Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 11-26-2016, 06:18 AM
 
4,224 posts, read 2,995,496 times
Reputation: 3812

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
The abnormally high U6 rate has been a major thorn in the side of our current recovery. Even Janet Yellen references it a lot in her speeches. I anticipate the rate will return to normal ratios after the employer mandate is repealed. Incomes will also increase when this occurs.
Beating a dead horse has repeatedly been shown to be an unproductive enterprise.

Keep in mind that the employer mandate is conditional, requiring that businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees offer health care insurance to at least 95% of their FTE's and their dependents up to age 26. Spouses don't count and do not need to be covered. An employer may choose instead to pay a fee. The fee is $2,000 per each FTE after the first 30, but up to $3,000 per employee who eventually receives subsidies through an exchange.

 
Old 11-26-2016, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,524,428 times
Reputation: 22633
Bottom line if the claims of massive upsurge in people forced to work less than 30 hours was true it would be directly reflected in BLS data for part time for economic reasons. The trend is the exact opposite of what he says.
 
Old 11-27-2016, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,232 posts, read 2,108,288 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
If this was true the number of workers who are part time for economic reasons would have gone up in 2014, but it has continued to decrease as it has since the peak of the recession. The difference is even more stark when taken as a percentage of the growing total labor force, in Jan 2013 5.2% were part time for economic reasons but as of Oct 2016 it is down to 3.7%.
It didn't drop near fast enough. 2013 to mid 2014 our U3 to U6 ratio skyrocketed. We should have seen a significant higher number of people finding full time jobs if they wanted, but they didn't. Refer to my prior posts on the U3 to U6 ratio.
 
Old 11-27-2016, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,524,428 times
Reputation: 22633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
It didn't drop near fast enough.
So let me get this straight.

1. You claim that since 2014 way more people were forced to work less than 30 hours
2. BLS data shows that people part time for economic reasons continued to drop
3. You believe your claim is still valid since numbers of part timers didn't drop fast enough

That doesn't make sense. Clearly if your claim #1 was true then number of people working part time for economic reasons would rising, since it is going down (regardless of how fast) then you cannot believe #1 without suspending reality. I'm in awe you think the speed of it's decrease in any way helps your position here, it doesn't.

You can't even do the usual data is wrong/fudged cop out that is so pervasive on this forum, since you're using same BLS employment data for your entire argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
2013 to mid 2014 our U3 to U6 ratio skyrocketed
Mid 2013 = 1.89
Mid 2014 = 1.97

Average for all of 2013 = 1.89
Average for all of 2014 = 1.96

Unless I have the above numbers wrong that is a 4%ish increase, and some liberties with the word "skyrocketed" are being taken.
 
Old 11-27-2016, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,232 posts, read 2,108,288 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
So let me get this straight.

1. You claim that since 2014 way more people were forced to work less than 30 hours
2. BLS data shows that people part time for economic reasons continued to drop
3. You believe your claim is still valid since numbers of part timers didn't drop fast enough

That doesn't make sense. Clearly if your claim #1 was true then number of people working part time for economic reasons would rising, since it is going down (regardless of how fast) then you cannot believe #1 without suspending reality. I'm in awe you think the speed of it's decrease in any way helps your position here, it doesn't.

You can't even do the usual data is wrong/fudged cop out that is so pervasive on this forum, since you're using same BLS employment data for your entire argument.



Mid 2013 = 1.89
Mid 2014 = 1.97

Average for all of 2013 = 1.89
Average for all of 2014 = 1.96

Unless I have the above numbers wrong that is a 4%ish increase, and some liberties with the word "skyrocketed" are being taken.
First, review again our U3 to U6 ratio via my link. And you will clearly see in a picture it skyrocketing in late 2013 and early 2014.

5 Things You Need to Know About the Jobs Report | Observer

It is important to note that the two most important months for our U3/U6 ratio explosian were December 2013, and April 2014. In these months, U3 fell a lot and U6 either stayed stagnant or didn't budge as much as it should have.

Lets take for example, a recent month. May 2016. Our U3 to U6 ratio was a whopping 2.06!

Our U3 to U6 ratio went over 2.0 in October of 2014. Ever since mid 2014, it has exceeded 1.9 ratio with many months jumping in and out of even exceeding 2.0.

Lets compare this to prior expansions in the 2000s and the 1990s (not necessary, since my links give you a clear picture to look at) and you will see that the U3 to U6 ratio rarely exceeded 1.8 and NEVER exceed 1.9. Now you are saying it is normal for it to exceed 2.0?

I'm not seeing how you don't see the problem here.

All my numbers come from here. http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp

That website contains our unemployment data going back decades. All sourced through the BLS.

My claim isn't that the number of people working for part time due to economic reasons isn't falling, it is that it isn't falling near fast enough. Millions of workers are still stuck in employment part time and they want more hours. This corruption in our U3/U6 ratio took place to a T with the implementation of Obamacare's employer mandate.
 
