Poor June Jobs Numbers? (unemployed, national debt, retire, money)
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.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, even your own post confirms that there's a pretty significant number of older students who are attending school full time.
Seems like you took what you wanted out of it. What I was saying is of the older workers they get more and more part time as they get older which means they COULD be in labor market. That and the fact more and more full-time students split school and working at least part time. This would put them back INTO the labor participation rate.
Now yes, that is lower for several reasons for the low participation rate, lack of jobs that people qualify for, being over or under qualified for positions, more people in school (if they are full-time and do not work) some related to pregnancy (though less than it was pre-recession), smaller population growth (Gen Y is huge but I would say the boomers still got us beat) and others in debatable size and magnitude.
How is generation X getting royally screwed? You guys had it the easiest during these past five years. Try being Generation Y and graduating collage into this mess. Or try being a 61 year old boomer with no savings like my last boss and get laid off. No company will want to hire her because she is retiring in just a few years. I don't feel bad for the boomers though. They caused this mess.
However, when you look at the details you notice the following:
-Full Time jobs shrank again, making it 6 straight months of shrinking full time jobs.
-The increase is coming from part time jobs...many of which were gained by people who already had part time jobs or just lost a full time job, so the unemployment numbers didn't budge.
-Employment Participation Rate went up 0.1%. So we are still at all time lows since 1979, or all time lows for prime working age Americans since 1984. We are still below where we were a year ago in June 2012.
-Still have less payroll jobs than we did 5.5 years ago...despite the fact that the population has increased and we in June just once again broke the record for part time jobs in America while full time jobs (typically with benefits) shrinks and many workers are double counted in that payroll jobs number. For example...1 guy with 3 part time jobs...equals 3 different jobs for this number.
-More part time jobs in raw numbers and in ratio than at any other time in recorded US history. Part time jobs tend to not have benefits. Benefits comprise of 31% of total compensation in America.
-Underemployment rose by 0.5% in June.
-Still increasing to the all time highs of the rate of poverty in over 50 years.
-Still adding to those who live off of government assistance, all time high in the existence of the country.
-45% of recent college grads have a job where a college degree is not required.
If Obama were a Republican you'd see and hear a lot of excitement, because the boradcast the cable news media would have dissected the numbers as you just did, and a reelected president McCain would be getting torn to shreds, with ABC running their tenth episode of Poverty and Homelessness in America.
really ken....lets look at those very link you send
civilian labor force june 2012...............155,149,000
civilian labor force june 2013..............155,835,000
a change of less than 700,000 in a year
not in the labor force june 2012.......88,006,000
not in the labor force june 2013.......89,717,000
Come on, get a clue and use a little common sense.
You can't be both IN the labor force and NOT in the labor force at the SAME TIME.
Those represent DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Aside from the fact that it's 1,700,000 or so for your 2nd number - NOT 700,000 (you REALLY need to brush up on your math), look at the change in the civilian noninstitutionalized population over that time. Over that year the total civilian noninstitutionalized population GREW from 243,155,000 to 245,552,000 - roughly 2,400,000. These are the folks who - over the last year - either aged their way INTO being 16 years old or were 16 years or older and came to American from someplace else.
A bit under 700,000 of those people folks new to the civilian noninstitutionalized population ended up IN the workforce (ie got jobs) and a bit over 1,700,000 of those people ended up NOT in the workforce (ie didn't get jobs). How many of those 1,700,000 WANTED jobs is anyone's guess - there's no way to tell from this particular table.
Geeze!
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-08-2013 at 06:28 PM..
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,524,552 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
Nobody wants to see the U6 number, that's why the calculations were changed, it didn't fit the narrative.
We are truly living in OZ now and the public are the munchkins.
The number that should SCARE people is U6 at 14.6% as that's the number that people FEEL the impact of.
Do not look behind the curtain, the great OZ will take care of it all.
The formula didnt change , we have been going with U3 for 30 years.
Also, U6 was 17.8 when the President took office, so no matter your argument, unemployment is down 3 full percent.
Come on, get a clue and use a little common sense.
You can't be both IN the labor force and NOT in the labor force at the SAME TIME.
Those represent DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
Aside from the fact that it's 1,700,000 or so for your 2nd number - NOT 700,000 (you REALLY need to brush up on your math), look at the change in the civilian noninstitutionalized population over that time. Over that year the total civilian noninstitutionalized population GREW from 243,155,000 to 245,552,000 - roughly 2,400,000. These are the folks who - over the last year - either aged their way INTO being 16 years old or were 16 years or older and came to American from someplace else.
A bit under 700,000 of those people folks new to the civilian noninstitutionalized population ended up IN the workforce (ie got jobs) and a bit over 1,700,000 of those people ended up NOT in the workforce (ie didn't get jobs). How many of those 1,700,000 WANTED jobs is anyone's guess - there's no way to tell from this particular table.
Geeze!
Ken
the fact is that the population grew...but the amount of people NOT in the job market increased more
700,000 new jobs MINUS 1,700,000 people stopped being in the job market....a net loss
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,524,552 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The formula has changed several times.
no it hasnt, the formula never changed, it was which formula was used and that particular formula (U3) has been used for 30 years.
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.
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.
What I was saying is of the older workers they get more and more part time as they get older which means they COULD be in labor market. That and the fact more and more full-time students split school and working at least part time. This would put them back INTO the labor participation rate.
