U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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 12-11-2013, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
7,387 posts, read 3,852,043 times
Reputation: 2606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Both numbers are based on the same data, which using your assertion would make them both manipulated. Then there is the fact that those who are considered to be unemployed are counted as participating in the LFPR calculation. We could have a U3 unemployment rate of 80%, which would give us a LFPR of over 80%+.
Where does the Unemployment Rate come from?



Useful statistic? No.

Want it to be a useful statistic? Stop cooking the books. Unemployment rate should mean, "How many working aged Americans do not have jobs?" But it's got all sorts of ways to not count huge segments of the working aged Americans who don't have jobs. Both parties continue to use this useless statistic because it tends to paint a prettier picture than actual reality. It makes people feel better to be lied to. That is why politicians do it.

If for example Job Blow is a college student and Sally Smith is a housewife, the UE does not count them. Nevermind that Joe Blow only went back to college and Sally Smith became a housewife because both of them got laid off of work. Nevermind that both of them would rather have jobs. The UE ignores them. The UE ignores far too many people.

I'd rather just know the raw numbers and leave it at that. I don't trust a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians to clean up the numbers for me. Just give me the real numbers straight up, thank you.

Last edited by godofthunder9010; 12-11-2013 at 07:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2013, 07:34 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,473,086 times
Reputation: 15430
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Labor Participation rate did not change for 25 to 54 year olds.

We count someone mowing a neighbor's yard for pay a total of 1 hour a week as employed.

Ratio of Part Time jobs increases.

We don't count someone as unemployed if their unemployment benefits expire even though they still don't have a job.

Poverty is increasing.

Food Stamps is increasing.

Median Household Income has decreased.

QE stimulus remains at record highs.
Here's the biggest indicator, when you have protests that make every news channel screaming about how low the pay is in the fast food industry.

Show me ONE place in history where people have demanded a livable wage to flip BURGERS or bag fries?

It's never happened because people didn't need (or expect) to work those jobs to survive. Those jobs were traditionally for kids, not adults trying to support a household.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2013, 07:47 AM
 
3,537 posts, read 2,204,682 times
Reputation: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Nonsense.
Economists and business leaders all over the world look at these numbers and use them to make their economic plans. I think those folks know a lot more about all this than you do.

Ken
They use take these numbers with a nice sized grain of salt though.

You did not read about the manipulation of these numbers before the last election?


As if we needed confirmation of that..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2013, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,405 posts, read 14,492,810 times
Reputation: 9208
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Where does the Unemployment Rate come from?



Useful statistic? No.

Want it to be a useful statistic? Stop cooking the books. Unemployment rate should mean, "How many working aged Americans do not have jobs?" But it's got all sorts of ways to not count huge segments of the working aged Americans who don't have jobs. Both parties continue to use this useless statistic because it tends to paint a prettier picture than actual reality. It makes people feel better to be lied to. That is why politicians do it.

If for example Job Blow is a college student and Sally Smith is a housewife, the UE does not count them. Nevermind that Joe Blow only went back to college and Sally Smith became a housewife because both of them got laid off of work. Nevermind that both of them would rather have jobs. The UE ignores them. The UE ignores far too many people.

I'd rather just know the raw numbers and leave it at that. I don't trust a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians to clean up the numbers for me. Just give me the real numbers straight up, thank you.
I agree though the problem is Joe Blow and Sally Smith are not actively looking for work. However compare them to John James who was let go and actively looking for work. I think we need to look at those looking for work and those looking for full-time work. Hey wouldn't you know, that's what unemployment numbers do already.

The problem is with stats itself. Stats can be swayed either way. Stats can be used "oh we have fewer people looking for work and we created X jobs" but they don't include those who went to college or became housewives. We need to view the whole picture rather than frame it just in our party's box. I've tried to do that more and more and find that I have not really turned into a liberal or conservative, I am still somewhere in between.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2013, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
7,387 posts, read 3,852,043 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I agree though the problem is Joe Blow and Sally Smith are not actively looking for work. However compare them to John James who was let go and actively looking for work. I think we need to look at those looking for work and those looking for full-time work. Hey wouldn't you know, that's what unemployment numbers do already.

The problem is with stats itself. Stats can be swayed either way. Stats can be used "oh we have fewer people looking for work and we created X jobs" but they don't include those who went to college or became housewives. We need to view the whole picture rather than frame it just in our party's box. I've tried to do that more and more and find that I have not really turned into a liberal or conservative, I am still somewhere in between.
We are currently in a market where a lot of people went back to college or became house moms and dads because they gave up looking for work.

Labor Participation Rate is hardly a partisan stat. It really doesn't discriminate at all. Bill Clinton oversaw the best 8 years of LPR in American history. Reagan and Bush Sr oversaw the most rapid increase in LPR in American history. George W comes away looking awful for losing 2% LPR in his 8 years in office. Saint Hope and Change Obama was supposed to make things better, but the LPR decline has accelerated since he took office and hasn't really slowed down.

