Nearly At ‘Full Employment’? 10 Reasons Why The Unemployment Numbers Are A Massive Lie

Michael Snyder Freedom Outpost
March 10, 2015

On Friday, we learned that the official “unemployment rate” has fallen to 5.5 percent. Since an unemployment rate of 5 percent is considered to be “full employment” by many economists, many in the mainstream media took this as a sign that the U.S. economy has almost fully “recovered” since the last recession. 

In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, some Federal Reserve officials believe that “the U.S. economy is already at full employment."  But how can this possibly be?  It certainly does not square with reality.  People that have been struggling with unemployment for years and that still cannot find a decent job. 

So what in the world is going on?  How can the government be telling us that we are nearly at “full employment” when so many people can’t find work?  Could it be possible that the government numbers are misleading?

The official “unemployment rate” (U3) has become so politicized and so manipulated that it is essentially meaningless at this point.  The following are 10 reasons why…

#1 Since February 2008, the size of the U.S. population has grown by 16.8 million people, but the number of full-time jobs has actually decreased by 140,000.


#2 The percentage of working age Americans that have a job right now is still about the same as it was during the depths of the last recession.  Posted below is a chart that shows how the employment-population ratio has changed since the beginning of the decade.  Does this look like a full-blown “employment recovery” to you?…

#3 The primary reason for the decline in the official “unemployment rate” is the fact that the government now considers millions upon millions of long-term unemployed workers to “no longer be in the labor force."  Just check out the following numbers…

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015. When President Obama took over the office in January 2009, nearly 80,529,000 Americans were not a part of the labor force. The number has increase by nearly 12 million over the last few years.

#4 Over the past couple of years, the labor force participation rate in this country has been hovering near mutli-decade lows…

The labor force participation rate hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013. Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent, the same rate it was in February.

#5 When you add the number of “officially unemployed” Americans (8.7 million) to the number of Americans “not in the labor force” (92.9 million), you get a grand total of 101.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.  Does that sound like “full employment” to you?

#6 The quality of our jobs continues to decline.  Right now, only 44 percent of U.S. adults are employed for 30 or more hours each week.

#7 Millions upon millions of Americans have been forced to take part-time jobs because that is all they can find, and wages for American workers are at depressingly low levels.  The following numbers come directly from the Social Security Administration…

-39 percent of American workers make less than $20,000 a year.

-52 percent of American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

-63 percent of American workers make less than $40,000 a year.

-72 percent of American workers make less than $50,000 a year.

#8 The average duration of unemployment for an unemployed worker is still about twice as long as it was just prior to the last recession.

#9 Most Americans feel as though the Obama administration has done little to nothing to help the middle class.  Just consider the following poll numbers…

According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, Americans see government policies under the Obama administration as having mostly benefited wealthy people, large corporations and financial institutions.

Seventy-two percent of respondents said government policies have done little or nothing to help the middle class, and 65 percent said they have done nothing to help the poor. Sixty-eight percent said the policies have done nothing to help small businesses.

Meanwhile, 45 percent said the policies have done a “great deal” to help large banks and financial institutions, 38 percent say they have helped large corporations, and 36 percent say they have helped the wealthy.

#10 If the unemployment rate was calculated honestly, we would all be talking about the horrific “unemployment crisis” that we were currently enduring.  According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, the real unemployment rate in the United States right now is above 23%.

U.S. politicians and the corporate mainstream media are attempting to convince us that everything is just fine. But what they are telling us simply does not match the cold, hard reality on the streets.

And since the talking heads on television are proclaiming that we are nearly at “full employment," that just makes millions upon millions of Americans that can’t seem to find work no matter how hard they try feel even worse than they already do.

If jobs are “easy to get," then those that are chronically unemployment must have “something wrong” with them.  That is the message that we are being given.  If the mainstream media says that unemployment has gone way down, then anyone that is still unemployed must be really “lazy," right?

When you are unemployed for an extended period of time, it can really suck the life right out of you.  It can be really tempting to believe that you are viewed as a failure by your family and friends.  And for the government to lie to us like this just makes things even harder.

If you are unemployed and can’t find a job right now, I want you to understand that you are caught in the midst of a long-term downward economic spiral which is going to get a lot worse.

When the government tells you that we are in a “recovery," they are lying to you. And when the government tells you that things are about to get a lot better, they are lying to you.

Source

The Truth about the American Economy

A Lie That Serves The Rich
Paul Craig Roberts, John Titus, and Dave Kranzler

The labor force participation rate has declined from 66.5% in 2007 prior to the last downturn to 62.7% today. This decline in the participation rate is difficult to reconcile with the alleged economic recovery that began in June 2009 and supposedly continues today. Normally a recovery from recession results in a rise in the labor force participation rate.

The Obama regime, economists, and the financial presstitutes have explained this decline in the participation rate as the result of retirements by the baby boomers, those 55 and older. In this five to six minute video, John Titus shows that in actual fact the government’s own employment data show that baby boomers have been entering the work force at record rates and are responsible for raising the labor force participation rate above where it would otherwise be.

It is not retirees who are pushing down the participation rate, but those in the 16-19 age group whose participation rate has fallen by 10.4%, those in the 22-14 age group whose participation rate has fallen by 5.4%, and those in the 24-54 age group whose participation rate is down 2.5%.

The offshoring of US manufacturing and tradable professional service jobs has resulted in an economy that can only create new jobs in lowly paid, increasingly part-time non-tradable domestic service jobs, such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks, and ambulatory health care workers. These are not jobs that can support an independent existence. However, these jobs can supplement retirement incomes that have been hurt by many years of the Federal Reserve’s policy of zero or negative interest rates. Those who were counting on interest earnings on their savings to supplement their retirement and Social Security incomes have reentered the labor force in order to fill the gaps in their budgets created by the Fed’s policy. Unlike the young who lack savings and retirement incomes, the baby boomers’ economic lives are not totally dependent on the lowly-paid, part-time, no-benefits domestic service jobs.

