How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? Because the number of people who gave up and stopped looking for work rose dramatically.
The announcement today that the unemployment rate declined slightly to 9.4 percent in July while only 247,000 additional jobs were lost has been greeted as good news. The change in the unemployment rate puts the rate at what it was in May. Yet, even a rough look at the numbers indicates that the true unemployment rate has been getting significantly worse over the last few months.
How is it possible for the unemployment rate to essentially remain unchanged when 247,000 jobs have been lost? The reason is simple — the number of people who stopped looking for work rose dramatically. Six hundred thirty-seven thousand additional people no longer consider themselves looking for work. This is by far the largest drop in the number of people who consider themselves in the labor force during the last year. – It is almost twice the 358,000 increase in the people who left the labor force during June and almost four times the average monthly increase of 167,333 over the last year. Jobs are sufficiently scarce and the prospects of people finding them at wages that they are willing to work for so low that many individuals don’t think that it is worth their time to even look for a job.
Part of the drop in unemployment is also due to the fact that some people are running out of unemployment benefits and taking part-time jobs. There is usually a big increase in the rate that people find jobs during the last few weeks that they have unemployment benefits. In July 102,670 people saw their unemployment benefits run out. That number rose to 141,538 in August and is expected to soar to 486,049 in September. It will keep on rising each month hitting 1.5 million in just December alone. This past Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner only promised “to look very carefully at [these lost benefits] as we get closer to the end of this year.” Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief economic advisor, was similarly noncommittal when he was interviewed that same day on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Purple Avenger from Ace of Spades points out that a rising, record number of Americans are on food stamps – a fact which does not correlate with the government’s latest unemployment figures.
If Lott’s estimates are true, then central California and Michigan which have had rates 5-7% higher than the national average are probably at 20% or above.
I doubt this is the change America wanted.
Well guys, if you are using that broader figure of unemployment, then you have to also remember that under Bush, that broader unemployment figure was around 9-10% the whole time.
And guess what, France and Canada have lower unemployment than the US. So yes, Obama should change the US. The US’s problems are the result of 30 years of conservatism.
So sorry America, the true America people need the economy growth higher and higher and more people go to work,go to work every day,America never ever want the change that more America people stay home,more America people unemployment, more and more unemployment growth. How can it be 9.4% of unemployment in July when it was 247,000 job has lost in that month and it was 9.6% in June. how they got that answer? may be the first or second grade did it for them. if 9.6% + 247,000 more unemployment will be 9.7% or 9.8%,sorry man. The lowest unemployment at the Bush administration was 5.4% and the lowest unemployment Clinton administration was 5.6%,that was in the record,I saw before. Yes, E Williamson was right,it is the change America want, just democrats want but America don’t need.
Copperhead, you clearly believe yourself to be vastly more intelligent than us dumb-old Conservatives so, enlighten us…show us the statistic from Canada and France. Prove your claim. Anyone can make a claim and not back it up. Show us your dazzling intellect and prove your point.
Benet, you’re wrong. Everybody knows the US experienced lower unemployment under Clinton than we did under Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png
And what I was talking about is that the 16.3 % figure is true.
But that is the U6 calculation of unemployment. It’s a broader measure. Normally, what people are told is the U3 figure, so all I’m saying is that you should know which one you are talking about when comparing administrations.
Canada’s unemployment is 8.6%.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090807/dq090807a-eng.htm
http://www.hrmguide.net/canada/jobmarket/canadian-unemployment.htm
And France’s unemployment is 9.3%
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913469,00.html
“Touati and other experts don’t expect France’s current 9.3% unemployment..”
So did I enlighten you Mark? Sorry, I know what I’m talking about and don’t just make up crap like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, you know, like your idols.