Payroll employment rises by 242,000 in February; unemployment rate unchanged at 4.9%

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 05:38 PM - Edit history (14)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Economic News Release

Employment Situation Summary USDL-16-0420

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, March 4, 2016

Technical information:
Household data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: [phone] * [e-mail]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- FEBRUARY 2016


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 242,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment gains occurred in health care and social assistance, retail trade, food services and drinking places, and private educational services. Job losses continued in mining.

Household Survey Data

In February, the unemployment rate held at 4.9 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 7.8 million, was unchanged. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 0.6 percentage point and 831,000, respectively. (See table A-1.)
....

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.2 million in February and has shown little movement since June. In February, these individuals accounted for 27.7 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The employment-population ratio edged up to 59.8 percent over the month, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 62.9 percent. Both measures have increased by 0.5 percentage point since September. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (also referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was unchanged in February at 6.0 million and has shown little movement since November. 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. (See table A-8.)

In February, 1.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 356,000 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. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 599,000 discouraged workers in February, down by 133,000 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 1.2 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in February had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 242,000 in February. Job growth occurred in health care and social assistance, retail trade, food services and drinking places, and private educational services. Mining employment continued to decline. (See table B-1.)
....

In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls declined by 3 cents to $25.35, following an increase of 12 cents in January. Average hourly earnings have risen by 2.2 percent over the year. In February, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees were unchanged at $21.32. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from +262,000 to +271,000, and the change for January was revised from +151,000 to +172,000. With these revisions, employment gains in December and January combined were 30,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 228,000 per month.

_____________
The Employment Situation for March is scheduled to be released on Friday, April 1, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

---

[font color="red"]These will be (or should be) the talking points:

1) 242,000 is above ADP's estimate Wednesday of 214,000 and the MoneyBeat estimate of 200,000;
2) "In February, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls declined by 3 cents to $25.35, following an increase of 12 cents in January.";
3) "The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from +262,000 to +271,000, and the change for January was revised from +151,000 to +172,000. With these revisions, employment gains in December and January combined were 30,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 228,000 per month.";
4) "The employment-population ratio edged up to 59.8 percent over the month, and the labor force participation rate edged up to 62.9 percent.";¹
5) The civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,062,000 in January to 93,688,000 in February, a drop of 374,000;²
6) The number of "{persons not in the labor force} who currently want a job" is 5,870,000. Therefore, the percentage of those not in the labor force who want a job now is (5,870,000/93,688,0000) times 100%, or 6.3%;³ and
7) The greatest job growth occurred in three of the sectors with the lowest pay: "Health care and social assistance added 57,000 jobs in February. Wages for education and health services rose 2.1%, to $22.40 from $21.94. ... Retail trade added 55,000 jobs in February. Wages in that sector rose 2%, to $14.95 from $14.65. ... Food services and drinking places added 40,000 jobs in February. Leisure and hospitality wages rose 2.5%, to $12.64 from $12.33. ... Those were the top three sectors for jobs growth in February. They are also three of the lowest paying sectors. Retail and hospitality are the two lowest paying, in fact."⁴[/font]

¹ I've added mention of the employment-population ratio, aka the employment to population ratio, as progree argues that it is more worthy of attention than the labor force participation rate (LFPR). See: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

² The datum "civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force" is in Table A-1. (ETA:⁵ It's also at Not in Labor Force. Hat tip, progree: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now.) Some people make a big deal out of this number, so to keep them happy, here it is.

³ The figure is also found in or derived from Table A-1. Once again, I'm indebted to progree for pointing out the significance of these data: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now).

⁴ From Paul Vigna's comment in today's MoneyBeat column, "Breaking down the wage picture, part II," posted at 9:02 a.m.

⁵ On Saturday afternoon, at the library, at 2:40 p.m. Did you think I ever stopped working on this?


[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: [phone], Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.


[center]Introduction[/center]

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome our good friends from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so I am absolutely delighted to have you participate in this thread. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.

Full disclosure: I do not work for BLS, nor am I friends with anyone over there. I'm just someone who appreciates the work they do. My sole connection with the agency is that I've been in the building to pick up some publications.

Thank you for being a part of this thread.

