U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%

30%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 21, 2009 07:00 PM UTC

Colorado unemployment drops to 7%; 'worst behind us,' says state labor chief

  • 35 Comments
  • by: Danny the Red (hair)

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Since so many question the “unemployment rate,” Additional information on discouraged workers added below the fold.

http://denver.bizjournals.com/…

This is great news. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator that I thought was still another 6 months from turning.

Colorado avoided a lot of the over building in 2007 and it is clear to me that someone, some place put the breaks on over development.  I would like to know who so I can send them a big bouquet, its made our recession more mild.

Now if tax revenues start to turn around I can take off my panic hat.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the U.S.:

   * U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;

   * U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;

   * U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);

   * U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;

   * U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and

   * U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Generally, all six measures move together over time, including across business cycles. Similarly, states that have high official unemployment rates tend to have high values for the other five measures; the reverse is true for states with low unemployment rates. Note that, in the table and in the comparisons below, the unemployment rates (U-3) that are shown are derived directly from the CPS. As a result, these U-3 measures may differ from the official state unemployment rates for the latest 4-quarter period.

http://www.bls.gov/news.releas…

These are national measures, but the step ups tend to remain consistent over time.  I don’t have time to find local measures.

Modified to fit as post.

Alternative measures of labor underutilization

                                               Sept.   2009                                                                                                                                              

 U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.4  

 U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force 6.8  

 U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)   9.8  

 U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus  discouraged workers 10.2  

 U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a  percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 11.1  

 U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers 17.0

                                               

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on “Colorado unemployment drops to 7%; ‘worst behind us,’ says state labor chief”

  1. That 7 percent, according to the DBJ, translates into more than 187,000 people out of work. 7 percent is nice number until you look at how many people are looking for jobs (including me 🙂 And of course it doesn’t count the number of people who have stopped filing claims.

    1. I know that when you are unemployed, who cares what the rate is.

      I also know the rate understates under employment, “consultants” and discouraged workers.

      I am only pointing out that the ship is turning faster than I expected.

      1. He’s made the turn in his mind and thus payroll taxes and consumer spending will uptick to save the day.

        You know somethings stinky when they trot out Mares vs Marostica.

        creating 3 government jobs for every private sector job takes a lot of investment

      1. .

        anecdotal, because I use the nearby public library for color printing, where I encounter that slice of society that needs free Internet, but …

        I meet dozens of people at the library who are on the Internet looking for work, and its a different dozen each day.  

        City bus service to this library, nestled in a Northeast neighborhood of $200K homes, was suspended 6 months ago.  So these folks are not of the “permanent underclass.”  

        3 former employees and 2 former neighbors have left town to chase mirages of work.  

        A friend with a plastering business is bidding below cost to keep his employees from leaving.  

        Major vacancies in retail space.  

        The sky might really be falling.

        7% is a hoax number, I’m convinced.

        Now, do I have to turn my Economist license back in for this unprofessional wallowing ?

        Oops.  I don’t have one.

        .

        1. But it’s certainly not adjusted for those who have dropped off the unemployment rolls but are still out of work.

          Hoaxing too low a number might cost the state, making us ineligible for any extended benefits the feds might offer.

          I see no conspiracy here, just a number that’s short of people who can’t be counted because they are no longer in the system.

        2. It used to be that we’d look for job openings in the newspaper. Not any more. Now we look online. If you don’t have internet access at home, where ya gonna go? The library.

          So what? In a recession, we can expect to see lots more people using the internet at the library. It’s a valid observation, but the problem is that there’s no comparable observation. During the last recession, most people were still looking for jobs in the newspaper.  

          1. I have an immediate family member, unemployed, who is in the public library every day on line looking for a job, so I know what you’re talking about.

            I believe the unemployment figures are accurate and their methodology is sound, but for so many the recession ends they day they get a job.  

