How can unemployment drop from 4.9 from 5.0 but lose 17,000 jobs?

How can unemployment drop from 4.9 from 5.0 but lose 17,000 jobs january 2008The national unemployment rate went down to 4.9 percent last month from 5 percent in December last year, based on statistics released Friday by the Labor Department.

Based on reports, the US economy lost 17,000 jobs in January, a decline in employment for the first time since August of 2003. This according to economists is another indication of economic trouble. The top decliners in employment are the construction and manufacturing sectors.

How can unemployment drop from 4.9 from 5.0 but lose 17,000 jobs?

Let%26#039;s suppose there are 1000 people in the labor force, 50 of whom are unemployed (but looking for a job) in December. So, the unemployment rate is 0.050 (or 5.0%.)

Now in January, 200 people%26#039;s jobs are lost, but they aren%26#039;t people that planned on working in January anyway, perhaps they were just working over Christmas to make some extra money, or any one of a thousand reasons, so these are 200 jobs lost, but the people are not counted in the labor force in January. Furthermore, over that time period, 18 of the 50 unemployed people found a new job, so there are only 32 unemployed people now, and 800 in the labor force. Now the unemployment rate is 32/800 = 0.04 or 4%.

Meanwhile, 200 jobs were lost, 18 were created, so there were still 182 jobs lost.

Unemployment went down, but more jobs were %26quot;lost%26quot; than %26quot;gained.%26quot;

This is an extreme example, but I think you get the point.

The unemployment rate measures the number of people who are currently out of work but are currently looking for work or would like to be working.

Before and around Christimas, a lot more people are looking/would like to be/are employed. After the holiday many of these people, for numerous reason, are no longer looking for work.

Unemployment rate = # of people without a job that want one / total size of the labor force.

If both change simultaneously, the net effect is not certain.

**** To elaborate on Hubris:

Some of it is discouraged workers, but a large portion of the labor force that leaves between December and January is people that would have left not because of discouragement, but just because they had no plans to continue working. A lot of retail jobs are Seasonal. Plan in advance to work 2 months out of the year, make some extra cash, and get out of the labor force because you don%26#039;t want to work anymore.

How can unemployment drop from 4.9 from 5.0 but lose 17,000 jobs?

loan

Two words: discouraged workers. To be considered unemployed you must meet two criteria: not have a job AND be actively seeking employment. If you have been looking for a job with no success for so long that you give up your search you are not considered unemployed. Rather, you have left the workforce.

Often times when the economy is really bad for a long time the unemployment rate will decline even though new jobs haven%26#039;t been created. During the Great Depression the official unemployment rate never climbed above 25% but the employment level, the number of people working, continued to decline after the 25% mark had been reached. Similarly, after a recession has ended and the economy has started to recover the unemployment rate often increases. This is because previously discouraged workers have rejoined the workforce and are again looking for jobs.|||This happens because the number of available workers grows constantly.

Michigan leads the nation in unemployment, and Michigan's population is going down. Is it Bush&

Michigan November unemployment rate is 7.4%, second highest is Alaska at 6.4%. Michigan%26#039;s female Canadian democrat governor%26#039;s solution was to raise taxes a few months ago. Only 2 states showed a decrease in population, Michigan and Rhode Island.

Is it all Bush%26#039;s fault? Will a democrat president make things better for Michigan?

Here%26#039;s my source for the unemployment rates:

http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm

Here%26#039;s my source for the population of Michigan:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14929...

Michigan leads the nation in unemployment, and Michigan%26#039;s population is going down. Is it Bush%26#039;s fault?

Since local and state governments tend to have local and statewide effects, how about we ask who runs the state legislature of Michigan? Could it be LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!, How about local city Governments? LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!, I live in the south, blessed with conservative local and state government, our unemployment is lower than under Clinton, our economy is booming and things are good! Perhaps the problem is a little closer to home than Washington DC.

Michigan leads the nation in unemployment, and Michigan%26#039;s population is going down. Is it Bush%26#039;s fault? loan

Its all Bill Clinton%26#039;s fault.|||You know, not everything that happens in this country is Bush%26#039;s fault, c%26#039;mon. I mean, Come On.|||It%26#039;s the fault of the auto industry, for not making cars that people prefer to foreign ones. Yet, I drive a Chevy.|||Since when did it become the responsiblity of the executive branch of the federal government to give you a job?|||Think it traces back to the signing of NAFTA, Billies watch.|||Why not? We%26#039;ve got to blame somebody for Michigan%26#039;s population. Let%26#039;s just blame Bush.