Lies are told in order to make the system look acceptable so that the status quo can be continued. Offshoring America’s jobs benefits the wealthy. The lower labor costs raise corporate profits, and shareholders’ capital gains and performance bonuses of corporate executives rise with the profits. The wealthy are benefiting from the fact that the US economy no longer can create enough livable jobs to keep up with the growth in the working age population.

The clear hard fact is that the US economy is being run for the sole benefit of a few rich people.

Defining Away Economic Failure

August 4, 2014 

Redefinition Is America’s Most Powerful Factor of Production

Paul Craig Roberts

Last week’s government guesstimate that second quarter 2014 real GDP growth will be 4% seems nonsensical on its face. There is no evidence of increases in real median family incomes or real consumer credit that would lift the economy from a first quarter decline to 4% growth in the second quarter. Middle class store closings (Sears, Macy’s, J.C. Penney) have spread into the Dollar stores used by those with lower incomes. Family Dollar, a chain in the process of closing hundreds of stores is being bought by Dollar Tree, the only one of the three Dollar store chains that is not in trouble. Wal-Mart’s sales have declined for the past 5 quarters. Declining sales and retail store closings indicate shrinking consumer purchasing power. Retail facts do not support the claim of a 4% GDP growth rate for the second quarter, and they do not support last Friday’s payroll job claim of 26,700 new retail jobs in July.

What about the housing market? Don’t the headlines accompanying last Friday’s payroll jobs report, such as “Hiring Settles Into Steady Gains,” mean more people working and a boost to the economy from a housing recovery? No. What the financial press did not report is that the US is in a structural jobs depression. In the 12-month period from July 2013 through July 2014, 2.3 million Americans of working age were added to the population. Of these 2.3 million only 330 thousand entered the labor force. My interpretation of this is that the job market is so poor that only 14% of the increase in the working age population entered the labor force.

The decline in the labor force participation rate is bad news for the housing market. The US labor force participation rate peaked at 67.3% in 2000 and has been in a sustained downturn ever since. The rate of decline increased in October 2008 with the bank bailout and Quantitative Easing. From October 2008 to the present, 13.2 million Americans were added to the working age population, but only 818 thousand, or 6%, entered the labor force.  Despite government and financial press claims, the Federal Reserve’s multi-year policy of printing money with which to purchase bonds did not restore the housing or job markets.

What about the stock market? It has been down in recent days but is still high historically. Isn’t the stock market evidence of a good economy? Not if stocks are up because corporations are buying back their own stock. Corporations are now the largest buyers of stocks. Recently we learned that from 2006 through 2013 corporations authorized $4.14 trillion in buybacks of their publicly traded stocks. Moreover, it appears that corporations have been borrowing the money from banks with which to buy back their stocks. Last year there were $754.8 billion in authorized stock buybacks and $782.5 billion in corporate borrowing. In the first three months of this year, companies purchased $160 billion of their own stocks.

Borrowing to buyback stock leaves a company with debt but without new investment with which to produce revenues to service the debt. The massive stock buybacks demonstrate that American capitalism is now corrupt. In order to maximize personal short-term financial benefits flowing from bonuses, stock options, and capital gains, CEOs, boards of directors, and shareholders are decapitalizing public companies and loading them up with debt.

Well, isn’t the economy being helped by the return of manufacturing to America? Apparently not. Data for 1999-2012 indicate that the offshoring of manufacturing increased by 9%.

One economist, Susan Hester, an economist for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, has decided to turn the loss of manufacturing jobs into a virtue. Her argument is that retail employment dwarfs manufacturing employment and that more American jobs can be created by selling more imports than by encouraging manufacturing in order to provide exports.

According to Ms. Hester’s research, the US makes more money from the retail side than from the production side. She concludes that the value added to a product by offshore labor is a small percentage of the value added by “managing offshored production, handling Customs clearances, managing warehouses and distribution, marketing apparel products, and by millions of people in the retail sector stocking shelves and working cash registers.”

In other words, the US manufacturing jobs moved offshore are just a throwaway. The money is made in selling the imports.

Ms. Hester neglects to recognize that when offshored production is brought to the US to be marketed, it comes in as imports and results in a larger US trade deficit. Foreigners use dollars paid to them for the products that they make for US firms to purchase ownership of US bonds, stocks, and real assets such as land, buildings, and companies. Consequently, interest, profits, capital gains, and rents associated with the foreign purchases of US assets now flow to foreigners and not to Americans. The current account worsens.

It works like this: The excess of US imports over US exports leaves foreigners with claims on US income and wealth that are settled by foreign purchases of US assets. The income produced by these assets now flows abroad with the consequence that income earned by foreigners on their US investments exceeds the income earned by the US on its foreign investments.

According to Ms. Hester’s reasoning, Americans would be better off it they produced nothing that they need and in place of manufacturing relied on the incomes of US fashion designers and pattern makers who specify the offshored production for US markets, on the compliance officers and freight agents, on production planning and expediting clerks, and on longshore workers and railroad employees who deliver the foreign-made goods to US consumer markets.

Ms. Hester believes that the value-added by offshored manufacturing is inconsequential. How then did China get rich from it, becoming the second largest economy and employing 100 million people in manufacturing (compared to America’s 12 million), and acquire the largest foreign reserves of any country?

After Ms. Hester answers that question she can explain why US corporations go to the trouble to offshore their manufacturing if the contribution to value-added is so low? The value added is obviously substantial enough for the labor cost savings to pay for transportation costs to the US from Asia, for the cost of set-up and management of foreign based facilities, and for the cost of the adverse publicity from abandoning US communities for Asia and still leave value-added after all costs to enlarge profits and drive up stock prices and executive bonuses.

Ms. Hester fools herself. The low value that she calculates Chinese, Indian, or Vietnamese labor adds to the price of a shirt reflects the low foreign labor cost, not a low value of the shirt in US markets or a low value of an iPhone in European markets. Marketing, warehousing and distribution are done in the US by more highly paid people, and this is why it looks like the value added comes from sources other than manufacturing. Ms. Hester overlooks that the lower cost of foreign labor does not translate into a less valued product but into higher profits.

