Friday, February 5, 2016

January 2016 numbers show 151,000 new jobs, 4.9% unemployment

The latest from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates somewhat less job growth than seen in previous months. Job growth is getting awfully close to fabled "full employment", with the National Unemployment Rate for January at 4.9%, down 0.1% from December. The broader U6 measurement of unemployment was also flat at 9.9%.

The number of people employed in the chemical manufacturing subsector was 817,100, up 2,100 positions from December's 815,000. I expect this number to trend down as the Dow/DuPont layoffs kick in, as well as all the various oil company perturbations (although that will likely be recorded in the petroleum and coal products subsector.)

The unemployment rate for college graduates, age 25 and up has been flat for a while at 2.5%. The unemployment rate for non-high school graduates, by comparison, is 7.4%, up from December's 6.7%. If we are to have a bagel this year, I suspect we'll see that show up in the non-high school graduate numbers first.

Also, wage news: "Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.5 percent. In January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 6 cents to $21.33." I hope that's good news. 

10 comments:

  1. It's great to see low unemployment numbers, but workforce participation rates are still painfully low.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shadowstats.com for the real numbers. This is about as bogus as ever. Also read, zerohedge.com for an bigger picture with some context. The B(L)S comes through again. Everything is awesome!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have trouble trusting a website that leads with talks of false flag attacks, the collapse of paper money, and has multiple Fight Club references on the front page.

      Not that I don't love Fight Club, but I don't find it to be a particularly edifying text when it comes to market analysis.

      Delete
  3. What do those wage numbers really cover? -- phone surveys are reputed to have some real bias issues with cell phones, etc -- has any here one taken a close look at the methodology and care to comment?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The wage increase is due to the minimal wage increased in some cities/state, my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When did you all get your PhD?

    See video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tldXRvTHJE

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi –
    Yesterday, I expressed my concern to a recruiter that my extensive and unusual background might scare off potential employers. She responded by recommending that I remove “Dr.” from my name at the top of the resume.
    That lead to two questions:
    (a) Should I also remove reference to having completing a doctorate from the entire resume? This question might have a relatively straightforward answer, but I still would be interested in opinions.
    (b) Should I remove the dates of my degrees from my resume? I’ve heard different answers to this question. So would be interested in learning of anyone else’s experience on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2015/05/ask-cj-should-you-hide-your-phd.html?m=0

      I think others have asked about hiding their PhD before. (CJ sez no and commenters agree.)

      Delete
    2. Unless you have an MD, I'd probably leave off the title Dr. in your name. If you're applying for a PhD-level position anyway, it's unlikely to impress, and it can be seen by some as obnoxious. Don't remove the education/doctorate degree from your resume though.

      Delete