UE rate continues to fall - now down to 7.0% (programs, income, homosexual)

[madpaddy]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

And the U-6 dropped too - and, like the U-3 is essentially at a 5-year low. That's the case with ALL 6 of these various UE rates.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

Ken

Both are down for essentially the same reason: Falling participation rate.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by madpaddy

Both are down for essentially the same reason: Falling participation rate.

And yet both are down last month while the participation rate went up.
Hmmmmm.... well, so much for that theory.

Ken

[madpaddy]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

And yet both are down last month while the participation rate went up.
Hmmmmm.... well, so much for that theory.

Ken

Hang your hat on a single month if you wish, I'm waiting for evidence of a trend in the right direction.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

And yet both are down last month while the participation rate went up.
Hmmmmm.... well, so much for that theory.

Ken

Both sides can throw smoke screens. The fact is we still have a long ways to go and we need more months like this to get down to the 6% U-3 and a reasonable U-6. U-6 is tricky because some people take part-time jobs because there's nothing better.

As for your claim in another post that full-time work has always been trumped by part-time work you are wrong...



source: The Trend Toward Part-Time Employment

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by madpaddy

Hang your hat on a single month if you wish, I'm waiting for evidence of a trend in the right direction.

There is NO relationship trend. The Labor Force Participation Rate has fallen for years regardless of what the UE rate has done. In 2008 and 2009 the Labor Force Participation Rate fell while the UE rate went up, since then, the Labor Force Participation Rate has fallen while the UE rate went down.
Where's the correlation?
The Labor Force Participation Rate has trended down regardless of whether the UE rate has gone up or down - so again, where's the correlation?

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

The In 2008 and 2009 the Labor Force Participation Rate dropped largely because of economics, since 2010 the Labor Force Participation Rate has been dropping - and will likely continue to drop - because of changing demographics. It's not JUST the economy that effects the Labor Force Participation Rate. The Babyboomer generation aging their way into the workforce caused the Labor Force Participation Rate to rise and the Babyboomer generation aging their way out of the workforce is causing the Labor Force Participation Rate to fall back to what it was before.

Ken

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by madpaddy

For those of you who think the 7% unemployment rate is something to celebrate, look at these two charts from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The first is the Unemployment Rate. We all know it spikes in 2009 to ~10%, then gradually recedes over time to the 7% just announced. The second is the Employment:Population Ratio. Not surprisingly, the line moves opposite the unemployment rate line in 2009 as the jobs are shed. However, the expected inverse correlation to the drop in the unemployment rate from late 2010 until November 2013 is not there. The ratio has stay in a very tight range for the last 3+ years.


Where is the employment improvement in the bottom picture? There isn't any. Zilch. Zero. Nada. We lost 4.5% of our adult population from the productive side of the economy in the recession. 4 years later, there is virtually no change. In every previous recovery, the Employment:Population ratio has climbed as Unemployment has dropped. This time, the two are completely disconnected. Why is that? Because the drop in UE has come almost entirely from the drop in the participation rate.

One last round of figures: Employment peaked in September of 2007 at 146.2 million jobs. We still haven't gotten back to that number (November 2013 number was 144.4 million) despite the fact that our total population has grown by 15 million in that time! Is it any wonder why thinking, reasoning people question the validity of the U3 rate as any sort of reliable barometer of the economy?

Here is the LNS12300000 table from 1979-2013, notice how freaky looking it is under Obama. we do not have the bounce back like every other recession.

[madpaddy]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

There is NO relationship trend. The Labor Force Participation Rate has fallen for years regardless of what the UE rate has done. In 2008 and 2009 the Labor Force Participation Rate fell while the UE rate went up, since then, the Labor Force Participation Rate has fallen while the UE rate went down.
Where's the correlation?
The Labor Force Participation Rate has trended down regardless of whether the UE rate has gone up or down - so again, where's the correlation?

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

The In 2008 and 2009 the Labor Force Participation Rate dropped largely because of economics, since 2010 the Labor Force Participation Rate has been dropping - and will likely continue to drop - because of changing demographics. It's not JUST the economy that effects the Labor Force Participation Rate. The Babyboomer generation aging their way into the workforce caused the Labor Force Participation Rate to rise and the Babyboomer generation aging their way out of the workforce is causing the Labor Force Participation Rate to fall back to what it was before.

Ken

You're right that there is no direct correlation, they can move in different directions because there are more components in the equation. But they are related. The unemployment rate can drop for two reasons: More people find work or people drop out of the labor force. The U3 drop from 10 to 7 (and related U6 drop) has come mostly from people dropping out of the labor force. If it is all demographics (which I only partially buy), the data suggests very minimal growth, mostly just people taking jobs the baby boomers abandoned.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

"Officially" we are not in a recession right now but many would say we aren't. Wall Street it is but not on main street.

Then why do many Republicans not favor gay marriage?

So they are but their "balance" maybe 70/30 or 60/40. Compared to MSNBC it's balanced though where they are at maybe 75/25...

Everything to the left is a right. A right to health care, a right to a job, right to a livable wage, right to housing, right to food.

[emcee squared]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Here is the LNS12300000 table from 1979-2013, notice how freaky looking it is under Obama. we do not have the bounce back like every other recession.

Looks like that starting falling in 2007. When was Obama's first day in office again? Otherwise, you're correct, it isn't bouncing back.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

"Job creation moved forward again in November, with the U.S. economy adding a better-than-expected 203,000 to the employment rolls in news likely to cloud the future of monetary policy.

The unemployment rate fell to 7 percent.

Economists were expecting the Bureau of Labor Statistics to report 180,000 new jobs created in November, down from an initially reported 204,000 in October. The unemployment rate was expected to decline a notch to 7.2 percent from 7.3 percent..."

Sounds like taper may come sooner rather than later.

Jobs Friday: US nonfarm payrolls at 203,000; unemployment rate at 7%

The more comprehensive U-6 UE rate took an even bigger drop from 13.8% to 13.2%

Ken

really Ken,

do you really not look at the numbers



month................year........labor force.................employed............unemploy ed.........ue rate.....
November......... 2013..........155,294.................. 144,386................. 10,907............. 7.0
June................. 2008..........154,313.................. 145,737................. 8,575............... 5.6



population June 2008 303 million
population November 2013 319 million


hmmm we have gone up 16 million in population, since June 2008... but have LESS working people than that month....more people unemployed



the numbers don't look good