Severe threat of empty chairs

Click on graphics to embiggen.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

I added some pics to my Empty Chair album @


Filed under Barack Obama, Clint Eastwood

2 responses to “Severe threat of empty chairs

  1. Chrissy,
    August BLS numbers are out. Can you take the Employment-popluation numbers and do a graph for the Clinton-Bush-Obama years with party affiliation?

    Here’s the base graph for 1993-present:


  2. One thing that confuses many people is that the BLS does two different surveys: one of households, one of employers. The first survey is the one used to report “unemployment”, while the second survey is used to report “jobs created”.
    A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1977 to date
    [Numbers in thousands]
    Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
    [In thousands]

    Look at Table A-1. Not that the number of people employed in August was actually lower than the number of people employed in July.

    Here are the changes from July to August for various columns of Table A-1:

    Civilian noninstitutional population: UP 212,000 people
    Civilian labor force: DOWN 368,000 people
    Civilian labor force, as a % of population: DOWN 0.2 % points
    Employed: DOWN 119,000 people
    Employed, as a % of population: DOWN 0.1 % points
    Number considered Not in labor force: UP 581,000 people
    Number condisdered unemployed: DOWN 250,000 people
    Number condisdered unemployed, as a % of population: DOWN 0.2 % points

    Hence, they are going to report a loss of employment for 119,000 people as “Good” economic news!

    With 119,000 LESS people employed in August than July, you would think that the UNemployment rate would go UP. But by shifting 581,000 people to “not in labor force” the unemployment rate magically drops!

    This is why I don’t like the unemployment number… it’s too easy for them to manipulate who is, and is not, considered “in the labor force”.

    I prefer the Employment-population ratio, because it shows employment as a % of the “employable” population (civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and up).

    Note that the employment as a % of population went DOWN in August, which means that real NON-employment as a % of population went UP in August.

    The only way that they made the official unmeployment number go down is by counting a RECORD NUMBER of people as “not in labor force”.