Skip to main content

In a report showing well above the forecast consensus, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday that the U.S. economy generated 262,000 seasonally adjusted new private non-farm jobs in June while 26,000 public-sector jobs were added for a total of 288,000. The official unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent, the lowest since September 2008. The better-than-expected number marked the fifth month in a row that more than 200,000 new jobs have been created, something that hasn't happened since 1999.

The number of jobs originally reported in May was revised from 217,000 to 224,000, and in April from 282,000 to 304,000.

The news is certain to bolster the view of many economists that the second quarter's annualized growth in gross domestic product will rebound sharply after the stunning contraction of 2.9 percent in the first quarter. Most are forecasting at least 3 percent growth, with the possibility of an even higher GDP figure for the April-June period.

Both full-time and part-time jobs are included in the bureau's total. The growth in jobs was led by the low-paying sectors like retail and hospitality with the high-paying sectors like construction and manufacturing lagging.

The bureau tallied the number of unemployed Americans at 9.5 million, down 325,000 from last month, but still high even though the Great Recession has been officially over for five years. This number does not include millions of workers who have left the workforce out of despair that they will find a job. There are now 414,000 more jobs than there were at the pre-recession peak.

The employment-population ratio rose to 59 percent. The labor force participation rate also remained where it has been for three months, at 62.8 percent.

In addition to the familiar "headline" calculations above—known at the BLS as U3—the bureau puts together alternative measures. One of these is U6, which includes Americans with no job, those working part time who want full-time positions and workers who have looked for jobs in the past 12 months but not in the past four weeks. U6 fell from 12.2 percent in May to 12.1 percent in June.

Americans in the category of the long-term unemployed—jobless for 27 weeks or more—fell to 3.1 million, 32.8 percent of the total unemployed, the lowest level since June 2009.

For more details about today's jobs report, please continue reading below the fold.

The payroll services company Automatic Data Processing reported on Wednesday that the economy gained a seasonally adjusted 281,000 private-sector jobs for June. ADP does not report on public-sector jobs, and its calculation rarely matches those of the BLS for private-sector jobs.

Among other news in the June job report:

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

African American: 10.7 percent
Latino: 7.8 percent
Asian (not seasonally adjusted): 5.1 percent
American Indian (data not collected on monthly basis)
White: 5.3 percent
Adult women (20 and older): 5.3 percent
Adult Men (20 and older): 5.7 percent
Teenagers (16-19): 21.0 percent

Duration of unemployment:

Less than five weeks: 2.4 million
5 to 14 weeks: 2.4 million
15 to 26 weeks: 1.47 million
27 weeks and more: 3.1 million

Job gains and losses in selected categories:

Professional services: + 67,000
Transportation and warehousing : + 16,600
Leisure & hospitality: + 39,000
Information: + 9,000
Health care: + 33,700
Retail trade: + 40,200
Construction: + 6,000
Manufacturing: + 16,000
Average weekly manufacturing hours remained steady at 41.1 hours.
Average work week for all employees on non-farm payrolls remained at 34.5 hours for the fourth month in a row.
Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $20.58.
Average hourly earnings for all employees on private non-farm payrolls rose 6 cents to $24.45.

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

June 2004: +  74,000
June 2005: + 245,000
June 2006: +  77,000  
June 2007: +  71,000
June 2008: -  172,000
June 2009: -  467,000
June 2010: -  122,000
June 2011: + 217,000
June 2012: +   88,000  
June 2013: + 201,000
June 2014: + 288,000

••• •••

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.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:02 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please edit this sentence. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, fladem

    "The official unemployment rate rose fell to 6.1 percent. "

    I'd buy Medicare rather than regular insurance given the option.

    by mperloe on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:08:42 AM PDT

  •  It's getting interesting out there (20+ / 0-)

    now, vis a vis the November elections.  Krugman has always claimed that people's general conception of the economy is correlated with the near-term numbers, and these numbers are starting to look good!.  Here's to hoping!

    From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

    by satrap on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:12:51 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Obama n/t (8+ / 0-)

    If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

    by ord avg guy on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:15:31 AM PDT

  •  Or... Best June jobs growth in 11 years. (21+ / 0-)

    Good news all around in today's report.


    ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

    by NoFortunateSon on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:20:27 AM PDT

  •  It looks like John Boehner's jobs bill is working. (9+ / 0-)

    Oh wait.

    If Reagan was the answer, it must have been a very silly question.

    by shoeless on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:22:15 AM PDT

  •  Republican reaction to employment numbers (13+ / 0-)

    When they are bad: See? Obama can't do anything. He has no plan for "creating jobs." He sucks.
    When they are good: The books are cooked; the BLS is corrupt. They suck!

  •  Cue the usual arguments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, HeyMikey

    about labor force participation in this thread.  Someone will point out that it has fallen, another will point out that this is in part due to baby boom retirements. There will be a quote from the EPI - they always say the same thing - that the decline in labor force participation is due to the bad economy - but not once have I ever read a defense of their numbers in these threads.  All we get are quotes. Someone else will note that Krugman focuses on the 25-54 numbers, which have gotten better over the last 6 months, but are still not close to what they were.

    I could almost write the comments that will occur here.

    I in turn, will note the rise that Pew reported in stay at home Mom's and will once again say how badly understood the factors that make people enter and leave the job market really are.  

    Something new, I guess.  These are strong improvements, but it is useful to remember unemployment is a lagging indicator.  Things are not great, and if we are between 2 and 3% GDP growth it would not take much to trip us into a recession.

    Politicians - "You can't be a pimp and a prostitute too"

    by fladem on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:33:13 AM PDT

    •  NDD's summary (9+ / 0-)

      is really very good this morning, and well worth the read.  Probably the best I have read this morning:

      In summary, this report was yet another very good report, based on the standard of the last decade.  as to the headline numbers and revisions.  It is a still a mediocre report when measured against a longer timeframe. Further, many of the internals of this number were unchanged, although some of the forward looking numbers (workers in construction, manufacturing, and temp services) were positive.

      We have made no headway since the beginning of this year in dealing with chronic underemployment as shown by discouraged workers, and very little headway on real wages.  The relative bright spot is the significant headway on the percentage of prime working age people being employed, which has rebounded by over 1/3 from its recession low to its pre-recession peak.

      Politicians - "You can't be a pimp and a prostitute too"

      by fladem on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:41:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If this were to continue for another few months... (6+ / 0-)

        ...at the level of the past three, we could stop having to deal with the acute economic problems and shift some energy to doing something about the chronic ones that pre-date the Great Recession.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:10:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  numbers for this thread (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan

          From the diary:

          There are now 414,000 more jobs than there were at the pre-recession peak.
          But the labor force--that is, people with jobs or who want jobs--grows at about 125,000 per month.

          Pre-recession peak employment occurred in January 2008, which was 77 months ago. 77 x 125,000 = 9,625,000 more people who are working or seeking work than at the pre-recession peak. For those 9.6 million workers and wanna-be-workers, we have 414,000 jobs. So the net is: 9,211,000 MORE unemployed people than at pre-recession peak.

          Suppose we gain 288,000 jobs every month. Subtract out the 125,000 needed just to employ new workers and that gets us a net reduction in the unemployed of 163,000 per month against that 9,211,000. At that rate, it will take 57 more months, or until March 2019, to return to pre-recession employment level.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:03:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Since the 2010 Census, most analysts put... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan, Eric Nelson, HeyMikey

            ...the break-even point each month of jobs needed just to keep up with population growth at 90,000 to 100,000.

            We are definitely far from caught up. But the Hamilton Project puts the date we would "catch up" if jobs continued to be created at June's rate as February 2017.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:15:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is interesting, isn't it though, how we used to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Nelson, HeyMikey

              "need" more jobs per month than we do now?  

              I know there have been adjustments for aging workforce and many other factors over time. But it wasn't that long ago when we assumed we needed 125,000 to 150,000 new jobs per month. That was counting all jobs, full and part-time.

              A 100,000 jobs requirement would indicate better productivity (so shouldn't workers be paid better) and/or a smaller economy/economic growth.

