U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 03-04-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,810,811 times
Reputation: 2497

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
YEAH - so?
That might well affect the Jan & Feb numbers somewhat (and NO ONE - including YOU - knows by how much). It certainly doesn't affect the HUGE drop in December.

Ken
I believe it was 500,000 people that just 'vanished'....

As to Dec. isn't there a jump in hiring due to the Holidays?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:38 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,810,811 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Net: 151,000 in December, 63,000 in January and 192,00 in February - that gives a total of net gain of 406,000 - which is a LOT better than any 3 month period in the last 3 years or so.

Ken
Thanks.
Is that a net gain of 406,000 jobs?
Does it take into account the increase in the size of the workforce?

How does that number equate to the % drop in unemployment?
In other words,is 406,000 equal to the .9% drop in the rate from Dec. to Feb?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:40 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,810,811 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
I don't know off the top of my head, but I read today that in February the economy created a net gain of 192,000 jobs and jobless claims are at a 2 1/2 year low.

I see that as moving in the right direction.
Of course,it isn't necessarily grounds for cheering that it is all getting better.

I do believe that 150,000 new workers enter the workforce every month,does the figure you quoted count those in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:41 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,810,811 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal View Post
Do you have a link? I'd like to read up on that, thanks!
It happened in Jan. I believe.

Here is something I just found:
500,000 American Workers Go Missing in January « "Five Short Blasts" Forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:43 PM
 
10,813 posts, read 6,958,631 times
Reputation: 4163
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Of course,it isn't necessarily grounds for cheering that it is all getting better.

I do believe that 150,000 new workers enter the workforce every month,does the figure you quoted count those in?
It is getting better. We have a long way to go and the unrest in the oil markets could cause big trouble, but it's some light in what has been a very long dark tunnel.

I think it is around 100,000 new people enter the workforce each month. So anything above that helps lower the unemployment rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
61,151 posts, read 31,007,198 times
Reputation: 13028
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
You realize, when everyone is unemployed and all unemployment benefits have been paid, we are going to have a ZERO unemployment rate, the way our deceitful government calculates it, to deceive the uneducated public.

Uneducated America is so gullible!


Did you see the number out this morning and all the recovery talk and the economy is on the up??

Yes all those that piled on the unemployment benefit list, are now off. Did they find a job, or did their benefits run out and they are still sitting at home? Where is the distinction????????????????


What was it last month... 36,000 non farm jobs filled and the UE rate fell .4 of a point? Really




Quote:
The jobs data was horrendous. Instead of the expected 140,000 new jobs, non-farm payrolls added only 36,000. This is almost 100,000 below the number needed just to keep pace with the growth in the labor force. So, once again, the government had to come up with some gimmick to gloss over the ugliness of this report, and once again it resorted to the “mysteriously vanishing labor force” trick.




Real unemployment is pushing 20-25% nation wide.... easily


I have a bridge in New York for sale... Cheap.

I also have some beach front property in Arizona... Cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 18,810,811 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
It is getting better. We have a long way to go and the unrest in the oil markets could cause big trouble, but it's some light in what has been a very long dark tunnel.
Well...things will always eventually get better....the Great Depression eventually came to an end.

Quote:
I think it is around 100,000 new people enter the workforce each month. So anything above that helps lower the unemployment rate.
The figure I saw was 137,000 or something like that,of course it changes as the population grows I guess.

Was that number calculated into the job increases?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,021,060 times
Reputation: 6563
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Not true.. if people not looking for work were counted before 1994 as being unemployed, and after the changes they were not counted, then anyone with elementary education could figure out this meant a DECREASE in the numbers being counted.. How big of a decrease is not the question because elementary math shows that there IS a decrease.. To pretend that this would reflect a substantial drop is ridiculous because the majority of americans are working.. The numbers of people not working, and change from looking to not looking each month I would suspect is quite small.. People have bills to pay after all.. And considering at the same time people were making the opposite move, from not looking to looking, due to welfare reforms being made, this would negate any going the opposite direction. Even if your imaginary 1/2 of people claim above would be true, which its not.. You are just making up numbers to make an argument that no economists or anyone else would substantiate..
So, if it's NOT true that there are roughly as many "no longer looking for work" people as there are "looking for work" people (actually the number are about 3/4s as many) then explain to me why - when you look back month by month, year by year comparing the U-3 to the U-6 number that ratio holds.



I'll say it AGAIN - there are roughly as many (actually closer to 3/4s as many) people who fit into the U-6 category (the regular unemployed plus those who are no longer actively looking) as there are folks in the U-3 category (unemployed & actively looking for work).