Economists assume that the labor cost savings are passed on to the consumers in lower prices, but I have not experienced declining prices of Nike and Merrell sports shoes, of sheets and towels, of Brooks Brothers and Ralph Lauren shirts, of Apple computers, or whatever as a result of moving US production offshore. The labor cost savings go into profits, managerial bonuses, and capital gains for shareholders and is one reason for the extraordinary increase in income and wealth inequality in the US.

Focused on short-term profit, manufacturers and retailers are destroying the US consumer market. The average annual salary of a US apparel manufacturing worker is $35,000. The average salary of US retail employees is less than half of that amount and provides no discretionary income with which to boost consumer spending in retail stores.

The American corporate practice of offshoring manufacturing has made it impossible for the Obama regime to keep its promises of creating manufacturing jobs and exports. Unable to create real jobs and real exports, the US government has proposed to create virtual jobs and virtual exports made by “factoryless goods producers.” In order to keep his promise of doubling the growth of US exports, the Obama regime wants to redefine foreign output as US output.

A “factoryless goods producer” is a newly invented statistical category. It is a company like Nike or Apple that outsources the production of its products to foreign companies. The Obama regime is proposing to redefine companies such as Apple that own a brand name or a product design as manufacturing companies even though the companies do not manufacture.

In other words, whether or not a US company is a manufacturer does not depend on its activity, but on its ownership of a brand name made for the company by a foreign manufacturer. For example, Apple iPhones made in China and sold in Europe would be reported as US exports of manufactured goods, and iPhones sold in the US would no longer be classified as imports but as US manufacturing output. Apple’s non-manufacturing employees would be transformed into manufacturing employment.

Clearly, the purpose of this statistical deception is to inflate the number of US manufacturing jobs, US manufacturing output, and US exports and to convert imports into domestic production. It is a scheme that eliminates the large US trade deficit by redefinition.

The reclassification would leave the government’s Office of Statistical Lies with the anomaly that products made in China, India, Indonesia or wherever become US GDP as long as the brand name is owned by a US corporation, but the payments to the Asian workers who produced the products remain as claims on US wealth and can be converted into ownership of US bonds, companies, and real estate.

For example, Chinese workers produced the Apple products, and China has the claims on US wealth to prove it. How are these claims accounted for statistically by the Obama regime’s redefinition? The US can add China’s production of the Apple products to US GDP, but how does the US deduct the Chinese-produced Apple products from China’s GDP? And how does the Obama regime’s redefinition get rid of the payments by Apple to the Chinese labor that produced the products? These payments comprise claims on US wealth.

In other words, the reclassification would double count the output of Apple’s products. If every country does this, world GDP will rise statistically regardless of the fact that no more goods and services are produced. Perhaps this is the way to define away world poverty.

“Factoryless goods producers” was foreshadowed by Harvard professor Michael Porter’s 2006 competitiveness report, a justification for jobs offshoring. Defending jobs offshoring, Porter downplayed the rise in the US trade deficit and decline in the US GDP growth rate caused by jobs offshoring. Porter argued, in effect, that ownership of the revenues and products, not the location in which the revenues and products are produced, should determine their classification. As I pointed out in my critique (see The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West), the result would be to raise US GDP by the amount of US production outsourced abroad and by the output of US overseas subsidiaries and to decrease the GDP of the countries in which the manufacturing actually takes place. Consistency would require that the German and Japanese autos, for example, that are produced in the US with US labor would become deductions from US GDP and be reported as German and Japanese GDP.

As I have emphasized for years, the West already lives in the dystopia forecast by George Orwell.

Jobs are created by hypothetical add-ons to the reported payroll figures and by inappropriate use of seasonal adjustments. Inflation is erased by substituting lower priced items in the inflation index for those that rise in price and by redefining rising prices as quality improvements. Real GDP growth is magicked into existence by deflating nominal GDP with the understated measure of inflation. Now corporations without factories are going to produce US manufacturing output, US exports, and US manufacturing jobs!

Every sphere of Western existence is defined by propaganda. Consequently, we have reached a perfect state of nihilism. We can believe nothing that we are told by government, corporations, and the presstitute media.

We live in a lie, and the lie is ever expanding.

Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop So Much?

by Phil Izzo, Wall Street Journal

The U.S. unemployment rate tumbled to 6.3% in April as the overall labor force posted its biggest decline since October. The question for the health of the labor market: Why did all those people drop out?

The jobless rate is calculated by taking the total number of unemployed people and dividing it by everyone in the U.S. who is working or looking for work — what the Labor Department calls the labor force. When both of those numbers decline, even if fewer people got jobs in the month, the unemployment rate falls. Both of those numbers can fall for many reasons, and they’re worrisome to different degrees.

The one that raises the biggest concern is when unemployed people get discouraged with the job market and give up looking for work. Once someone leaves the labor force, it’s much harder for them to eventually find work. Many never return. That was at least part of the reason for the decline in April. The number of workers who said they weren’t looking for work because they were discouraged over job prospects ticked higher. But the number remained below the average for all of last year, and doesn’t come close to accounting for the big drop in the labor force. Meanwhile, the total number of people who moved from unemployed out of the labor force also ticked up last month, but it was very close to the average for 2013, indicating no acceleration.

Another way to look to see if people are giving up is by looking at a broader measure of unemployment, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department. That rate includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find. The rate was 12.3% in April, falling the same 0.4 percentage point that the headline rate declined. When the U-6 is steady and the main rate is falling, it can suggest an underlying weak labor market. But when both are dropping together, it suggests that there might be other broader trends.

So if the labor force didn’t drop this month because of people giving up, what’s going on? One trend weighing on the labor force is people with jobs retiring, and last month there was an increase in the number of employed people who were no longer working or looking for work. That flow was at its highest level since October and the third highest since before the recession.

But that doesn’t explain why there are fewer unemployed people. The number of unemployed can fall because people got jobs, because they dropped out of the labor force, or it can fall just because fewer people decided to start looking for work. In April, one of the reasons the number of unemployed fell is because fewer people came off the sidelines to look for work. The number of people flowing from out of the labor force to unemployed was at its lowest level since 2008. Lots more people than usual decided to stay on the sidelines.

