[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Our Labor Force Participation Rate dropped sharply last few years. Thanks, Malloy & Lamont (sar).

There's your unemployment rate improvement, Jay. Drop outs from the labor pool.

Ct first. Then Ma. Notice they go in opposite direction recent years.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LBSNSA09

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LBSSA25

What are you talking about?

According to the data you linked Connecticut’s Labor Force Participation Rate is 66.7% while Massachusetts rate is 67.7%. How does one percent make the difference between “stinks” and “great”? Statistically speaking, the difference is minor and could be attributed to a variety of reasons including the number of people retired, non working spouses and adult children, and self or partially employed. Heck, a stock day trader who makes millions in the stock market would not be counted in that figure. That is why economists almost never use it as a measure of economic health. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

What are you talking about?

According to the data you linked Connecticut’s Labor Force Participation Rate is 66.7% while Massachusetts rate is 67.7%.

First, 1% is huge. Variations tend to be tenths in most cases. 2nd Ma % is heading up, while Ct is heading down.

We did not have a giant cluster of retirees this year.

This is a significant problem.

People have stopped trying to find work in many cases, in Ct.

[JayCT]

If anyone has any concerns about the health and direction of Connecticut’s economy, I suggest they take a look at our Total Gross Domestic Product history. This chart depicts it (thanks BobNJ1960, it was attached to your link). As you can see our GDP has not stopped growing. It is at a record $274 billion. With an unemployment rate that is well under the rate considered full employment, how does anyone say that “stinks”? Jay

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C...ign=categories

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

First, 1% is huge. Variations tend to be tenths in most cases. 2nd Ma % is heading up, while Ct is heading down.

We did not have a giant cluster of retirees this year.

This is a significant problem.

People have stopped trying to find work in many cases, in Ct.

This is strictly your opinion. To my knowledge you are not an economist. I am not either but do know enough about statistics to know 1% on what is at best an estimated number is not significant. Unless you have unbiased expert opinions that say otherwise, I will respectfully but very STRONGLY disagree with you. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

If anyone has any concerns about the health and direction of Connecticut’s economy, I suggest they take a look at our Total Gross Domestic Product history. This chart depicts it (thanks BobNJ1960, it was attached to your link). As you can see our GDP has not stopped growing. It is at a record $274 billion. With an unemployment rate that is well under the rate considered full employment, how does anyone say that “stinks”? Jay

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C...ign=categories

I see you, exhaustingly, bringing up unemployment rate in defense of CT’s we’ll being, so I’ll just leave this here:

https://smartasset.com/career/proble...mployment-rate

“The unemployment rate isn’t an accurate measure of joblessness simply because it doesn’t consider everyone who doesn’t have a job. That’s why many economic experts instead focus on what’s known as the real unemployment rate.

The real unemployment rate (technically called the U-6 measure) is reported on a monthly basis in the jobs report along with the official unemployment rate and four other measures of unemployment. Unlike the official unemployment rate, however, it takes underemployed and marginally attached workers (including discouraged workers) into consideration as well as unemployed people.“

Further...

“The U6, the most conservative of the six measures, counts everyone who wants work and doesn't have it. And it paints a starkly different picture of the state and national economies than the traditionally reported unemployment rate.

According to data from Fitch Ratings, while the official unemployment rate for Connecticut in 2014 stood at 6.6 percent, down significantly from its 2010 high, the U6 rate was 12.6 percent, also down from its midrecession peak but reflecting a much more dire employment situation than the widely used numbers.”

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I see you, exhaustingly, bringing up unemployment rate in defense of CT’s we’ll being, so I’ll just leave this here:

https://smartasset.com/career/proble...mployment-rate

“The unemployment rate isn’t an accurate measure of joblessness simply because it doesn’t consider everyone who doesn’t have a job. That’s why many economic experts instead focus on what’s known as the real unemployment rate.

The real unemployment rate (technically called the U-6 measure) is reported on a monthly basis in the jobs report along with the official unemployment rate and four other measures of unemployment. Unlike the official unemployment rate, however, it takes underemployed and marginally attached workers (including discouraged workers) into consideration as well as unemployed people.“

Great points as always!


I have seen the Courant to its credit, hyperlink the detailed unemployment report which contains the U-6 and LFPR, btw.

Courant is not for cheerleaders. Very to the point analysis of how our state is doing economically. Vary fair, and impartial. But never pandering to political leaders.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I see you, exhaustingly, bringing up unemployment rate in defense of CT’s we’ll being, so I’ll just leave this here:

https://smartasset.com/career/proble...mployment-rate

“The unemployment rate isn’t an accurate measure of joblessness simply because it doesn’t consider everyone who doesn’t have a job. That’s why many economic experts instead focus on what’s known as the real unemployment rate.