              The Hamilton Project probably has good numbers, but they give me the creeeps.  (as in, ewww... you free trader guys are creeps!)

              ;-)

              Ooops, just a final note:  The sustainability of "constant growth" economies should be something we question, because the earth definitely has limits which are not accounted for in our economic and accounting practices.

              Sorry I'm not cheerful today. If there is a wonderful economy, it is not evident among the people around me being laid off.

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:49:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Economic Policy Institute before... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YucatanMan, Eric Nelson, HeyMikey

                ...the Census used 127,000 as the break-even point. But the population growth of adults slowed down the influx.

                Whatever the numbers actually are, we need to be fighting a different long-term battle, one we've argued for rhetorically a long time: more jobs, better jobs, better-paying jobs, plus fewer hours on the job. That was once the unions' mantra, a rallying cry for the working class.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:54:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Couldn't agree more! We cannot continue a (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson, HeyMikey

                  race to the bottom scenario in jobs and pay.  

                  Trade policy plays a part in that, as well as far too many union losses taking place from many causes.  I honestly believe we need a "first line management" union effort in the country. So many jobs have been made "management" simply to keep workers under the thumb of corporations.  And once you're "management," overtime and other issues are off the table.  

                  Managers must work 60 hour weeks for no more pay than 40 hours, plus manage a dozen more workers than needed so the company can only hire part-time instead of full time workers.

                  "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                  by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:07:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  various points (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Meteor Blades

                    IIRC the Hamilton Project uses 88,000 a month as the number needed to absorb growth in the labor force. This used to be in the fine print under one of their graphs, but they removed it. That's the most optimistic figure I've seen.

                    I suspect that whatever the figure is, it's subject to variation due to a feedback effect from the job market. If jobs are easier to get and pay more, then more people will decide to enter the labor force who otherwise would have decided to attend grad school, be a stay-at-home parent, be a bum in mom's basement, deal drugs, sell their bodies on craigslist, etc.

                    MB said:

                    fewer hours on the job
                    Aha! That's the real kicker. As productivity increases indefinitely, the economy can produce all the goods & services anyone needs, with a smaller % of people working full-time. Our choices in response to this are:

                    (a) allow a larger and larger % of the population to be destitute;

                    (b) find ways to employ a larger and larger % of the population at tasks that are pointless;

                    (c) use progressive taxation to fund a decent standard of living for all, even those who are not working, or working less.

                    One way to accomplish (c) would be to have mandatory overtime kick in at, say, 30 hours a week instead of 40. This would encourage employers to hire more people instead of working their existing employees more hours.

                    Some economists will say I'm falling victim to the "lump of labor" fallacy. (Google it.) I'm not. I am quite aware that more work = more spending power = more demand for goods & services = more demand for labor. I am also quite aware that raising the unit cost of labor raises the rate at which jobs are lost to low-wage countries, and to machines. (Those jobs are going anyway, it's just a question of how fast.) The fact these are true does not change the fact that more and more jobs will continue to be lost to low-wage countries and machines--i.e., productivity increases.

                    We have to keep our eye on the ball, which is: Why do we work? Why do we want others to work? What is the purpose of an economy? What is the meaning of life?

                    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                    by HeyMikey on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 12:18:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Unfortunately--yes we can. (0+ / 0-)
                    We cannot continue a race to the bottom scenario in jobs and pay.

                    Yes, we can. And we will, unless the public elects progressive politicians.

                    Look at Europe. We could become Greece, Spain, Portugal--not because our debt is unmanageable (it's quite manageable), but because the politicians favor austerity uber alles, and the people aren't electing better politicians.

                    Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are not crazy. The policies they favor were once considered mainstream American. Why are they now considered far-left fringe? Why aren't their ideas in the Democratic platform?

                    Unfortunately--or fortunately--could go either way--it's up to us.

                    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                    by HeyMikey on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 01:47:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  I hate to rain on anyone's parade, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi, HeyMikey, YucatanMan

    or pee in the cornflakes, but if you look at the data it's mostly just noisy, with no real increase or decrease since about Jan 2012 or slightly earlier.

