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.
I wasn't asking about back pay. I was asking about unemployment benefits. Specifically, do we know for sure that the furloughed workers got unemployment? My BIL knows 3 people that did not get unemployment or a paycheck. A few people in this thread are trying to claim that the shutdown had zero impact on the economy, but that seems like a rather silly position to take when we knew that it would.
The MSM is also saying there was little to no impact.
Fed workers typically don't live paycheck to paycheck so they probably dipped into savings.
I don't know what all the arguments have been so far but I think it's great. It shows how positive the shut down was. Not only did it not have all the negative consequences that were predicted by many, it seems to have actually helped.
Now rather than the failed rounds of QE, let's have a few more rounds of shut downs.
I'm reading a bit into it now on the internet. Looks like we will just have to see the revised numbers next month. :/. Government workers are apparently counted as unemployed even if they were only furloughed for just one week. Considering that is about 500,000 people it would explain the weird numbers this month.
At least one goo thing is certain though. August numbers revised up to almost 240,000. Now that's a good number.
The BLS didn't count the furloughed workers because they were not fired.
It's right in the BLS report.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the unemployed, however, the number who reported being on temporary
layoff increased by 448,000. This figure includes furloughed federal
employees who were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff under
the definitions used in the household survey. (Estimates of the
unemployed by reason, such as temporary layoff and job leavers, do not
sum to the official seasonally adjusted measure of total unemployed
because they are independently seasonally adjusted.)
I'm reading a bit into it now on the internet. Looks like we will just have to see the revised numbers next month. :/. Government workers are apparently counted as unemployed even if they were only furloughed for just one week. Considering that is about 500,000 people it would explain the weird numbers this month.
At least one goo thing is certain though. August numbers revised up to almost 240,000. Now that's a good number.
When I said
Quote:
The government continued to lay off workers...
I was not referring to the furloughed workers. I was referring to the gov't continuing to lay off employees.
Labor force participation rate fell this month.
62.8% are in the labor force now..720,000 left the labor force since October.
The big jobs gains were in leisure, hospitality and retail...all low paying jobs.
Each month we have less people working as nearly 1 million just up an leave. Maybe they are taking Pelosi's advice and pursuing their passions ?
When you look at the monthly SS reports only 100K signed up for SS. (you have to look over two monthly reports and do the math yourself as SS doesn't provide a monthly change).
When are you going to learn to propery interpret data?
You should know well enough by now since it's been pointed out to you MANY TIMES.
So, NO it was NOT "only 100K signed up for SS". The number of people ON SS went UP by 100K, but OLD FOLKS - you know, those people ALREADY ON SS - die every day. The 100K INCREASE in SS recepients is the NET GAIN in the number of people on SS (taking into account that as people DIE they DROP OFF the SS rolls), NOT the number of people NEW to SS.
Now to be honest, I don't know exactly HOW MANY seniors died last month, but it's a HUGE number. I did find data from a report made in 2007 that looked at 2004 data and stated that in 2004 there were 1.8 MILLION folks over age 65 that died that year - meaning that on average, 150,000 folks over 65 die each month. So.... if 150,000 seniors died last month AND the SS rolls STILL climbed by 100,000, then that means that it wasn't "only 100K" who signed up for SS, but rather "250K" who signed up for SS last month (actually that is probably way low, since the average US retirement age is not 65, but 58 - so there are apparently many, many Americans who sign up for SS at the 62 minimum age).
When are you going to learn to propery interpret data?
You should know well enough by now since it's been pointed out to you MANY TIMES.
So, NO it was NOT "only 100K signed up for SS". The number of people ON SS went UP by 100K, but OLD FOLKS - you know, those people ALREADY ON SS, die every day. The 100K INCREASE in SS recepients is the NET GAIN in the number of people on SS (taking into account that , NOT the number of people NEW to SS.
