Quoted Text

Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed                         USDL-12-2366
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, December 7, 2012

Technical information:
Household data:       (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  http://www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data:   (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  http://www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


                         THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2012
                        
                        
   (NOTE: Data published in this release for women employees in the retail trade;
   trade, transportation, and utilities; private service-providing; total private;
   and total nonfarm industries are erroneous. Errors are found in Summary table B
   and table B-5. Additional information is available at
   http://www.bls.gov/bls/ceswomen_retail_correction.htm.)


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 146,000 in November, and the unemployment
rate edged down to 7.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment increased in retail trade, professional and business services, and health
care.


  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     |
|                                Hurricane Sandy                                      |
|                                                                                     |
|Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the Northeast coast on October 29th, causing severe |
|damage in some states. Nevertheless, our survey response rates in the affected       |
|states were within normal ranges. Our analysis suggests that Hurricane Sandy did not |
|substantively impact the national employment and unemployment estimates for November.|
|BLS will release the regional and state estimates on December 21st. For additional   |
|information on how severe weather affects employment and unemployment data, see      |
|Question 8 in the Frequently Asked Questions section of this release.                |
|                                                                                     |
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in November. The number of unemployed
persons, at 12.0 million, changed little. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.2 percent), adult
women (7.0 percent), teenagers (23.5 percent), whites (6.8 percent), and Hispanics (10.0
percent) showed little or no change in November. The unemployment rate for blacks (13.2
percent) declined over the month. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.4 percent (not
seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 4.8 million in November. These individuals accounted for 40.1 percent of
the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 63.6 percent
in November, offsetting an increase of the same amount in October. Total employment was
about unchanged in November, following a combined increase of 1.3 million over the prior
2 months. The employment-population ratio, at 58.7 percent, changed little
in November. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as
involuntary part-time workers), at 8.2 million in November, was little changed over the
month. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or
because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In November, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially
unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 979,000 discouraged workers in November, little
changed from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for
them. The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in November
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school
attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 146,000 in November. Since the beginning
of this year, employment growth has averaged 151,000 per month, about the same as the
average monthly job gain of 153,000 in 2011. In November, employment rose in retail
trade, professional and business services, and health care. (See table B-1.)

Retail trade employment rose by 53,000 in November and has increased by 140,000 over the
past 3 months. Over the month, job gains occurred in clothing and clothing accessory stores
(+33,000), in general merchandise stores (+10,000), and in electronics and appliance stores
(+9,000). Employment in miscellaneous store retailers decreased by 13,000.

In November, employment in professional and business services rose by 43,000. Employment
continued to increase in computer systems design and related services.

Health care employment continued to increase in November (+20,000), with gains in hospitals
(+8,000) and in nursing care facilities (+5,000). Health care has added an average of 26,000
jobs per month this year.

Employment in wholesale trade edged up over the month (+13,000). Since reaching an employment
trough in May 2010, the industry has added 228,000 jobs.

Information employment also edged up in November (+12,000), with the increase concentrated
in motion picture and sound recording (+15,000). On net, information employment has changed
little over the past 12 months.

In November, leisure and hospitality employment continued to trend up (+23,000). Over the
past 12 months, the industry has added 305,000 jobs.

Employment in construction declined by 20,000 in November, with much of the loss occurring
in construction of buildings (-11,000). Since early 2010, employment in construction has
shown no clear trend.

Manufacturing employment changed little over the month. Within the industry, job losses
in food manufacturing (-12,000) and chemicals (-9,000) more than offset gains in motor
vehicles and parts (+10,000) and wood products (+3,000). On net, manufacturing employment
has changed little since this past spring.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, transportation and
warehousing, financial activities, and government, showed little change in November.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls remained at 34.4
hours in November. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and
factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours.
(See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $23.63. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by
1.7 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees edged up by 3 cents to $19.84. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +148,000
to +132,000, and the change for October was revised from +171,000 to +138,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 4, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        |
|                   Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                |
|                                                                                        |
|In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation release for December 2012,  |
|scheduled for January 4, 2013, will incorporate annual revisions in seasonally adjusted |
|unemployment and other labor force series from the household survey. Seasonally adjusted|
|data for the most recent 5 years are subject to revision.                               |
|                                                                                        |
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                       |
  |                         Household Survey Reference Period                             |
  |                                                                                       |
  |In the household survey, the reference period for November 2012 was the calendar week  |
  |that included the 5th of the month. Typically, the reference period for the household  |
  |survey is the calendar week that includes the 12th of the month. In accordance with our|
  |usual practice for November, the reference and survey periods were a week earlier this |
  |year so that household survey interviews would not be conducted during the Thanksgiving|
  |holiday.                                                                               |
  |                                                                                  

Quoted Text

With Farm Bill Stalled, Consumers May Face Soaring Milk Prices

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Cows waiting to be milked in California. If Congress cannot pass a new farm bill, a 1949 one will go into effect and prices could reach $6 to 8 a gallon.
By RON NIXON
Published: December 20, 2012
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

WASHINGTON — Forget the fiscal crisis and the automatic budget cuts. Come Jan. 1, there is a threat that milk prices could rise to $6 to $8 a gallon if Congress does not pass a new farm bill that amends farm policy dating back to the Truman presidency.