That isn’t a hopeful sign for the economy, as people who otherwise might want work aren’t encouraged enough to come off the sidelines. But it’s also less worrying than people giving up looking for work. Many new entrants to the labor force are younger people who will eventually come in, and are on the sidelines because they can be.

No one should read too much into one month’s moves in the labor force. Much of this month’s changes could be recalibrating after a couple of months of increases in the labor force participation rate, and some of it could be reversed next month. Meanwhile, while the details suggest the trend is worth watching, it’s not likely that this month represents a return to discouraged workers giving up and dropping out of the labor market.

Our irrational, harmful bias against the unemployed

By Peter Cappelli, Washingon Post

The persistent high level of unemployment in the six years since the Great Recession began is fast becoming the defining theme of this generation — and a leadership imperative that can no longer be ignored.

Friday’s news on job growth is good: an increase of 288,000 jobs this past month, bringing the unemployment rate to 6.3 percent, well down from its 30-year peak of 10 percent. The number of discouraged workers who want a job but have given up trying to find one is unchanged, however. When we include those in the mix, we’re still left with about three available candidates for every job vacancy out there.

The three and a half million people who remain “long-term unemployed” — that is, who have been out of work for more than six months — represent more than a third of unemployed workers. This is the highest it’s been since the Great Depression. Being out of work that long creates many problems, such as a loss of housing or health care, that not only cause hardship for individuals and their families, but also place even more burdens on public and private support systems.

Yet the tools for addressing the long-term unemployment problem are within our grasp. And chief among them is for employers to move past the stigma that the unemployed are somehow less qualified to hold a job. That bias persists in corporate human resources departments, but it is unsupported by evidence.

It’s maddening to see such imaginary fears become real barriers to solving our employment crisis. A field study by Northeastern University economics Ph.D. candidate Rand Ghayad and another led by Kory Kroft at University of Toronto sent out fake resumes to employers. The studies found strong evidence that employers’ willingness to consider applicants dropped like a stone after the candidates had been unemployed for six months. The companies actually preferred candidates with no relevant experience to those with a background in the field but who’d been out of work for a stretch.

Corporate leaders haven’t always viewed unemployment this way. Traditionally when the economy improved and created new jobs, businesses would look to the ranks of the unemployed to fill them. Until the mid-1980s, the term “layoff” actually referred to a temporary job loss — and employers were expected to rehire these workers as soon as the economy turned up again.

But by the 1990s, that stopped happening, and the term became a euphemism for permanent job losses instead. This coincided with the “jobless recoveries” that have accompanied every recession since then.

So if employers are not rehiring from the ranks of the unemployed now, how do they fill new jobs? By hiring from each other. This nonsensical game of musical chairs (I hire your workers, you hire someone else’s, and then they try to hire mine) would seem to be unsustainable. Sooner or later, one might think, employers will start to see the unemployed as a valuable alternative.

But in fact, they haven’t. Vacancies are simply staying open longer as employers wait to find individuals who are willing to move from other companies. And it has become so prevalent for employers to reject unemployed job candidates outright that last year the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission threatened to start investigating these cases.

Why won’t employers take long-term unemployed candidates more seriously? The reason has much to do with simple bias, and little to do with hard evidence.

One myth about the unemployed is that something must be wrong with a person who lost his or her job. The economists Bob Gibbons and Larry Katz found evidence of this when they studied how people who were laid off because their plant closed — an event that clearly wasn’t their fault. They had an easier time getting rehired than those who were laid-off for other reasons.

Meanwhile, the most intense bias against the long-term unemployed seems to be the result of yet another myth: If they were good, someone else would have hired them by now. All it takes is for enough hiring managers to think this same way, and no one would ever get a job.

The final reason for bias against the long-term unemployed is the notion that their skills must have gotten out of date by not working. That might be true for surgeons, whose manual dexterity can decline quickly, or maybe in tech fields where software has advanced to a new generation.

But few jobs are like that. Studies have found that the performance of new hires who had been unemployed for a long time was no different than that of new hires who came directly from jobs elsewhere. In fact, most jobs are so routine that taking a break from them — a sabbatical — is actually a good thing for improving work performance. Ironically, so few employees learn new skills on the job these days that it's much more likely that an unemployed person might have expanded his or her skill set, either by taking classes, mastering new software or learning new marketing techniques in the course of extended unemployment.

Ruling out job candidates because they have been unemployed imposes big costs on both citizens, who remain without jobs and income, and on the economy — not to mention on employers who are losing out on an entire population of talented candidates. There is no justification for doing it. In fact, it’s a form of discrimination.

Responsible business leaders should, at the very minimum, tell their human resource departments to update their hiring policies so they don’t filter applicants based on current employment status. The biggest problem is likely to be overcoming the prejudices of hiring managers, who often have little information about the real predictors of job performance and so rely on these false assumptions that unemployed candidates probably aren't good performers. A simple statement from leadership that this is not the case is often enough to change their approach.

Moreover, corporate leaders should support policy changes that provide tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed. The credits would incentivize employers to look past their own biases, and would cost the government nothing unless an eligible candidate is hired. I reviewed the research for a group called the National Employer Opportunities Network, and we found that such tax credits are a cheap and ultimately beneficial way to move people off government programs.

Plus, in the process, it may actually increase total employment — and help stop the pointless game of musical chairs that hurts rather than helps everyone.

An overview of the April 2014 jobs report

May 2, 2014


The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on May 2, 2014 that the official seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for April 2014 was 6.3 percent, down from 6.7 percent in March and February, and from 7.5 percent in April 2013.

Total non-farm employment increased by 288,000 during the month of April with seasonal adjustment, but increased by 1,152,000 during the month of April without seasonal adjustment.

The seasonally adjusted total non-farm job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 203,000 from 192,000, and the seasonally adjusted total non-farm job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 222,000 from 197,000. The unadjusted total non-farm job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 944,000 from 941,000, and the unadjusted total non-farm job creation figure for February 2014 was revised downward to 741,000 from 743,000.