Old 11-28-2016, 02:03 AM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,524,428 times
Reputation: 22633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
My claim isn't that the number of people working for part time due to economic reasons isn't falling
That is where you aren't making sense, since this is exactly what you're claiming when you repeatedly lay blame for the U-3/U-6 ratio on some surge of workers being reduced to part time. The below quotes are from you in this thread right?

"U3/U6 ration became botched because employees who previously had full time work were cut down to less than 30 hours a week"

"This is because hundreds of thousands of employees, primarily in the hospitality sector, slashed workers from 40 hours, to 30 hours or less."


Now you're agreeing that the number of workers part time for economic reasons is in fact falling (as it has been since peak of recession), which directly contradicts you blaming a sudden uptick in part timers just a few posts earlier.
 
Old 11-28-2016, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,232 posts, read 2,108,288 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
That is where you aren't making sense, since this is exactly what you're claiming when you repeatedly lay blame for the U-3/U-6 ratio on some surge of workers being reduced to part time. The below quotes are from you in this thread right?

"U3/U6 ration became botched because employees who previously had full time work were cut down to less than 30 hours a week"

"This is because hundreds of thousands of employees, primarily in the hospitality sector, slashed workers from 40 hours, to 30 hours or less."


Now you're agreeing that the number of workers part time for economic reasons is in fact falling (as it has been since peak of recession), which directly contradicts you blaming a sudden uptick in part timers just a few posts earlier.
I never said in any prior posts that U6 wasn't falling. My posts repeatedly stated that it wasn't falling fast enough, with a marked divergence in 2013 where the U6/U3 ratio began ballooning. I never used words like uptick or increase in raw numbers. I consistently referred to the U3/U6 RATIO as being what increased. And it did so in direct correlation to the Obamacare mandate.

You are aware that hundreds of thousands jobs can have their hours slashed while other jobs are created elsewhere.

Refer again to where I posted about Pizza chains in the US, an industry that employs tens of thousands of Americans, every single one of them slashed their workers hours when the Obamacare mandate took effect.
 
Old 11-28-2016, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,524,428 times
Reputation: 22633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
I never said in any prior posts that U6 wasn't falling.
Irrelevant reply to my post, which was directly questioning your statements about part time workers, not U-6.

I showed where you made claims about part time workers, and the data doesn't appear to back that up. Attempting to steer the discussion in every other direction but that doesn't validate those statements about part time workers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
You are aware that hundreds of thousands jobs can have their hours slashed while other jobs are created elsewhere.

Refer again to where I posted about Pizza chains in the US, an industry that employs tens of thousands of Americans, every single one of them slashed their workers hours when the Obamacare mandate took effect.
Bottom line = the number of workers part time for economic reasons went down right?

Therefore the number of people working part time isn't the cause of the U-3/U-6 ratio, right? It went down.

Therefore, your talk of Obamacare mandate being the reason makes no sense, right?

Where is this chain of logic failing for you?
 
Old 11-28-2016, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,232 posts, read 2,108,288 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Irrelevant reply to my post, which was directly questioning your statements about part time workers, not U-6.

I showed where you made claims about part time workers, and the data doesn't appear to back that up. Attempting to steer the discussion in every other direction but that doesn't validate those statements about part time workers.


Bottom line = the number of workers part time for economic reasons went down right?

Therefore the number of people working part time isn't the cause of the U-3/U-6 ratio, right? It went down.

Therefore, your talk of Obamacare mandate being the reason makes no sense, right?

Where is this chain of logic failing for you?
Are you really not seeing, despite detailed pictures being shown to you, what happened to our U3/U6 ratio in 2013-2014? That it is now 2.0x compared to 1.8x in previous economic cycles, and what this entails for our economy at large?
 
Old 11-29-2016, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,524,428 times
Reputation: 22633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happiness-is-close View Post
Are you really not seeing, despite detailed pictures being shown to you, what happened to our U3/U6 ratio in 2013-2014? That it is now 2.0x compared to 1.8x in previous economic cycles, and what this entails for our economy at large?
More attempt at distraction, my post was about your questionable claims regarding part time workers and you know it. I'll again point out the problem I have with your posts, which at this point I believe you are purposely ignoring.

1. You said the Obamacare mandate caused the U3/U6 ratio to rise because of all the workers who were forced to work less hours.

2. Statistics from your same sources clearly show that the number of workers part time for economic reason has in fact fallen, significantly so as a percentage of the labor force.

3. Therefore accepting #2 as fact, we can see your conclusion in #1 was wrong. If it was correct and people being changed to work less than 30 hours was the reason, we'd see it reflected in the part time worker stats.

This is where you make some generalized statement again about the ratio, unwilling to make any attempt at justifying the logic failure of the argument you made aside from more rants about where the U3/U6 ratio should be.

I invite you again to explain where the chain of 1-2-3 above is wrong.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top