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.
And he came to that conclusion by manipulating the LFPR. What he is asserting is that if the government wants to report a smaller UE ratio they can just lower the LFPR ratio. That is bogus logic.
I missed this. What this gentlemen is showing isn't bogus logic. You can, in fact, set up a simple spreadsheet with formulas to do just what he is showing, so logic has nothing to do with it. Very easy to do, just need to setup the math formulas. One must avoid circular references, however.
That is essentially what we are talking about, numbers on a spreadsheet with math formulas. I specifically gave the example used of how the UE numbers effect both. You can't call it working backwards. The key is how the numbers are connected and how you adjust the output.
He is in fact using this to show how the numbers effect one another.
Those surveys eventually end up as a number in a cell.
Once you know a target range you need in a specific area you can make sure that happens in the so-called soft area.
Which is exactly what it sounded like they were doing in the recent BLS "scandal". You can adjust the formulas very carefully, even spread it out if need be in various places if you know the target you need. Then you just need substantial other data to backup where the numbers came from if needed. I.E. surveys that meet the audit criteria.
In case you didn't notice computers can make many things quite simple. Just look at the whole virtual MERS scam. That was a massive global fraud of epic proportion. How did they get caught? Actual paper work and homeowners calling them on it.
I missed this. What this gentlemen is showing isn't bogus logic. You can, in fact, set up a simple spreadsheet with formulas to do just what he is showing, so logic has nothing to do with it. Very easy to do, just need to setup the math formulas. One must avoid circular references, however.
That is essentially what we are talking about, numbers on a spreadsheet with math formulas. I specifically gave the example used of how the UE numbers effect both. You can't call it working backwards. The key is how the numbers are connected and how you adjust the output.
He is in fact using this to show how the numbers effect one another.
Those surveys eventually end up as a number in a cell.
Once you know a target range you need in a specific area you can make sure that happens in the so-called soft area.
Which is exactly what it sounded like they were doing in the recent BLS "scandal". You can adjust the formulas very carefully, even spread it out if need be in various places if you know the target you need. Then you just need substantial other data to backup where the numbers came from if needed. I.E. surveys that meet the audit criteria.
In case you didn't notice computers can make many things quite simple. Just look at the whole virtual MERS scam. That was a massive global fraud of epic proportion. How did they get caught? Actual paper work and homeowners calling them on it.
It is not a logical or technical problem.
The technical function in Excel is "goal seek" and it is used exactly like you indicate.
The fact is, the LFPR is NOT a particularly good measure of economic health....
Says who, you? Uh, we've already established that you're one of the least competent economists on the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Um, yeah, right - demographics have "nothing" do with it.
So, based on your claim that demographics have "nothing to with it" and it's "all the status of the economy" (as you seem to believe) then apparently Jimmy Carter had the best economy in 30 years - better than that of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Ford - since under Carter the LFPR rate surged (achieving the same increase in the LFPR in his 4 years as President that Ronald Reagan achieved in his 8 years as President).
And why did the LFPR increase?
Because women began entering the work-force in ever larger numbers, and yes, that would be a demographic thing.
What did you say? Oh, yeah.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The fact is, the LFPR is NOT a particularly good measure of economic health....
Well, based on the increasing Labor Force Participation Rate during those periods, one could draw several conclusions, among them...
1] society has changed and now accepts women in the work-force; and
2] the economy was growing at rates sufficient to absorb women entering the work-force without causing the UE Rate to rise.
Right?
Did all those women cause the UE Rate to climb? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The fact is, the LFPR is NOT a particularly good measure of economic health...
I guess that proves you wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Those kinds of changes in the population growth rate have profound implications to a lot of different things, including the LFPR.
Not necessarily.
You keep threatening that retiring Boomers are causing the increase, yet you can't provide any evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
LOL
Let's see, for years now you folks have been harping over and over again about how the LFPR (which is a PERCENTAGE) has been falling. Now, suddenly - because it's becoming very clear that babyboomer demographics is a huge part of that falling LFPR - "percentages don't mean anything without the bigger long picture"?????
