467,000 Jobs Lost in June, Far More Than Expected
The pace of job losses quickened last month with the American economy shedding 467,000 jobs, as unemployment rose to its highest level in 26 years and unemployment reached 9.5%.

It seems especially bad for unskilled/entry level workers. A part time admin assistant position got 300 applications in just two days last week at my company and we are no Google, just a small business. Things are in bad shape.

I've had recent Rice grads contact me that are looking for work that can't even find part-time work at fast food joints, grocery stores, etc. because it is so bad out there. Hope things can turn around soon.

The unemployment rate is far worse than 9.5% in reality, as there are more white collar, senior-level folks out of work than ever before, and the majority of them have not filed for unemployment benefits.

As an '08 grad, I have been out of work for 3 months. However, I just took an offer for a design engineering job that starts next Monday. Fortunately, my wife has had a safe job, so we have been more than ok.

I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

I think it always works that way, though how they came up with 16.4% has to include some guesswork. It runs the other way, too. If the unemployed count is X and Y jobs are created, the new unemployed number is always much more than X-Y.

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

It is sometimes hard to see these numbers in day to day life. I don't at all mean to downplay the difficulties for those who are unemployed. But yesterday I had a day trip in and out of Hobby Airport. At 6:15 am the security line was worse than I have ever seen; I was 45 minutes ahead of departure time and it took almost 30 minutes to get through security. It seemed like everyone was flying; business people, families, retirees. Same experience coming back from Austin and then again at Hobby. The Austin gate had a flight leaving for Las Vegas that was late. The gate area was packed with people waiting for flights to Las Vegas and Houston. The Austin food courts all had lines of people waiting to spend too much on airport food. Hobby was packed at 8:00 pm with lines of cars waiting to pick people up at the terminal.

(07-02-2009 02:27 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

I think it always works that way, though how they came up with 16.4% has to include some guesswork. It runs the other way, too. If the unemployed count is X and Y jobs are created, the new unemployed number is always much more than X-Y.

Makes sense.

(07-02-2009 03:12 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

It is sometimes hard to see these numbers in day to day life. I don't at all mean to downplay the difficulties for those who are unemployed. But yesterday I had a day trip in and out of Hobby Airport. At 6:15 am the security line was worse than I have ever seen; I was 45 minutes ahead of departure time and it took almost 30 minutes to get through security. It seemed like everyone was flying; business people, families, retirees. Same experience coming back from Austin and then again at Hobby. The Austin gate had a flight leaving for Las Vegas that was late. The gate area was packed with people waiting for flights to Las Vegas and Houston. The Austin food courts all had lines of people waiting to spend too much on airport food. Hobby was packed at 8:00 pm with lines of cars waiting to pick people up at the terminal.

I travel quite a bit, and I've notice a slight increase at Hobby as well. (although I didn't fly this week, I have flown weekly for the last several months) That said, we are coming up on a holiday weekend, so I would expect traffic to be higher the week before.

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

The BLS releases 6 different measures of unemployment, each one a little different than the previous one. The most commonly cited data series is U-3 unemployment, defined as "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force." This data series omits "discouraged workers".

The broadest measure of unemployment is U-6 which is right now sitting at 16.5%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

I think the U-6 more accurately depicts "how bad" the economy is. The U-3 data series understates the misery, which is obviously better for politicians. There may be econometric models that work better with U-3 as well.

I'm moving this to Quad - that's what that forum is for.

(07-02-2009 08:44 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

The BLS releases 6 different measures of unemployment, each one a little different than the previous one. The most commonly cited data series is U-3 unemployment, defined as "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force." This data series omits "discouraged workers".

The broadest measure of unemployment is U-6 which is right now sitting at 16.5%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

I think the U-6 more accurately depicts "how bad" the economy is. The U-3 data series understates the misery, which is obviously better for politicians. There may be econometric models that work better with U-3 as well.

This is probably what the guy on the radio was referring to. Thanks.

(07-02-2009 10:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 08:44 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2009 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard on the radio today that if people who have given up looking and people who have accepted part-time employment when they want/need full-time were included, the rate would be 16.4%. Don't know how they came to those numbers.

The BLS releases 6 different measures of unemployment, each one a little different than the previous one. The most commonly cited data series is U-3 unemployment, defined as "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force." This data series omits "discouraged workers".

The broadest measure of unemployment is U-6 which is right now sitting at 16.5%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

I think the U-6 more accurately depicts "how bad" the economy is. The U-3 data series understates the misery, which is obviously better for politicians. There may be econometric models that work better with U-3 as well.

This is probably what the guy on the radio was referring to. Thanks.

If you listen to Bloomberg, their talking heads keep saying the U-3 "official" level will be 12% by October 2009. So far they have been pretty accurate.

A U-3 at 12% would equate to a U-6 of 20%... which would really mean "Depression Level Unemployment"

1/5 people, that's scary.

My prediction for the ultimate impact of Obamanomics remains the same as it has been for months:

20-50 million unemployed
20%-50% annual inflation
lasting for 10 years

I see nothing so far to give me any reason to expect anything different.

How many more jobs will be lost when minimum wage jumps to $7.25 later this month?

(07-07-2009 10:15 AM)lou Wrote:  How many more jobs will be lost when minimum wage jumps to $7.25 later this month?

Not to mention the new payroll taxes that are proposed in the health care plan.

If the Administration genuinely cared about increasing employment, the last thing it would do is deliberately make it more expensive to employ people. Even a well-educated 5th grader knows that. (But perhaps not a well-educated Harvard Law grad.)

What our government is doing suggests either staggering indifference (i.e. the Administration doesn't actually care about employment, or at least not in comparison to how much they care about socialism), or staggering stupidity (i.e. the Administration is truly delusional). Either way, the situation is infuriating, depressing and (most importantly) dangerous.

(07-17-2009 09:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-07-2009 10:15 AM)lou Wrote:  How many more jobs will be lost when minimum wage jumps to $7.25 later this month?

Not to mention the new payroll taxes that are proposed in the health care plan.

If the Administration genuinely cared about increasing employment, the last thing it would do is deliberately make it more expensive to employ people. Even a well-educated 5th grader knows that. (But perhaps not a well-educated Harvard Law grad.)

What our government is doing suggests either staggering indifference (i.e. the Administration doesn't actually care about employment, or at least not in comparison to how much they care about socialism), or staggering stupidity (i.e. the Administration is truly delusional). Either way, the situation is infuriating, depressing and (most importantly) dangerous.

I think the latter is correct. They care, if for no other reasons than re-election and poll numbers.

Is there a proposed employment tax besides the one for employers who don't provide health coverage?

Yes, the House Democrats have now proposed taxing individuals above $280k and families above $350k at least 1% initially, and later at least 2% (up to 5.4%). (Image from New York Times story on 7/14/09.)



Trying to make up a $1 trillion shortfall in funding (over 10 years), by CBO estimates. And it always seems that these estimates (even though the CBO is generally more neutral than most) are more conservative in potential benefits.