Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
All this, while democraps are collectively holding a national temper tantrum, and likely trying to sabotage the economy. America prevails, for the win!
|
No doubt.
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 182,553 in the week ending March 30, a decrease of 7,522 (or -4.0 percent) from the previous week. The seasonal factors had expected an increase of 1,058 (or 0.6 percent) from the previous week. There were 201,057 initial claims in the comparable week in 2018. The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.3 percent during the week ending March 23, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 1,898,456, a decrease of 111,012 (or -5.5 percent) from the preceding week. The seasonal factors had expected a decrease of 68,445 (or -3.4 percent) from the previous week. A year earlier the rate was 1.4 percent and the volume was 2,003,104.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Unless you normalize for a variety of factors like workforce participation, population and of course reflect on a broader trend than just a single month then it's just a meaningless bit of fluff.
Don't get me wrong, the economy is doing pretty well in general, but some of these "best in 50 years" stuff are nothing but clickbait.
|
No, they're very real.
In December 1969, you only had 77.8 Million workers, and more than 202,000 were filing unemployment claims.
That's about 0.25% of workers.
Now you have 156,167,000 workers and 202,000 applicants.
That's 0.13% of workers.
The difference in Employment-to-Population Ratio between now and December 1969 is only 2.2 points.
Your population was 135,489,000, so that's 2,980,758 workers (potentially).
Assuming everyone of those had a job, that gives you 80.7 Million workers.
And with more than 202,000 filing claims, that's still 0.25%.
So, I just normalized it and proved it is the lowest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G
More working than ever, unemployment low, but wages for most are stuck and not moving while prices have shot up since 2015.
|
Yeah? So?
Wages only rise when there's Monetary Inflation or Wage Inflation.
Neither exists. Well, you do have a tiny bit of Monetary Inflation, about 0.4%.
Wages are not supposed rise when Cost-push Inflation or Demand-pull Inflation exists.
The function, the purpose, the
raison d'être of Demand-pull Inflation is to protect; to preserve; to conserve.
Preservation and conservation are good things, right? At least that's what Liberals tell us when they aren't talking out of both sides of their neck.
Demand-pull Inflation protects, preserves and conserves resources, goods and services to keep them from being depleted, over-used or over-consumed.
If you can't buy stuff, that's a damn good thing, and it means the Laws of Economics are working exactly as they should work.
If it causes you angst, perhaps you can find a Universe where the Laws of Economics work differently.
Good luck with that, but do give us a full report on your findings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
The number is a phony number—it’s really close to twenty-per-cent unemployment. That’s just a phony number to make the politicians look good.
Unemployment rate only dropped because more people are out of labor force & have stopped looking for work.Not a real recovery, phony numbers
It has to happen. So many people can't get jobs. The unemployment number, as you know, is totally fiction.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
The five-per-cent figure is one of the biggest hoaxes in American modern politics
|
There's no hoax to it.
If you are available to work,
and you want to work
and you have sought work in the last 30 days, but haven't found work, then you're unemployed.
That is the legal, administrative and statistical definition of "unemployed," and it has been since 1994.
If you want to work, but you're not available, because you're caring for an elderly parent or other family member, then you're ignored, and you should be, since you're not available to work.
See? It's not String Theory.
I personally think the definition should be changed.
Thanks to Liberals, it now takes 6-12 weeks to hire personnel.
Because of Liberal policies, hiring someone is like getting HIV/AIDS, you're stuck with them damn near forever and the cost to get rid of them is enormous.
So, it's important for employers to properly vet applicants to ensure they really are qualified, and have a good work ethic and are a good fit for their company, and that takes much longer to do.
For that reason, the period should be extended from 30 days to 90 days.
Yes, people are dropping out of the Labor Force, because most people don't want to work into their 70s.
It's called "retirement." It might be an alien concept to you, but look into it anyway.
And, for the record, there are only 428,000 people who are, um, "discouraged."
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.