    I haven't plotted it (because the graph is pretty small to read the individual points accurately and I'm feeling lazy), but having looked at tons of data over the years it appears to be a flat line with pretty a pretty wide confidence interval.

    •  I don't think this jobs (12+ / 0-)

      report can be considered just 'noise'.  The trend is definitely north.

      From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

      by satrap on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:36:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say the jobs report was noise (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hmi, ChuckChuckerson, HeyMikey, YucatanMan

        I said that the month to month variation about the mean appears to be noise and that the job growth actually appears to be fairly flat.

      •  I do have a real question about the composition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChemBob

        of the jobs.

        Let's say 20 years ago, the monthly jobs report came out with a growth of 150,000, of which 80% were full time jobs.

        Then 10 years ago, the monthly jobs report came out with a growth of 180,000, of which 60% were full time jobs.

        Then, this month, the monthly jobs report comes out with a growth of 288,000, of which 30% are full time jobs.

        120,000 full time jobs --   30,000 part time
        108,000 full time jobs --   72,000 part time
          86,400 full time jobs -- 202,000 part time

        This is just an example.  But isn't that mix of full and part time very, very important?

        288,000 is a great number. An excellent number. But if Robert Reich is correct this morning, only 1/3 of those are full time jobs.  That might indicate deteriorating workforce conditions, even with increasing jobs growth.

        Said another way, let's say a store needs 400 hours of work - 10 full time workers at 40 hours a week.  Instead, they hire 20 part time workers at 20 hours a week.

        This saves them benefits like health care, maybe vacation time, guarantees no accidental overtime, etc.  So the jobs report looks super -- twice as many jobs generated -- but the workers' living situation is actually worse than if 10 full time workers were hired.  And there is less disposable income overall because those 20 part timers are barely scraping by....

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:57:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Note (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan

          The jobs report, CES, does not break down full/part-time workers.

          But a large increase in part time workers you'd think it would sway the average hours/week worked downward. That hasn't really happened.

          •  Do you think we've always added about 30% (0+ / 0-)

            full time jobs over a long period?  I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

            I assume the Average Hours per Week worked is per worker?

            Don't we actually have more part-time workers now than before?  Again, I don't know, I'm just asking.

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 12:03:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan

              The data doesn't exist to my knowledge.

              The avg hours is per worker. There's a figure for all workers and one for nonsupervisory workers.. I tend to look more at the latter since part-time workers are less likely to be supervisors.

              •  That's why I asked. I wasn't aware of any data (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Politburo

                but thought you might be.  

                My personal perception is that, say, 20 years ago, we had far more full time jobs created each month than part-time jobs.

                If you take retail, for an example, it used to be that you'd find the same people on the floor every day, all day. Full time workers.  

                These days, the people are always different, because they're scheduled seemingly at random, to maximize profit and minimize wage costs.  Part time workers.

                I guess the good news (if that) is that financial sector jobs (outside bank tellers) are mostly full time and the financial sector has grown to record size in our economy.

                Well, it would be an interesting thing to figure out, if we had a source of data.  Thanks for the discussion.

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 12:19:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  It's all how (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChemBob

      sell it, ain't it?

  •  Some positive narratives to spread here (15+ / 0-)

    - Since Obama's reelection in 2012, 200,000 or more jobs added in 20 of 25 months
    - More jobs this June than in any June in the 8 years before Obama was president.
    - More jobs added in last five years than under any president in last 50 years, except Bill Clinton

    When my fundamentalist conservative twin brother visits me this month (he lives in Minnesota, I'm in New Jersey), I will finally talk to him about politics. One idea: I can ask him to chart how he thinks the jobs picture -- change in payroll jobs per month -- would look if McCain had won in 2008. I'd give him the data up until Jan. 2009, and point out that adding 200,000 or more per month consistently has only happened under Clinton. Still, his blind belief in magical jobs from tax cuts would probably lead him to draw a very optimistic trend line. Then show him the chart at the top of the page -- under OBAMA!

    Well, I like to think I'd do this, but he's not going to change his hatred of Obama because of numbers....

