Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 12-07-2012, 09:32 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,426,996 times
Reputation: 4070

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
What is good about a 63.6% civilian workforce participation rate?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



It hasn't been at this level in thirty years.

Yes, we'd all be so much better off if it weren't for this Bush recession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2012, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Nope.

The UE rate went UP during Nov & Dec of 2008.
It stayed the same in Nov of 2007 and went UP in Dec of 2007

In 2000 it went up in Nov & down in Dec
In 2001 it went up in Nov & Dec
In 2002 it went up in Nov & Dec

Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

Ken

In November 2012, the civilian workforce particpation rate decreased 0.2% to 63.6%.


Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
Yes, we'd all be so much better off if it weren't for this Bush recession.


You must be looking at a different chart.

The one I'm looking at shows civilian workforce participation rates three points higher when W was in office, and after four years of Obamanomics, the present participation rate is still declining.

History will be kind to President Bush because of Obama.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Last edited by momonkey; 12-07-2012 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,386,595 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
What is good about a 63.6% civilian workforce participation rate?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



It hasn't been at this level in thirty years.
Thirty years?! Who was president then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,386,595 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
You must be looking at a different chart.

The one I'm looking at shows civilian workforce participation rates three points higher when W was in office, and after four years of Obamanomics, the present participation rate is still declining.

History will be kind to President Bush because of Obama.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Historians aren't nearly as gullible as right-wingers. Economic growth under Bush was meager in its best years, and the sad part is, it was all smoke and mirrors (see: Great Recession). GWB makes a strong case for being the worst president ever. Don't expect any Truman-eque re-appraisals either.

You keep going on and on about labor participation rates, yet it's less than a percent lower than it was under Saint Ronnie when he won re-election in 1984.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 10:08 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,278,891 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Ken ... throw out these numbers .... 8.3 % and 7.7% .... both figures are preposterous nonsense, and therefore, ALL OF THE FIGURES from the BLS can be assumed preposterous nonsense as well, since those are the figures supporting the lie.

Hows that you say? Well Ken, it's pretty simple really ... it's called manipulating the statistics ... fudging the numbers ... cookin' the books .... or as we used to call this in the olden days ... a bunch of freaking liars, lying through their teeth, which I prefer to call it because that is what is happening.

The first step in all of this fancying up the numbers is done by breaking up the workforce into separate categories that really don't mean anything to the maternal fornicator who can't find a job, but really helps the liars lie, and gives the sheep a reason to cheer ... O-baaaaah-maaaaah. Such categories like Headline U3, and Full U6, and Constant Workforce Participation Rates, with the latter being the number we need to look at a little more critically, as the Government has managed to remove 9 Million unemployed people from the books by simply .... well .... removing them from the books. Add those unemployed people back in, and the true unemployment figure hit 19.9 % in January of this year, and is climbing, not falling.

It's common knowledge to those who understand statistics and statistical analysis how easy it is to paint any picture desired by redefining factors and variables. When calculating unemployment rates, a very small change in the total workforce number can have a dramatic effect in the unemployment rate ... so much so that you can have a total net loss of jobs and ALSO show a declining unemployment rate too. Now that truly is the magic of statistical smoke and mirrors ... and nobody does smoke and mirrors better than the Uncle Sam! Hell, he's already convinced half the population that war=peace, Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist, and the United States should welcome communism. So, fudging the unemployment figures is really not such a tall order when viewed with a bit of perspective.

Here's a more detailed explanation of what is being done and how this magic works, including all of the relevant labor statistics:

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

What we have happening here is that the country is past the point of recession, and well into a depression. Of course, looking at the 50 Million people on food stamps should have been a gigantic clue, but clues don't tend to make much of an impact on the clueless. But if you lined up those 50 Million people in soup lines like they were during the Great Depression when food stamps didn't exist ... then the real situation would be a little harder to conceal with just cooking the statistics .....

And now you know how the powers that be can take a Great Depression and make it look like an economic recovery. It also helps to have a significant portion of the population in a permanent catatonic state of imbecilic drooling, who will believe any cockamamie story fed them, without so much as a single neuron firing. It's like mass hypnosis ..... the crap is hitting the fan, and you're being told it's raining chocolate. Yum, yum.
What a crock!
The fact that YOU - and folks LIKE YOU - don't like what the numbers say it means "They're faked"?
Sorry but that's GARBAGE. The fact that some clown on the internet says so - doesn't MAKE IT SO.


