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 01-08-2019, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,998 posts, read 1,643,887 times
Reputation: 7333

Advertisements

To start with, it's a courtesy to use the standard quote/reply format. Your method of marking up a prior quote means it's impossible to answer you directly without a lot of cut-and-paste, and it's considered bad form to mark up and edit a quote. It works better all around if you cut a long quote up to insert your own replies in between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
...despite the glowing number-of-jobs and unemployment rates. There has been no corresponding increase in family income or financial well-being, no reductions in various forms of financial aid [...] there sure seem to be a hell of a lot of people who can't get a job
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
This seems like a contradiction! How can we have more jobs and less unemployment, without increasing family income and financial well being ... and reducing the number of people who can't get a job??
Because there may not be more jobs and less unemployment. The standard numbers analyze the issue from a fixed and fairly narrow position, and it would seem that we are in an era where formerly minor outliers (like the long-term unemployed and those trying to return to employment) are not being included. Nor are things like multiple and serial jobs. And all jobs are accounted the same - a new partner in a law firm is one job, as is a part-time dishwasher at McDonalds. That alone may be masking enormous gaps in employment levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
The last time I remember 2% unemployment, fast food restaurants etc. were propping up zombies at counters and so forth. I have not noticed any particular syndrome of substandard, fill-in workers this time around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
They also weren't paying a (relative or actual) minimum wage of $11-$15!
I can't see that making any difference; even fast food places were paying above minimums the last time. Are you suggesting that "quality" workers just stayed home rather than take what Taco Bell was offering? Or that only substandard workers take jobs at substandard pay? And in an era when companies are scouring the alleys and institutions for workers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
I think the numbers are "honest" as far as they go - but for various reasons, no longer measure anything of particular value. [...] but that completely ignores pay levels, job quality, net income etc. - and multiple jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
This seems like a different discussion than the thread.
Only because you seem to have misread both the thread and my comments; you seem to be flabbergasted that the official job numbers might be... somewhere between wrong and irrelevant to the present situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2019, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,550 posts, read 13,622,439 times
Reputation: 14547
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
Yes, there is a point where those job seekers are no longer counted but as far as I'm aware that is always the way this was tabulated,...
Nope. From the Truman through the Ford Administrations, prisoners were counted among the Labor Force, the military was excluded from the Labor Force, and anyone who applied for a job in the last 12 months was counted as unemployed.

The Carter Administration correctly eliminated all institutions. From that point forward, it was called the Civilian Non-Institutional Population, because it excludes those persons in the population who are incarcerated in prison or jail, in mental institutions, in long-term care facilities, in rehabilitation facilities of any kind, and in hospital.

The Reagan Administration added the military, and rightly so. From that point on, service members were counted in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population, the Civilian Labor Force and as Employed (and they had not been previously).

In 1994, the Clinton Administration redefined the definition of "unemployed."

To be unemployed, you must meet all of the following conditions: 1) you have to be available to work this minute, meaning you can't be in an institution -- in which case you don't show up on any data set, nor can you be an in-home care-giver for a parent, spouse or child nor a student at a secondary or post-secondary school or vocational training facility -- in which case you show up in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population and Not in Labor Force data sets; and 2) you have to want to work...if you don't want to work, and many retirees do not, then you show up in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population and Not in Labor Force data sets; and 3) you must have applied for a job in the last 30 days prior to the date of the survey.

If you meet all of those conditions, then you show up in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population, the Civilian Labor Force and the Unemployed data sets.

Whether or not you are receiving unemployment benefits is totally irrelevant and ignored.

If you applied for a job in the last 12 months, but not the last 30 days, then you show up in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population, the Not in Labor Force and LNU05026642 data sets, which is Not in Labor Force, but Searched for Work and Available, or more commonly known as the U-6 data.

If you're too damned discouraged to even apply for a job, you are in the Civilian Non-Institutional Population, Not in Labor Force and LNU05026645 data sets, which is for the discouraged.

Currently, there are 1,556,000 people who have searched for work in the last 12 months, but not the last 30 days.

There are 375,000 people who are too damned discouraged to even look for work.