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The government sets a minimum price for milk to cover dairy farmers’ production costs.
Lost in the political standoff between the Obama administration and Congressional Republicans over the budget is a virtually forgotten impasse over a farm bill that covers billions of dollars in agriculture programs. Without last-minute Congressional action, the government would have to follow an antiquated 1949 farm law that would force Washington to buy milk at wildly inflated prices, creating higher prices in the dairy case. Milk now costs an average of $3.65 a gallon.

Higher prices would be based on what dairy farm production costs were in 1949, when milk production was almost all done by hand. Because of adjustments for inflation and other technical formulas, the government would be forced by law to buy milk at roughly twice the current market prices to maintain a stable milk market.

But the market would be anything but stable. Farmers, at first, would experience a financial windfall as they rushed to sell dairy products to the government at higher prices than those they would get on the commercial market. Then the prices customers pay at the supermarket would surge as shortages developed and fewer gallons of milk were available for consumers and for manufacturers of products like cheese and butter.

For dairy farmers like Dean Norton in upstate New York, who are struggling with high feed costs caused by this summer’s drought, a jump in prices would be welcomed.

“But it would be short-term euphoria followed by a long hangover that would be difficult for us to recover from,” said Mr. Norton, who is president of the New York Farm Bureau. “I don’t think customers and food processors are going to pay double what they are paying now for dairy products.”

The Senate passed a farm bill in July. A House version of the bill made it out of committee, but House leaders have yet to bring its version to the floor.

Under the current program, the government sets a minimum price to cover dairy farmers’ production costs. If the market price drops below that, the government buys dairy products from farmers to buoy prices and increase demand. Since milk prices have remained above that minimum price in recent years, dairy farmers usually do better by selling their products commercially rather than to the government.

But if 1949 rules go into effect, the government would be required to buy dairy products at around $40 per hundredweight — roughly twice the current market price — to drive up the price of milk to cover dairy producers’ cost.

“It would be bad for consumer demand in the long run,” said Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation, which represents more than 32,000 dairy farmers.

Mr. Galen and others in the dairy industry said reverting to 1949 policies could probably force the makers of butter, cheese, yogurt and other dairy products to look for cheaper alternatives, like imported milk from countries like New Zealand.

Most dairy companies declined to discuss plans to buy dairy supplies from abroad if they are forced to pay higher prices for milk.

But Land O’ Lakes, a dairy company based in Arden Hills, Minn., said the 1949 law could be potentially disruptive for dairy industry operations.

“Congress needs to pass a comprehensive farm bill that helps farmers continue to feed the world, keeps food prices affordable and provides farmers some financial stability in the very unpredictable profession of farming,” said Rebecca Lentz, a company spokeswoman.

In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, said the department was exploring all its options to deal with the possibility of the 1949 law going into effect.

“We will do whatever we are legally obligated to do,” said Mr. Vilsack, who declined to say what specific steps the department would take to prepare for what dairy lobbyists and industry officials are calling the “milk cliff.”

Among the options: the agriculture secretary could drag his heels on the milk purchases until Congress passes a new farm bill or an extension of the 2008 one that expired in September, said Vincent Smith, a professor of agriculture at Montana State University in Bozeman.

“This is a totally antiquated law that has nothing to do with farming conditions today,” Professor Smith said. “It was put as a poison pill to get Congress to pass a farm bill by scaring lawmakers with the prospect of higher support prices for milk and other agriculture products. Letting it go into effect for even a few months would be particularly disastrous for consumers and food processors. “

Quoted Text

Popular payroll tax cut will cost Americans later
TERRY SAVAGE savage@suntimes.com February 19, 2012 3:28PM

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., left, reaches out to Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, to celebrate as members of the bi-partisan House and Senate conferees on the payroll tax cut extension signed the compromise agreement. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Updated: May 14, 2012 11:23PM

Late last week, Congress passed the “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.” The law has a great name, designed to appeal to all voters. Neither the conservatives who worried about the cost, nor liberals who wanted more benefits, could stand in the way of its “bipartisan” appeal — especially in an election year!

(The new law also extends unemployment benefits, and makes sure that physicians receive appropriate reimbursement for treating Medicare payments. Those important issues really have nothing to do with either “middle class tax relief” or “job creation” — but they were thrown in as part of the political process.)

Ads by Google
2013 Chevy MalibuGet Responsive, Solid Handling With the All New Chevy Malibu! http://www.Chevrolet.com/Honda-Accord
The real attraction for all smart politicians was the extension of the payroll tax cut. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that approximately 170 million wage earners and self-employed individuals will benefit from the payroll tax reduction in 2012, an estimated average $1,000 increase in take-home pay in 2012. That’s the kind of action that really attracts votes.

But what will happen to Social Security? That’s an issue that should worry young and old alike.

Because that’s what the “payroll tax” is: the money taken out of your paycheck to pay for your future Social Security benefits. Or at least, that’s how the plan was first described when Social Security was enacted back in 1935.

Trust fund?

Now here’s the accounting legerdemain that the politicians agreed to last week when they passed this bill, according to a tax briefing by the independent analysts at CCH:

Ads by Google