Gallup: Number of Americans Surrendering to Unemployment Still Growing
Participation rate still falling.
The U.S. Payroll to Population employment rate (P2P), as measured by Gallup, fell to 43.5% in September, from 43.7% in August. The rate has declined by almost two percentage points from 45.1% in September 2012 to 35-year low rates, the likes of which haven't been seen since the horrific unemployment levels under Jimmy Carter.
While the P2P rate for September is down from the same month last year, it is similar to what Gallup found in September 2011 and 2010 — meaning there has been essentially no growth in full-time employment for an employer since at least 2010, a year after the recession ended, and the first year Gallup polled on this measure.
It's more complex than that. I did a candle-stick chart on the Participation from Jan-1948 to Aug-2013. I wish I could set up a link so you could see it.
During the 1950's the Participation Rate was under 60% almost all the time. (It nudges over 60.0% in '56 & '57.) It nudges to 60.0% again during Johnson's term. Women start coming to work in Nixons term and his median Participation Rate is 60.4%.
Ford's median rate is 61.3%.
Carter's is 63.5%.
Reagan's is 64.6%.
Bush_41 is 66.4%
Clinton's median rate is 66.9%. His High is the series High of 67.3% (In Jan-2000 & Apr-2000)
What we are documenting here is a continious increase in Participation rate, most certainly caused by women entering the employment market. What's more it is a time of steady population increases. It is plausible that some of the unemployment problems of the Carter-Reagan years were caused by population growth and women entering the labor force faster than the economy could absorb them.
The Civilian Participation Rate leveled off during Bush_43s term. His median was 66.1%. His High 67.2% and his Low 65.7%. It is clear that the growth in Participation rate plateaued during Bush_43s term. My guess is that babies born around 1941 were hitting early retirement age of 62 in 2003. These are not yet "Baby Boomers."
It was always clear to me that the Democrats sabotaged the US economy during 2008 to get a Democrat (and later Barack Obama) elected President. The Civilian Participation Rate took a dive from 66.2% to 64.8% and has never recovered. I think part of the problem is that early Baby Boomers, born in 1946, reached early retirement age of 62 during 2008.
Since then, under Obama, the Participation Rate has plummeted to 63.2%. Obama's 57 month median is 64.2%. It is obvious that Baby Boomers born as recently as 1952 have reached early retirement and are exiting the employment market. I have not personally studied this, but I am told under Obama, people on SSI Disability.have doubled since Bush_43 left office.
It's clear that there is a fundamental change in our employment market, apparently hastened by the dismal employment conditions of the Obama Administration. Sure Babay Boomers would have retired soon anyway, but under Obama they have retired sooner. And the requests for disability claims are at an all time high.
Any new president is going to have a hard time changing this because once people are retired or out on disability, it is going to be very hard to draw them back into the labor market.
Meanwhile, the percent of American's today classified as being in "poverty" is higher now than when Johnson started his "War on Poverty" and "Great Society" programs in the late 1960's!
Now that we have figures for the full four years of Obama’s first term, a surprising fact emerges: The economy added more jobs during four years under Obama than it did in the entire eight years under Bush.
By the time of Obama’s second inaugural in January, the economy had added a net total of 1,208,000 jobs since he was first sworn in four years earlier, according to current figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That beats George W. Bush’s eight-year total of 1,083,000.
And so far, Obama is extending his lead over Bush. Counting jobs added in February, his total now stands at a net gain of over 1.5 million jobs."
What ever figures you are looking at are totaly wrong! Here are the correct numbers.
One of the shocking facts is that Obama's HIGH was in July-2013 and in August 2013 there was about a 100k DECREASE in Total Employment. Supposedly, new numbers would be expected Fri, Oct 4, 2013 but the BLS might not be considered "essential."
BLS Data Table A-1
as of 09/21/2013
President As of Total Employment
George W. Bush Month (Millions)
Open:, Jan-2001, 137.8
Low:, Jan-2002, 135.7
High:, Nov-2007, 146.6
Close:, Jan-2009, 142.2
Open to Close:, 4.4
Open to Low:, (2.1)
Low to High:, 10.9
Open to High:, 8.8
High to Close:, (4.4)
Open to Close:, 2.0
Open to Low:, (4.1)
Low to High:, 6.3
Open to High:, 2.1
High to Close:, (0.1)
Notes for Obama
(1) May 2012 is is first time High greater than Open
(2) Data for all of 2012 was restated lower after the Nov-2012 election.
(3) Note that Obama's High was Jul-2013 and Aug-2013 is about
100k jobs LOWER