June 2013 Jobs Numbers and Unemployment Rate were released Friday, July 5th.
Highlights:
Highlights:
- 195,000 new nonfarm payroll jobs (net)
- 202,000 new private sector nonfarm jobs
- April, May jobs numbers revised upwards by 70,000.
- Unemployment rate about even at 7.6%. (The unemployment rate actually increased from 7.55% to 7.56%)
- Number of people unemployed increased by 17,000 as 177,000 people entered or re-entered the labor force and started looking for jobs.
- Government lost 7,000 jobs
- Civilian labor force expanded by 177,000
- People employed (includes farm workers and the self-employed) increased by 160,000
- Alternate (U-6) unemployment rate increased .5% due to increases in the the number of discouraged workers, the number of marginally-attached workers, the number of people working part-time because they could not find full-time work, and the total increase in the labor force.
- The percent of people working full-time increased very slightly over the past year from 80.45% to 80.5%.
Watch this post. As details and reports are published Friday, the following links will be added and updated.
- Private Sector Job Loss/Growth Since 2008 w/ Graph - JUNE update
- What Was the Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office (compared to today)? - JUNE 2013 update
- How Many Jobs Created or Lost Under Obama? - JUNE 2013 update
- Jobs Lost/Gained Year by Year Since 1999 - JUNE update
- Private/Government Jobs Gained/Lost Month by Month 2011 to 2013 - JUNE update
- How Many Jobs Have Been Created in 2013 to date? - JUNE update
- How Many Government Jobs Lost or Added Under Obama? - JUNE update
Other Recent Posts About Employment and the Labor Market:
- How Many People Left the Work Force Since Obama Took Office?
- Yes, 20 million People Did Get Pink Slips in 2012!
- How Many Jobs Lost or Gained in 2013 to date?
- The Unemployment Rate Would Be 11% if Labor Participation Had Not Decreased!
- Who Are Those 90 Million People Not in the Labor Force? (chart included)
I can't help but wonder why you bother to publish these ever pro administration jobs reports and linked articles. I assume that you are more liberal than conservative, since most of your articles lean, seriously lean that way, and you are either genuinely proud of the job that this administration is doing, or you are blind to the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn one of your links you say "As I scream into the night... again.. about the labor force participation rate:"
So stop screaming Molly. You continue to ignore facts regarding the labor force participation rate ...... and yet you pride yourself on facts. A month or two ago I posted facts about the baby boomer retirement ages and school admissions rates, and neither back up your "head banging" insistence that the participation rate decline is based on either or both. Yes Molly, we agree that demographics do change, and the rate was due to change, but change gradually, not abruptly as has been the case.
You like graphs, you show them in your articles often, so then in the spirit of fairness and openness, post a labor participation rate graph. One from 1950 to the present would be good. It would show that the rate hovered around 59% from 1950 until women began entering the workforce en mass in the mid 60s. Then it began a steady climb until it reached near 67% at the beginning of the Clinton presidency. The rate then wavered in the 66/67% range through all of the Clinton and Bush tenures at the helm. When Obama took became our president in January 2009, the rate stood at 65.7%, it had already declined from 66% that it stood at as late as October 2008, when the recession was already underway. But here is where you stubbornly "bang your head against the wall", as you say, and refuse to see the reality that this decline was precipitous, not gradual as any change due to demographic changes should show. All the past labor chart changes took decades to gradually move the direction and rate, this rate fall under Obama was dramatic. In only 3 years it dropped a full 2 percentage points and has remained near its low ever since.
The unemployment rate that you so proudly report month after month is a fantasy created by the shrinking labor force participation rate.
In your April 26 link to the article you wrote about the rate you make comments like, "So.... Do people who blather on about the "labor participation rate" really believe we should keep people from retiring and keep people from going to school in an effort to prop up the "labor participation rate"?
Do you consider all facts that don't jive with your view "blather"?
Are more people retiring ..... yes! Are more people going to school ..... yes! But we are not agreeing as to why, and why is the big gorilla in the room. There is only one answer to the why, and that why is because the job outlook has been weak and early retirement and continued schooling is an option that people take when they cannot find a job, or cannot find a good job. That Molly is the why of why the rate is where it is, and if you choose to continue banging your head against the wall, rather than acknowledging the facts ..... I suppose that's your business, but you do your readers a disservice in doing so.
After posting the above commentary I noticed one typo where I wrote "When Obama took became" .... ignore the "took". Also I read after that intentionally inflammatory comments will be deleted. I would hope you don't see my comments that way, they are not intended as such ..... but I do disagree with your views on that topic, and believe that you fail to properly acknowledge the "gorilla" I mentioned.
ReplyDelete