U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-09-2018, 04:18 PM
 
3,529 posts, read 1,985,593 times
Reputation: 6109

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
That's currently average, at 62.7%. I haven't found what it was in 1969, but between 1950 and 2018 it has averaged 62.99, with the highest in January 2000 at 67.3 and lowest in December 1954 at 58.1%.



https://www.thebalance.com/labor-for...amples-3305805


https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...icipation-rate
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000



Here is the BLS labor participation rate trend. We peaked in the mid-late 90's at 67.5% and have regressed since. Since 2010 we have fallen 2.5%. So any un-employment rate movement must be viewed in conjunction with employment/participation data as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2018, 06:50 AM
 
1,287 posts, read 288,534 times
Reputation: 1120
The unemployment rate where it is is much more significant that say, a drop of 8% to 7%. Think of it like this. The last 10 pounds is the hardest to lose, right? It's much more meaningful when you are in the 3% range because you are no longer in the low hanging fruit category. That's why it wasn't that big of a deal when Obama came into office and unemployment started decreasing. It was a natural reaction of the markets after the huge drop we had in employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 10:26 AM
 
27,441 posts, read 44,934,740 times
Reputation: 14033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
not everyone is cut out for a "good job" under any conditions .

many have to filter the ditch water and make it work .

Don't equate working with earning a living wage or being paid fair value
Slaves work and are paid in basic necessities to keep them alive to work again

Companies are always willing to take advantage of workers to improve the bottom line and maximize return for those who make the decisions

New headline about Amazon quietly doing away with hiring algorhythim that favored men over women...
Companies rarely believe in putting money and effort into their work force w/o a compensatory ROI--and usually wanting more ROI than

Last edited by loves2read; 10-10-2018 at 10:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 10:32 AM
 
27,441 posts, read 44,934,740 times
Reputation: 14033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl View Post
The unemployment rate where it is is much more significant that say, a drop of 8% to 7%. Think of it like this. The last 10 pounds is the hardest to lose, right? It's much more meaningful when you are in the 3% range because you are no longer in the low hanging fruit category. That's why it wasn't that big of a deal when Obama came into office and unemployment started decreasing. It was a natural reaction of the markets after the huge drop we had in employment.
These statistics are like fuzzy math
They can be arranged and interpreted to suit the side that needs a certain outcome

While the job market is stronger and apparently people feel safe enough to gaslight HeadHunters there are still large numbers of people who can't find meaningful work--
They are having to take part time jobs that don't fit their past employment standards
Working two jobs part time w/o benefits to make less than your previous job paid for 40 hours plus benefits is not a positive sign

The gross job numbers are a simplistic way to claim the economy is in good shape--
Maybe, maybe not depending on what you look at in depth...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 10:47 AM
 
7,279 posts, read 8,112,371 times
Reputation: 5366
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
These statistics are like fuzzy math
They can be arranged and interpreted to suit the side that needs a certain outcome

While the job market is stronger and apparently people feel safe enough to gaslight HeadHunters there are still large numbers of people who can't find meaningful work--
They are having to take part time jobs that don't fit their past employment standards
Working two jobs part time w/o benefits to make less than your previous job paid for 40 hours plus benefits is not a positive sign

The gross job numbers are a simplistic way to claim the economy is in good shape--
Maybe, maybe not depending on what you look at in depth...
That's not true or at least incomplete. Between the trajectories of the U numbers (U-1 through U-6), the Labor Force Participation Rate and total labor force we have good read on employment. These numbers are calculated and released by The BLS every month.

The press harps on U3. However, U6 includes everyone you noted. U6 right now is 7.5% which is smashing good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 10:58 AM
DKM
 
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
2,060 posts, read 670,106 times
Reputation: 2215
As the boomers retire this was going to happen. We've heard about it for years. So why is anyone acting like its some amazing thing or giving credit to the newest president?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 12:25 PM
 
7,279 posts, read 8,112,371 times
Reputation: 5366
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM View Post
As the boomers retire this was going to happen. We've heard about it for years. So why is anyone acting like its some amazing thing or giving credit to the newest president?
No one that I know of predicted U3 less than 4% and a rally this long. The prez. deserves credit for fostering a generally pro business environment. The last guy did the opposite more or less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
13,437 posts, read 15,036,253 times
Reputation: 11924
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
No one that I know of predicted U3 less than 4% and a rally this long. The prez. deserves credit for fostering a generally pro business environment. The last guy did the opposite more or less.
Eh, U3 was 4.8% in in January 2017 and dropping. Less than 4%? Maybe, maybe not. It was already 4.8% and with a long trend of gradual decline. It's not that surprising. Certainly not something no one predicted.
That long? It hasn't been that long. There's been five months where it was sub 4%, and those are all recent and frankly subject to revision. In contrast, U3 was 7.8% when when Obama assumed office. I don't think many expected it to stay above 8% for the better part of four years as it did although even early on it was pretty apparent it was going to be a more severe recession than we'd seen in a while. That is to say, Trump's economic policies could be good and the economy could still cool off in the next few years despite that. It's very hard to parse out the effects of economic policy from just natural business cycle. Putting it another way, I never was a great fan of Obama's economic policies. Maybe because of that I tend to give him less credit than he deserves for the great economy Trump inherited.

Frankly, we're not even where we can really say anything about Trumps economic policies. The tax reforms were the first major change and those just now playing out. We'll know a lot more in a few years. They've only been in effect since the beginning of this year and it takes several years to see the implications of tax reform. Plus it's just hard to tell. Trump inherited an already booming, possibly overheated, economy. It wouldn't be fair to lambaste Trump's economic policies even if the economy cools off over the next few years. Economic policy impacts the economy but it doesn't define it. Much just happens based upon the natural business cycle. Booms don't last forever.