The "bigger long term picture" is that as a whole, America is AGING - with a bigger and bigger portion of the population being senior citizens. THAT has all kinds of implications, among them a falling LFPR.
Ken
While your ability to type, slap your head and laugh (out loud) at the same time is impressive, indeed, your inability to provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims is not impressive.
'LNU00000097
(Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over
Well, there you go...proof Boomers are not retiring, but instead they are staying in the work-force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
People don't stay in the 25-54 category forever. Since 1990 those aged 32 or older in 1990 are now over 55. Those over 55 participate at a significantly lower rate then those younger than 55, as the chart demonstrated. That combined with the fact that those older than 55 now make up a significantly greater percentage of the overall population is why that portion of the population is adding to the decline of the LFPR.
No, I just totally debunked your claims.
Let me show how little either of you know.
'LNU00000036
(Unadj) Population Level - 20-24 yrs.
Wow, look at the decline. If you know how to use the data, the LFPR is very useful.
Good luck paying all of your unfunded liabilities.
I would discuss how their Life-Time Earnings Curve is negatively impacted, causing loss of future potential tax revenues at the municipal, county, State and federal level, but I feel I would be talking over your heads and that wouldn't be fair.
Let's look at the 25-34 crowd....
'LNU00000089
'(Unadj) Population Level - 25-34 yrs.
So.....what, this age group is taking early retirement, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
LOL No the babyboomers have nothing to do with it.
Yes, intelligent people know that, and now you have proof. Just keep ramming BLS Data down their throats until they get it.....assuming they ever will.
To add insult to injury....
20-24 Year Olds
8,595,000 employed Full-Time Oct 2013
8,475,000 employed Full-Time Nov 2013
------------- 120,000 Full-Time jobs lost....
20-24 Year Olds
5,092,000 employed Part-Time Oct 2013
5,314,000 employed Part-Time Nov 2013
------------- 222,000 gain Part-Time jobs....
20-24 Year Olds
220,000 Part-Time Jobs
-120,000 Full-Time Jobs
-------- Net gain 100,000 Part-Time jobs....
I can see where you're well on your way to paying down the National Debt....
Ken spent all of 2010 telling us how great the US economy would be by now. Then he disappeared when it became clear that Obama was not saving the world, as Ken expected he would.
Now he's back to try reclaim some of the dignity he lost in those failed proclamations.
Well, he's failed spectacularly this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntwrkguy1
But this is where the statistics start to get fuzzy.
In the chart, under the column "Do Not Want A Job Now", the number is 86 million people. In the footnotes for that number, it says "Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job." That's a VERY broad interpretation, because I'm sure they didn't ask 85,985,212 people if they want a job.
Well, no, the survey is only 60,000 households, and then they only have to get 90% of that, or 54,000, but the point is well taken: I'm sure they didn't ask everyone if they wanted a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
Looks like it only took 3 years of Republicans blocking the Democrat agenda to recover the damage they did from 2006-2010.
Amusing, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
This recession was the largest since the Great Depression.
Says who? You? On what objective measures do you base that claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
If that's the BLS definition then they are off.
IRS defined full time as 30 or more hours and part time up to 29 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
That or the metric changed (which I think happened.) I know many places deem part-time as less than 30 hours of work these days.
Do not be confused by the definitions used.
As an employer, I can define 32 Hours as Full-Time and pay Holiday Pay to those employees who work at least 32 hours.
That has nothing to do with the IRS and its definition of Full-Time as 30 hours for tax purposes under Obamacare regulations.
And neither of those have anything to do with the BLS/DOL definition of Full-Time as 35 hours or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
It's not temp help. Seriously? You do know the numbers are seasonally adjusted to account for that. Lord knows, we have been suffering with this economy for years. This is good news for the country and it is backed up by many other lagging and leading indicators of economic progress You conservatives are a real piece of work. Your hatred for Obama has completely eclipsed your common sense.