Obama pushed lot of incentives to encourage more people to go to college. He's gotten a pretty solid response. It's also moved a lot of people who cannot find work into the unemployment rate's blind spot. I know quite a few of them and they wouldn't be back in school if they hadn't lost their jobs in the first place. Every such person going back to college artificially boosts the UE rate.

Sally Smith might actually want to work, but gave up looking. So did Joe Blow. But the Unemployment rate can't see them. It hides people who have given up and stopped looking.

The number of people over 55 that are still working has shot up significantly. The percentage of Americans over 65 still working has doubled. Over 75 has tripled. You don't have to count anyone over a certain age (I believe it's 55 or 60) despite the fact that the number of that age-group still working is skyrocketing. Another huge blind spot.

One of the most useful things about LPR: With things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, college tuition, operating costs for public schools and other public facilities, the LPR tells you the number of Americans who are actually footing the bill for all of it. The lower the LPR, the harder it is for taxpayers to afford everything.

LPR should be your baseline number for discussing things. It ignores nothing and just tells the straight story of how many working aged Americans have jobs. After that, feel free to bring in other statistics. UE rate is used by both parties because it paints a prettier picture, not because it is more accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2013, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,405 posts, read 14,492,810 times
Reputation: 9208
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
We are currently in a market where a lot of people went back to college or became house moms and dads because they gave up looking for work.

Labor Participation Rate is hardly a partisan stat. It really doesn't discriminate at all. Bill Clinton oversaw the best 8 years of LPR in American history. Reagan and Bush Sr oversaw the most rapid increase in LPR in American history. George W comes away looking awful for losing 2% LPR in his 8 years in office. Saint Hope and Change Obama was supposed to make things better, but the LPR decline has accelerated since he took office and hasn't really slowed down.

Obama pushed lot of incentives to encourage more people to go to college. He's gotten a pretty solid response. It's also moved a lot of people who cannot find work into the unemployment rate's blind spot. I know quite a few of them and they wouldn't be back in school if they hadn't lost their jobs in the first place. Every such person going back to college artificially boosts the UE rate.

Sally Smith might actually want to work, but gave up looking. So did Joe Blow. But the Unemployment rate can't see them. It hides people who have given up and stopped looking.

The number of people over 55 that are still working has shot up significantly. The percentage of Americans over 65 still working has doubled. Over 75 has tripled. You don't have to count anyone over a certain age (I believe it's 55 or 60) despite the fact that the number of that age-group still working is skyrocketing. Another huge blind spot.

One of the most useful things about LPR: With things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, college tuition, operating costs for public schools and other public facilities, the LPR tells you the number of Americans who are actually footing the bill for all of it. The lower the LPR, the harder it is for taxpayers to afford everything.

LPR should be your baseline number for discussing things. It ignores nothing and just tells the straight story of how many working aged Americans have jobs. After that, feel free to bring in other statistics. UE rate is used by both parties because it paints a prettier picture, not because it is more accurate.
Are there a good number of people who exited the labor force for college or house caretakers (trying to be politically correct here), yes. However we also have fewer people in due to retirement as well. If you were able to retire with a good nest-egg, you are in good shape. Granted, not everyone is in that place but I would say it is fair to say that is part of where the labor market went. We'll know more over the next few years when more and more boomers hit 65.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2013, 09:18 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,599,519 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Yada, yada, yada - same old denial nonsense.
SSDD
None of of which changes the reality that the economy continues to heal.


Ken
So you'd have no problem with cutting welfare spending then, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2013, 10:23 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,681,824 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Retiring Boomers are removed from the numerator portion, but remain in the denominator portion of the LFPR, which is why as the retire they will lower the LFPR. At least until they die or are institutionalized.
Here is the E-pop information and LFPR.
Population numbers and employed/unemployed classifications then factor in. There are soft number areas, but it it is important to connect the dots.

Employment-To-Population Ratio Definition | Investopedia

quote:
The working force and population only include individuals within the working age.


Participation Rate Definition | Investopedia
quote:
The participation rate is important in analyzing the unemployment rate.

Labor Force Participation Rate - What Does It Mean?
quote:
(Civilian Labor Force / Total Non-institutionalized Civilian Population) x 100
...
Ok - now what is the "civilian labor force"?

This group consists of people who are classified as being either employed or unemployed.

A key item to note - you have to be actively looking for a job in order to be considered "unemployed".
....
First off, what is the "total non-institutionalized civilian population"?

This is the total population minus a few key groups, including:

-kids under the age of 16
-people in prisons or other institutions
-military personnel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Long Island
29,529 posts, read 12,347,656 times
Reputation: 6107
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen View Post
They use take these numbers with a nice sized grain of salt though.

You did not read about the manipulation of these numbers before the last election?


As if we needed confirmation of that..
I guess people suddenly got educated and became experts on UE data in 2009, no question the economy is bad but don't recall use work force participation rates and other data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 05:56 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,599,519 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I guess people suddenly got educated and became experts on UE data in 2009, no question the economy is bad but don't recall use work force participation rates and other data.
Dont remember people whining about the number of people unemployed under Bush, when the rate was under 5%?
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