Then you have to look at the economy and realize that a great economy isn't necessarily good for the average worker. Trump road in largely on that coat tail. Fact of the matter is while the economy was great, it really wasn't benefiting the average worker. The top 20%, sure, but not the average. That's a much longer trend than the 2007-2009 recession and recovery. Lower income groups do tend to be the first to suffer and last to benefit from economic fluctuations, but the trend is longer and reflects something larger than just the normal ebbs and flows of the economy.

From the other side of the aisle I'm mixed on Trumps tax reforms. I actually don't have a problem on the revenue side. I'm more fiscally conservative than most Democrats and think our tax structure is too progressive so I don't have a problem shifting the tax burden to be more equal. What I have a big problem with is that the tax cuts were not balanced with a cut in spending. We should be operate at a surplus right now. Rather than cutting spending, Trump has only increased it even more. Combined with the tax cuts, we're on track to exceed a $1 trillion dollar deficit once again by 2020. That's not winning. I didn't like the trillion dollar deficits under Obama, although they were perhaps somewhat understandable if you're firmly in the Keynesian economic camp. I'm not that firmly in it, but whatever. Trillion dollar deficits with the economy how it is now are completely indefensible.

It's always easier to cut taxes than cut spending, but Trumps got around $1 trillion of cuts to find by 2020. Maybe CBO is underestimating the impact and more revenue will be generated than it forecasts but it's going to be a very large number of necessary cuts. Until they are made, I can't support tax cuts. It's not because I have a problem with cutting taxes predominantly for the higher income levels because I don't have a problem with that. It's because tax cuts need to be balanced with cuts in spending. They haven't been. Squabbling over tax burden and who pays what is secondary. Balanced budget first, squabble over tax burden second.

Last edited by Malloric; 10-10-2018 at 01:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Washington state
4,679 posts, read 2,296,137 times
Reputation: 13618
Isn't pay at all time lows, too? And aren't the vast majority of new jobs in the service and minimum wage sector?

For most Americans, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

"On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.

But despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists' expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers."

"
In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."



https://www.infoplease.com/business-...ates-1955-2015


https://inequality.org/research/minimum-wage/

"Yes, had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour.

I grew up on the idea that America stood for progress, continual progress toward a better society. Even a $21.16 minimum wage wouldn’t represent progress. It would mean socially standing still, just with better technology and higher productivity levels. Progress would mean a minimum wage in excess of $21.16 per hour."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2018, 08:50 PM
 
7,279 posts, read 8,112,371 times
Reputation: 5366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Eh, U3 was 4.8% in in January 2017 and dropping. Less than 4%? Maybe, maybe not. It was already 4.8% and with a long trend of gradual decline. It's not that surprising. Certainly not something no one predicted.
That long? It hasn't been that long. There's been five months where it was sub 4%, and those are all recent and frankly subject to revision. In contrast, U3 was 7.8% when when Obama assumed office. I don't think many expected it to stay above 8% for the better part of four years as it did although even early on it was pretty apparent it was going to be a more severe recession than we'd seen in a while. That is to say, Trump's economic policies could be good and the economy could still cool off in the next few years despite that. It's very hard to parse out the effects of economic policy from just natural business cycle. Putting it another way, I never was a great fan of Obama's economic policies. Maybe because of that I tend to give him less credit than he deserves for the great economy Trump inherited.

Frankly, we're not even where we can really say anything about Trumps economic policies. The tax reforms were the first major change and those just now playing out. We'll know a lot more in a few years. They've only been in effect since the beginning of this year and it takes several years to see the implications of tax reform. Plus it's just hard to tell. Trump inherited an already booming, possibly overheated, economy. It wouldn't be fair to lambaste Trump's economic policies even if the economy cools off over the next few years. Economic policy impacts the economy but it doesn't define it. Much just happens based upon the natural business cycle. Booms don't last forever.

Then you have to look at the economy and realize that a great economy isn't necessarily good for the average worker. Trump road in largely on that coat tail. Fact of the matter is while the economy was great, it really wasn't benefiting the average worker. The top 20%, sure, but not the average. That's a much longer trend than the 2007-2009 recession and recovery. Lower income groups do tend to be the first to suffer and last to benefit from economic fluctuations, but the trend is longer and reflects something larger than just the normal ebbs and flows of the economy.

From the other side of the aisle I'm mixed on Trumps tax reforms. I actually don't have a problem on the revenue side. I'm more fiscally conservative than most Democrats and think our tax structure is too progressive so I don't have a problem shifting the tax burden to be more equal. What I have a big problem with is that the tax cuts were not balanced with a cut in spending. We should be operate at a surplus right now. Rather than cutting spending, Trump has only increased it even more. Combined with the tax cuts, we're on track to exceed a $1 trillion dollar deficit once again by 2020. That's not winning. I didn't like the trillion dollar deficits under Obama, although they were perhaps somewhat understandable if you're firmly in the Keynesian economic camp. I'm not that firmly in it, but whatever. Trillion dollar deficits with the economy how it is now are completely indefensible.

It's always easier to cut taxes than cut spending, but Trumps got around $1 trillion of cuts to find by 2020. Maybe CBO is underestimating the impact and more revenue will be generated than it forecasts but it's going to be a very large number of necessary cuts. Until they are made, I can't support tax cuts. It's not because I have a problem with cutting taxes predominantly for the higher income levels because I don't have a problem with that. It's because tax cuts need to be balanced with cuts in spending. They haven't been. Squabbling over tax burden and who pays what is secondary. Balanced budget first, squabble over tax burden second.
That's pretty darned good post.

My point was years ago no one would have predicted a bull market running for 10 years and U3 less than 4 at this point. No one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top