Now to be honest, I don't know exactly HOW MANY seniors died last month, but it's a HUGE number. I did find data from a report made in 2007 that looked at 2004 data and stated that in 2004 there were 1.8 MILLION folks over age 65 that died that year - meaning that on average, 150,000 folks over 65 die each month. So.... if 150,000 seniors died last month AND the SS rolls STILL climbed by 100,000, then that means that it wasn't "only 100K" who signed up for SS, but rather "250K" who signed up for SS last month (actually that is probably way low, since the average US retirement age is not 65, but 58 - so there are apparently many, many Americans who sign up for SS at the 62 minimum age).
I'm just looking to put together the story based on government numbers.
I found some numbers but definitely not enough to put together the story.
But I'm not going to be satisfied with just "guessing".
And this 150K that died..how many were working ? And that's your guess based on very old data considering we're now into boomer retirements (higher numbers).
I'm just looking to put together the story based on government numbers.
I found some numbers but definitely not enough to put together the story.
But I'm not going to be satisfied with just "guessing".
And this 150K that died..how many were working ? And that's your guess based on very old data considering we're now into boomer retirements (higher numbers).
Considering that all of those 150K were folks 65 and older - probably not too many were working (average retirement age in the US is 58).
The fact remains that 50,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY DAY - that's a LOT of people potentially leaving the labor force.
And yes, I KNOW that even more people turn 18 every day - but many people turning 18 are doing other things besides joining the workforce - things like going to college, joining the military or having babies. This again has been explained over and over and over again.
More to the point though - the number of people turning 18 compared to the number of people entering their retirement years is just one part (and a smaller part at that) of the demographics that driving the decrease in the Labor Force Participation Rate. A FAR bigger part of the picture is that the fact that seniors are living longer than ever and that the huge demographic wave of the babyboomers is starting to "top load" the age pyramid - making it start to look more like a column. Look at the demographic tables attached. The Baby-boomer bulge is working it's way up the age groups. Those kinds of demographic changes are BOUND to have a profound impact of the Labor Force Participation Rates. The demographic age pyramid is starting to become a demographic age column. That's just the way it is.
The BLS didn't count the furloughed workers because they were not fired.
It's right in the BLS report.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the unemployed, however, the number who reported being on temporary
layoff increased by 448,000. This figure includes furloughed federal
employees who were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff under
the definitions used in the household survey. (Estimates of the
unemployed by reason, such as temporary layoff and job leavers, do not
sum to the official seasonally adjusted measure of total unemployed
because they are independently seasonally adjusted.)
Okay. I read it. They furloughed workers were not counted in the u3 rate, but they were counted in U6 rate, so we should see a pretty big drop in U6 unemployment rate next month. I care more about that number anyways. The U3 is a fraud.
And here it comes folks. We are about to see all those nice posts and threads about how the economy is improving as we head into the Holiday season. It happens every damn year, then there is just excuse after excuse when the numbers fall back again after January.
Considering that all of those 150K were folks 65 and older - probably not too many were working (average retirement age in the US is 58).
The fact remains that 50,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY DAY - that's a LOT of people potentially leaving the labor force.
And yes, I KNOW that even more people turn 18 every day - but many people turning 18 are doing other things besides joining the workforce - things like going to college, joining the military or having babies. This again has been explained over and over and over again.
More to the point though - the number of people turning 18 compared to the number of people entering their retirement years is just one part (and a smaller part at that) of the demographics that driving the decrease in the Labor Force Participation Rate. A FAR bigger part of the picture is that the fact that seniors are living longer than ever and that the huge demographic wave of the babyboomers is starting to "top load" the age pyramid - making it start to look more like a column. Look at the demographic tables attached. The Baby-boomer bulge is working it's way up the age groups. Those kinds of demographic changes are BOUND to have a profound impact of the Labor Force Participation Rates. The demographic age pyramid is starting to become a demographic age column. That's just the way it is.
Ken
Yeah, because 18 year olds can afford to not work and just have babies...LMAO!
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.