If you don't have the time to study the report thoroughly, here is the news in a nutshell:

Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation

It is easy to find one paragraph, or one sentence, or one datum in this report that will support the most outlandish of conclusions, from "the sky is falling" to "we'll have blue skies, nothing but blue skies, from now on." Easy, but disingenuous.

Every month, you can find something in the report that will cause you concern. Take the information in context. Consider not just this month’s data, but the trend.

Please take the time to look at progree's not-to-be-missed thread containing his thoughtful analysis, updated monthly. Here is the latest version:

Economy facts with links to official sources, rev 3/4/16.

This month, he also presented his analysis in the twelfth reply in this thread:

Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Thank you so much for that, progree.

Let's begin with a couple of questions:


[center]What Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Why Are They Releasing All These Numbers Every Month?[/center]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the dates of major data releases are scheduled more than a year in advance, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.

[center]Household Survey vs. Establishment Survey[/center]

From the February 10, 2011, DOL Newsletter:

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The household survey, or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The establishment survey, or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.

[center]Complaint Department[/center]

I post this information on a nonpartisan basis. I am not here to make elected officials of any party or persuasion look good. I am certain that the people who compile these data are of the same outlook. They are civil servants. They do not work for a party; they work for you, the American people.

My only contribution is to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the BLS and then, in the commentary, link to some sources that I feel are trustworthy. I hope people come away with a better understanding of the data after reading this thread. Once again, I do not work for BLS, but I will nonetheless try to assist if I can.

If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here:

Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

Affected persons who believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has disseminated information that does not meet its guidelines or those of the Department of Labor or Office of Management and Budget, and who wish to file a formal complaint may send their complaint by mail, e-mail, or fax to:

Division of Management Systems
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4080
Washington, D.C., 20212-0001
E-mail: [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

Complainants should:

Identify themselves and indicate where and how they can be reached;
Identify, as specifically as possible, the information in question;
Indicate how they are affected by the information about which they are complaining;
Carefully describe the nature of the complaint, including an explanation of why they believe the information does not comply with OMB, Departmental, or agency-specific guidelines; and
Describe the change requested and the reason why the agency should make the change.

Failure to include this information may result in a complainant not receiving a response to the complaint or greatly reducing the usefulness or timeliness of any response. Complainants should be aware that they bear the burden of establishing that they are affected persons and showing the need and justification for the correction they are seeking, including why the information being complained about does not comply with applicable guidelines.

[center]We Got the Beat.[/center]

February Jobs Report: Everything You Need to Know

By WSJ Staff
Mar 4, 2016 7:57 am ET



Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Yes, it’s that time again. Jobs Friday, when for one brief moment, the interests of Wall Street, Washington and Main Street align on one thing: jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to report that the economy added 200,000 jobs in February, with the unemployment rate flat at 4.9%. In January, the economy added 151,000.

Here at MoneyBeat HQ, we’re crunching the numbers, tracking the markets and compiling the commentary before and after the data crossed the wires.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

You forgot to say "Enjoy the show." Also, "Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section. And while you’re here, why don’t you sign up to follow us on Twitter."

Before we do anything else, let's give credit to the workers behind the MoneyBeat blog:

The MoneyBeat Team:

Stephen Grocer
Editor

Phillipa Leighton-Jones
European Editor

Erik Holm
Deputy Editor

Maureen Farrell
Reporter, New York

Paul Vigna
Reporter, New York

David Cottle
Reporter, London

Kristen Scholer
Reporter, New York

Giles Turner
Reporter, London

MoneyBeat Columnists

Ronald Barusch
Dealpolitik

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Francesco Guerrera
Current Account[/font]

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Alen Mattich[/font]

Jason Zweig
The Intelligent Investor

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
Michael J. Casey
Horizons [/font]

E. S. Browning

Here are two comments:

9:02 am

Breaking down the wage picture, part II

Now we get to my favorite part of the BLS report, matching up who was hiring with who was paying. For this exercise, I have the report open on three separate tabs: one is the press release, another is table B-1, which breaks down the jobs by sector, and a third is table B-8, which breaks down the sectors by salary. I’m looking at the yearly rise, since that seems like a better gauge of real wage growth. Keep in mind, too, these numbers are not adjusted for inflation.

Health care and social assistance added 57,000 jobs in February. Wages for education and health services rose 2.1%, to $22.40 from $21.94.