The real unemployment rate (technically called the U-6 measure) is reported on a monthly basis in the jobs report along with the official unemployment rate and four other measures of unemployment. Unlike the official unemployment rate, however, it takes underemployed and marginally attached workers (including discouraged workers) into consideration as well as unemployed people.“

Further...

“According to data from Fitch Ratings, while the official unemployment rate for Connecticut in 2014 stood at 6.6 percent, down significantly from its 2010 high, the U6 rate was 12.6 percent, also down from its midrecession peak but reflecting a much more dire employment situation than the widely used numbers.

According to data from Fitch Ratings, while the official unemployment rate for Connecticut in 2014 stood at 6.6 percent, down significantly from its 2010 high, the U6 rate was 12.6 percent, also down from its midrecession peak but reflecting a much more dire employment situation than the widely used numbers.”

It may be true that the unemployment rate is not necessarily the only thing to consider when evaluating a state’s economic health but from what I have read after that rate was previously mentioned here, the U-6 alone is not accurate either. As I noted with the Labor Force Participation Rate it does include people who are self or deliberately partially employed.

Connecticut has a lot of people that live off investment income. We also have one of the highest rates for patents issued (I know someone that lives very well off his patent royalty income). This is why economists almost never use or quote U-6 to the public. It just does not accurately depict the unemployment condition of a state. If it did, economists would be all over it in their analyses.

All states have chronically unemployed, even those with very low unemployment rates. Whose to say that there aren’t unemployed people leaving the job market in other states too? Jay

[LMPA]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I see you, exhaustingly, bringing up unemployment rate in defense of CT’s we’ll being, so I’ll just leave this here:

https://smartasset.com/career/proble...mployment-rate

“The unemployment rate isn’t an accurate measure of joblessness simply because it doesn’t consider everyone who doesn’t have a job. That’s why many economic experts instead focus on what’s known as the real unemployment rate.

The real unemployment rate (technically called the U-6 measure) is reported on a monthly basis in the jobs report along with the official unemployment rate and four other measures of unemployment. Unlike the official unemployment rate, however, it takes underemployed and marginally attached workers (including discouraged workers) into consideration as well as unemployed people.“

Further...

“The U6, the most conservative of the six measures, counts everyone who wants work and doesn't have it. And it paints a starkly different picture of the state and national economies than the traditionally reported unemployment rate.

According to data from Fitch Ratings, while the official unemployment rate for Connecticut in 2014 stood at 6.6 percent, down significantly from its 2010 high, the U6 rate was 12.6 percent, also down from its midrecession peak but reflecting a much more dire employment situation than the widely used numbers.”

Great post and if I recall from an article posted a few pages back, it was mentioned the unemployment remains low due to outward migration.

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Massachusetts is the only NE state doing well.

This is not true. New Hampshire has had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation and steady growth for several years now. Many companies are offering signing bonuses for skilled workers. Their biggest challenge, like many areas, is finding enough skilled young people to fill numerous openings. Even unskilled positions are having trouble finding workers. A recent trip to the lakes area found a local fast food chain's lobby closed during prime hours due to the inability to staff the restaurant beyond the drive-through window. Some of the local fast food restaurants are paying starting salaries of $12 an hour and money for college classes to attract workers. This is considerably higher than the $7.25 federal minimum wage that the state follows.

Interestingly, for older workers (over 50) you have a much better opportunity to find employment in NH than many other areas, such as CT, where skilled older workers continue to have trouble getting past recruiters that seems to have an unspoken preference for younger applicants for the numerous open positions.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

It may be true that the unemployment rate is not necessarily the only thing to consider when evaluating a state’s economic health but from what I have read after that rate was previously mentioned here, the U-6 alone is not accurate either. As I noted with the Labor Force Participation Rate it does include people who are self or deliberately partially employed.

Connecticut has a lot of people that live off investment income. We also have one of the highest rates for patents issued (I know someone that lives very well off his patent royalty income). This is why economists almost never use or quote U-6 to the public. It just does not accurately depict the unemployment condition of a state. If it did, economists would be all over it in their analyses.

All states have chronically unemployed, even those with very low unemployment rates. Whose to say that there aren’t unemployed people leaving the job market in other states too? Jay

I’d be curious to see a source providing a percentage of people living off investment income and “royalty” income. It will surely be a very, very tiny number.

Seeing that CT has very slow, almost stagnant job creation, there are likely more chronically unemployed there than the majority.

So let’s stop touting “full employment” when we know thats hardly the case.