Where's Waldo Graphs of the Unemployed and not Counted

Below are more graphs and facts from the September BLS employment report data.

Forced part-time work is at epidemic levels. Below is a graph of those forced into part-time jobs because they cannot get a full time one. This data goes back a decade.


forced part time workers September 2010


Graphed out for the beyond belief increase is the broader, alternative measure of unemployment or U6.




Below is the actual number of nonfarm payroll jobs minus the number of people who need them, or civilian labor force. The point of this exercise is to show while the total number of people in the United States with the potential to work has grown, the actual number of payroll jobs has shrunk, so the jobs deficit is the real deficit to be worried about right now.



Next is a graph of those not in the labor force, of the people who could be working. Notice while population and those who could work, the non-institutional civilian population has grown, the number of jobs has shrunk and those who every month fall off of the count, claimed not in the labor force has increased.


not in labor force


Finally, let's look at the graph of the number of government jobs. A couple of things to notice. Firstly the graph goes back to September 1999. See those two spikes? Those are the temporary Census jobs. Secondly, you see when Bush was in office, how government employment increased? More evidence that infamous political sound byte of smaller government is simply smoke and mirrors.



Subject Meta: 

Forum Categories: 

On GDP, GOP Keeps Gettin Smokier - How Much Would You Cut GDP?

The Tea Party drops by in campaign season and tells me they want to 'cut Government'.
I ask "So how much are you prepared to cut GDP?" I explain the simple identtity
GDP = C + G + FI + NI.
Cut the Government and have no plan and GDP drops, that simple. 1950-54 economies are exeptions to the rule when each part of the equation of GDP are increasing at double digit percentages. Some other part of the economy can take up the slack. Not now. Not the Consumer, not Trade and not Fixed Private Investment.

Of course they said, "Cut taxes and Fixed Private Investment will increase". We have shown on these pages that the idea has proven historically false since the middle 1950s. Tax Rates are cut and private investment does not increase. Why?

Consider the dynamics of Trade and Fixed Private Investment in this economy. Buy a laptop produced by our comrades at FoxCon and Fixed Investment Increases and so does the Trade Deficit. Effect on GDP = Zero. Or, General Motors buys a robot from Fanuc, same zero effect on GDP. Anecdotes only? No.

Consumer = 70 %
Government = 25 %
Trade = Negative 4 %
FPI = 9 %

Trade Deficit negates any positive outcomes of Fixed Private Investment. So GDP hardly grows at all. Govermment spending change is near zero, same for the consumer.
Consumer expectations are depressed. Cut Government and you cut GDP.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

Burton Leed

The "I" In GDP

FI is just part of I in the GDP equation, not total Investment, it's a subset. Always define variables so folks can follow along. Remember anything with a number in it makes 98% of America immediately fall asleep.

See Q2 2010 GDP, 3rd revision, where I try to put the calculations online and it seems I should add even more mathematics corresponding to the cryptic BEA releases than what is there now.

here is the Q2 2010 real GDP numbers:

total: 13,194.9
pce: 9275.7
gov: 2540.2
i-x (trade deficit) = -449
I = 1791.5
fixed investment = 1702.5

By percentages, Q2 GDP contributions are:
PCE (C or consumption): 70.2%
gov: 19.3%
fixed invest: 12.9%
exports: 12.5%
imports: -16.9%

So, your numbers are really off. While the trade deficit trashed US GDP, I think in terms of jobs you must look at exports directly and see how much of GDP exports actually are.

I try to put these original reports on this site, along with equations and showing the calculations, so people can figure out for themselves these numbers.

There are two problems, firstly most of the press cannot do basic math and the second is the government, BEA revises numbers so much, there is no doubt if you quote something from the Internets, it will be out of date.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.