a solid report. (though I know at least one person will leap on the fact that part time for economic reasons has gone up.)

Employment Situation Summary
Household Survey Data

In November, the unemployment rate held at 5.0 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons, at 7.9 million, was essentially unchanged. Over the past 12 months, the
unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons are down by 0.8 percentage
point and 1.1 million, respectively.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.1 million in November and has shown little movement since June. In
November, these individuals accounted for 25.7 percent of the unemployed.

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.5 percent, changed little in
November. The employment-population ratio was unchanged at 59.3 percent and has
shown little movement since October 2014.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 319,000 to 6.1 million in
November, following declines in September and October. 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. Over
the past 12 months, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons
is down by 765,000.

In November, 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down
by 392,000 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.

Among the marginally attached, there were 594,000 discouraged workers in November,
little changed 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 1.1 million persons marginally
attached to the labor force in November had not searched for work for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 211,000 in November, about in line with the
average monthly gain of 237,000 over the prior 12 months. In November, job growth
occurred in construction, professional and technical services, and health care.
Employment in mining and information declined over the month.

Employment in construction rose by 46,000 in November, with much of the increase
occurring in residential specialty trade contractors (+26,000). Over the past year,
construction employment has grown by 259,000.

If you are referring to me...wrong. I read that in Zerohedge...but I neither know the stat well enough or see enough compelling evidence to call that stat a concern.

Btw, saying you 'know' what someone whom you do not even know thinks about something is...well...I am fully cognizant that it is impossible for me to 'know' what someone else thinks - let alone someone whom I have never met - about anything. Just sayin'.

Anyway....

Overall, it was a solid report....with some exceptions. One, due to a drop in hours worked, the weekly earnings dropped. That's not good. Plus manufacturing dropped again.
And in the household survey, the number of men employed dropped. But otherwise it was pretty good. The 25-54 age numbers and employment-population ratio went up nicely...a good sign.
There are some worrying trends though.

One, though I am not familiar with it's employment to population ratio (I can't be bothered to look it up right now), the total number of employed persons under 25 is down from a year ago. Strange. And in the last three months, the number of employed has risen only 328,000 (under 110,000 per month...not good).
And the NOT seasonally adjusted (the number that is supposedly before the BLS's bean counters can 'massage' the numbers) shows employment is up only 50,000 for November.

But overall, IF these numbers are not revised downwards too much later, and especially (IMO) due to the healthy bump in the 25-54 age range...this is an overall solid report to me.

 

[pinqy]

90% of which were in Texas...

Well, the local area data is still being analyzed, but October 2015 had about5,000 more construction jobs in Texas than October 2014. So not even close to 90℅

 

[DA60]

If you are referring to me...wrong. I read that in Zerohedge...but I neither know the stat well enough or see enough compelling evidence to call that stat a concern.

Btw, saying you 'know' what someone whom you do not even know thinks about something is...well...I am fully cognizant that it is impossible for me to 'know' what someone else thinks - let alone someone whom I have never met - about anything. Just sayin'.

Anyway....

Overall, it was a solid report....with some exceptions. One, due to a drop in hours worked, the weekly earnings dropped. That's not good. Plus manufacturing dropped again.
And in the household survey, the number of men employed dropped. But otherwise it was pretty good. The 25-54 age numbers and employment-population ratio went up nicely...a good sign.
There are some worrying trends though.

One, though I am not familiar with it's employment to population ratio (I can't be bothered to look it up right now), the total number of employed persons under 25 is down from a year ago. Strange. And in the last three months, the number of employed has risen only 328,000 (under 110,000 per month...not good).
And the NOT seasonally adjusted (the number that is supposedly before the BLS's bean counters can 'massage' the numbers) shows employment is up only 50,000 for November.

But overall, IF these numbers are not revised downwards too much later, and especially (IMO) due to the healthy bump in the 25-54 age range...this is an overall solid report to me.

I looked it up and apparently, the 16-24 employment to population ratio is indeed down from Oct. 2014. And it is nowhere near where it was before the 'Great Recession'.

BLS Data Viewer

Not a giant deal for the economy right now, but a worrying trend for the future, IMO.


Btw, the U-6 (IMO, a much better unemployment judge then the U-3) was up in November from 9.8 to 9.9%.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


Also, of the four levels of employment for persons over 25 by education attainment...only the 'less then a high school diploma' unemployment rate dropped (quite a bit - 7.4 to 6.9%). The other 3 levels either stayed the same or went up.

So obviously the quality of the jobs that were created in November were not of the highest caliber...to say the least.

Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment


It is looking like just about the only number that was good last month was the 25-54 age range growth...which I think is very important. But if they revise that down in the coming months....
We shall see.

 

[DA60]

I looked it up and apparently, the 16-24 employment to population ratio is indeed down from Oct. 2014. And it is nowhere near where it was before the 'Great Recession'.

BLS Data Viewer

Not a giant deal for the economy right now, but a worrying trend for the future, IMO.


Btw, the U-6 (IMO, a much better unemployment judge then the U-3) was up in November from 9.8 to 9.9%.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


Also, of the four levels of employment for persons over 25 by education attainment...only the 'less then a high school diploma' unemployment rate dropped (quite a bit - 7.4 to 6.9%). The other 3 levels either stayed the same or went up.

So obviously the quality of the jobs that were created in November were not of the highest caliber...to say the least.

Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment


It is looking like just about the only number that was good last month was the 25-54 age range growth...which I think is very important. But if they revise that down in the coming months....
We shall see.

I just noticed, that over the last year, the employment to population ratios for all persons in the work force over 25 with a high school diploma or better have either stayed the same or dropped. Whereas high school 'drop outs' are the only education group to see their ratio rise (a higher ratio is good).

Definitely shows what I have long believed, that the newly created jobs are of a generally low standard.

So, if you wanted a new job in the last 12 months...NOT staying in school (or lying about your diploma/degrees) was your best bet.

 

[DA60]

Btw, the 25-54 employment to population ratio for 25-54's is basically stagnant (overall) for 2015.

Then when the Fed is determined to raise rates and needs a good employment report to push it through...the 25-54 numbers conveniently pop.

Coincidence?

Let's just see what the final (actual?) numbers are after revisions in a few months.

 

[pinqy]

I just noticed, that over the last year, the employment to population ratios for all persons in the work force over 25 with a high school diploma or better have either stayed the same or dropped. Whereas high school 'drop outs' are the only education group to see their ratio rise (a higher ratio is good).

Definitely shows what I have long believed, that the newly created jobs are of a generally low standard.

So, if you wanted a new job in the last 12 months...NOT staying in school (or lying about your diploma/degrees) was your best bet.

Not quite. Employment for less than HS degree was +58,000 over the last year (not seasonally adjusted). With only HS degree, it was -4,000 With some college, it was +255,000 and with BA or higher it was +1,882,000

The reason the Emp-Pop ratio went up for those with less than HS is because that population went down by more than 400,000. Populations for the other groups went up by more. And by enough more that the ratio went down.

Unemployment level and rate dropped for all groups. But far more jobs went to those with at least some college than those without, and it seems that more people with college or degrees either retired or didn't need/want to work. It makes sense that those with lower paying jobs wouldn't retire as soon or easily as those in higher paying jobs.

 

[danarhea]

It was a sufficiently strong report so as to all but assure that the Fed will hike rates on 12/16. Employment growth remained well above what's needed with respect to population changes and wage inflation was again above 2% on a year-to-year basis (which bolsters the Fed's confidence that inflation will move toward 2% in the medium-term). Although U-6 ticked up, the 0.1% increase could well be statistical noise. October's change was also revised up to 298,000. All said, the moderate rate of expansion is ongoing and should persist.