Seeing how the Civilian Labor Force is 162,510,000 people, they are just 0.23% of workers.

The methodology is flawed and a more accurate picture would be given if it were changed to include anyone who sought work in the last 90 days.

Hiring practices have changed since the 1990s. It now takes 6 weeks or more to hire, and that's due to interference by the federal and State governments, who have made it difficult, time-consuming and costly to fire turds.

And, to top it off, HR personnel are buffoons.

So, now, HR just screens a group of candidates at the initial interview, and then you have a second interview with the department head or immediate supervisor, and then often a 3rd interview with the immediate supervisor, if the 2nd interview was conducted by one of the higher-ups.

If you applied for a job in the last 30 days you're counted as Unemployed, but if in Week #5 you receive notification that one or more employers is interested, are you going to continue to seek work?

Probably not, because most people would wait to see how it pans out, and that's probably the right thing to do, but now you're counted as Not in Labor Force instead of Unemployed, and you really ought to be counted as Unemployed.

Out of that 1.5 Million not counted as unemployed, how many are likely to be going through the interview process or waiting to hear results of interviews? Likely 1/3rd, or about 500,000 people.

That would put the UE Rate at exactly 4.0% based on current data, which is still good, and nothing to whine about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
Another factor related to that is the workforce participation rate which peaked at 67% is now at 64%. This leads me to believe that a segment of our population - minus the statistically small unemployed homeless population - has found a way to get by without having a job.
You'd be wrong.

That's by and large the Baby Boomers who are retiring.

Anyone who claims to be shocked by the lower Labor Force Participation Rate is ignorant, because it was known and predicted as early as 1998 that this was going to happen.


In fact, you can look back to 1996-1998 when a lot of papers were published by economists addressing the economic impact of Boomers retiring. Those cover very general economics to specific areas, like the effects on the housing market and the effects on the stock market.


In 2008, BLS projected that 2 out of every 3 "new" jobs would be created by Boomers leaving the work-force, because they make up a large percentage of the work-force, and, yes, BLS understands that not ever job vacated by a Boomer will result in a new hire, as some of those jobs will be eliminated or consolidated.

Boomers will be retiring through the year 2030, so you have 11 more years.

There's nothing inherently wrong or negative about a lower Labor Force Participation Rate.

There's negative consequences for you, but that's only because certain social welfare programs, namely Social Security and Medicare are dependent in part on the size of the Labor Force.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 04:33 PM
 
12,309 posts, read 6,411,591 times
Reputation: 22722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You'd be wrong.

That's by and large the Baby Boomers who are retiring.

Anyone who claims to be shocked by the lower Labor Force Participation Rate is ignorant, because it was known and predicted as early as 1998 that this was going to happen.


In fact, you can look back to 1996-1998 when a lot of papers were published by economists addressing the economic impact of Boomers retiring. Those cover very general economics to specific areas, like the effects on the housing market and the effects on the stock market.


In 2008, BLS projected that 2 out of every 3 "new" jobs would be created by Boomers leaving the work-force, because they make up a large percentage of the work-force, and, yes, BLS understands that not ever job vacated by a Boomer will result in a new hire, as some of those jobs will be eliminated or consolidated.

Boomers will be retiring through the year 2030, so you have 11 more years.

There's nothing inherently wrong or negative about a lower Labor Force Participation Rate.

There's negative consequences for you, but that's only because certain social welfare programs, namely Social Security and Medicare are dependent in part on the size of the Labor Force.

The peak birth year for Boomers was 1957 with 4.3 million births. The peak Millennial birth years were barely over 4 million. The Boomers born in 1957 are age 61 going on 62 so right on the cusp of retiring. In 5 years, most of those will be retired. Beyond that, Millennials plus young immigrants entering the workforce will outnumber retiring Boomers so the labor force participation rate should start to increase again. Without immigration, we'd be having Japan/South Korea/Northern Europe problems with the rapidly aging population and massively declining birthrate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 04:45 PM
 
345 posts, read 79,656 times
Reputation: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
She's a liar and just another Liberal not in touch with Reality.