              1. I wonder how many are in that group though.  How do you just throw up your hands in the air and say “fuck it, I’m not looking for a job anymore”.  That has to be a really shitty situation.

              2. At least not that number. The significance (if any) lies in the trend.

                I suppose you could make the argument that the drop is due to an increase of the number of people that stopped looking, but then you’d need to support the assertion with some real numbers.

            2. Our business certainly still sucks.  But, as you say, figures and methodology do point to at least some degree of real improvement that deserves to be acknowledged and no doubt is acknowledged by all except those who simply can’t stand to see any improvement if that would mean the slightest credit to current policies.  I suspect LB (not Barron), for instance, would be much happier with millions of starving people rioting in the streets because that would really make Obama and the Dems look bad.    

              1. That includes LB and BX. They know too many people who are struggling to think its a good thing.

                And it smacks of R attacks on Ds that they cheered high Iraq casualties because it made W look bad.  

              2. You could probably accuse Gecko or Libertad of that and I’d even suggest they wouldn’t really revel in other people’s misery that much, let alone Laughing Boy. He may not see eye to eye with you but he certainly has never indicated in a single comment here that he would rejoice over millions of starving people rioting in the streets.

                That’s the kind of hyperbole that pretty much is designed to shut the conversation down, not get it started.

                And since you suggested that he can’t stand to see improvement, then I am assuming your criticism extends to Bob Moore and his comments, too.  

                1. except a desire for failure at any cost so long as it’s bad for Obama and the Dems. Admit to indulging in a little exaggeration but that’s what I see in all his comments lately.  In fact, the only difference I see between his comments these days and Gecko or Libertad’s is that LB is coherent and knows how to write well.  The content  doesn’t strike me as much different anymore. If that’s a crappy thing for me to say, color me crappy.  

                  2. You get to poke the majority with sticks (the sharper, the better) when they don’t deliver promises (explicit or implied). Us Dems haven’t been out of the wilderness that long to forget that.

                    LB and BX certainly don’t like many of O’s policies and don’t think they will succeed. Everytime they can point to some piece of evidence that shows that, they’ll bring that forward. Fair enough, it’s the job of the loyal opposition.

                    And when we decry R tactics, it’s fair for our conservative friends to point out cases where our side engaged in similar behavior. Nobody likes hypocrisy.

                    Our job is to logically and persuasively defend policies we support, like rescuing the economy from near-certain disaster and reforming health care, and bringing our troops home land wars in SW Asia that don’t serve our long-term interests.  

    3. the “actual unemployment” and under-employment numbers are also available. But today’s number has relevance relative to previous months and shows, as Danny says, larger directions in the economy.

  3. Governor Bill Ritter deserves credit for keeping jobs in the state and trying to creat new ones.  He has worked very, very, very hard at bringing energy jobs here, and has done a good job, IMHO.  He deserves a whole lot more credit than progressives have been giving him.

  4. When you look at the numbers, the decline in the unemployment rate is driven entirely by the size of the labor force, which is an indication of a growth in discouraged jobseekers — those who don’t have jobs but aren’t seeking work because they view the search as pointless.

    In September 2009 seasonallly adjusted data, Colorado had 2,483,577 people classified as employed out of a total labor force of 2,670,951. That yielded the 7 percent unemployment number. But the number of people counted as employed declined by 2,356. It’s not like people were getting jobs — they were just removed from the labor force count.

    Compared to September 2008, Colorado’s labor force declined by almost 62,000 people while the number counted as employed has declined by 113,000. Now, we know the state population hasn’t declined in this period — but fewer people are counted as being in the labor force because they’ve given up looking for work. If you used the current count of unemployed and the size of the labor force from September 2008, you’d have an unemployment rate in Colorado of 9.1 percent.

    1. The unemployment numbers reflect only those who are filing claims, not those who have run out of benefits or aren’t looking anymore. I suspect the real number is closer to what you estimate, not what Mares says.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

217 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols