Jobless Rate Dives To 9-Year Low; Is Labor Market Too Tight?

Investors Business Daily ^ | 12/02/2016 | JED GRAHAM

[expat_panama]

The U.S. economy added 178,000 jobs in November as the unemployment rate fell to 4.6%, the lowest since 2007, the Labor Department said Friday morning.

Economists had expected a gain of 170,000 jobs and an unchanged 4.9% jobless rate.

Employers in professional and business services added 63,000 jobs, while health care sector employment rose by 28,000 and construction 19,000. Manufacturing shed 4,000 jobs.

October payroll growth was revised down by 19,000 to 142,000, but that was largely offset by an upward revision to September's job gain of 17,000 to 208,000.

The unemployment rate fell in large part because the labor force participation rate fell...

...Treasury yields have been surging since Election Day on prospects for tax cuts and infrastructure spending, which could stimulate both faster growth and inflation.

A rate hike when the Fed meets on Dec. 14 is seen as a slam dunk. The real question for investors is whether the Fed, which has telegraphed two additional quarter-point rate hikes in 2017 and three in 2018 will have to step up the pace.

Even with the jobless rate sinking, it's hard to draw firm conclusions based on Friday's report. The real questions are whether the drop in participation and October's drop in hourly wages are statistical noise...

...unemployed have fallen by 538,000. Still, participation was up by more than 2.1 million from a year ago.

Meanwhile, there's little evidence to support a sudden drop-off in wage growth...

...a spike in labor demand from the Trump fiscal stimulus could be "a bidding war (for labor), driving up the rate of wage growth, with only a modest rise in participation."

That concern is why he's predicting an upsurge in inflation by the second half of 2018 that puts the brakes on a short-lived Trump boom.

[elpadre]

None of this data makes sense.

How can there be such low unemployment when there are 96 million out of work. The DOL needs a lot of upgrading.

You do know that for many years, the DOL has been staffed from members of the AFL-CIO’

[elpadre]

None of this data makes sense.

How can there be such low unemployment when there are 96 million out of work. The DOL needs a lot of upgrading.

You do know that for many years, the DOL has been staffed from members of the AFL-CIO’

[elpadre]

None of this data makes sense.

How can there be such low unemployment when there are 96 million out of work. The DOL needs a lot of upgrading.

You do know that for many years, the DOL has been staffed from members of the AFL-CIO’

[elpadre]

Sorry for the multiple post. I post once and got this. Must be a gremlin in this laptop.

[Jack Hydrazine]

The real unemployment rate is about 23% according to ShadowStats.com. I have calculated it independently as 24% so it is pretty close to the ShadowStats number.

During the Great Depression unemployment topped out at 25% in 1933.

[expat_panama]

I never...   ...read IBD...   ...95+ million people are out of the labor force isn’t even acknowledged.

You know everything IBD has on every page and  never read IBD.   Sounds like the libs who tell me that they never ever listen to Rush because day after day every single word he says is a lie.

This is part of what the article did say about the labor force:

 "Over the past two months, the household survey shows the ranks of the employed have climbed by a total of 117,000, while the civilian labor force has shrunk by 421,000, meaning the ranks of the unemployed have fallen by 538,000. Still, participation was up by more than 2.1 million from a year ago."

Yeah we could say the writer was a coward for not mentioning the 95,055,000 not in the labor force, but then it would be fair to say that you and I are cowards for not saying that it's 95,089,000 without the seasonal adjustment.  Thing is, eventually we all have to just agree we can all read the BLS numbers for ourselves and do our own thinking.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Keep in mind that the Feds count a part-time job as being a full-time one. If an individual has two pat-time jobs that equals two full-time jobs.

And most of those jobs, besides being part-time, that have hired recently are in service and not maufacturing.

[null and void]

Because this same crooked outfit will change the formula to show increasing unemployment increasing under Trump. Book it!!!!

No kidding.

That's why the reported number dropped yet again on obama's last days in office.

That's the new base line.

[billyboy15]

In the 2004 election aftermath I frequently visited he website and watched as she bled Liberals with her bullshit of being “thisclose” to having the necessary key to overturning the election. She said she needed more money to get this done and like the good little lemmings the money poured in from the desperate Libs.

Bottom line is not a single vote changed due to anything Bev Harris and her “Black Box” horse crap. She is a total FRAUD!!

[null and void]

Because understanding these stats is very important to my job, and so I follow them very closely. Practically everything said on this thread so far is wrong, misguided and stupid.

Enlighten us, Oh Great One.

[null and void]

LeonardFMason ~ Trump MUST, MUST, MUST debunk the mythical unemployment rate coming from the BLS.

TangoLimaSierra ~ I'd like to see him issue 2 rates every month: one using obammy's calculus and the real one.

I'd like to see him do that, do a side by side retrospective of the stats for the last eight years, and start tracking employment not UNemployment.

[arthurus]

The jobless rate is not at any historic low. The official and highly tweaked Unemployment Rate is.

[null and void]

If an individual has two part-time jobs that equals two full-time jobs.

Figures may not lie, but these liars sure do figure!

[null and void]

there have been no changes to the way these statistics are compiled or reported during the Obama administration.

Zatso? As a then statistical U-3, I distinctly remember when I became a non-person. It wasn't under George W.

Perhaps this is a Mandela Effect and you are from an alternate universe?

[tillacum]

The Obama administration wants someone to think the 4.9% jobless rateto be like or less than Pres. George W’s real
numbers.

[Uncle Miltie]

Wages might rise?

Oh noes!

[expat_panama]

If the labor market is so tight, where is my big raise?

That's the key question for the group.

From what I can see no small part of it is the fact that even those meager raises that everyone's been getting have not been matched by similar increases in work being done.  Like, back about 15 years ago everyone saw 4% annual raises because the work being done was also increasing the same amount.  Big change now.  For the past half dozen years workers' wages have only been going up a couple % while productivity's been crawling at less than even one percent.

imho this is why we got a tight labor market w/ no big raises.

[LeonardFMason]

“Because this same crooked outfit will change the formula to show increasing unemployment increasing under Trump. Book it!!!!

No kidding.

That’s why the reported number dropped yet again on obama’s last days in office.

That’s the new base line.”

THE POINT being: Start calling BULLSHIT on the BLS NOW!

[expat_panama]

understanding these stats is very important to my job, and so I follow them very closely.

Hey, most people don't do numbers and that's fine, they're still good people. 

Whenever the libs tell me that the unemployment rate's the only thing that matters, I just say ok let's agree that O's rate was bad and W's was good.

 That's when the libs shrink back and say that the rate by itself doesn't matter and there are a lot more things we need to care about. [as long as it agrees w/ O of course]

The problem I see on these threads is there are a lot of loud helpless people who can't seem to see that the numbers are real and that the way they're figured out is all clear and not that hard to follow, and it's our job to put in the effort see what they really mean.

This nonsense about all numbers are bad is silly, but hey --we all like to talk silly once in a while...

[LeonardFMason]

“Practically everything said on this thread so far is wrong, misguided and stupid.”

Are you denying the fact that able bodied workers, those people who would/want work have dropped out of the number of the unemployed? If the current unemployment rate doesn’t even count this population doesn’t the number from the BLS become meaningless? Do you really believe of the 310,000,000 people in the US the amount of folks retired/ not able to or interested in working is 95,000,000?

Don’t call folks wrong, misguided, and stupid without taking a few sentences to explain what the uninformed are missing.

You come off like an asshole.