For me, that's a downside. Interest rates will immediately go up by 50 basis points, and may go up by another 50 basis points next year, by the time I am ready to retire, and buy my house in the Trinity, Texas area. Still, I don't mind paying just a little more on the mortgage if things improve for everybody else.

 

[donsutherland1]

For me, that's a downside. Interest rates will immediately go up by 50 basis points, and may go up by another 50 basis points next year, by the time I am ready to retire, and buy my house in the Trinity, Texas area. Still, I don't mind paying just a little more on the mortgage if things improve for everybody else.

The Fed will very likely hike its target rate, but by 25 basis points. It will continue to tighten only gradually afterward depending on macroeconomic conditions, labor market conditions, and inflation. It's not going to tighten aggressively.

 

[Helix]

i'm working, and i have a good job. after the panic of getting laid off last summer when there was no grant money to pay my salary, i'll take it.

 

[DA60]

The Fed will very likely hike its target rate, but by 25 basis points. It will continue to tighten only gradually afterward depending on macroeconomic conditions, labor market conditions, and inflation. It's not going to tighten aggressively.

I doubt it will even go up that much.

Apparently, the rate is around 0.13 right now. If they raise it to 0.25, that will only be about 1/8th of a percentage point.

And Yellen has spoken a few times now about 'one and done'.

 

[DA60]

Btw, the 25-54 employment to population ratio for 25-54's is basically stagnant (overall) for 2015.

Then when the Fed is determined to raise rates and needs a good employment report to push it through...the 25-54 numbers conveniently pop.

Coincidence?

Let's just see what the final (actual?) numbers are after revisions in a few months.

Just so I can compare the present BLS numbers to the revised ones in a few months.

Today the number of 25-54's employed (SA) are (conveniently?) reported as 96,950.

 

[pinqy]

Just so I can compare the present BLS numbers to the revised ones in a few months.

Today the number of 25-54's employed (SA) are (conveniently?) reported as 96,950.

The seasonally adjusted data from the household survey get revised once a year for 5 years. So next month it will be revised. The not-seasonally adjusted data never get revised.

Not sure how going from 77.2% to 77.4% is "popping." It's been mostly 77.2, with a couple of months at 77.3 and one at 77.1. Nothing seems off to me. I believe the margin of error is about 0.2 percentage points.

 

[DA60]

Not quite.

Correct...I phrased it badly.

Employment for less than HS degree was +58,000 over the last year (not seasonally adjusted). With only HS degree, it was -4,000 With some college, it was +255,000 and with BA or higher it was +1,882,000

The reason the Emp-Pop ratio went up for those with less than HS is because that population went down by more than 400,000. Populations for the other groups went up by more. And by enough more that the ratio went down.

Unemployment level and rate dropped for all groups. But far more jobs went to those with at least some college than those without, and it seems that more people with college or degrees either retired or didn't need/want to work. It makes sense that those with lower paying jobs wouldn't retire as soon or easily as those in higher paying jobs.

One) you posted no link to population stats - so that part of your post means nothing. So your '400,000' number also means nothing, for now. Please do not waste my time by claiming statistics without backing them up with a link.


Two) the percentage of high school 'drop outs' (not seasonally adjusted) that were employed in America increased over the last year. In every other category of education it decreased (the U-3 is worse then useless - as the Fed basically stated as well as they no longer use it as a major measurement of employment).

So, the percentage of people in America (in the labor force) without a HS diploma that are employed is improving over the last 12 months.

Yet, the percentage of Americans (in the labor force) with HS or greater that are employed has deteriorated over the last 12 months.

Thus, the trend over the last 12 months is the odds of getting a job with post HS are getting worse. Without HS they are getting better.


Now, what I said in the post you quoted me was technically not true. What I should have said was 'over the past year, the odds of getting a job without a high school diploma are increasing while the odds of getting a job with a HS diploma or better are decreasing.'




