5
What do the jobless numbers mean?
People look for work as they attend the Village at Gulfstream Park job fair in Hallandale, Fla.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: So, jobs. By now you've heard the numbers. There were 20,000 fewer jobs in the American economy at the end of January than there were on New Year's Day. And yet the unemployment rate -- that is, the percentage of the work force unable to find work -- fell to 9.7 percent. That discrepancy you can chalk up to the way the data's collected. It's not a huge issue, at least for a single month. But it does leave us at something of an economic crossroads.
Because while today's report was more promising than not, what does it tell us about where things might be going? Our Washington bureau chief John Dimsdale went looking for some of those answers.
John Dimsdale: Employers are hiring temporary workers, an early indication for some that more permanent jobs are on the horizon. And the number of underemployed -- people in part-time jobs who want full time work -- is dropping.
John Challenger at the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, says that's positive.
John Challenger: A sign, perhaps, that more people are finding work that fits their needs.
But it could also be a sign that people have been out of work so long, they've given up and are no longer in the job market.
Jerry O'Driscoll, a former Federal Reserve Board member now with the Cato Institute, does not see any long-term improvement in job creation.
Jerry O'Driscoll: It's not sustainable yet. Maybe it's the beginning of something, but the evidence isn't there.
Others are much more confident the economy will continue to grow and generate more jobs. University of San Francisco business professor Jon Fisher has studied the history of economic rebounds. In today's report, he sees evidence that long-term unemployment is headed in the right direction.
Jon Fisher: Relatively, the number is going down. I think that's the important thing. I think it's happening much earlier than consensus estimates anticipated, and I think it's going to 8 percent by end of this year.
But with no assurances, Washington's politicians are left wondering whether to jump in with more help.
Moody's Analytics' Mark Zandi offers some advice.
Mark Zandi: It would make good sense for policy makers to continue to provide significant support to the economy and add a little bit of juice -- job tax credit, more help to provide credit to small businesses so that they can go out and hire.
He says it's still a very tough job market, but the trend is slowly turning in the right direction.
In Washington, I'm John Dimsdale for Marketplace.
The issue in the numbers is critical to the economy. The fact is, significant demographics will be cut out of investing in homes, cars, etc. if there is no job stability. Moreover, the problem is not being able to get job or being qualified for a job. The problem is not being hired because of bureacratic measures due to political reasons.
I was at a Japanese restaurant last Friday. The place was packed. Had to wait in like for 10 minutes. Why? Not because the tables were full. Some tables were still open. It was because they didn't have enough servers. This is where we are at. Employers are still reluctant to hire until they are confident of the demand. When I was done with dinner, there were still two large parties waiting for their seats. It won't be long before this employer feels forced to hire another server.
So please, the other 80% that's still employed, visit your local businesses. Do what you do normally. If you want your favorite business to survive this recession, you need to do your part. And also donate to NPR.
While I don't have any anecdotal evidence myself, I agree with Paul Weaver that these numbers are probably false. Previous months' economic statistics have been released as rosy as possible and then significantly revised for the worse.
But I do understand what Tom Shillock doesn't about the intro to this story: The sentences he quoted meant that the two measurements are giving two different answers, so you have to decide which to believe, but it isn't a very big deal because this is only one month, because there are are other statistics that we use to determine the state of the economy, and because any statistician worth her salt expects this kind of thing from time to time.
“It's not a huge issue, at least for a single month. But it does leave us at something of an economic crossroads.â€
If it’s not a huge issue then which economic crossroads does it leave us at?
In our media drenched age there is much competition for eyeballs. A pervasive tactic is to make mountains out of molehills. Another is to say one thing in one sentence then retract it in the next sentence then use that as pretext for a comment or an article. It’s manufactured controversy or manufactured significance.
By the way, the definition of ‘underemployment’ is not identical with “people in part time jobs who want full time work.â€
Underemployment
A situation in which a worker is employed, but not in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or level of skill and experience. While not technically unemployed, the underemployed are often competing for available jobs.
A fuller discussion of underemployment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underemployment
The government figures for unemployment are false. The true figure is 20% when you factor in all of the senior exiecutives not eligible for unemployment benefits and the number of Mexican workers who have gone home. The government figures do not make sense given the state of the economy in upstate South Carolina
