# What, no thread on the unemployment rate drop? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-thread-on-the-unemployment-rate-drop/604896 "2011-12-02T23:15:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-thread-on-the-unemployment-rate-drop/604896/21 "2011-12-06T21:05:20Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > True, and I’m already prepared to discount the November and December numbers when they come out as they will probably have been inflated by seasonal hires who will be released by early to mid January, but I do have some optimism for a downward trend. > [@Corresponder](#): > > I think the rate drop is supposed to be because a lot of people (350,000) dropped out of the labor force, i. e., gave up on looking for work. This means the percentage of the labor force seeking work dropped to 8.6%, but it doesn’t mean the other 0.4% found work. Only 120,000 more jobs were created, only about a 0.1% increase in employment. Unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted. [Cite.](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#sa) That means that hiring by retailers for the Christmas season doesn’t result in an “artificial” decrease in the unemployment rate, and layoffs of farm workers in the winter doesn’t create an “artificial” increase in the unemployment rate. One interesting thing I just read is that aside from the unemployment numbers that people usually gauge the economy on, the broader measure of unemployment took a sizable dip, too. As you all know, the traditional unemployment numbers exclude people who aren’t actually looking for work. The broader measure, or the U-6, includes these discouraged workers. And that stat went from 16.2% in October to 15.6% in November. [Link.](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm) It would seem to me that brushing the news off as bad news (“Look how many people no longer want jobs!”) rather than a ray of hope in a still-cloudy sky is a position that’s probably heavily influenced by election-year politics, rather than hard-nosed statistical analysis. Personally, I’m hopeful that this is the start of a sustained hiring trend in the US. But if it turns out to be just a blip, well, I wouldn’t be surprised, either. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-thread-on-the-unemployment-rate-drop/604896/22 "2011-12-07T06:45:35Z")
> [@BeaMyra](#): > > I think there is a massive problem with underemployment and most of our part timers are working two jobs. This I think is really going underlooked. I can only recall reading one article in the Chicago Trib or Sun-Times about it. “Assuming” a full-time job traditional came with salary and benefits, a part-time job now comes with a salary. No benefits. It’s a “win” for the company. So someone has two part-time jobs in order to get back to a salary close to what they once had. This time, no benefits. Now only do we have underemployment, those employed full-time with two part-time jobs must now also fully fund their own medical and retirement, something a traditional full-time may have had with company assistance. So who really “wins” here? Come on, one guess? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-thread-on-the-unemployment-rate-drop/604896.md?page=1)