Retail trade added 55,000 jobs in February. Wages in that sector rose 2%, to $14.95 from $14.65.

Food services and drinking places added 40,000 jobs in February. Leisure and hospitality wages rose 2.5%, to $12.64 from $12.33.

Those were the top three sectors for jobs growth in February. They are also three of the lowest paying sectors. Retail and hospitality are the two lowest paying, in fact.

Fourth on the list was education, which created 28,000 jobs in February. Its wages are captured in that education and health services number I referenced above.

Construction came in fifth, adding 19,000 jobs, and was the last sector that added enough jobs for the BLS to break it out in the release. Wages in that sector rose 2.9%, to $25.41 from $24.69.

There’s an interesting footnote to table B-8, too. It notes that the data cover production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction, and nonsupervisory staffer in services industries. “These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonfarm payrolls.”

by Paul Vigna

8:45 am

Broadest measure of unemployment is at 9.7%

The broadest measure of unemployment, the so-called U-6, fell to 9.7% in February from 9.9% in January, and is down from 11% a year ago.

The BLS actually provides six measures of unemployment, which they tag U-1 through U-6.

U-1 counts only people out of work for more than 15 weeks. That rate is 2.1%. U-3, which is the “official” rate, counts total unemployed people. That’s at 4.9%

But, U-3 excludes people “marginally attached” to the labor force, and people working “part-time for economic reasons,” meaning people who can’t find full-time work. It also excludes people who’ve dropped out of the labor force.

U-6 includes everybody, and that rate is at 9.7%. That is a high number for a purported recovery that is nearly six years old. You want to know why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are getting as much traction as they are? Look at that U-6 rate.

by Paul Vigna

5 Things to Watch in the February Jobs Report


[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

The following link to Barron's might not work for everyone. See progree's tips.[/font] From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from economists John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014


[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 214,000 Jobs in February

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 151,000 in January; unemployment rate changes little (4.9%)

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 205,000 Jobs in January

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 292,000 in December; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 257,000 Jobs in December

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 211,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 217,000 Jobs in November

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 271,000 in October; jobless rate essentially unchanged (5.0%)

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in October 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 182,000 Jobs in October

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 142,000 in September; unemployment rate remains at 5.1%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 200,000 Jobs in September

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in August 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 173,000 in August; unemployment rate edges down to 5.1%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in August 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 190,000 Jobs in August

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in July 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 215,000 in July; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.3%

ADP® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in July 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 185,000 Jobs in July


[center]Why Won't You Talk About the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)?[/center]

Every month in certain circles, someone will cite the labor force participation rate as a cause for concern. Let's look at that right now.

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

Beyond the Numbers

December 2015 | Vol. 4 / No. 15

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT

People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

By Steven F. Hipple

People who are neither working nor looking for work are counted as “not in the labor force,” according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2000, the percentage of people in this group has increased. Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and its Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) provide some insight into why people are not in the labor force. The ASEC is conducted in the months of February through April and includes questions about work and other activities in the previous calendar year. For example, data collected in 2015 are for the 2014 calendar year, and data collected in 2005 are for the 2004 calendar year.1 In the ASEC, people who did not work at all in the previous year are asked to give the main reason they did not work. Interviewers categorize survey participants’ verbatim responses into the following categories: ill health or disabled; retired;2 home responsibilities; going to school; could not find work;3 and other reasons.

This Beyond the Numbers article examines data on those who were not in the labor force during 2004 and 2014 and the reasons they gave for not working. The data are limited to people who neither worked nor looked for work during the previous year.

This July 2014 report from the Council of Economic Advisers addresses the LFPR:

THE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE SINCE 2007: CAUSES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

(Hat tip, Adrahil: Look deeper.)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Here's a Power Point (or equivalent) presentation given by Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, before the National Press Club on August 6, 2015. If you go to the next-to-the-last slide, you'll see that the long-term projected trend is down:

"Trends in Labor Force Participation", 8/6/15

(Hat tip, progree: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Paul Vigna had a comment about the LFPR in the December 4, 2015, MoneyBeat column about the November figures:

8:55 am

Breaking down the participation rate
by Paul Vigna

Here’s what we mean when we talk about the participation rate and employment-population ratio.

There are 251.7 million people in the “civilian noninstitutional population,” according to the BLS (this is all contained in this chart). This is the number of people over age 16 who are not in jail or health-care facilities or the military.