Have a nice day.

 

[DA60]

The seasonally adjusted data from the household survey get revised once a year for 5 years. So next month it will be revised. The not-seasonally adjusted data never get revised.

Not sure how going from 77.2% to 77.4% is "popping." It's been mostly 77.2, with a couple of months at 77.3 and one at 77.1. Nothing seems off to me. I believe the margin of error is about 0.2 percentage points.

From August to September the 25-54 number goes up by 72,000. Then when the Fed really needs some good employment news to finally raise rates...it jumps by 250,000. Plus, the ratio never goes up by more then 0.1% all of 2015. Then last month it suddenly jumps 0.2%...right when the Fed needs it most.

Maybe you do not call that a 'pop'...I do.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table A-9


Good day.

 

[pinqy]

Correct...I phrased it badly.



One) you posted no link to population stats - so that part of your post means nothing. So your '400,000' number is also means nothing, for now. Please do not waste my time by claiming statistics without backing them up with a link.

Since you yourself posted the link, I didn't think it necessary. But here it is. Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment I assumed you could do the simple math to figure out the approximate population. I did it by averaging Labor Force divided by labor force participation rate and employment divided by emp-pop ratio. (they give different answers due to rounding)

Two) the percentage of high school 'drop outs' (not seasonally adjusted) that were employed in America increased over the last year. In every other category of education it decreased (the U-3 is worse then useless - as the Fed basically stated as well as they no longer use it as a major measurement of employment).

So, the percentage of people in America (in the labor force) without a HS diploma that are employed is improving over the last 12 months.

Yet, the percentage of Americans (in the labor force) with HS or greater that are employed has deteriorated over the last 12 months.

Thus, the trend over the last 12 months is the odds of getting a job with post HS are getting worse. Without HS they are getting better.


Now, what I said in the post you quoted me was technically not true. What I should have said was 'over the past year, the odds of getting a job without a high school diploma are increasing while the odds of getting a job with a HS diploma or better are decreasing.'




Have a nice day.

Could you please cite where the Fed stated that it no longer uses it as a major measure of unemployment? I get suspicious when people say "they basically stated," which means that's your interpretation, not the actual words. I'd like to see the actual words.

You're confusing me a little....since you're switching denominators. The number of employed high school drop outs as a percent of all high school drop outs in the adult civilian non-institutional population went up because employed went up 0.6% and population went down 1.8%. Compare to those with a Bachelors or higher...employed went up 3.8% while population went up 4% But you're saying a 0.6% increase is better than a 3.8% increase???

Then you switch to employed as a percent of the labor force? Which is just 100 minus the UE rate. And since the UE rate for all groups has gone down, then employed as a percent of the labor force has gone up. I don't know how you can say it's deteriorated.

Now..the percent of those with high school diploma or above who are employed has gone down...but that doesn't mean the chances of getting a job are better...since not everyone in the population wants or needs a job.

 

[pinqy]

From August to September the 25-54 number goes up by 72,000. Then when the Fed really needs some good employment news to finally raise rates...it jumps by 250,000. Plus, the ratio never goes up by more then 0.1% all of 2015. Then last month it suddenly jumps 0.2%...right when the Fed needs it most.

Maybe you do not call that a 'pop'...I do.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Table A-9


Good day.

So, wait...what exactly are you suggesting? A conspiracy between Census, BLS, and the FED? (you'd have to include BEA, too) to disregard reality? That the FED knows it shouldn't raise rates, but wants to anyway so convinces Census and BLS to fake the numbers so that nobody gets the real info? That seems....odd....to me.

 

[DA60]

Since you yourself posted the link, I didn't think it necessary. But here it is. Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment I assumed you could do the simple math to figure out the approximate population. I did it by averaging Labor Force divided by labor force participation rate and employment divided by emp-pop ratio. (they give different answers due to rounding)

A guesstimate? Great.