Breaking these figures down further, with seasonal adjustment, private sector employment increased by 273,000 during the month of April while government employment increased by 15,000. Without seasonal adjustment, private sector employment increased by 1,109,000 during the month of April while government employment increased by 43,000.

The seasonally adjusted private sector job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 202,000 from 192,000, and the seasonally adjusted private sector job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 201,000 from 188,000. The unadjusted private sector job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 834,000 from 831,000, and the unadjusted private sector job creation figure for February 2014 was revised downward to 307,000 from 315,000.

The seasonally adjusted government job creation figure for March 2014 was revised upward to 1,000 from 0, and the seasonally adjusted government job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 21,000 from 9,000. The unadjusted government job creation figure for March 2014 was not revised from 110,000, and the unadjusted government job creation figure for February 2014 was revised upward to 434,000 from 428,000.

The BLS keeps track of six unemployment rates, which are defined as follows and given without seasonal adjustments:

• U1: Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This rate is 3.3 percent for April 2014, down from 3.7 percent for March, 3.6 percent for February, and 4.3 percent for April 2013.
• U2: Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force. This rate is 3.2 percent for April 2014, down from 3.7 percent for March, 3.9 percent for February, and 3.9 percent for April 2013.
• U3: Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate). This rate is 5.9 percent for April 2014, down from 6.8 percent for March, 7.0 percent for February, and 7.1 percent for April 2013.
• U4: U3 plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers. “Discouraged workers” are those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no jobs are available. This rate is 6.3 percent for April 2014, down from 7.2 percent for March, 7.5 percent for February, and 7.6 percent for April 2013.
• U5: U4 plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. “Marginally attached” workers are those who would like and are able to work, but have not looked for a job recently. This rate is 7.2 percent for April 2014, down from 8.1 percent for March, 8.4 percent for February, and 8.5 percent for April 2013.
• U6: U5 plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. This rate is 11.8 percent for April 2014, down from 12.8 percent for March, 13.1 percent for February, and 13.4 percent for April 2013.

As people who are employed part-time typically work about half as much as people who work full-time, it is useful to consider a "U5½," defined as the arithmetic mean of the U5 and U6 numbers. This measure would thus count people who work part-time but wish to work full-time as "half-employed." This rate is 9.5 percent for April 2014, down from 10.45 percent for March, 10.75 percent for February, and 10.95 percent for April 2013.

The BLS revised the Current Population Survey, which gathers the data needed to determine these rates, in 1994. Among the changes made, the U3 rate was named the new "official" unemployment rate, instead of the U5 rate. This revision also defined "long-term discouraged workers" out of official existence. With the inclusion of long-term discouraged workers, the SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate, which might be considered a "U7" rate, exceeds 23 percent.

The use of the U3 as the official definition exposes some holes in the BLS's thinking, because according to them, the following are true:

• A person who loses a full-time job but spends one hour each week mowing a lawn for pay is considered employed.
• A person who simply expresses interest in having a job is classified as unemployed.
• "Discouraged workers" are not classified as unemployed or even as part of the labor force.
• A sharp decrease in a worker's wages when forced to change jobs is not accounted for.

What this means is that the official unemployment rate can fluctuate because discouraged workers (who are not considered to be part of the labor force in the U3 measurement) who re-enter the labor force will cause the U3 rate to spike. The U3 rate can also dip temporarily when such people find temporary jobs and then lose them a month or two later. It also means that the U3 rate will go down when people give up looking for jobs, as 806,000 people did in April 2014. The labor force participation rate was 62.8 percent for April 2014, down from 63.2 percent for March, 63.0 percent for February, and 63.3 percent for April 2013.

Given the problems with the BLS unemployment rates, are they a useful measurement of how well the economy is performing, a wild guess that cannot be accurate despite the BLS's best efforts, or a deliberate fraud by the government? I report, you decide.

Discouraged Worker Dropouts Rise 783k, 80% Higher Than Nonfarm Payroll Jobs Added

Anthony B. Sanders – George Mason University

 

I was at Cornell University in Ithaca New York giving a presentation on mortgages on Friday when the jobs report was released, so I had to wait to read the report in its entirety. Here is my after-seminar report from Friday while waiting to go to dinner.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 9.75 million Americans that are “unemployed” and there are 92.02 million Americans that are “not in the labor force” for a grand total of 101.77 million working age Americans that do not have a job. Back in April 2000, only 5.48 million Americans were unemployed and only 69.27 million Americans were “not in the labor force” for a grand total of 74.75 million Americans without a job. That means that the number of working age Americans without a job has risen by 27 million since the year 2000.
 
However, the banner headline in the media was “288,000 Jobs Added!!” What was NOT in the headlines was that the number of people in the labor force fell by 806,000. In other words, 518,000 more workers LEFT the labor force than joined it in April.

In addition, the Number Of Workers Discouraged Not in Labor Force Searched For Work rose by 783,000 in April. That figure is back to the alleged “end” of the recession (according to the NBER). So, does this mean that the U.S. can announced that the Labor Market’s recession has ended?

No. The following economic indicators have declined since the end of 2008: real median household income, hourly wage growth (YoY), labor force participation rate, and M2 Money Velocity.

The Federal Reserve has attempted to depress interest rates with quantitative easing (balance sheet purchases and zero-interest rate policy), but the labor market is only back to end of recession levels.

According to the Taylor Rule, The Fed should be raising the Fed Funds Rate Target (should be 1.52%, but Fed Funds Target still at 0.25%). The point is for mortgage lenders is that the number of qualified borrowers have been reduced because of the recession and bubble burst and small increases in interest rates are unlikely to have an effect.

And lastly, of course, mortgage purchase applications remain lower than at the “end” of the recession in June 2009. Mortgage borrowers are as discouraged as unemployed workers.

Note: My colleague at University of South Carolina, Jean Helwege, wrote me and said “Maybe it is because of the run-up in the stock market and people can now stop looking for work.” Possibly, but BLS doesn’t ask those questions. What we do know if the mortgage purchase applications and originations remain depressed after the housing and credit bubble burst, and that is correlated with declining wages, real income and the number of discouraged workers.

