Jobless rate rises to 5 percent, highest rate since Nov. 2005, Slowest additions of jobs since August 2003 Options

[dauss]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22502713/

WASHINGTON - Hiring practically stalled in December, driving the nation’s unemployment rate up to 5 percent, a two-year high. The new figures fan fears the economy could slide into a recession.

Last month, employers added the fewest new jobs to their payrolls in more than four years, said the jobs report released Friday by the Labor Department. The report also showed that employment conditions are deteriorating, strained by a housing slump and credit crunch that are sapping economic strength.

The unemployment rate jumped from 4.7 percent in November to 5 percent in December, the highest since November 2005 after the Gulf Coast hurricanes dealt the country a mighty blow. Payrolls — both private employers and government — grew by just 18,000 last month, the worst showing since August 2003, when the economy suffered job losses as it struggled to recover from the 2001 recession.

The December employment picture was much weaker than economists were expecting. They were forecasting the unemployment rate to bump up to 4.8 percent and for employers to add around 70,000 jobs to their payrolls.

Employers have grown cautious as they try to cope with fallout from housing and credit problems and rising uncertainty about how the economy will fare in the months ahead. Galloping energy prices and bad weather in some parts of the country also probably figured into the weak job figures.

Manufacturers, construction companies, financial services all cut jobs in December - casualties of the housing slump. Retailers also sliced jobs.

The government added 31,000 jobs in December, while private employers actually cut payrolls by 13,000, underscoring the weakness.

For all of 2007, the unemployment rate averaged 4.6 percent, the same as last year.

The 5 percent rate is relatively low by historical standards. In the recession of the early 1980s, for example, the jobless rate reached double-digit levels.

Nevertheless, with the economy losing momentum, the White House and some economists at the Federal Reserve predict that the jobless rate will average 4.9 percent this year.

[pebkac]

Nevertheless, with the economy losing momentum, the White House and some economists at the Federal Reserve predict that the jobless rate will average 4.9 percent this year.

Wow... I'm no economist, but this just sounds like sticking your head in the sand to me.

[Spectatrix]

Yep, it is sticking their heads in the sand. However, 5% is not a bad unemployment rate at all.

[Dogmeat]

if you can't find a job right you you don't want to work, period.

jesus fucking christ, I drive down main street here and see signs up EVERYWHERE "help wanted'

For fucks sakes, even McDonalds and burger king are starting people out at $9.50 an hour right now.

[impala454]

5% for the month of december... whoopteedo. Not all that shocking and I'd be interested to see if the unemployment rate goes up every december. The employment rate has been very good the past several years. Leave it to some jackass at msnbc to twist numers and try to make it look otherwise with elections coming up.

[Mommy]

ok...
lame
its not like it says HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION... its from fuckin 2 years ago. LAME

[Spectatrix]

ok...
lame
its not like it says HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION... its from fuckin 2 years ago. LAME

But... but... we must be constantly improving! We must be moving towards 0% unemployment! If you disagree, you're not a real American!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!



Ok yeah, no. I've played too many games of Caesar, Pharaoh, etc. to think that 0% unemployment is good. 3-5% is best.

YES, I'm basing my economic opinions on video games. DEAL WITH IT.

[Hartmann]

But... but... we must be constantly improving! We must be moving towards 0% unemployment! If you disagree, you're not a real American!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
Ok yeah, no. I've played too many games of Caesar, Pharaoh, etc. to think that 0% unemployment is good. 3-5% is best.

YES, I'm basing my economic opinions on video games. DEAL WITH IT.

0% unemployment potentially means the market is stagnate...

I'd much rather have 3-5% unemployment than 0% or even 1%.

[Spectatrix]

Yeah, I know. Market stagnation is bad. With some unemployment, you don't have as many jobs sitting around not being filled, employers have more choice when looking at candidates, etc.

[THECHICKEN]

Communism had 0% unemployment

[Dogmeat]

What is "unemployment rate" really though?

Is this all adults deemed "capable of working" by some standard? is this number derived from tax records, how do they come to this number? Does it take into accont any form of illegal immigrant working status?

How do they come with with "3-5%"?

[False Dude]

i think the number is calculated from the number of people taking unemployment pay which only lasts a certain amount of time and isnt even open to all people. i know common criticism is that the actual rate of unemployment is much higher due to how they measure it. but the number i am assuming doesnt include illegal workers


-testm0

[impala454]

google -> "how unemployment rate is calculated" -> first hit = http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Cat:

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey.

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. The sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, first, the 3,141 counties and county-equivalent cities in the country are grouped into 1,973 geographic areas. The Bureau of the Census then designs and selects a sample consisting of 754 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State.

Each of the 754 areas in the sample is subdivided into enumeration districts of about 300 households. The enumeration districts, in turn, are divided into smaller clusters of about four dwelling units each, through the use of address lists, detailed maps, and other sources. Then, the clusters to be surveyed are chosen statistically, and the households in these clusters are interviewed.

[Spectatrix]

So, Impala, should we trust these numbers? They are, after all, based on that most untrustworthy of entities... statistics!

[impala454]

I'd say it'd be pretty dumb to get your panties in a wad over small fractions of a percent change (which the media seems to).

And 60,000 households would be a pretty large sample size, not to mention their method seem to make sense(if you read on):

Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year.

But yes, I still think stastistics are pretty stupid and un-accurate at least 78.3% of the time .