Could you please cite where the Fed stated that it no longer uses it as a major measure of unemployment? I get suspicious when people say "they basically stated," which means that's your interpretation, not the actual words. I'd like to see the actual words.

Come on man...you do know how to use Google don't you? It is common knowledge amongst people that follow the Fed.

'As Yellen said: “These observations underscore the importance of considering more than the unemployment rate when evaluating the condition of the U.S. labor market.”'

6.5% unemployment rate doesn’t mean a thing to Yellen - MarketWatch

'Fed minutes: Committee agreed 6.5% threshold was 'outdated,' vote to remove was unanimous'
...
"With respect to forward guidance about the federal funds rate, all members judged that, as the unemployment rate was likely to fall below 6..5 percent before long, it was appropriate to replace the existing quantitative thresholds at this meeting," the minutes stated.'

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/09/fed-...as-outdated-vote-to-remove-was-unanimous.html

'UPDATED 3/19/2014, 2:15 p.m. ET: The Federal Reserve on Wednesday removed the unemployment rate as its key gauge of the economic strength of the country.'

Fed stops targeting 6.5% unemployment | Marketplace.org

'Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) asked Yellen, “Do you agree that the unemployment number that you cited, 5.7 percent, in your opening statement paints a rosy or better picture of the true unemployment rate?”

“The U-6 is a broader measure of unemployment, and it includes marginally attached and discouraged workers and also an unusually large number of individuals who are working part-time who would like full-time jobs, so it is a much broader indicator of underemployment or unemployment in the U.S. economy,” Yellen said.'

Yellen: Unemployment Rate 'Less Rosy' When You Count Part-Time, Discouraged Workers

And in the highlighted areas is more or less what I have been saying for a long time. The U-6 is a much better indicator of the unemployment picture then the U-3.


https://newrepublic.com/article/120...flation-unemployment-rates-not-only-key-stats

That is about as direct as the Fed gets on anything. They obviously cannot just say, straight out, the U-3 sucks. That would throw a real monkey into a lot of things. So they have to hint - VERY strongly - that it sucks.

But the proof is in the Fed's actions. They long used the 6.5% U-3 as a guidepost for raising rates. Yet, when they got near that mark, they abandoned using that mark saying other factors should be viewed. For years they touted it and then they completely abandoned it.

You're confusing me a little....since you're switching denominators. The number of employed high school drop outs as a percent of all high school drop outs in the adult civilian non-institutional population went up because employed went up 0.6% and population went down 1.8%. Compare to those with a Bachelors or higher...employed went up 3.8% while population went up 4% But you're saying a 0.6% increase is better than a 3.8% increase???

Then you switch to employed as a percent of the labor force? Which is just 100 minus the UE rate. And since the UE rate for all groups has gone down, then employed as a percent of the labor force has gone up. I don't know how you can say it's deteriorated.

Now..the percent of those with high school diploma or above who are employed has gone down...but that doesn't mean the chances of getting a job are better...since not everyone in the population wants or needs a job.

Are these two statement true or false:

'So, the percentage of people in America (in the labor force) without a HS diploma that are employed is improving over the last 12 months.

Yet, the percentage of Americans (in the labor force) with HS or greater that are employed has deteriorated over the last 12 months.'

 

[pinqy]

A guesstimate? Great.

Not my fault they don't publish the populations.

Come on man...you do know how to use Google don't you? It is common knowledge amongst people that follow the Fed.

'As Yellen said: “These observations underscore the importance of considering more than the unemployment rate when evaluating the condition of the U.S. labor market.”'

6.5% unemployment rate doesn’t mean a thing to Yellen - MarketWatch

'Fed minutes: Committee agreed 6.5% threshold was 'outdated,' vote to remove was unanimous'
...
"With respect to forward guidance about the federal funds rate, all members judged that, as the unemployment rate was likely to fall below 6..5 percent before long, it was appropriate to replace the existing quantitative thresholds at this meeting," the minutes stated.'