You folks are so "tin foil hat" there's not a lot of sense in even conversing with you since EVERYTHING is some kind of "plot". Even though the head of the BLS was appointed by BUSH, that organization is somehow "in the tank" for Obama. Give me brake. You folks are no more correct on this stuff than you were on who was going to win the election. How'd that turn out for ya?

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 10:11 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,934,632 times
Reputation: 7314
We can NEVER again afford HIGHER labor participation rates. The effects, past and future, of efficiency gains plus robotics on labor requirements are startling.

I've heard clowns say we have no MFG left. WRONG, our value added content is higher than in the heyday of mfg employment numbers, but we no longer require many people.

We have a local subsidiary who makes more with 90 employees in production than what 350 produced in 1992, and our other facilities have similar tales. The 90 most likely will eventually drop to 75 , I can't see it below that, but this cut 80% of employees and make more has occured in mfg, and in many professional sectors. ERP systems downsized finance and inventory control staffing needs, btw.

Surely, tellers dropped close to 80% vs their peak, CSRs dropped as call routing systems reduced the staffing needs, plus mom and pops can outsource to call centers, so if you need 1/3 of a CSR's time, you need not pay for a FULL CSR. Same with Admin asst, outsource to a virtual, and 3 mom and pops share ONE AA. Used to have to hire 3.

Add in RFID will wipe out most cashiers jobs.

So we actually should only fret if the participation rate climbed. Just keeping it above 50% within 10-20 years will be a huge task.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 10:17 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,278,891 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
In November 2012, the civilian workforce particpation rate decreased 0.2% to 63.6%.


Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Which was simply what it was back in Sept - and only .1% from what it was at the beginning of the YEAR. In essence the LPR is unchanged right now from what it was in January. So WHERE is the big DECREASE? And yet over that same amount of time the UE rate has fallen over half a point.
So much the the theory that the UE rate has only fallen because the LPR is down.


Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Historians aren't nearly as gullible as right-wingers. Economic growth under Bush was meager in its best years, and the sad part is, it was all smoke and mirrors (see: Great Recession). GWB makes a strong case for being the worst president ever. Don't expect any Truman-eque re-appraisals either.

You keep going on and on about labor participation rates, yet it's less than a percent lower than it was under Saint Ronnie when he won re-election in 1984.


Yep, that 5% unemployment rate under W was just unbearable.

The thing with Reagan is he knew what to do and he did it.

He worked with people instead of against them and got a certain degree of cooperation as a result.

Six tenths of a percentage point (63.9% to 64.5%) isn't much of an increase from January 1981 to November 1984, but after the Carter malaise we were finally moving in the right direction with quarter to quarter increases in GDP approaching double-digits, much lower inflation rates, stronger consumer buying power and a misery index reduced by half.

Tell me again, what's better under Obamanomics?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2012, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,625 posts, read 26,307,471 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
We can NEVER again afford HIGHER labor participation rates. The effects, past and future, of efficiency gains plus robotics on labor requirements are startling.

I've heard clowns say we have no MFG left. WRONG, our value added content is higher than in the heyday of mfg employment numbers, but we no longer require many people.

We have a local subsidiary who makes more with 90 employees in production than what 350 produced in 1992, and our other facilities have similar tales. The 90 most likely will eventually drop to 75 , I can't see it below that, but this cut 80% of employees and make more has occurred in mfg, and in many professional sectors. ERP systems downsized finance and inventory control staffing needs, btw.

Surely, tellers dropped close to 80% vs their peak, CSRs dropped as call routing systems reduced the staffing needs, plus mom and pops can outsource to call centers, so if you need 1/3 of a CSR's time, you need not pay for a FULL CSR. Same with Admin asst, outsource to a virtual, and 3 mom and pops share ONE AA. Used to have to hire 3.

Add in RFID will wipe out most cashiers jobs.

So we actually should only fret if the participation rate climbed. Just keeping it above 50% within 10-20 years will be a huge task.



Unemployment was as high as 7.9% in 1947, 7.5% in 1958, 9% in 1975, 10.8% in 1982 and 10% in 2009.

It has also been as low as 4.4% in 2007, 3.8% in 2000 and 3.9% in 1969.

The connection between increased automation and reduced employment in manufacturing is real but numerous other factors are in play and history shows overall employment isn't dependent or even necessarily negatively impacted by advances in technology.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top