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.
Something isn't adding up. The UE keeps going down, but the labor participation rate is staying at 58.5% +/- 0.2%. Someone explain that anomaly to me, especially since the participation rate during the "good times" was between 62% and 64%?
All one has to do is look at the numbers from the BLS to see why the rate dropped. The labor participation rate dropped. 300K dropped out of the labor force. Then number of employed actually went down. More squealing form the swooners who are blind to reality is all we are seeing here.
All one has to do is look at the numbers from the BLS to see why the rate dropped. The labor participation rate dropped. 300K dropped out of the labor force. Then number of employed actually went down. More squealing form the swooners who are blind to reality is all we are seeing here.
That's the same graph I posted, except mine goes back to the 70s. Strange, isn't it? If the UE rate really went down, participation rate goes up. But, in this case, UE rate went down AND LFP went down. That doesn't add up. Someone's fudging the numbers and passing it off as legitimate what else can we expect from this administration and his cheerleaders?
Something isn't adding up. The UE keeps going down, but the labor participation rate is staying at 58.5% +/- 0.2%. Someone explain that anomaly to me, especially since the participation rate during the "good times" was between 62% and 64%?
What do you define as good times? Any specific period from recent times would do.
What do you define as good times? Any specific period from recent times would do.
When LPR was between 62% and 64%, like I said in my previous post. Have a look at the table to see which years those are. I'll give you a hint, if the present are the bad times, the last time times were this bad was when Carter was president, based on the LPR
I already defined it the "good times" was when the economy was on the uptick full-swing in the 90s before the dot-com bust, and the 2000s between the aftermath of dot-com and the 2008 crisis. Please look at the link before commenting, it didn't seem like you did. Otherwise, you would have seen the previous recessions in the Carter and 1st term Reagan era and the uptick when Clinton and Bush Jr. were president
Let us pick that one, since you believe it to be good times. I see that you want to start after the aftermath of dot-com bubble and before the 2008 crisis. So, we will stop at Dec 2007, if that floats your boat. But, give me a starting date? Six months after the recession was over? A year? Two years? Three years?
And this from the exact same story, by their friends at MSNBC:
Analysts say the economy needs to create at least 125,000 jobs every month just to keep the unemployment rate steady. So far this year, job growth has averaged 125,600 jobs a month. At that pace, it would take about 4-1/2 years for employment just to return to where it was when the recession started.
So we can't even create the minimum number of jobs, just to keep up with the normal ebb and flow of people entering the workforce, changing jobs, moving to new locations, graduating from college, etc...
And this from the exact same story, by their friends at MSNBC:
Analysts say the economy needs to create at least 125,000 jobs every month just to keep the unemployment rate steady. So far this year, job growth has averaged 125,600 jobs a month. At that pace, it would take about 4-1/2 years for employment just to return to where it was when the recession started.
So we can't even create the minimum number of jobs, just to keep up with the normal ebb and flow of people entering the workforce, changing jobs, moving to new locations, graduating from college, etc...
Hence the disconnect between the unemployment rate and the labor participation rate. When me and KUchief posted that, the only response we got was "define the good times" if anyone can't see that the LPR is the same as the Carter era and when Reagan was 1st term president, then they can't be helped. Labor participation rate keeps staying at 58% (it was almost the same when Carter was in the big house) so that means that job growth is NOT keeping up with the increase in the labor force, and that the UE number is fudged
And this from the exact same story, by their friends at MSNBC:
Analysts say the economy needs to create at least 125,000 jobs every month just to keep the unemployment rate steady. So far this year, job growth has averaged 125,600 jobs a month. At that pace, it would take about 4-1/2 years for employment just to return to where it was when the recession started.
So we can't even create the minimum number of jobs, just to keep up with the normal ebb and flow of people entering the workforce, changing jobs, moving to new locations, graduating from college, etc...
We haven't, since 2000. You're WAY too late to the party and complaining that we've not made up for the shortcomings of an entire decade right away. And, in fact, private sector payroll has the following average of growth (per month) since 2000:
2001: -193K
2002: -65K
2003: 11K
2004: 159K
2005: 193K
2006: 155K
2007: 68K
2008: -315K
2009: -415K
2010: 104K
2011: 174K
2012: 215K
Technically, we've not seen 200K+ jobs added on average, per month, since 1999. And 2011 was the best year in that regard since the boom year of 2005.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 04-06-2012 at 01:32 PM..
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.
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.
what else can we expect from this administration and his cheerleaders?