Of that group, 157.3 million comprise the civilian labor force. The ratio of the second group to the first is 62.5%. This is the labor force participation rate, the number of people who could be in the labor force – either working or looking for a job – who are in the labor force.

There are 149.3 million people working. The ratio of that group to the overall civilian population is 59.3%. This the employment-population ratio, the number of people who could be working who actually are working.

Why do these number matter? Well, if you just looked at the raw data, you’d see the numbers rising, more or less, month after month. That’s not because the economy’s so rip-roaring, but because the number of people in the nation keeps rising. So you need the ratios to get a sense of how strong the labor force really is.

The labor-force participation rate remains near multi-decade lows, and whether that’s due to demographics, as in people retiring, or weak job opportunities, or whatever, it points to one sort of unavoidable problem: the economy cannot grow at its full potential if you simply don’t have enough people contributing.

Oh, and for the record, there are 94.4 million people not in the labor force.

[font color="red"]New material, added December 2015:[/font]

3:12 pm ET
Dec 8, 2015
economics

As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

By Jeffrey Sparshott
[e-mail]
@jeffsparshott

The U.S. labor force is expected to expand only slowly over the coming decade as the country ages and more Americans give up on holding a job, a potential drag on broader economic growth.

The economy is expected to generate 9.8 million new jobs, a 6.5% increase, from 2014 to 2024, the Labor Department said in new projections released Tuesday. While steady, that is a historically slow pace. By comparison, 10-year job creation averaged almost 14% during the 2001-07 expansion and close to 17% during the 1990s.

The slowdown highlights declining participation as baby boomers retire and younger Americans opt out of the workforce. Those two trends are expected to continue to push the labor-force participation rate lower, to 60.9% in 2024 from 62.9% in 2014, Labor estimates. If realized, that would be the lowest level since 1973, when Richard Nixon was president.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen at a congressional hearing last week held out hope the participation rate would hold near current levels as people came off the sidelines and into jobs.

[center]Nattering Nabobs of Negativism[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 26, 2016:[/font] More High-Wage Employment Doesn't Mean the Job Market's Out of the Woods

That's the print edition title.

Wonkblog

The recovery is generating more high-wage jobs — but does that matter?

The U.S. is still digging out of a big hole, and isn't creating new opportunities for those whose jobs disappeared.

By Lydia DePillis February 24
@lydiadepillis

A couple of weeks ago, some economists from Goldman Sachs came out with a rosy pronouncement: "Millions of new jobs and plenty of good ones," read the headline on a note to investors. High-wage employment appeared to pick up from 2013 to the present, a change from the early years of the economic recovery, which generated a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs.



And you don’t have to just take it from an investment bank. The Department of Labor has run its own numbers, and saw similar growth back in October, rendered in absolute numbers rather than growth rates (which Labor’s Chief Economist Heidi Shierholz says held through the end of 2015 in an analysis the department completed last week).

The green bars in the graph below show changes in actual employment, and the orange line shows what it would have been if the growth had been evenly distributed. Shierholz says the loss of low-wage jobs is likely a result of workers in those categories having their wages bumped up above $10 an hour, as the huge growth in low-wage sectors from 2009-2013 led to competition for people in restaurants and retail, or finding better jobs.



That renewed growth in high-wage jobs, which started to show up in 2014, is typical of recoveries from recessions: Low-wage retail and restaurant jobs come back first, as consumers start to buy small-ticket items and go out to eat again. Later on, the profitability trickles up, leading firms to make more expensive hires. Overall, the trend could be responsible for the small uptick in wages that's become evident in recent months, as well.

[font color="red"]Revised material:[/font] Here’s a grim thought:

Fed economists: America’s missing workers are not coming back

Wonkblog

By Max Ehrenfreund September 12 {2014}

A paper by Federal Reserve staff that will be discussed at the Brookings Institution on Friday {September 12, 2014} possibly hints at the central bank's thinking on interest rates and employment in advance of a consequential Fed meeting next week. The findings support [links:http://online.wsj.com/articles/fed-minutes-rate-hike-debate-heating-up-1408557628|hawks] on the Federal Open Market Committee, who feel that the Fed needs to prepare to raise rates sooner than expected, although the results are still being debated and might not persuade the committee's more dovish members.