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/09/fed-...as-outdated-vote-to-remove-was-unanimous.html

'UPDATED 3/19/2014, 2:15 p.m. ET: The Federal Reserve on Wednesday removed the unemployment rate as its key gauge of the economic strength of the country.'

Fed stops targeting 6.5% unemployment | Marketplace.org

'Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) asked Yellen, “Do you agree that the unemployment number that you cited, 5.7 percent, in your opening statement paints a rosy or better picture of the true unemployment rate?”

“The U-6 is a broader measure of unemployment, and it includes marginally attached and discouraged workers and also an unusually large number of individuals who are working part-time who would like full-time jobs, so it is a much broader indicator of underemployment or unemployment in the U.S. economy,” Yellen said.'

Yellen: Unemployment Rate 'Less Rosy' When You Count Part-Time, Discouraged Workers

And in the highlighted area is more or less what I have been saying for a long time. The U-6 is a much better indicator of the unemployment picture then the U-3.


https://newrepublic.com/article/120...flation-unemployment-rates-not-only-key-stats

That is about as direct as the Fed gets on anything. They obviously cannot just say, straight out, the U-3 sucks. That would throw a real monkey into a lot of things. So they have to hint - VERY strongly - that it sucks.

I was aware of all that and agree with them. But they did NOT, in any way, state they were no longer using the U-3 at all. Yellen said the threshold was inappropriate and that the U-3 doesn't give the complete picture of the labor market. Who has claimed otherwise? But the is NOT saying it sucks or is useless. It's limited. It measures a specific thing and does it well, but that's not always the main thing to look at.

Are these two statement true or false:

'So, the percentage of people in America (in the labor force) without a HS diploma that are employed is improving over the last 12 months.

Yet, the percentage of Americans (in the labor force) with HS or greater that are employed has deteriorated over the last 12 months.'

I don't know. Are you asking employed without HS diploma divided by total labor force? Or employed without HS diploma divided by labor force without HS diploma? I can't tell by your wording.

 

[DA60]

So, wait...what exactly are you suggesting? A conspiracy between Census, BLS, and the FED? (you'd have to include BEA, too) to disregard reality? That the FED knows it shouldn't raise rates, but wants to anyway so convinces Census and BLS to fake the numbers so that nobody gets the real info? That seems....odd....to me.

Noted.

 

[DA60]

I was aware of all that and agree with them. But they did NOT, in any way, state they were no longer using the U-3. Yellen said the threshold was inappropriate and that the U-3 doesn't give the complete picture of the labor market. Who has claimed otherwise? But the is NOT saying it sucks or is useless. It's limited. It measures a specific thing and does it well, but that's not always the main thing to look at.

I did not say they stopped using it entirely.

I said:

'(the U-3 is worse then useless - as the Fed basically stated as well as they no longer use it as a major measurement of employment).'

Please do not put words in my mouth. And they clearly have abandoned using it as a major guidepost and Yellen has said over and over how she - in so many words - does not think of the U-3 as THE unemployment rate. She practically said it in the quotes I listed. And those were just a few I grabbed from Google.

You asked for info, I gave it to you. You don't like it...live with it

I don't know. Are you asking employed without HS diploma divided by total labor force? Or employed without HS diploma divided by labor force without HS diploma? I can't tell by your wording.

Oh, come on now?

Jeez...I will make the question even simpler...and for the last time...

...over the past 12 months, has the employment to population ratio (NSA) for high school drop outs gone up while the employment to population ratio for HS diploma's and up, gone down?

YES OR NO?


P.S> I have a life to lead.

The answer is 'yes'.

That is my entire point in so far as you are concerned on this subject. Why you like debating these tiny little points of minutia is beyond me.

Ohhh...that's right....you are/were a bureaucrat...that explains it (no offense).


Thank you and good night.