Anecdotal evidence? I know two kids from Columbus OH whose grandfather gave them both large Trust Funds. They are in their 20s and one doesn’t work and the other dabbles in low paying jobs (part-time). But we don’t know how pervasive that is across the country.

Real jobless rate hits 12.4%, 800,000 leave labor force

Jerome R. Corsi , WND

 

NEW YORK – The Bureau of Labor Statistics announcement that unemployment has dropped from 6.7 percent in March to 6.3 percent in April was partly attributed to some 800,000 workers dropping out of the labor force last month, reducing the labor participation rate to 62.8 percent, a new low for the Obama administration.

After adjusting the BLS unemployment number to what is known as “U-6” – a measure that includes total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total part-time employed for economic reasons – unemployment in April was 12.3 percent.

The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in the labor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month. In March, 91,630,000 Americans were not in the labor force, which includes an aging population that is continuing to head into retirement.

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulate “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, drops in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually meaningless.

“The broad economic outlook has not changed, despite the heavily-distorted numbers that continue to be published by the BLS,” Williams writes in his subscription newsletter on ShadowStats.com. “The unemployment rates have not dropped from peak levels due to a surge in hiring; instead, they generally have dropped because of discouraged workers being eliminated from headline labor-force accounting.”

Williams recreates a ShadowStats alternative unemployment rate reflecting methodology that includes “long-term discouraged workers.” In 1994 under the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics removed that category from those considered “unemployed” in any of the government’s unemployment measures.

The BLS publishes six levels of unemployment, but only the headline U3 unemployment rate gets the press. The headline number does not count as unemployed the “discouraged” workers who have not looked for work in the past four weeks because they believed no jobs were available.

Discouraged workers

Williams has demonstrated that it takes an expert to truly decipher BLS unemployment statistics.

The U6 unemployment rate is the BLS’s broadest measure. It includes those marginally attached to the labor force and the “under-employed” – those who have accepted part-time jobs though they are looking for full-time employment. Also included are short-term discouraged workers who have not looked for work in the last year because there are no jobs to be found.

Since 1994, however, the long-term discouraged workers, those who have been discouraged for more than one year, have been excluded from all government data.

Williams calculates his “ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment Rate” by adding to the BLS U6 numbers the long-term discouraged workers.

He argues that his ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment measure most closely mirrors common experience.

“If you were to survey everyone in the country as to whether they were employed or unemployed, without qualification as to when they last looked for a job, the resulting unemployment rate would be close to the ShadowStats estimate,” Williams told WND.

The headline BLS unemployment rate has stayed relatively low because it excludes all discouraged workers, Williams argues.

As the unemployed first become discouraged and then disappear into the long-term discouraged category, they also vanish from inclusion in the headline labor force numbers. Those workers, however, are ready to take a job if one becomes available. They are unemployed and consider themselves to be unemployed, but the government’s popularly followed unemployment reporting ignores them completely.

Below is a more complete unemployment table that includes the seasonally adjusted unemployment percentages for U3 unemployment as well as the same for U6 unemployment, followed by the ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment rate, comparing April 2013 for March and April 2014.

Economy of part-time jobs

In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven out of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees.

“The headlines citing last week’s jobs report as the lowest unemployment rate in years may have been technically accurate, but they are also reminders that looks can be deceiving,” the House Ways and Means report noted at the time.

“The reality, as you dig into the latest jobs data, reveals that few are finding the full-time work they want and need, and many are forced to accept part-time employment.”

To support the argument, the House Ways and Means Committee produced the following table drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The House Ways and Means Committee linked to an article Associated Press published Aug. 4, 2013, that stated: “So far this year, low-paying industries have provided 61 percent of he nation’s job growth, even though these industries represent just 39 percent of overall U.S. jobs, according to Labor Department numbers analyzed by Moody’s Analytics.”

AP economics writer Paul Wiseman noted part-time work had made up more than 77 percent of the job growth so far that year, with part-time work defined as being less than 25 hours a week.

Appearing on PBS’s “McLaughlin Group” in October 2013, real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman said that “88 percent of the jobs that have been created this year (2013) are part-time jobs.”

Jobs increase by 288,000 in April. Unemployment rate falls to 6.3%. But labor force falls sharply

by Meteor Blades for Daily Kos Labor

Calculated Risk

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the economy created a seasonally adjusted 273,000 new private jobs in April, and 15,000 new jobs in the public sector, the best overall gain since January 2012. The consensus of experts surveyed by Bloomberg earlier in the week had put expected new job creation at 215,000. Both full-time and part-time jobs are included in the total. The official unemployment rate fell to 6.3 percent, the lowest level since September 2008.

There were a couple of clouds over these significantly improved figures, however. The civilian labor force shed 806,000 people in April, a massive drop after rises in the three-month January-March period of 1.26 million. The employment-population ratio remained steady 58.9 percent. But the labor force participation rate fell to 62.8 percent, a 0.4 percent drop that returned it to its lowest level in 37 years.

The bureau's report always includes an alternative measure, U6. This calculation covers not just Americans with no job, but also those working part time who want full-time positions—the underemployed who are called "part time for economic reasons"—and workers who have looked for jobs in the past 12 months but not in the past four weeks. U6 fell from 12.7 percent in March to 12.3 percent in April. U6 does not include people who have not looked for work in the past 12 months.

Revisions changed the job numbers for February from 197,000 to 222,000 and for March from 192,000 to 203,000. That produced a three-month average of 238,000. At that rate, according to the Hamilton Project's Job Gap calculator, it would take until December 2017 to return to pre-recession employment levels at the same time as absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month.

The number of long-term unemployed who have been jobless for 27 weeks or more, fell to 3.5 million, 35.3 percent of all those accounted for who have no work.

The number of officially unemployed Americans fell sharply to 9.8 million. But there are the millions of discouraged workers not included in that count because they have left the workforce.

The payroll services company Automatic Data Processing had reported on Wednesday a seasonally adjusted gain of 220,000 private-sector jobs for April. ADP does not report on public-sector jobs and its estimated growth figures, despite a change in methodology in 2012, frequently aren't a close match with the BLS private-job figures.

