Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't fudge employment numbers at the request of the White House.
|
No, they just use the fatally flawed "Birth/Death Model."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
What this shows is that the economy is slowly improving.
|
The economy is not slowly improving.
In order for the jobs situation to return to where it was pre-recession, both the UE rate and the Labor Participation rate have to be identical to the pre-recession rates, and they are not heading in that direction.
Some of you silly people seem to have forgotten that earlier this year, about 200,000 jobs were created for a few months.
And then it stopped.
I can see why you'd want to forget that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Unlike Ronald Reagan, he actually balanced the budget.
|
If Reagan had fired half of the military and closed 40% of bases and had eliminated 14 nuclear weapons systems, he could have balanced the budget too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The graph is a fairly good illustration of recent employment history. Some people seem to struggle with recent history.
|
Like you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromekitty
Improving? Jobless claims are up this week.....
|
Yes, of course. I said you'd lose about 1 Million jobs over the next 6-12 months, because of the troop withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan. Some "experts" are predicting 1.5 Million jobs lost in the next 12 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I don't understand your comment, because it's contrary to macro economics. If consumers borrow money to spend, that increases GDP and will increase employment.
|
Really?
That's funny because the government has spent $12 TRILLION over the last 3 years and the GDP has only increased about $500 Billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock
This is terrible news. 300K leaving the workforce and the rest taking TEMPORARY employment working in the malls fro Christmas to create an artifical rate of 8.9%. Come back when the rate gets back to 4%
|
That pretty much sums it up. In about 30-45 days, those people will lose their temporary jobs and be looking for work again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
A lot of people must have stopped looking for work and receiving their UI.
No way possible the UE rate dropped .4% with only 120,000 jobs created.
|
If they'll ignore common sense, I don't see why they wouldn't ignore math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
According to Zandi of Moody's, the drop to 8.6 UE is not as good as it looks. The number of people dropping out, is still a problem.
|
Yes, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Good point, when 315K people leave the work force, UE will magically come down.
U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6% - Bloomberg
"The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.
The labor participation rate declined to 64 percent from 64.2 percent." |
Don't confuse them with facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It is what it is. We gained 120K and some left the workforce, and the rate dropped to 8.6%. Of course it is the right direction, and yes, we need to create more jobs. What I don't get is the people who can't hide their disgust and disappoitment every time there is good news. What will they say if there was GREAT news? They'd probably kill themselves.
|
It is not good news. To suggest that it is good news indicates that you don't understand what you're looking at.
During the 1950s, you had unemployment of 5%, but only 6% of households had two wage-earners.
By the mid-1970s, you had unemployment of 5% but 13% of households had two wage-earners.
In 2008 (last year for data I can find) you had 5% unemployment and 67% of households with two wage-earners.
What does that tell you?
Well, your labor participate rate increased dramatically.
And why? Because women entered the work-force. Now, that did put down-ward pressure on wages/salaries because those are a function of Supply & Demand, put over all,
household income increased.
By the end of this decade, you'll probably have 5% unemployment, but you'll only have 16%-20% of households with two full-time wage-earners and maybe 30%-35% of households with one full-time wage-earner and one part-time wage earner.
And given downward pressure on wages/salaries, what does that mean?
Household income will have declined.
And you say that is "Good News."
I have to wonder what kind of Kool-Aid that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
If we can drop 300,00 people from the total US workforce each month, we will down to 0% unemployment in no time.
The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 64.0 percent. The employment-population ratio, at 58.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)
Employment Situation Summary |
It's pointless. They just don't get stuff like that.
In spite of our most heroic efforts, many of these people have failed to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts.
5% UE with a labor participation rate of 60% is not the same thing as 5% UE with a labor participation rate of 68%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Actually, the definition of unemployment is consistent among US economists. Who told you that every administration can "change" it?
|
Um, history.
Would you like me to explain it to you?
Once you understand the methodologies, then it is up to you to decide which methodology gives the best picture of the unemployment situation and hopefully that is based on what is most representative.
From the Truman Administration to the the Ford Administration, unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population = Unemployed
Military Personnel = Unemployed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed
During the Carter Administration, the Prison Population was removed (and rightfully so) and unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population =
Ignored
Military Personnel = Unemployed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed
During the Reagan Administration, military personnel were counted as employed (and again rightfully so) and unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population =
Ignored
Military Personnel =
Employed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed
During the Clinton Administration, a number of changes were made, mostly to hide the fact that unemployment was rising and that would have doomed Clinton's chances of re-election in 1996 and unemployment was calculated this way:
Prison Population =
Ignored
Military Personnel =
Employed
Part-Time Employees =
Employed
Underemployed =
Employed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) =
Ignored
Shadowstats in particular uses the methodology used by Reagan and Bush (the Elder).
A few websites use the original method used from Truman to Ford. I see no compelling reason to count the prison population, nor do I see any reason to ignore the military or count them as "unemployed."
I use a modified version of the Reagan and Bush method ignoring the "discouraged workers" (unemployed and not searching) because I agree with Clinton's definition of unemployed (which is a 3-prong Test):
1) You are available to work;
AND
2) You want to work;
AND
3) You are actively seeking employment (defined as at least two contacts per month)
Counting part-time workers as "employed" is disingenuous at best, unless the part-time worker has no desire to work full-time.
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.