The paper discusses the number of people who consider themselves part of the workforce -- including both people who have a job and those who are looking for work. It is a measure of the total manpower available in the U.S. economy. This number, the labor force participation rate, has been decreasing steadily since 2000. Americans who can't find work have been leaving the workforce, as have more and more retirees as the population ages.

Let’s follow that with another grim thought:

Why wage growth disparity tells the story of America's half-formed economic recovery

By Chico Harlan November 21, 2014
@chicoharlan
[e-mail]

....
With unemployment down to 5.8 percent, the country’s half-formed recovery is often described with a convenient shorthand: We have jobs but little wage growth. But stagnancy is just an average, and for many Americans, the years since the financial crisis have pushed them farther from the line, according to a detailed analysis of government labor statistics by The Washington Post.
....

Among the winners in this climate: Older workers, women and those with finance and technology jobs. ... Among the losers: Part-timers, the young, men, and those in the health, retail and food industries.
....

Chico Harlan covers personal economics as part of The Post's financial team.

Dissenters, take note:

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate

David Leonhardt
AUG. 26, 2014

The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report has been the subject of some wacky conspiracy theories. None was wackier than the suggestion from Jack Welch, the former General Electric chief executive, that government statisticians were exaggerating job growth during President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Both Republican and Democratic economists dismissed those charges as silly.

But to call the people who compile the jobs report honest, nonpartisan civil servants is not to say that the jobs report is perfect. The report tries to estimate employment in a big country – and to do so quickly, to give policy makers, business executives and everyone else a sense of how the economy is performing. It’s a tough task.

And it has become tougher, because Americans are less willing to respond to surveys than they used to be.

A new academic paper suggests that the unemployment rate appears to have become less accurate over the last two decades, in part because of this rise in nonresponse. In particular, there seems to have been an increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work.

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] From July 2013:

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

Commentary

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

More people have left the workforce than got a new job during the recovery—by a factor of nearly three.

By Mortimer Zuckerman
July 15, 2013 7:09 p.m. ET

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.
....

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

[center]On the Road Again[/center]

The DOL Newsletter - October 6, 2011

DOL Data: There's an App for That
Have an iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone? Now you can access the latest labor data and news from the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment and Training Administration in the palm of your hand. The latest free mobile app displays real-time updates to the unemployment rate, Unemployment Insurance initial claims, the Consumer Price Index, payroll employment, average hourly earnings, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, productivity, the U.S. Import Price Index and the U.S. Export Price Index in real time, as they are published each week, month or quarter. News releases providing context for the data can also be accessed through the app and viewed within a mobile browser or as PDF documents.

US Labor Department launches economic and employment statistics app

Smartphone users gain mobile access to latest labor data and news

WASHINGTON — The most up-to-date employment data and economic news releases from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Employment and Training Administration now can be viewed using a new mobile application.
....

The new app is currently available for the iPhone and iPod Touch as well as Android phones. The Labor Department is working to develop versions for BlackBerry and iPad devices. Visit http://m.dol.gov/apps/ to download this and other mobile apps.

Download the Data, Other Mobile Apps


[center]A Few More Things[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 4, 2016:[/font] This article appeared as "Stocks vs. the Economy: Which Ruins Which?"on page C2 of the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. on Tuesday, February 2, 2016.

Does the Economy Ruin the Stock Market or Does the Stock Market Ruin the Economy?

2:49 pm ET
Feb 1, 2016
Markets

By John Carney

Don’t confuse the market for the economy. Markets have overshot fundamentals. There are no signs of contagion into the real economy. ... Anyone paying attention has heard some version of these sentiments lately. Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that the market has predicted nine of the past five recessions is once again on the lips of the wise men and women of Wall Street.

But what if the stock market is more than just an indicator? What if a stock selloff can actually cause unemployment and recessions? ... That’s exactly what historical data on the stock market and the unemployment rate running back to 1929 seem to suggest. A persistent 10% decline in the stock market pushes unemployment up three percentage points.

That, at least, is the finding of University of California Los Angeles economist Roger Farmer. Currently a Distinguished Professor of Economics at UCLA and a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mr. Farmer has been a fellow at the Bank of England and has won awards for his work on inefficiency in financial markets and self-fullfilling prophecies.