Here's the U-3 rate for the last decade (scroll down for the chart):

Portal Seven | Unemployment Rate - US

And here's the U-6 rate for the last decade (scroll down for the chart):

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

Look at any month/year in one chart and then look at the same month/year in the other chart.
As you CAN SEE, the ratio holds pretty consistantly - the U-6 rate is around 1.75 times the U-3. If it's true that BEFORE 1994 the UE rate contained both those actively looking and those no-longer looking then in effect the UE rate was at that time what we call the U-6 today - meaning it had everyone in it (that's the claim some folks are making) - again, meaning it was in effect the U-6 number rather then the U-3 we use today.

And since the U-6 is pretty consistantly 1.75 times the U-3 rate for any given month then when the change happened and all those folks who fall into the U-6 category but not the U-3 category were stripped out, then there would have an a drop in the UE rate of about 40% (roughly) as the official UE rate suddenly changed from what we now call the U-6 rate to the much smaller U-3.

However when this supposed change took place there WAS no 40% drop in the UE rate as folks suddenly dropped off the (what we now call the U-3) UE count. IF those folks had previously been counted in the UE rate WHY wasn't there a 40% drop in the UE rate all of a sudden? We can clearly see that there is a BIG difference between the U-3 number (currently 8.9%) and the U-6 number (currently 15.9%).

IF that happened today then the UE rate would suddenly drop from that 15.9% (which includes discouraged workers etc) down to 8.9% (which only includes those actively looking). It would be a HUGE drop - and it would have been a HUGE drop back in 1994 too (not as much in numbers since the overall UE rate was much lower back then) but the percentage drop would likely have been similar that if it happened today. And there IS no such drop back then.

It's pretty simple. If you can't understand that it must be because you don't WANT to understand it.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 12:58 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,021,060 times
Reputation: 6563
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
Thanks.
Is that a net gain of 406,000 jobs?
Does it take into account the increase in the size of the workforce?

How does that number equate to the % drop in unemployment?
In other words,is 406,000 equal to the .9% drop in the rate from Dec. to Feb?
Yes, that IS a NET GAIN.
No, it does not take into account the increase in the size of the workforce. It's JUST a count of new jobs being created.

It's NOT directly related to the % drop in unemployment. They are 2 separate statistics from entirely different sources, consequently you will NOT see a direct month to month correlation between the new jobs created number and the UE rate number (over a longer period of time - say a year or so - yes you should see the "new jobs created" affect the UE rate, but not month to month).

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2011, 01:01 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,840,354 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
So, if it's NOT true that there are roughly as many "no longer looking for work" people as there are "looking for work" people (actually the number are about 3/4s as many) then explain to me why - when you look back month by month, year by year comparing the U-3 to the U-6 number that ratio holds.



I'll say it AGAIN - there are roughly as many (actually closer to 3/4s as many) people who fit into the U-6 category (the regular unemployed plus those who are no longer actively looking) as there are folks in the U-3 category (unemployed & actively looking for work).

Here's the U-3 rate for the last decade (scroll down for the chart):

Portal Seven | Unemployment Rate - US

And here's the U-6 rate for the last decade (scroll down for the chart):

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

Look at any month/year in one chart and then look at the same month/year in the other chart.
As you CAN SEE, the ratio holds pretty consistantly - the U-6 rate is around 1.75 times the U-3. If it's true that BEFORE 1994 the UE rate contained both those actively looking and those no-longer looking then in effect the UE rate was at that time what we call the U-6 today - meaning it had everyone in it (that's the claim some folks are making) - again, meaning it was in effect the U-6 number rather then the U-3 we use today.

And since the U-6 is pretty consistantly 1.75 times the U-3 rate for any given month then when the change happened and all those folks who fall into the U-6 category but not the U-3 category were stripped out, then there would have an a drop in the UE rate of about 40% (roughly) as the official UE rate suddenly changed from what we now call the U-6 rate to the much smaller U-3.

However when this supposed change took place there WAS no 40% drop in the UE rate as folks suddenly dropped off the (what we now call the U-3) UE count. IF those folks had previously been counted in the UE rate WHY wasn't there a 40% drop in the UE rate all of a sudden? We can clearly see that there is a BIG difference between the U-3 number (currently 8.9%) and the U-6 number (currently 15.9%).

IF that happened today then the UE rate would suddenly drop from that 15.9% (which includes discouraged workers etc) down to 8.9% (which only includes those actively looking). It would be a HUGE drop - and it would have been a HUGE drop back in 1994 too (not as much in numbers since the overall UE rate was much lower back then) but the percentage drop would likely have been similar that if it happened today. And there IS no such drop back then.

It's pretty simple. If you can't understand that it must be because you don't WANT to understand it.

Ken
I want you to source ANYTHING that supports you..
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
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