Among other news in the April job report:

Demographic breakdown of official (U3) seasonally adjusted jobless rate:

• African American: 11.6 percent
• Latino: 7.3 percent
• Asian (not seasonally adjusted): 5.7 percent
• American Indian (data not collected on monthly basis)
• White: 5.3 percent
• Adult women (20 and older): 5.7 percent
• Adult Men (20 and older): 5.9 percent
• Teenagers (16-19): 19.1 percent

Duration of unemployment:

• Less than five weeks: 2.45 million
• 5 to 14 weeks: 2.35 million
• 15 to 26 weeks: 1.53 million
• 27 weeks and more:  3.45 million

Job gains and losses in selected categories:

• Professional services: + 75,000
• Transportation and warehousing : + 11,300
• Leisure & hospitality: + 28,000
• Information: - 3,000
• Health care: + 27,900
• Retail trade: + 34,500
• Construction: + 32,000
• Manufacturing: + 12,000
• Average weekly manufacturing hours fell 0.2 hours to 40.8 hours.
• Average work week for all employees on non-farm payrolls remained at 34.5 hours.
• Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at $24.31.

Here's what the seasonally adjusted job growth numbers have looked like in March for the previous 10 years.

April 2004: + 249,000
April 2005: + 363,000
April 2006: + 182,000
April 2007: +   78,000
April 2008: -  214,000
April 2009: -  684,000
April 2010: + 251,000
April 2011: + 322,000
April 2012: +   96,000
April 2013: + 203,000
April 2014: + 288,000

For some time now, the Economic Policy Institute has been keeping track of "missing workers." These people "who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate."

EPI says there are currently 6.2 million of these missing workers. Here are two charts showing its findings:

The BLS jobs report is the product of a pair of surveys, one of more than 410,000 business establishments called Current Employment Statistics, and one called the Current Population Survey, which questions 60,000 householders each month. The establishment survey determines how many new jobs were added. It is always calculated on a seasonally adjusted basis determined by a frequently tweaked formula. The BLS report only provides a snapshot of what's happening at a single point in time.

It's important to understand that the jobs-created-last-month-numbers that it reports are not "real." Not because of a conspiracy, but because statisticians apply formulas to the raw data, estimate the number of jobs created by the "birth" and "death" of businesses, and use other filters to fine-tune the numbers. And, always good to remember, in the fine print, they tell us that the actual number of newly created jobs reported is actually plus or minus 100,000.

Inside the December Jobs Report

False Positives Revisited
by JACK RASMUS


In a blog post this past November 2013, this writer offered a contrarian analysis of the October 2013 government jobs report. That report indicated a jobs gain of 204,000 for October. While others heralded the number, claiming it was evidence that the US jobs market had (yet again) ‘turned the corner’, this writer forewarned the October job gains would prove temporary. My contrarian view was that the October job gains reflected a temporary surge in 3rd quarter U.S. GDP, which was itself based largely on a short term surge in business inventory accumulation that Qtr., with a lagged October hiring effect. The October jobs numbers were therefore “nothing to get excited about” and “can disappear quickly from the economy and may in fact do so by December should consumer spending come in well below expectations.” (see my ‘False Positives’ piece on this blog, of November 12, 2013).

It appears that ‘disappearance’ is what has happened, as last week’s December jobs report showed a net job gain of only 74,000. So what’s going on?

Last month’s jobs report shows not only that job creation has relapsed once again, but that weak job creation is not the only problem with the US labor market. While only 74,000 jobs were created, the labor force in the US shrunk by a further 347,000 workers in December as well. Hundreds of thousands of workers have been dropping out of the labor force in recent months. Both indicators—weak job creation and massive labor force exiting—reflect a labor market in deep trouble still, after nearly five years of so-called recovery.

The 347,000 exits from the labor force in December follow another, even greater exodus of 700,000 in October. Even if half of that number may be due to the government shutdown event of that month, it’s still another 350,000 exits. What the last three months shows, therefore, is that at least as many workers are leaving the labor force, as there are jobs are being created. A kind of a ‘churn’ is therefore taking place.

During the first six months of 2013, about two thirds of all the jobs created were ‘contingent’ jobs—i.e. part time and temp jobs—paying well below the average hourly rate. So in the first half of 2013 another kind of ‘churn’ was also taking place: full time jobs were being lost while part time and contingent jobs were being created. That also meant that higher paying jobs were being replaced by lower paying—a trend that has been going on for several years now.

That contingent hiring trend in the first half of the year has moderated somewhat in the second half of 2013, and replaced by the new trend of an accelerating exodus of workers from the labor force.

So it is not just stop-go, month to month job creation , but low-paid contingent job creation, and the massive number of workers leaving the labor force that together represent the major defining characteristics of the US labor market over the past year. It’s not a pretty picture.

The fact that between 700,000 and 1 million workers have left the labor force in just the last three months makes the unemployment rate as an indicator of the health of the jobs market an irrelevant statistic. Because of the way the US erroneously calculates the unemployment rate, a massive drop in the labor force results in a convenient fall in the unemployment rate. Those who leave the labor force are not included in the determination of the unemployment rate. They may be jobless, but aren’t included as unemployed in the government’s oxymoronic method for calculating unemployment. Consequently it is the mass exodus—not a big increase in actual jobs—that is lowering the unemployment rate.
Most serious economists know the unemployment rate is misleading, and don’t put much trust in the unemployment rate as an indicator. They supplement it by looking at other indicators: job openings, turnovers, quit rates, average work week, jobless claims, duration of unemployment, etc. But most of these are short term indicators, and can be volatile and unpredictable month to month.

A better indicator of the long term declining health of the US labor market is the labor force participation rate, and the related employment-to-population ratio. They show how well the US economy has been producing jobs longer term and as the population grows. And both these indicators continue to show a deep malaise in the US job market.

