Unemployment Rate, September 2010

UPDATE: The most important stat in the BLS report is the huge increase in workers forced into part-time work due to economic circumstances. This category has increased by 940,000 people over the past two months.

The BLS just released the unemployment rate for last month, and at first blush it's not the most interesting of results. The U-3 unemployment rate last month was 9.6% and this month it's.......9.6%. Here's how that looks on The Chart:

We lost 95K non-farm jobs, but they claim that we added 64K private sector jobs. That doesn't agree well with ADP's announcement that we lost 39,000 jobs last month.

I had many requests for particular graphs yesterday: I'm going to start adding them below the fold as I get to them.

I'll kick off the supplemental charts with a comparison of total private employment estimates from BLS and ADP. The BLS surveys employment in two ways: they poll households ("Household" data) and they survey businesses ("Establishment" data). ADP uses their payroll records to extrapolate to the nation as a whole. Several people also asked about seasonal adjustments, so I included seasonally-adjusted ("SA") and non-seasonally adjusted ("NSA") variants for both BLS surveys.

You can see that while they're at different levels, they pretty much follow the same trends, except for the little rise recently in the BLS household data. There's a similar, but smaller rise in the establishment data, and no rise at all in the ADP stats. This is borne out by this chart that I lifted from ADP's September report:

The BLS and ADP month-to-month changes agree pretty well until this past year, when the BLS started showing larger improvements than ADP. Interesting.

But one overall point to note is that non-farm private employment has not continued to fall - it's been at least stable and maybe even slightly positive since the beginning of the year.

The next chart is one I like to call "Atlas Groans." It's the ratio of private, non-farm employees to the civilian non-institutional population. It's basically a measure of how heavy the burden of supporting government employees and non-workers is on private employers and employees. As you can see, the burden has increased significantly since 2006, but has been stable lately.

There were a lot of questions yesterday about how many people were being dropped after exceeding their 99 weeks of insurance coverage. The average duration of unemployment has actually dropped a bit, though it's still outrageously high:

A lot of people have argued that we should be looking at the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number (You can find definitions for the different measures of unemployment here). Here's a comparison between the two measures:

They agree pretty well in terms of trends, except for the little uptick in the last month. This is due to an increase the number of workers forced to take part-time work. Here's a plot of their plight:

The number of people forced into part-time work has increased by 943,000 over the past two months. I noted this last month, but this month was even worse.

And I think that concludes this month's flurry of charts.

Posted by: Geoff at 09:14 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 First!

Posted by: Chuck Yeager at October 08, 2010 09:17 AM (WDySP)

2 I still say if we counted unemployment the same way we did in the 30s it would be over 20%. I don't believe a single number coming out of Washington any more.

Posted by: Vic at October 08, 2010 09:18 AM (/jbAw)

3 **bumped**

Democrats way up in latest Quinnipiac poll

this
goes along with my comment #51 in last thread. At least in Ohio, people's jobs and
property have been threatened if they support an R. Esp. in schools,
hospitals (unions), and union work places.

Posted by: momma at October 08, 2010 09:19 AM (penCf)

4 I listend to a live radio report this morning as the Sept jobs numbers were released from the govt. You would have thought they were announcing five million jobs created last month. Honestly, the radio reporters were beside themselves they were so giddy. Why, because the unemployment number stayed high!
As we always have to ask, imagine if unemployment had stayed at 9.6% for two months in a row under George Bush. It would be a month-long lamentation of how awful it is, and of course where the blame belongs.

Posted by: Boots at October 08, 2010 09:20 AM (06JTY)

5 These numbers are suspect as they do not have the entire month of September included in them.

Posted by: Johnnyreb at October 08, 2010 09:21 AM (cqZXM)

6 I suppose it's too late to ask for my money back?
What's behind door number 5?
I'm not feeling so good!
I say we let all of the current dems keep their jobs after the election if they just shitcan Barry.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 08, 2010 09:21 AM (r1h5M)

7 momma: Dems are throwing alot of money at this election. they are paying SEIU people to work the polls, phone banks, canvass etc.
If you have money, please donate to Republican candidate. And volunteer. We can beat them, but we have to stick together we have to work.

Posted by: kelley in virginia at October 08, 2010 09:22 AM (MEs24)

8 "Job losses in 2009 likely bigger than thought"

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 09:26 AM (p302b)

9 You would think a lot of kids in their late teens, early twenties would be scared shitless of what's happening.

Posted by: lowandslow at October 08, 2010 09:30 AM (GZitp)

10 O/T: Those words "underestimate" and "overestimate" mean something when you are dealing with laws, California.
via drudge

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 09:30 AM (p302b)

11 Geoff, what is the "New Projection" based on?

Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 09:31 AM (Ew1k4)

12 In other news, the choco-ration was increased to twenty grams from twenty-five.
(issuenews 08.10.10 miniplenty malquotedunemployment rectifydoubleplusgood ...)