OOORRRRR, we could all realize the Michigan is cold and nasty, Detroit is a complete S-hole, the unions have destroyed what was once a proud industry to a point where we cannot compete against foreign automobiles, and nobody wants to live there anymore.|||No. The auto industry has been in trouble for years and half the jobs in the state are auto related. As the Big 3 continue to close plants, unemployment will continue to rise. They just can%26#039;t afford to compete with foreign vehicles and continue to pay the wages in union contracts. Also, Granholm has been terrible and the last thing you want to do to encourage economic growth and development is to increase taxes. Cutting taxes is how you entice companies to bring jobs to your area.|||no it%26#039;s your liberal Governor%26#039;s fault. She raised taxes and killed any economic growth by raising taxes.|||Ever hear of Govennor Grahmholm? She is a Canadian transplant who raised taxes numerous times even though any economists worth their degree knows that higher taxes hurt industry.

Where in the constitution does it say the president is responsible for each state?|||Take a look at the state%26#039;s governor and legislature. There are lots of states that are prosperous...local government%26#039;s political practices can have a greater impact than the federal government.

51 Republicans and 59 Dems in the congress

http://house.michigan.gov/replist.asp

21 Republicans and 15 Dems in the senate

http://senate.michigan.gov/

Granholm, the governor is a Dem.|||Democrates are in control of Michigan%26#039;s state government. Bush, try as he might, just can%26#039;t stop the idiots who run that state from ruining it.|||Yeah, lets blame Bush for dismantleing ROBOCOP too!

Thats why Detroit is falling apart!|||I don%26#039;t know who%26#039;s fault it ultimately is, but I can tell you why it%26#039;s happening. It used to be that a lot of things were manufactured in Michigan (especially cars). Now, companies are outsourcing everything to other countries. They are outsourcing so that they can make their product cheaper (that%26#039;s why everything is from China). Some companies don%26#039;t care about quality and are being just plain cheap, but many companies are forced to outsource. If you don%26#039;t outsource, they think that you aren%26#039;t doing everything you can to keep costs down, so they won%26#039;t buy your product. It%26#039;s gotten so bad that not only are we outsourcing the manufacturing, but a lot of services are outsourced. For example, my company outsourced payroll to a company in Jamaica!! I don%26#039;t know if it%26#039;s Bush%26#039;s fault or past presidents, but there should be some sort of incentives for companies to stay in the US.|||You can blame Bush if you want to, that is the popular thing to do these days.

The blame lies with the punitive mentality of your government and the overall %26quot;union mentality%26quot; of the biggest segment of Michigan population.

I grew up near Detroit in the 60%26#039;s %26amp; 70%26#039;s. I got the hell out in 1983 and haven%26#039;t looked back. My whole family is still there and they%26#039;re doing ok as long as they don%26#039;t want a break from confiscatory taxes, oppressive business regulation or a concealed carry permit.

This isn%26#039;t the first time Michigan has found itself in these circumstances. It won%26#039;t be the last.

If you stand on YOUR spot and push YOUR button and get $30. /hour, you%26#039;re doing well. If you%26#039;re asked to stand on a DIFFERENT spot and push a DIFFERENT button, you get paid extra, you%26#039;re doing well. Y%26#039;all have the UAW and the United Steelworkers Union to thank for that. You can also thank them for outsourcing your buttons and staying competitve.|||Look, you don%26#039;t get it. It is always Bush%26#039;s fault.

I get a flat tire --- Bush%26#039;s fault.

My dog runs away -- Bush%26#039;s fault

State raises taxes --- Bush%26#039;s fault

In this way you don%26#039;t have to apply critical thinking, it is a nice, one size fits all answer to all a persons shortcomings.

Michigan is currently a train wreck. Having a socialist running the joint is just a bonus. I would have to admonish the Republicans for putting up DeVos as the candidate in the last election. I have worked with lobbyists in Michigan and the day it happened they pick him a loser in the race. Not because he was a terrible candidate, but because he was successful, white, male, who wasn%26#039;t all that great at expressing himself.

The socialist didn%26#039;t even try to court Honda when they were looking to build a new auto factory. The unions wouldn%26#039;t like that. If Michigan residents were forced to stay in the state the unemployment rate would be what -- 25%. Watching liberals grapple with the state of the economy in michigan is like watching blind man try and drive a car in rush hour traffic. Thank god, Jeff Daniels is opening up a theater here in the state, we will all eat well tonight. Clueless. They are thinking that they will be able to make up the budget shortfalls with FINES... Can you believe this?