In a pair of academic papers written in the wake of the financial crisis, the first published in 2012 and the second published this year, Mr. Farmer has argued that changes in the value of the stock market cause changes in the unemployment rate. The idea will be expanded upon in Mr. Farmer’s forthcoming book, Prosperity for All.

[font color="red"]Moved here, February 6, 2016:[/font] The Federal Reserve looks at, among many other things, the BLS employment reports when it decides what to do with "the interest rate." The interest rate in question is the federal funds target rate. Here is some information about that:

Federal funds rate

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

Meet FRED, every wonk’s secret weapon

Storyline ⋅ Meet the wonks

By Todd C. Frankel August 1, 2014

FRED stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data. It serves as an online clearinghouse for a wealth of numbers: unemployment rates, prices of goods, GDP and CPI, things common and obscure. Today, FRED is more than a little bit famous, thanks to the public’s fascination with economic data.

Federal Reserve Economic Data

So how many jobs must be created every month to have an effect on the unemployment rate? There's an app for that:

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jobs Calculator™

(Note new link for Jobs Calculator™. Hat tip, progree.)

Monthly Employment Reports from BLS

The U.S. Census Bureau has its own releases:

U.S. Census Bureau Latest News

U.S. Census Bureau Economic Indicators

For people who need a daily fix:

BLS-Labor Statistics Twitter feed

Read tomorrow's news before it happens. Here's the schedule for all economic reports:

MarketWatch Economic Calendar[font color="red"]

[rjsquirrel]

1. Thanks Obama! eom

[BumRushDaShow]

2. That's like WAY over what was being estimated

including what I was hearing on the radio early this morning!

Thanks for the posting and updates!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. De nada.

It is on the high side. I had to correct my talking points.

Please, everyone, note Paul Vigna's comments, which will be added to throughout the morning, in the MoneyBeat column.

I'll put up the charts when I have the time.

Best wishes.

[RATM435]

3. The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for January 2016 is 22.9%.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[leftynyc]

4. Over 1 in 5 out of work

BULLSHIT

[whatthehey]

7. The imaginary Texas again?

Do the math people. This only works if you imagine 27 million would-be workers who really really want to work, and can work, but haven't done a single fucking thing to find work in over a year. The entire population of Texas, infants to centenarians, who have given up and are doing...what exactly?

Pretty strange definition of want. It's like saying I really want a drink of water but haven't gone to the tap or the fridge since early 2015...and there is 27 million more like me.

In other words bullshit.

[progree]

8. Does John Williams say how he comes up with that number?

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 07:08 PM - Edit history (2)

Last time I checked, one had to pay $89 to MAYBE find out how he comes up with 22.9%.

Counting EVERY jobless person who says they want a job, regardless of how long it has been since they have looked for work, and including part-timers who want full time work -- that unemployment rate is 11.94%.

(I very closely match Paul Solman's "U-7" number which measures the same thing, but it takes about a day for them to update that number, and they haven't been updating it every month lately ).

I cannot think of any broader measure of unemployment than that.

Background: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141222552#post21

[font color = red]Two edits:[/font]

(#1#) regardless of how long they have looked for work -> regardless of how long it has been since they have looked for work

(#2#) I got the February number for everyone who says they want a job: 11.94%, down from 12.02% in January

[Gothmog]

6. More great economic news

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. BLS Charts related to the latest "The Employment Situation" news release

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Hat tip, the BLS Twitter feed: See our interactive graphics on today’s jobs report

Charts related to the latest "The Employment Situation" news release

More charts and analysis on the February nonfarm payroll employment numbers

Current Employment Statistics Highlights February 2016 Release Date: March 4, 2016

I don't see the charts at The Wall Street Journal. yet.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. The Typical U.S. Worker May Get Bigger Raises Than in the Jobs Report

The Typical U.S. Worker May Get Bigger Raises Than in the Jobs Report

By Eric Morath
[e-mail]
@EricMorath

Mar 4, 2016 8:40 am ET

The wage measure featured in Friday’s jobs report may undershoot raises for the bulk of U.S. workers.

The most closely watched wage figure, average hourly earnings for all employees, advanced 2.2% in February from a year earlier, the Labor Department said. According to payroll processing firm Automatic Data Processing Inc., that’s likely well less than the annual increase received by the typical U.S. worker: a full-time employee at the same company for more than a year.