Posted by: Winston Smith Warthog at October 08, 2010 09:33 AM (WDySP)

13 "Here's The Drastic Revenue Collapse Causing The Massive Layoffs By Local Governments" (there's a chart)

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 09:33 AM (p302b)

14 Flat unemployment rate? Well, that was unexpected!

Posted by: Roy at October 08, 2010 09:34 AM (YFXn0)

15 Well, one could pretty much expect that the federal bureaus responsible for this stuff, controlled by the Democrats, would come up with better numbers here than anyone else.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at October 08, 2010 09:34 AM (Baf0e)

16 Posted by: lowandslow at October 08, 2010 09:30 AM (GZitp)

And when the real world succeeds in deprogramming them after years in the hard-left dominated school systems, they'll vote republican!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at October 08, 2010 09:35 AM (LH6ir)

17 what is the "New Projection" based on?

Wishcraft? Or did they read the entrails of the dead fish the WH staff gave Rahmie as a parting gift?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at October 08, 2010 09:35 AM (Vz9lf)

18 Geoff, what is the "New Projection" based on?

Wishful thinking?

Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 09:36 AM (Nq/UF)

19 "Some More Charts: People Not In Labor Force, And Those Who Want A Job Now"
Geoff, you still have the best charts of anyone out there.

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 09:36 AM (p302b)

20 I still say if we counted unemployment the same way we did in the 30s it
would be over 20%. I don't believe a single number coming out of
Washington any more.

Don't know how good their methodology is, but shadowstats puts it around 22%.

Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 09:38 AM (Nq/UF)

21 "The BLS, as part of the NFP report, has issued its preliminary estimate
of the benchmark revision, which confirms that the BLS is really just
BS."

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 09:39 AM (p302b)

22 We lost 95K non-farm jobs, but they claim that we added 64K private sector jobs. That doesn't agree well with ADT's announcement that we lost 39,000 jobs last month.
Birth/death model discrepancy as a factor, perhaps? I've noticed on some recent reports that this metric frequently covered much of the spread between the BLS and ADT reports.

Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 09:39 AM (/Pw+r)

23 The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose by 612,000 over the month to 9.5 million.
About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in September, up from 2.2 million 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 1.2 million discouraged workers in September, an increase of 503,000 from a year earlier.

Yep, the car is out of the ditch alright

Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 08, 2010 09:39 AM (1Jaio)

24 Denninger's take on the report: Sucks Balls

Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 09:44 AM (Nq/UF)

25 #24 Yep, the car is out of the ditch alright
And now plummeting down the ravine.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 08, 2010 09:44 AM (9hSKh)

26 Read this comment: "on Fri, 10/08/2010 - 08:01" Link

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 09:44 AM (p302b)

27 10 You would think a lot of kids in their late teens, early twenties would be scared shitless of what's happening.
You would think that, but you would be wrong. I know lots of kids in that age range and they still love Obama Colbert Stewart et al. It will take a few more years of hard times getting worse to make them question what all those years of lefty indoctrination "taught" them.

Posted by: Boots at October 08, 2010 09:44 AM (06JTY)

28 We ought to note that the U6 skyrocketed as well.
Denninger has a post up on the whole picture this morning, and he's not too happy.
http://tinyurl.com/26px547

Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 09:45 AM (/Pw+r)

29 Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 09:44 AM (Nq/UF)
Damn it, beat me to it.

Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 09:45 AM (/Pw+r)

30 curious, could you cut and paste that comment? There are several 8:01s on that list (and all over it due to zerohedge's method of organization).

Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 09:48 AM (Ew1k4)

31 ok, can someone give me some knowledge here?
CNN's report says that economists were expecting the numbers to be flat, i.e., about even number of private gains and govt losses and the % to tick up to 9.7.
However, we lost almost 100k jobs and the % stayed flat.
Is it just me who doesn't understand the discrepancie there?

Posted by: todler at October 08, 2010 09:48 AM (fPOY0)

32 Wavetastic-per Hotair headlines, Representative John Dingle of Michigan (Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Dearbornistan?!?) is down 4 according to the local paper's poll.

Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 09:55 AM (Ew1k4)

33 Looking at the data by job category, 22,000 jobs were lost in the "Goods Producing" sector, but 38K jobs were added in "Health and Hospitality" (including 34K in Food Services and Drinking Places). Note that these are probably fairly low-paying.

There was also an increase in health services, probably due to an aging population.

The source of jobs in last month's report was also similar.

I wouldn't be surprised if the increases in food services are due to kids going back to school and increased business during football season.

The problem with the data the past couple of months is that the businesses that are hiring aren't exporters;

Here's the data table from the BLS:

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

Posted by: Reno_Dave at October 08, 2010 09:55 AM (j8sk7)

34 However, we lost almost 100k jobs and the % stayed flat.
Is it just me who doesn't understand the discrepancie there?
Discouraged workers dropping out of the workforce don't count as unemployed anymore.

Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 09:59 AM (Nq/UF)

35 Heh, Biden is quoted telling some crowd that they're the "dullest audience I've ever spoken too."

Coming from a guy that's spoken at the Democratic National Convention, that's saying a lot!

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 08, 2010 10:00 AM (tJjm/)

36 Discouraged workers dropping out of the workforce don't count as unemployed anymore.
Ahh........the old "true unemployment number" a popular meme for the MFM when Bush was in office but, for some reason, has falled out of favor with our media better.
3 years ago, brave media souls were speaking truth to power talking about the real unemployment rate. Today.....crickets.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 08, 2010 10:01 AM (OWjjx)

37 ADT counts payroll jobs. The BLS estimates all non-farm.

The real unemployment (U6) went up from 16.7% to 17.1% ... that's the only one that counts.

Posted by: tarpon at October 08, 2010 10:03 AM (g0QB8)

38 #32 (Todler),

The problem is that the government reports the data from two surveys.

One is a "Household" survey, where they try to determine the number of people working and not working by (I think) actually surveying workers. This is the survey that they use to calculate the Unemployment Rate of 9.6%.

See that table here:

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

They also survey "Establishments", and that survey of businesses is how they get the number of jobs gained/lost.

So the numbers are related, but they're not pulled from the same data sources.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at October 08, 2010 10:05 AM (j8sk7)

39 Huh.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at October 08, 2010 10:06 AM (Vz9lf)

40 Discouraged workers dropping out of the workforce don't count as unemployed anymore.
Check the spike in the U6--from 16.7 to 17.1. That's probably where a lot of that is coming from.

Posted by: Red Rocks Rockin at October 08, 2010 10:06 AM (/Pw+r)

41 The numbers have been cooked again. Can't have that number going up before the election since this is the last one before it.
P.S. EVERYONE watch that video of the president seal falling. The jerk is reading his 'joking' off the damn teleprompters!! From side to side, same cadence. Even his feigned surprise is an act as he looks over the lecturn. And notice the feinting women are back. Plouffe is back to trying to make the robot look human!

Posted by: Schwalbe at October 08, 2010 10:09 AM (UU0OF)

42 I'm certain the Government is pencil-fucking these numbers to minimize the bad news. I'm willing to accept evidence of trends over time but these month-to-month reports are crap from liars with an ax to grind.

Posted by: SurferDoc at October 08, 2010 10:10 AM (RKpGM)

43 So, were the numbers from the prior report revised downward? It's not a proper government report unless there's a revision for the previous one.

Posted by: Heorot at October 08, 2010 10:17 AM (Nq/UF)

44 The BLS and ADP month-to-month changes agree pretty well until this past
year, when the BLS started showing larger improvements than ADP.
Interesting.

Wow, isn't the a Frank Lautenberg admission against interest?

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 08, 2010 10:17 AM (bN5ZU)

45 I call BLShit on 9.6% -- fortunately, we're pretty much inoculated against believing the Ministry of Plenty's reports of output.
BTW, have any of you started to notice that the prices for home contracting services have started to increase substantially? No more illegals? Fewer companies in business?

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at October 08, 2010 10:19 AM (3iMgs)

46 Posted by: Methos at October 08, 2010 09:48 AM (Ew1k4)

"a point surely not lost on the Fed - no QE2 and the slide starts for
real. I was in part worried that an overly bullish picture might be
drummed up for the midterms - but that would have spelled disaster for
the markets if it took QE2 off the table - and that would put a 2nd term
in jeopardy - I think the midterms are a necessary writeoff at this
point." Link

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 10:24 AM (p302b)

47 Very interesting. One more statistic to consider; the total non-adjusted private payroll:
- September 1998 - 107,103,000- September 1999 - 109,919,000- September 2000 - 111,900,000- September 2001 - 110,816,000- September 2002 - 109,192,000- September 2003 - 108,925,000- September 2004 - 110,571,000- September 2005 - 112,826,000- September 2006 - 114,858,000- September 2007 - 115,960,000- September 2008 - 114,313,000- September 2009 - 107,964,000- September 2010 - 108,510,000
That's right; therewere fewer people on private payrolls last month than there were in any September of the Bush administration (the Worst Economy Since the Great Depression�), and outside the depths of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, the lowest since 1998.