I guess we can all look forward to examples of liberals taxing themselves INTO prosperity.|||Ok, stop blaming bush for everything. Michigan has a poor economy because the auto industry is not doing well, and manufacturing is leaving the rust belt in general. The American car companies have inferior products to the Asian companies in general, except for trucks and SUVs, that people are not buying now anyway because of gas prices. They also have huge healthcare pensions to pay for, and they are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign firms because of out high corporate taxes.

Michigan also has very restrictive labor laws and high taxation. Michigan is not a right to work state (you are forced to join a union if you work for a union shop). If you notice all of the foreign companies that set up factories, they are doing so in Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Missouri, where unions dont have nearly as much government granted monopoly power. And guess what? Jobs get created in those states. Rhode Island is similar. Its industry collapsed in the 1999s and has not com back. I used to live there, and the state has very high taxes and restrictive labor laws, and as a result has had a rather poor economy. As a start contrast, New Hampshire has the same population as Rhode Island, but its state budget is half of what Rhode Island is and its laws are not restrictive at all. There is not sales or income taxes and it is a right to work state. New Hampshire is much wealthier then Rhode Island, its unemployment rate is below the national average, and its the only state in the Northeast with a fast growing population.

So michigan is hurting partially because industry is leaving, partially because the auto industry is hurting and partially because of democrat supported market controls, taxes and labor markets regulations (just like in Rhode Island). It has nothing to do with Bush.

If you elect in a democrat next time, it is more likely that there will be higher environmental standards, more restrictive labor laws and higher taxes, especially on those %26quot;evil%26quot; corporations. And guess what. All three of these will continue to hurt the michigan economy. Companies will leave, along with their jobs, and wages will continue to fall. The population will decline as well.|||While Bush%26#039;s crappy economic policies have not helped they also cannot be blamed solely for Michigan%26#039;s unemployment rate. In a freemarket world we buy cars that fit our needs. If Detroit can%26#039;t give us what we want and need we buy from Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo etc.|||As with everything else that ever went wrong it is Bush%26#039;s fault according to the dems and media, yeah!|||No, it is the UAW%26#039;s fault. Had to catch up with them sometime. Also throw in big oil. No money left to finance new cars. part of that is Bush%26#039;s fault for not allowing us to regulate big oil.

UNEMPLOYMENT--A boon for Indian Eucation??????

Unemployment rate in India is very high. If we look it in a positive way, uneployment has increased the awareness of people towards EDUCATION. And so the standard of education is continuously increasing in India. Today Engineers doctors and all kind of graduates of India are in a great demand in international markets. This shows Indian education is reaching top of the world. Students from all over world come India to study. If unemployent would not be there than this was not possible. What I mean to say is that ISN%26#039;T IT THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF UNEMPLOYENT?

UNEMPLOYMENT--A boon for Indian Eucation??????loan

well there certainly is a positive consequence to it... but that%26#039;s not saying that unemployment is good.

Unemployment survey by the US government?

What questions does the US government ask (on the phone) when they are doing an employment survey to find out about the unemployment rate. A full list (or link) would be very helpful. Thanks!

Unemployment survey by the US government?auto loan

http://www.pitt.edu/~mgahagan/Definition...

See #12

http://www.econ.upenn.edu/econ2/appendix...

I read this a few years ago and don%26#039;t know if it is still done this way, but it said that they make random calls and ask the person%26#039;s employment status. If there is no answer, they assume the person is at work.

Unemployment survey by the US government?

loan

HOW MANY MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY ARE EMPLOYED?

Unemployment?

what are the disadvantages of having a low unemployment rate amd what does this tell you about the country%26#039;s economy?

Unemployment?car loan

The disavantages are there are a lot of crummy jobs.

However the country%26#039;s economy is usually good.

Unemployment?

loan

Most times, people are stuck with really crappy jobs and almost non-existant assistance for those who really need it.|||Quote: %26quot;Most times, people are stuck with really crappy jobs and almost non-existant assistance for those who really need it.%26quot;

For instance, Wal-Mart|||The disadvantage of a low unemployment rate is that in order to attract employees businesses must offer better wages and or benefits i.e. it is harder to find workers so businesses must steal them from one another.

Low unemployment suggests growth in the job market and economic expansion.