    Our cause: a More Perfect Union.

    by Roby NJ on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 06:36:28 AM PDT

  •  After all these years, (10+ / 0-)

    it still makes me want to puke just thinking about where we could have  been if a) we hadn't lost the house in 2010 and/or b) Republicans in congress at any point been willing to  work with the administration and Democrats to pass legislation to host the economy and jobs.

    The fact that we're actually adding jobs at all is a minor miracle.

  •  Man that Obama really sucks doesn't he? (11+ / 0-)

    The stock market is too damn high, the jobs keep increasing every month, now even at Clinton era numbers, and the unemployment rate keeps steadily dropping...yeah and we're not getting involved in any wars!!!! Damn! he's awful...worst president ever!!!!!

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:05:19 AM PDT

    •  and the best part is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gay CA Democrat

      The economy is doing with substantial deficit reduction.  

    •  You don't get it and I don't get it. Worst (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey, askew

      President ever? This electorate is shizo.

      "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

      by Wildthumb on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:59:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The electorate is affected by a negative (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb

        propaganda regime instituted by the corporate-owned media.  Fox is the most obvious practitioner, but all the major networks are practicing 'false-equivalencies' journalism and the mindless "he said / she said" style of "reporting."

        There's almost zero real journalism taking place, even on most blogs.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:00:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right on. I've left fifty posts on the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tweedledee5, YucatanMan

          disastrous state of "journalism" these days, including one just this last Sunday on a shitty piece on 60 Minutes about disability claims. It made me furious and I sent out tweets, Facebook posts, and emails everywhere on it. Its featured "guest" on the issue? Tom Coburn on the "waste, fraud, and abuse" at the SSA. I told Steve Kroft to go after one of his sponsors instead of that easier target, the US government.

          "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

          by Wildthumb on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 01:00:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  longest streak of +200K jobs added since the 1990s (0+ / 0-)

      Nuff said.

      •  Btw the electorate can go eat a bag of rat dicks (0+ / 0-)

        Obama could pull 500k jobs out of his ass and kill an army of zombie Bin Ladens, and these idiots would still give him ZERO credit.

        And yet Duh-bya, who left office with 9% (and climbing) unemployment, a smashed economy and infrastructure, not to mention two criminal wars blowing up the deficit, somehow gets a pass from these eejits.

  •  We could use several more months of... (6+ / 0-)

    ...20k+ public sector job growth.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 07:24:31 AM PDT

  •  So unemployment (U3) finally returns to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey

    Bush era levels?

    While definitely happy things are getting better, putting it that way doesn't exactly sound like reason to cheer.

    But -- keep it going.
    The more people see things better in their own family and on their own street, the better things look for incumbents everywhere.  In the absence of incumbents, it is bound to cause a little kindness to the party in power.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 08:05:22 AM PDT

  •  And U-6 is garbage (5+ / 0-)

    Since we don't get a breakdown of those "part-time for economic reasons", we really shouldn't be counting them as unemployed (they aren't unemployed are they).  There is a big difference between someone working 10 hours a week and wanting full time and someone working 34 hours a week and wanting full time.

    •  best alternative number imo (0+ / 0-)

      Is simply (unemployed)+(not in labor force, but want a job)/(labor force+not in LF/want job). This removes the issue of people being dropped from marginally attached after a year.

      This is currently 9.6%.

    •  U6 is a mix of unemployed and underemployed... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and I will venture a guess that most (obviously not all) people who are working 10 hours a week part-time are not in the "part-time for economic reasons" category but the part-time by choice category.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 12:40:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hello MB. Thanks, as always, for your emphasis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    on employment.   I do have a question.

    Robert Reich said this morning that 2/3's of these 288,000 new jobs are only part-time.  

    Is it really true we only gained roughly 100,000 full time jobs?

    It's just so sad if so much of our growth only comes from lousy part-time, no benefit, not enough hours to live on, jobs. But I don't know how true that is.  