Posted by: steveegg at October 08, 2010 10:26 AM (51MkX)

48 Thanks guys. i knew i'd get smarter here. just seems like something odd about those numbers. now I know it is

but yeah, the total number is the interestign one. curious we don't hear about it anymore.

Posted by: todler at October 08, 2010 10:46 AM (fPOY0)

49 I wonder if it will be above 10 next month.

Not that I'm saying. I'm just saying.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 08, 2010 10:48 AM (SN216)

50 Interesting, that first graph, especially the spike in unemployment right at the end of 2009. I guess I missed all the front-page headlines reading "Unemployment Soars To New Levels" and "Unemployment Breaks Through 10% 'Glass Ceiling'".

Posted by: Dr Mabuse at October 08, 2010 10:48 AM (jgkJo)

51 If you go over to Shadow Stats, it would appear that the real number is closer to 23%. Which is actually believable to me.

Posted by: shibumi at October 08, 2010 10:51 AM (OKZrE)

52
"Yes,
the US would then come to resemble the EU at that point... but at least
the states would have the cash to hire back all the workers they're
slashing.

Sound good?"

link

This has to be a joke, right?

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 10:52 AM (p302b)

53 Ahh........the old "true unemployment number" a popular meme for the MFM
when Bush was in office but, for some reason, has falled out of favor
with our media better.

Remember when any soldier died? The "another grim milestone" meme? That's gone too.

I guess with President "Can't I Eat My Waffles in Peace" a soldier dying is not interesting.

Posted by: shibumi at October 08, 2010 10:53 AM (OKZrE)

54 That "Atlas Groans" chart is fucking ugly.

Posted by: steveegg at October 08, 2010 10:59 AM (51MkX)

55 And I don't mean the colors.

Posted by: steveegg at October 08, 2010 11:04 AM (51MkX)

56 Ooooo.... pictures.

Posted by: Editor at October 08, 2010 11:21 AM (pUfK9)

57 This BS unemployment number is unexpectedly neutral just before the election. right. sure. I can really believe this 9.6%. check's in the mail. etc.
I can't wait to see the 'revised' numbers some time down the road. Much like the big ooops about last year's numbers I expect to see that actual funemployment this month is more like 10.5 or higher and rising with "real" funemployment around 20+%.
How's all the Hope and Change workin' for ya 52%?

Posted by: chuck in st paul at October 08, 2010 11:25 AM (adr25)

58 The Gallup number was 10.1% and their unemployment number was 18.8%. Which seems to make far more sense than everything remaining flat again. And by sense I mean those numbers don't look to be manipulated as the official one do

Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 08, 2010 11:37 AM (1Jaio)

59 O/T: Ugh I have such a headache: "Whitney Bearish on Little Banks" link

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 11:43 AM (p302b)

60 Ummm...if we are loosing jobs.
And more people are coming here to work (remember, almost 1 million a year in LEGAL immigration)..
How does the percentage of unemployed stay flat?
Rhetorical question.... because they create a system whereby people are not counted...
But the bigger question... is why anyone would trust the Government numbers, when they are soeasily shown to be bogus?

Posted by: Romeo13 at October 08, 2010 11:44 AM (AdK6a)

61 "The Great Mortgage Mystery" link

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 11:47 AM (p302b)

62 That U-6 spike is scary and I think the real reason for the disbelief in the U3 number, most peoples anecdotal information just does not match a steady rate.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at October 08, 2010 11:56 AM (ruu60)

63 Private payrolls are up 157k the last two months.

Household employment is up 2 Million jobs in a year, up 223k jobs last month.

Employment is a lagging indicator, unlike the stock market which is a leading indicator, and payrolls data lags the household data.

Household data surveys everyone vs payroll that only surveys medium and large firms, and household has no B-D model.

ADP [not ADT] has been underestimating actual job creation by about 85k a month as they serve mostly large businesses.

Posted by: horn at October 08, 2010 11:59 AM (PpXdM)

64 ocd: Horrendous typo above from reading wrong line in Household report.

Jobs increase in one year is 623k, not 2mm. Last month was 141k not 223k.