The labor force participation rate has steadily declined for years in the US, starting before 2008 and accelerating after. In June 2009, the declared official ‘end’ of the current continuing recession for the bottom 95% of us, the civilian labor force in the US totaled 154,926,000 workers. This past December 2013 the total labor force was 154,408,000. At first this appears as if there’s been no change in the labor force. However, one must include in this the estimate that, on average, about 100,000 to 150,000 new workers enter the labor force each month. Taking the low end 100,000 figure, it means in the four and a half years since June 2009, no less than 5.4 million workers have left the labor force. (100,000 x 12 months x 4.5 yrs). That’s about the same number of jobs created in the 4.5 year period.

In June 2009 approximately 139,800,000 workers were employed in the nonfarm labor force in the US. In December 2013, that number had risen to 144,400,000. So about 5 million new jobs have been created in the past 4.5 years, averaging 93,000 a month, while about 100,000 a month on average have also been leaving the labor force. (Numbers for both the labor force and nonfarm jobs above are from the US Labor Department’s ‘Current Population Survey’).

What we have therefore is a ‘great jobs churn’ going on in the US labor market since 2010—new entrants coming in at low pay, often contingent, service jobs while roughly the same number of workers leave the labor force who were once higher paid. And because the labor force drop outs aren’t counted as unemployed, it appears as if the labor market is improving since the unemployment rate is declining.

The December picture is even more dismal than the numbers above indicate. Both the 74,000 jobs and -347,000 drop in labor force that occurred in December 2013 are ‘statistics’. That is, they are not the actual numbers. Statistics are manipulations on raw data and actual numbers. They are ‘operations’ on the data, in most cased designed to smooth out the swings and fluctuations in the raw data that occur due to seasonality and other factors.

The raw data on jobs created and labor force exits for December show an even worse picture than that reported by the ‘stats’. The raw data show total nonfarm jobs actually fell by -246,000 instead of growing by 74,000, and the labor force declined by -502,000.

Whether statistically smoothed or the actual raw data, the jobs numbers for December were disastrous. Some argue the abysmal December numbers reflect a correction to the excessively high, 200,000 plus numbers for October and November. Others argue that the bad December numbers result from bad weather. But weather metaphors aren’t an explanation; they are an excuse for those without an explanation for what’s going on. And if the US government is consistently that inaccurate estimating jobs month to month—i.e. widely over-reporting one month and under-reporting another—then that should raise red flags about its methods to being with.

It may very well be that the Labor Department’s established methodologies for estimating jobs are today out of whack and unable to account for the fundamental changes in the labor markets that the recent deep recession has caused—such as the accelerating rise of contingent labor, the massive swings and exits from the labor force, the shift of millions from employment to disability insurance, a growing urban shadow economy that is misestimated in terms of jobs, methods for accounting for new business formation effects on job creation, the diversion of job creating investment from the US to offshore emerging markets and/or into financial asset speculation, the hoarding of trillions in cash by big multinational corporations, the increasing job displacement effect of capital investment, the negative effects of expanding free trade on jobs, and so on.

All this is not to say the December job statistics are purposely ‘falsified’ by the government in some conspiratorial fashion. The methods are perhaps just outdated. The Labor Department does report the raw data for jobs, for example. It is just that the capitalist media simply chooses to report the less severe statistical data as the sole ‘truth’, ignoring the raw data, and saying nothing about how changes in the real economy may be undermining the accuracy of the old statistical methodologies. Or the press hypes the weather as the cause of the poor job numbers, or suggests temporary technical factors are responsible.

However, neither technical factors nor bad weather are necessary to explain the poor December jobs numbers. In my initial ‘False Positives’ piece written in early November, it was suggested that the big surge in 3rd quarter 2013 GDP in business inventory accumulation likely explains much of the lagged big surge in October-November jobs. Business bulked up on inventories in the 3rd quarter, in what has proven to be an erroneous expectation of a big consumer spending surge over the recent holiday season. The production of those inventories, and expectations of follow-on retail sales in the closing months of 2013, explain the brief hiring surge in October-November—as well as the subsequent sharp slowdown (seasonally adjusted) or actual decline (raw data) in December jobs. The ‘False Positives’ piece predicted that the anticipated retail sales at year end would not follow the 3rd quarter inventory buildup—and that would all result in a major reduction in job creation by December.

Data for December just reported show an overall growth of retail sales of only 0.2%–which is a decline from a prior, already weakening, November number of 0.4%. In fact, retail sales have been consistently weak since the September ‘back to school’ event. Sales have slipped ever since. Sales this past holiday season were the worst since 2009, according to a ‘Market Watch’ business research review of the data, as of the week ending December 28.

At the heart of the December slowdown in retail were auto sales. Autos have been the major force holding up consumer spending throughout the past year. However now it appears the US auto market, after several years of historic discounting to boost auto sales, is now becoming relatively saturated. For example, GM’s auto sales declined 6% in December from the prior year and its truck sales even more.

While others note that non-auto retail sales rose in December, non-auto sales also reflected weak economic conditions as retailers introduced large discounts in the final weeks of the monthas it appeared consumers were reducing their expenditures. Those discounts will soon result in lower retail profits, and in turn therefore disappear in January-February 2014. Thus both autos and non-auto retail are therefore set to slow or even decline in coming months. In turn, the job creation picture could weaken still further in early 2014.

To summarize, what lies behind the December jobs slowdown, and the accelerating exodus of jobless workers from the labor force, is the likely pullback in business inventory spending at year end and the weak prospects for retail sales. Hiring slowed significantly at year end, and many of those that were hired in the fall—as inventories bulked up and big retail sales were anticipated—will soon be laid off once again.

Entering 2014, the picture will likely be one of further retreat in business inventory accumulation, more softness in retail sales, fewer hires, and a continuing slowdown in auto sales, and in turn fewer hires and more layoffs.

But the raw jobs numbers for early 2014 may be ‘smoothed out’ once again by the statistical changes forthcoming in early 2014, as the government is scheduled to change its ‘benchmarks’ for estimating jobs that could ‘statistically’ boost jobs by several hundred thousand. That statistical adjustment could effectively ‘drown out’ a continuing weak jobs creation picture when measured by the actual raw jobs data. It may appear the jobs picture is not as bad as it actually is in fact—when the raw data will show otherwise. But you won’t hear that from the mainstream press.