Those employees—more than 60% of all workers—saw their average hourly earnings increase 4.1% in the fourth quarter of 2015 compared with a year earlier, ADP said.

The two figures differ mainly because the all-workers measure is influenced by those who recently entered the workforce and those who departed. Younger workers and those reentering the workforce typically earn less than older workers who are retiring. ADP’s comparable measure for all workers tracks with the Labor Department’s figure, improving a little better than 2% annually.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. TWSJ.: The February Jobs Report in 14 Charts

Here are two:

The February Jobs Report in 14 Charts

By Nick Timiraos and Josh Zumbrun
[e-mail]
@NickTimiraos
[e-mail]
@JoshZumbrun

Mar 4, 2016 10:43 am ET

U.S. employers added 242,000 jobs in February and an uptick in the number of Americans joining the labor force kept the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.9%, the Labor Department said Friday. Of course, the guts of the monthly employment report provide a more textured view of the job market. Here’s the latest overview, in charts:
....

And the share of the unemployed who dropped out of the labor force in February continued to decline.



....
There have now been nearly 10 million full-time jobs added since the recession ended in June 2009, compared with just a few hundred thousand new part-time jobs.

[progree]

12. Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Here are some summary tables of the key February 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on March 4, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

In the below tables, all "%" ones are percentage point changes, *not* percent increases or decreases. FOR EXAMPLE, when you see something like this:

+0.1% Unemployment rate

It means that the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (this EXAMPLE is from May 2015 when the unemployment rate rose from 5.4% to 5.5%).

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Before each item, (vv) indicates very bad, (v ) indicates bad, (0 ) indicates neutral, (^ ) indicates good, (^^) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(^^) +242,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )
== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(^^) +555,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
(^^) +530,000 Employed
(v ) +24,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` The last 3 lines overall is good news: 555,000 additional people looking for work in the
` ` ` past 4 weeks, and 530,000 of those found jobs. The difference is an increase in the
` ` ` officially unemployed
(^^) +0.2% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.8%)
(0 ) +0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (at 62.9%)
` ` ` I rate as neutral because though it went up (good), it is only 0.5% above a multi-decade low
(0 ) +0.0% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.9%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
(^^) -0.2% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.7%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
(^ ) -0.1% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work (it's at 11.94%)
(^ ) -103,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
(0 ) +0 (yes, zero) Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
(0 ) +489,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9).
` ` ` See last 2 lines: the net big increase in part-time workers is workers who desire part-time work
(v ) +65,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) - an increase, but quite a small one

^--Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "bad" months and in "good" months

The "U-7" unemployment rate is a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour, not a BLS number. The above number is one I calculated, because he doesn't update his number every month, and when he does, it is about a day after the jobs report comes out. My number has consistently matched his within 0.1% (and mine has always been a bit higher).

For more background on the U-7 number, see: "If you count everyone who says they want a job, even if they have made no effort to find one in many years" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2

[font color = magenta]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010[/font]

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,672,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.41% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru January because no CPI data for February yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+2,012,000 Labor Force
+2,843,000 Employed
-831,000 Unemployed
+0.5% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.6% Unemployment rate
-1.3% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-1.4% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-618,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-642,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+438,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,418,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for February yet for the inflation-adjusted Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for February is not yet available.

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate shows an anemic 0.1% increase (which is pretty weak for a full year). Interesting though that there was a 0.5% percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians .

Seems to me that there is too much discussion in the media of the Labor Force Participation Rate (the employed plus the jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, all divided by the population), and not enough attention to what seemingly matters more -- the Employment to Population Ratio. Why aren't we celebrating the increase in the percentage of the population that is employed (the employment to population ratio)-- a figure that has been slowly moving up since the job market bottom, despite the growing wave of baby boomer retirements?

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 72 months thru Feb. 29, 2016: 2'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru Feb. 29, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+13,911,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.58% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru Jan. 2016 because no CPI data for February yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+5,196,000 Labor Force
+12,493,000 Employed
-7,298,000 Unemployed
+1.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.0% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.9% Unemployment rate
-7.3% U-6 unemployment rate
-6.9% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-228,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-2,948,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+226,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+12,428,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

[font color=blue]Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]Feb'15 Nov'15 Jan'16 Feb'16
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.5% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0%
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]

Umm, but aren't most of the new jobs part-time?(Umm, no)

A graph of part-time and full-time workers (from June 2009 through November 2015)


CLARIFICATION: in the above, these are part-time workers and full-time workers, not part-time jobs and full-time jobs.