Posted by: horn at October 08, 2010 12:02 PM (PpXdM)

65 Looking at the data by job category, 22,000 jobs were lost in the "Goods Producing" sector, but 38K jobs were added in "Health and Hospitality" (including 34K in Food Services and Drinking Places). Note that these are probably fairly low-paying... I wouldn't be surprised if the increases in food services are due to kids going back to school and increased business during football season.
Maybe just a little off-topic, but I am noticing that the quality of folks working as "clerks" in convenience stores and "sales droids" in the mall is skyrocketing.
Just yesterday, I saw clean, well-groomed, slender, sober white people [and borderline hot chicks] working the floor in both Sears and Target.
And this is in a locality which is probably >50% black or mexican indian.
Folks are REALLY hurting if they are willing to stoop to working these demeaning $7/hr or $8/hr bullshit dead-end humiliating jobs.
Thing is -if that's all you can find to earn an income -then suddenly it's not quite so humiliating anymore.

Posted by: Lindsey Grahmnesty licking Rahm Emanuel's salty shaven balls at October 08, 2010 12:06 PM (pfMMA)

66 Fox just had two people on trashing the shit out of Obama's speech and the unemployment numbers racket.

After the two trashing of course to be fair and balanced they had to put Wendell "Great Pyramid" Goler on to kiss his ass and make up for it.

Posted by: Vic at October 08, 2010 12:07 PM (/jbAw)

67
Household employment is up 2 Million jobs in a year, up 223k jobs last month.

Dude, you're looking at the Civilian Non-Institutional Population numbers, not employment numbers. Hop down 3 lines.

And as to the household data - there's a reason that the BLS prefers the establishment data for estimating job loss.

Posted by: geoff at October 08, 2010 12:11 PM (QrzlF)

68
Jobs increase in one year is 623k, not 2mm. Last month was 141k not 223k.

Yes, and per the numbers, we needed to add 1.3 million jobs last year just to keep up with population growth.

Posted by: geoff at October 08, 2010 12:14 PM (QrzlF)

69 The most important stat in the BLS report is the huge increase in workers forced into part-time work due to economic circumstances. This category has increased by 940,000 people over the past two months.

I'm sure that includes all the temporary part-time census workers.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at October 08, 2010 12:57 PM (WZFkG)

Posted by: at October 08, 2010 01:07 PM (pfMMA)

71 "The ECRI Weekly Leading Indicator Improves, But Actually It Basically Looks Broken" link

Posted by: curious at October 08, 2010 01:55 PM (p302b)

72 OK I need some help with the Atlus Groans chart.
Is it really saying that there are more public sector workers than there are private sector workers? If it is, where can I find hard numbers/sources to back that up.
I need this information for my campaign.
Yes, I'm running for office. Imagine that, a proud moron as a state Rep.

Posted by: TSgt Ciz at October 09, 2010 02:02 AM (af5xa)

73 Really?
No love from my value-rite swilling hobo hunting pals?

Posted by: TSgt Ciz at October 09, 2010 02:39 AM (af5xa)

74 Is it really saying that there are more public sector workers than there are private sector workers?

Oh no - it's saying that there are more public sector workers and non-workers (like retirees 'n such) than there are private sector workers. The "civilian noninstitutional population" is everybody over 16 years old who's not incarcerated or on active duty in the military. If you include the under 16 set, the burden on private employees is even greater.

So the chart says that we used to have 53 people supporting 47 gov't employees and non workers, but now we have 48 - 49 supporting 52 - 51. Big swing.

Posted by: geoff at October 09, 2010 06:32 AM (QrzlF)

75 The administration keeps making the claim that over 850,000 jobs have been created in the past 9 months or so ... but just how many in that time have been laid-off due to the nature of their job being only temporary? And then acquired another low paying temp job? So basically, how many of these 850,000 are double countings of the same person?

Posted by: Suspicious at October 09, 2010 08:50 AM (eAEkc)

76 Oh no - it's saying that there are more public sector workers and non-workers (like retirees 'n such) than there are private sector workers. The "civilian noninstitutional population" is everybody over 16 years old who's not incarcerated or on active duty in the military. If you include the under 16 set, the burden on private employees is even greater.So the chart says that we used to have 53 people supporting 47 gov't employees and non workers, but now we have 48 - 49 supporting 52 - 51. Big swing.
Thanks. Where can I source this information directly?

Posted by: TSgt Ciz at October 09, 2010 07:53 PM (af5xa)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0201 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.007 seconds, 85 records returned.
Page size 59 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.