Paltry 88K jobs added while 663K give up looking for work - Result: Unempl rate 7.6%!

[Little-Acorn]

The Obama administration is celebrating the unemployment rate dropping to 7.6% in March... and hoping people don't notice it's because more than 600,000 people have quit looking for work altogether.

In U.S. Labor Dept statistics, only people actually looking for work, get counted as "unemployed". So when huge numbers of people give up looking for work altogether and drop out (as happened last month), that actually makes the "unemployment" number look BETTER.

88,000 jobs were created in March - barely enough to keep up with population growth. So, it's just as hard to find a job now, as it was last month, with no improvement.

------------------------------------------------------------

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record-89967000-not-labor-force-another-663000-drop-out-march

Record 89,967,000 Not in Labor Force; Another 663,000 Drop Out In March

April 5, 2013
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - A record 89,967,000 Americans were not in the labor force in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is an increase of 663,000 from the 89,304,000 Americans who were not in the labor force in February.

Since President Barack Obama was first inaugurated in January 2009, 9,460,000 people have dropped out of the labor force.

The BLS counts a person as not in the civilian labor force if they are at least 16 years old, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks. The department counts a person as in the civilian labor force if they are at least 16, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and either do have a job or have actively looked for one in the last four weeks.

The number of people that BLS considers "in the labor force" affects the unemployment rate--which is the percentage of people "in the labor force" who are unable to find a job during the month. If someone previously considered "not in the labor force" were to go out and search for a job and not find one, they would have to be counted as in the labor force for that period--and thus would increase the unemployment rate.

To the degree that Americans choose to simply drop out of the labor force rather than search unsuccessful for a job they decrease the unemployment rate.

In keeping with the increase in the number of people not in the labor force, the labor force participation rate decreased from 63.5 percent in February to 63.3 percent in March. The labor force participation rate is the percentage of Americans in the civilian population over age 16 who did not have a job or seek a job during the month.

In January 2009, when Obama was first inaugurated, there were 80,507,000 people not in the labor force compared to the 89,967,000 who were not in the labor force in March.

[aboutime]

Little-Acorn. These numbers are always praised as an accomplishment by the Obama administration because...They know the greatest majority of Americans DO NOT FOLLOW, or PAY ATTENTION to data like this.
Other than those of us who get involved with Politics in Forums like this, and for those who live near the BELTWAY in Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland where politics runs like water in the Sewers.

In other words. Obama and most politicians DEPEND on that large percentage of UNINFORMED Americans NOT to know, care, or understand what is happening with the TRUMPED UP, or DOWN Numbers about Unemployment.

Keep the people in the dark...is OBAMA's Motto.

[red states rule]

Why the hell should anyone look for a job when Obama and Co are handing out food stamps, housing, medical care, and unemployment compensation like candy? Dems have taken the slogan Land of the Free to new heights with their endless list of goodies and enticements to get people to keep voting Democrat

[red states rule]

ABC humiliated themselves this morning and made excuses early for why the numbers would be be as high as they were previously. Oh and ABC was off slightly in their numbers. By a paltry 102,000 jobs

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/120721" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[red states rule]

Looks like Obama's PR Staff is rallying to his defense once again and offering the most lame excuses





DIM LABOR REPORT SHOWS US ADDED JUST 88K JOBS
A streak of robust job growth came to a halt in March [1], signaling that U.S. employers may have grown cautious in a fragile economy.
The gain of 88,000 jobs [2] was the smallest in nine months.


... Friday's weak jobs report from the Labor Department caught analysts by surprise and served as a reminder that the economic recovery is still slow, nearly four years after the Great Recession ended. [3]


... Economists had no single explanation for why hiring weakened so sharply and broadly - from retailers and manufacturers to electronics and building materials companies. Some said deep government spending cuts that began taking effect March 1 might have contributed to the slowdown, along with higher Social Security taxes. [4] Others raised the possibility that last month was just a pause [5] in an improving job market.


Whatever the reasons, slower job growth will extend the Federal Reserve's policy of keeping borrowing costs at record lows. [6]


March's job gain was less than half the average of 196,000 jobs in the previous six months, raising the prospect that for the fourth straight spring, the economy and hiring could show strength early in the year, only to weaken later. Some economists say weak hiring may persist into summer before rebounding by fall. [7]


... Longer-term trends have helped keep the participation rate down. The baby boomers have begun to retire. The share of men 20 and older in the labor force has dropped as manufacturing has shrunk. [8]


... An intensifying European financial crisis depressed hiring in 2010. Japan's earthquake and tsunami also disrupted U.S. manufacturing in 2011. Last year, an unusually warm winter caused employers to do more hiring early in the year, cutting into hiring that normally happens in spring. [9]
Notes:
[1] -- This "robust job growth" refers to the past four months, which, looking at the raw (not seasonally adjusted) figures (http://bizzyblog.com/wp-images/NSAandSAjobs2001toMarch2013.png) after revisions, were no better than the same four months a year earlier. 1.521 million jobs were lost from November 2011 through February 2012. From November 2012 through February 2013, the loss was 1.515 million.
[2] -- There is no defensible excuse for not describing the result as "seasonally adjusted." The term is not in the report. The average reader will assume that 88,000 jobs were actually added. The fact is that BLS believes 759,000 were added. The problem is, that's the worst March result (http://bizzyblog.com/wp-images/NSAandSAjobs2001toMarch2013.png) since the recession officially ended, worse than 2012 (901,000), 2011 (907,000), and even 2010 (835,000).
[3] -- This would have been the perfect opportunity to tell readers that this is by far the worst "recovery" since World War II. But of course not.
[4] -- Excuses, excuses. The reason AP had to be so vague ("some said") about the "deep government spending cuts" copout is that almost no one outside the government or who isn't an Obama administration alum agrees that the "cuts," which are really reductions in projected spending growth, contributed to yesterday's pathetic results. As to taxes, it's interesting that the tax increases on upper-income Americans resulting from the fiscal cliff deal (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-how-it-will-affect-taxpayers-and-the-economy) and as a result of ObamaCare (http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes) weren't mentioned.
[5] -- Economies don't "pause" without a reason.
[6] -- Sure, let's keep covering the government's deficits and applying artificial stimulus. That has done so much for economic growth since the recession -- not.
[7] -- Sure, it will only be for a few months, and things will get better after that indefinitely. Just like the past three years -- not.
[8] -- Seriously, why should the decline of manufacturing automatically lead to reduced male employment? It's as if this is the only sector in which men can work. Really?
[9] -- The three items cited were not major factors in the years involved. The 2012 excuse about the warm winter is a real howler. None of these events would have held back a sufficiently robust economy properly driven by appropriate public policy.
So the economy went from recession-proof to "fragile" in a day. Amazing. This should be professionally embarrassing. Is it, Chris? Do you even care?


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/04/06/four-ap-reporters-make-excuses-all-unacceptable-weak-march-jobs-report#ixzz2PpRHtA5T