This excellent post from early July show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post12

What kind of Wages?

INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average Weekly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031


Here is the nominal, i.e. not-inflation-adjusted version of the above:
Weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
Hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010

The links to the data above
# Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639
# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/04/employment-situation-february . (find this at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea or https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in February}


Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141368407

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"][font size=4 color=blue] Detailed Discussion[/font]

3/4/16 -

Excellent jobs report this month 242,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in February. December and January were revised up by a combined 30,000. So we have 272,000 more payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 242 + 30 = 272 ).

I think I'll skip the rest of the detailed narrative this month. Please look at the tables above. Note in the one-month tables I indicate what is good and bad.

But I want highlight two things that the trolls are likely to make a big hoohah about:

Full-Time Employment Up Only 65,000 in February

"Full-time unemployment increased by a very anemic 65,000 in February, while part-time workers increased by a whopping 489,000. In other words, for every full-time worker, the Obummer economy added 7.5 part-time workers"

As always, the Household Survey statistics are extremely very volatile from month to month. The following illustrates this.

Below is the monthly changes in full-time employment, in thousands:

[font face = courier new]
` ` ` Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun` Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov` Dec
2014: 261 197 185 516 280 -513 221 324 586 381 -104 358
2015: 663 126 188 -177 616 -359 585 404 -172 181 45 504
2016: 538 65 [/font]

Source: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000?output_view=net_1mth

As one can see, it bounces around wildly from month to month. Illustrating that one month change statistics from the Household Survey are virtually worthless. One needs to see a longer time period -- I prefer a year which has the virtue of negating seasonal adjustment errors because one is comparing the latest month with the same month a year ago.

Note that in the last 3 months, full-time employment increased by 1,107,000, which is a monthly average of 369,000 .

And over the past 12 months, full-time employment has increased 2.4 million.

See the section above, "But aren't most of the new jobs part-time?" for a graphic of part-time and full-time workers since June 2009.

Similarly, one can see the volatility of the part-time worker statistic:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000?output_view=net_1mth


While We Had Great Job Gains, Wages Fell

Mark Shields made this point on the PBS Newshour March 4.

Mark Shields, you idiot, the month to month changes in a volatile data series like this don't mean didly squat.

Anyway, while average hourly earnings were down 3 cents (to $25.35) in February, you conveniently failed to mention that they went up 12 cents in January, for example.

Or that for the last 12 months they were up 2.2% -- considerably ahead of inflation (CPI-U) which is up 1.3% for the 12 months ended in January (the February CPI-U numbers don't come out until mid-month).

See the "What kind of Wages?" section above for a graph on inflation-adjusted numbers for production and non-supervisory workers.

[progree]

13. Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now

5) The civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,062,000 in January to 93,688,000 in February, a drop of 374,000;2

2. The datum "civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force" is in Table A-1. Some people make a big deal out of this, so, to keep them happy, here's the number.

[font color = red]On Edit: MahatmaKaneJeeves edited this talking point in the OP to point out that only 6.3% of the 93,688,000 currently want a job[/font]

That 93,688,000 Not In The Labor Force statistic comes from

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

And counts every jobless person 16 and over who has not looked for work in the past 4 weeks. Yes, including full time students. And yes, including the elderly, even centenarians.

In rhetorical gamesmanship, some people (thankfully not MKJ) call these "94 million unemployed", or "94 million jobless people" usually in the context of discussing those who have given up looking for work in desperation.

Even though the vast majority of these don't want a job now (or ever, or not until they complete school). I guess some people just don't think people should be full-time students or ever voluntarily retired or ever full-time homemakers or ever take some time out for other pursuits.

There is another statistic that is far more relevant: Not In The Labor Force, Wants Job Now

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639

In February 2016:
93,688,000 Not In Labor Force
5,870,000 Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now
6.3% Percentage of those not in the labor force who wants a job now

The first two statistics are also available in Table A-1: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

(the 6.3% figure comes from dividing the "Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now" number by the "Not In Labor Force" number)