No Change in Unemployment, but We’ve Traded Full-Timers for Part-Timers

Time once again to check in on the unemployment rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released the unemployment numbers for February, after a week of preemptive mumbling by the administration about the dire effects of the Snowmageddon on the stats.

Economists were predicting 9.8% (sans snow, I believe), and we got . . . 9.7%. Completely unchanged from last month!

Here’s how that falls on the unemployment chart:

There’s been a growing realization that the unemployment rate doesn’t mean much. Even the U-6 unemployment rate has lost some meaning, because the unprecedented number of workers leaving the workforce has artificially lowered both the U-3 and U-6 rates. In fact, the ratio of employed/population dropped by almost 3% in 2009. Over the past 2 months, however, the workforce has grown by 500,000, so perhaps the exodus from the job market has ebbed.

In any case, that’s why I plot total jobs to get a better feel for how we’re doing. Here’s how that looks:

Last month the number of jobs actually increased by about 550,000 from the month before, but almost the entire increase was in the “Women, 20+” category. This month men caught up a bit, gaining about 200K jobs while women lost 200K. I’m trying to reconcile that zero-sum situation with the 300K jobs supposedly added this month

The two big gainers this month were self-employed agricultural workers (+130,000), and government workers (+65,000). Part-time workers increased by 270,000, and the number of people driven to part-time work due to economic conditions increased by 400,000. That’s not a good sign.

[Don’t forget, you can now get the unemployment chart on t-shirts, mugs, and postcards!]

Previous posts in this series:

• Initial unemployment claims as of the end of Feb 2010
• All the jobs supposedly added in January were picked up by women?
• Trying to make sense of the January numbers.
• January 2010 unemployment numbers
• Initial unemployment claims as of end of January
• Comparing Mark Zandi’s unemployment predictions to reality
• The December Numbers
• Initial unemployment claims as of end of December
• The new misery index
• YouTube video: The Unemployment Game Show
• The November numbers
• The October numbers
• Initial uemployment claims through the end of November
• Initial unemployment claims through the end of October
• A “million jobs saved?” A drop in the bucket.
• Comparing the administration’s statements to reality
• The September numbers
• The August numbers
• The “million jobs saved” claim
• Initial unemployment filings
• The July numbers.
• The percentage of private-employed workers is steadily decreasing, meaning that the burden of supporting government workers is increasing. How long can this trend continue?
• The June numbers.
• Mark Zandi (Moody’s Economy.com) kind of agreed with the Obama team’s projection back in January. But his predictions weren’t much better.
• Saying that “the recession is worse than anybody thought” is a tired old tune
• Everybody did not “guess wrong” on the stimulus package
• The corrected chart for May.
• The predicted numbers for May from a few days ago, with some thoughts on why unemployment is worse than expected even without the stimulus package (and a hearty discussion in the comments on proper graphing)
• A look at the stimulus package spending – how late it is, and how little thus far has been devoted to job creation (it’s basically gone to pay off states’ social services debts)
• The April numbers
• The original post on the subject, noting that criticisms of the stimulus package may not have been motivated by racism after all.