September Unemployment: ACTUAL LOSS 995k

[vic_d]

[freeyourmind]

Just think about the numbers for a minute... pop of the US 307,602,851 (according to the US population clock just now), employed 139,079,000... that is 45% categorized as in the working force.  So 45 out of every 100 people are working in the US. 

Hmmm 

45% sounds reasonable. Whats your point? Children and the elderly should work also?

[onemintomidnight]

Just think about the numbers for a minute... pop of the US 307,602,851 (according to the US population clock just now), employed 139,079,000... that is 45% categorized as in the working force.  So 45 out of every 100 people are working in the US. 

Hmmm 

45% sounds reasonable. Whats your point? Children and the elderly should work also?

don't forget the stay at home mom and pops. they are out there. particularly if they have a couple or more kids. It does not pay to have day care when your only gaining 5-10k a year after taxes and other expenses.

[Pultzar]

Those numbers are millions btw.

It is 140,074K - 139,079K = 995,000

[highstreet]

Those numbers are millions btw.

It is 140,074K - 139,079K = 995,000

140,074,000 - 139,079,000 = 995,000  approx.

[Six Gun Jim]

Fucking WOW. There went the entire population of Montana into the soup line. Now that is a great example of the BIG lie in action, one million becomes a quarter million same day service.

[Anoki]

When the job losses were at half a million a month, it seemed like a million a month was in the cards.  Now that we're there, I'm starting to wonder about the shape of this job loss curve...I mean, will there be a not-too-distant future month where job losses peak at two million?  Maybe three?  Has anyone here done the math on where peak job loss in a month might sit, given our country's population composition?

[picasso moon]

Supposedly one explanation for the discrepancy between 995K and 263K is that many older workers who lost their jobs have filed for Social Security, often relatively early (ie 62, 63). I'm myself thinking of it, it may go broke before too long anyway, so why wait?

[Michigan11]

The fact of the matter is that nearly 1 million fewer people were working in September as compared to August; there has been absolutely no improvement in that trend whatsoever.

That fits with the story I posted a few days ago that showed that the number of food stamp recipients increased by 1,000,000 from August to September alone.   

That's a great way to show others the "official" numbers are bogus. That is a huge increase I would think for one month - 1,000,0000 new food stamp recipients in ONE month! Holy shit

[lowem]

It is 140,074K - 139,079K = 995,000

Thanks - no wonder I had some trouble reading that particular paragraph

[IndianGirl]

Are those numbers for real? IF they are - MY GOD!

You guys are lucky you have food stamps and dole and benefits - If we in India get unemployed - its daddy dear to the rescue - and if daddy dear can't ...I don't know what happens then...we don't get a rupee from the govt for anything!

[nepenthean]

Damn.

It is now 4 20am, and I just finished working 34 hours in two days for a total of 69 hours for the week. Too bad only 4 hours were overtime.

Lesson for the week: Do not get fat. Bad things happen to people when adipose afflicts their bodies.

[pg]

When the job losses were at half a million a month, it seemed like a million a month was in the cards.  Now that we're there, I'm starting to wonder about the shape of this job loss curve...I mean, will there be a not-too-distant future month where job losses peak at two million?  Maybe three?  Has anyone here done the math on where peak job loss in a month might sit, given our country's population composition?

Anoki, as I see it, provided that even a slight majority of the people who goes unemployed doesn't find a new job, a constant number of new job losses every month is definitely exponential trend; as time goes by, it is more unlikely this number increases, but a constant, let's say half a million, means much worse every new month. You have to look at the rate unemployed vs employed (like the chart above).

[hillwalker]

Going back to the original link.

Where are these numbers:

Civilian Labor Force: 154,879 to 153,617 this month.
Employed: 140,074 down to 139,079 this month.


Coming from?

The article gives no citation.

[vic_d]

Actually it does.. & in the very first line...

Anyway, here it is : http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

look at Table A-1 page 11.