    We've grown enough jobs to be above where we were before the crash, but I don't think we've grown enough to absorb the increased need for jobs over time from population growth, etc.  And if so many are only part-time, it seems like there continues to be an impoverishment of American workers - ongoing.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:38:30 AM PDT

  •  Most of those jobs are seasonal, summer jobs. (0+ / 0-)

    There was virtually no growth in construction or manufacturing, and the information provided really needs to be examined to see what percentage of those "new" jobs are being taken by retirees, students off for the summer, people who previously gave up looking and are returning to the workplace or undocumented workers.  

    I would not get too excited over those numbers, either, unless I knew the answer to those questions.  Will review and let you know if I get happy after I read the raw numbers.

    Much madness is divinest sense, much sense divinest madness.

    by SpamNunn on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

    •  The numbers are seasonally adjusted... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Politburo, doroma

      ...to take that into account.

      While I know that the country has a long ways to go before the middle class is back on a strong footing, the fact is that this report combined with the previous months really is just plain, simple good news.  

      If Democrats proclaim the the Earth is round and Republicans insist it is flat, we will shortly see a column in the Washington Post claiming the the earth is really a semi-circle.

      by TexasTom on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 11:37:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Drill down through the tables. (0+ / 0-)

        There's not a lot of good news there.  

        Much madness is divinest sense, much sense divinest madness.

        by SpamNunn on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 11:43:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  lol (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PorridgeGun

          "This is just seasonal variation"

          "No, the numbers are seasonally adjusted"

          "Oh, well it's still not good"

          •  Well, is it? (0+ / 0-)

            Show us where the good news is.

            Your standards have to be pretty low if you consider this to be good news:

            The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

            In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

            Take your time in responding.  

            Much madness is divinest sense, much sense divinest madness.

            by SpamNunn on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 12:52:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did it ever occur to anyone? (0+ / 0-)

              That many of these people are baby boomers who are retiring, perhaps a few years early because they have a hard time getting hired and have the finances that they don't really need to work?

              I know like a dozen people who have done this since 2009, including my mother.

            •  garbage (0+ / 0-)

              The population is growing and aging. Using absolute numbers is always garbage that is why we use percentages. The reduction in LFR is largely demographic. Look at those not in labor force who say they want a job. Its in the single digits and within the range observed over the last several decades.

  •  Great, just some caution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpamNunn, Eric Nelson

    as I am reading Robert Reich's post on Facebook, 2/3 appear to be part-time jobs

  •  From Bonddad Blog are some charts that pin point.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    ..long term unemployment as atypical.
     Good things are happening but this particular sector stands out.
    Bonddad Blog yesterday (July 2, 2014) which links to Xe market analysis

    The Atypical Structure of the Current US Employment Situation

    Along the same vein is the chart above, which shows the average (blue line) and median (red line) length of unemployment.  Both of these numbers simply confirm that a very large number of people have been unemployed for a long time.  

         All of the above graphs make a remarkably unsurprising point: the US employment situation is currently very abnormal by historical standards.

    I don't pretend to know about this stuff, except what I've learned here @ Daily Kos, so wanted to show this and other charts at the link that positively confirm exactly what has been a strong message that has been delivered here @ Daily Kos - the long term unemployment has been and is not normal for the recovery we've been going through

    And this is what is said about another chart just before (directly above @ the linked site) the chart I've posted:

    This is a really interesting chart, because it shows that for most of the time since WWII, the unemployed were mostly comprised of those unemployed up to 14 weeks (the red and green lines).

     In contrast, the current employment situation is characterized by people who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks.  This number is very high by historical standards, and while it is decreasing, it really hasn't decreased that much.  It's almost as though a certain percentage of the labor force were simply cut out of the employment picture.

     - emphasis added

    - something that you've been hammering home fro some time now

    Thx MB

    •  And the stock market cleared the 17K threshhold.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..which has become less and less connected to actual jobs enough to be almost meaningless, BUT, that seems like a real blow to the $money party - GOP - one less bucket off crap they can pour over the rest of us Dems with their attacks.

      So that should be a good thing; limiting the 'republican ugly coefficient' somewhat

      Dow Jones industrial average: 17,068.26

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site