Only 8,030,000 Americans hold multiple jobs. By comparison, there were 7,791,000 Americans holding multiple jobs in year 2000.

While it might appear that the more Americans are holding multiple jobs, that is in fact false.

There were 213,736,000 working-age Americans in year 2000, or 3.6% had multiple jobs, while today only 3.1% hold multiple jobs.

If you examine the data going back to 1994, what you can conclude is that roughly 3.2% of Americans have always had multiple jobs and that figure is largely unchanged over time. That is quite often by choice, and not by necessity.

Men work an average of 40.8 hours per week, while women average 36.2 hours per week.
Only that many work two jobs? Wow, what a great place to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 02:28 PM
 
295 posts, read 442,752 times
Reputation: 943
When describing the number of people working multiple jobs as being that low, are they excluding self employment side hustles, part time home businesses, driving for Uber, etc. ? A lot more people have a side business of some sort these days than those figures would seem to suggest. Perhaps those things don't fit the criteria of "jobs?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,998 posts, read 1,643,887 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarite View Post
When describing the number of people working multiple jobs as being that low, are they excluding self employment side hustles, part time home businesses, driving for Uber, etc. ? A lot more people have a side business of some sort these days than those figures would seem to suggest. Perhaps those things don't fit the criteria of "jobs?"
That's a good cross section of the problem: that all the analysis and oversight is from a very narrow, outdated perspective. From that ca. 1980 viewpoint, things are just fabulo-so.

Out here in the more complicated, messy employment world of 2019, not so much. The problem is that no one of a smaller scale than government can really see and interpret the situation, other than in tiny snapshots. Until the states and feds change the way they look at the job landscape, all of the numbers are going to represent a constructed reality where an awful lot of us just don't quite exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2019, 07:38 AM
 
1,213 posts, read 625,580 times
Reputation: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
... Just one question: what are "the appearances"?

Back to AOC.....She made the mistake of taking anecdotal information from friends and family and conflating that to the overall economic picture in the U.S. I would accept this from a college freshman, but she is not that..........
VeryBadGnome, if a job applicant's not sufficiently attractive, or hansome, or their skin's the wrong color, they have a less employable appearance.

I was going to ask Who's AOC we're getting back too? But I just realized AOC may be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

AOC damaged her own and the Democrat's credibility by mentioning a 70% tax rate.

Rather than serving as a bargaining chip, the mention of 70% drives the topic of tax increases off the table. Her mentioning 70% was to President Trump's and the Republican party's advantage.

Each additional increment of tax rate increase generally provide lesser proportional increase of tax revenue. A major reason for this is higher tax rates are greater incentives to legally avoid or criminally evade paying the tax.
We don't want a tax rate that doesn't justify the cost and trouble of enacting the tax.

I'm generally a proponent of a variety of different smaller rate taxes. But we do not want a tax rate that it doesn't justify the cost and trouble of enacting the tax, (unless the tax's purpose is to prevent or hinder something).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2019, 11:11 AM
 
7,560 posts, read 8,424,672 times
Reputation: 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post

Because there may not be more jobs and less unemployment. The standard numbers analyze the issue from a fixed and fairly narrow position, and it would seem that we are in an era where formerly minor outliers (like the long-term unemployed and those trying to return to employment) are not being included. Nor are things like multiple and serial jobs. And all jobs are accounted the same - a new partner in a law firm is one job, as is a part-time dishwasher at McDonalds. That alone may be masking enormous gaps in employment levels.
Numbers regarding all of those issues are published on an ongoing basis.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2019, 11:29 AM
 
303 posts, read 52,338 times
Reputation: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
AOC damaged her own and the Democrat's credibility by mentioning a 70% tax rate.
Actually, AOC damages her own credibility every time she opens her mouth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2019, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,998 posts, read 1,643,887 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Numbers regarding all of those issues are published on an ongoing basis.
Never said they weren't. However, they are still treated as anomalies and outliers, which they may have been for most recent history. They are not considered in calculating the unemployment rate and jobs numbers, which remain highly cooked figures based on interpretations from a now-obsolete economic period.

Remember the dinosaur count in "Jurassic Park"?
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.

2005-2019, 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