I once read that the ‘Job Growth’ figures posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics do not take into account the number of new jobs needed just to stay even with population growth. It stated that the growth of the labor pool (of available workers) was about 140,000 per month. So, when the BLS announced a ‘job growth’ of 159,000 for October 2007 it really only represented an actual growth of 19,000 as counted towards the employment rate.
(The published ‘Employment Rate’ isn’t entirely reliable either as it doesn’t count some categories of unemployed people.)
I am a little suspicious of the 140,000 number. It was unclear if this was just ‘people enetering the workforce’ and accounted for people leaving the workforce (i.e. retirement and such). I understand from another thread that the US birthrate resulted in flat/declining population for 30 years, although there is also a factory of net population growth due to immigration.
So; can someone provide info on what the ‘real’ job growth is?
It stated that the growth of the labor pool (of available workers) was about 140,000 per month. So, when the BLS announced a ‘job growth’ of 159,000 for October 2007 it really only represented an actual growth of 19,000 as counted towards the employment rate.
That is it.
140,000 positions are needed to break even. After everyone enters the workforce (X), and others leave it (Y), you get a net of Z = 140,000 jobs needed to maintain the exact unemployment rate from the previous month.
The UE rate is now 5%, a very decent number. If we add 140,000 jobs next month, that rate stays the same.
People who retire are not ‘unemployed’, btw.
You add 140,000 new jobs and you have ‘job growth’ to brag about. You can still point to a steady and low UE rate. To lower the UE rate, you need to outpace the ‘break even’ number of 140,000.
If there needs to be an accounting for the 140,000 new people entering the workforce, is there also tracking of how many people a month retire (or die) too? Because it seems to me that some of those 140,000 new workers are going to take over for people leaving the workforce. Maybe I’m missing something.
That’s what I was trying to ascertain, if not clearly; What is the net number of incremental jobs needed just to keep even with the net number of incremental job seekers. (New Workers+Whatever - Retirees-Whatever Else)
The total labor force is currently about 150 million workers (PDF) (141 million in 2000, projected at 158 million in 2010), and grows at a rate of 1.1% per year.) That averages out to a net increase of 137,500 new workers each month. Each month the jobs report is less than that, the unemployment rate increases; each month the jobs report is more than that, the unemployment rate decreases.
:dubious: Huh? I thought that the unemployment rate had to do with those collecting unemployment insurance payments from the government. (Hence, why the reports are pretty misleading because there a plenty of people whose unemployment insurance runs out & therefore are no longer counted.)
This is a larger group than those receiving unemployment benefits. It does not, however, include discouraged workers, who have given up looking for work.
Every administration finds a way to fudge unemployment statistics. They want to look good even when they are bad. When you run out of unemployment you are not counted as unemployed any more. There are lots of ways to cover. All admins do it.
In Los Angeles the Times did a study which showed the real unemployment rate was 50 % higher than reported. In Michigan it is way beyond reported rates.
The stats are manipulated and untrustworthy.