Which part is good news, 77,000 Full-Time Jobs or 554,000 Part-Time Jobs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
You didn't explain anything you just babbled and made up something. No explanation on why the positive population growth, which we've always had, only came into play now.
But, of course! They cannot go there, since that will only contradict what they say.
Statistically....
"Job creation moved forward again in November, with the U.S. economy adding a better-than-expected 203,000 to the employment rolls in news likely to cloud the future of monetary policy.
As mentioned, that is just government propaganda. Adding "203,000" to the employment rolls is not the same thing as creating 203,000 jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
It does take it into account. The non-seasonally adjusted UE probably fell even more.
There is no such thing as "non-seasonally adjusted."
(Unadj) Unemployment Rate = 6.6%
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
As usual, you folks are flailing around trying to find some excuse - and excuse - for these excellent numbers.
Which of these numbers are "excellent?"
1] the "creation" of 77,000 Full-Time jobs?
2] the "creation" of 554,000 Part-time jobs?
3] 120,000 of the 20-24 Year Olds losing their Full-Time job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
LOL
Dream on as your flail about looking for some "theoretical" bad scenario.
I'll stick with what has been and is ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Ken
Well, what actually happened was 77,000 Americans gained Full-Time Employment, and 544,000 Americans gained Part-Time Employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
More silly and ignorant nonsense. It doesn't take anywhere near 200,000 jobs a month to "keep pace".
According to these Liberal newspapers it does....
New York Times August 8, 2003
Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long termand are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.
San Fransisco Chronicle, April 3, 2004
Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."
Washington Post, September 4, 2004 Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.
Los Angeles Times September 4, 2004
U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate.It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.
The Boston Globe January 8, 2005
US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, andjust enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.
'LNU00000012
'(Unadj) Population Level - 16-19 yrs.
Your post is a prime example of why employers say they cannot find people competent in mathematics here in the US and must therefor import such workers. If you want to know WHY employers say that - just look in the mirror.
For what must be the one thousandth time: the absolute numbers don't matter - what matters is HOW MUCH the PERCENTAGES CHANGE.
Okay, Ken, show us how much the percentages have changed.
'LNU00000036
'(Unadj) Population Level - 20-24 yrs.
For what must be the one thousandth time: the absolute numbers don't matter - what matters is HOW MUCH the PERCENTAGES CHANGE.
Okay, Ken, show us how much the percentages have changed.
As a percentage of the population, the number of 16-19 Year Olds and 20-24 Year Olds has not changed significantly since Year 2000.
Explain why suddenly it no longer requires 150,000 to 200,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And yes, the work force IS dropping - it's called "the babyboomers entering their retirement years".
"...[E]ntering their retirement years" is not proof that Boomers are retiring.
Besides, your claims have repeatedly been debunked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The Monthy job numbers gain or loss (a gain of a bit over 200,000 this past month for example) are actual job GAINS - not just "people taking jobs the baby boomers abandoned". A jobs report showing "people taking jobs the baby boomers abandoned" would show a net monthly job growth gain of "zero" - NOT the 200,000+ like last month.
You cannot prove that.
For all you know, those are job vacancies being filled.
Apparently you don't understand the flawed Birth-Death Model used by the BLS.
For a discussion on how flawed the Birth-Death Model is, and the fact that BLS has admitted it is flawed, search the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
How much the population has gone up is not really relevent since nearly ALL of those making up the population growth are CHILDREN.
Uh, huh....so....your claim is that an economy with....
5.4% Unemployment Rate
66.6% Labor Force Participation Rate
63.0% Employment to Population Ratio
.....is the same as an economy with...
5.0% Unemployment Rate
62.9% Labor Force Participation Rate
58.7% Employment to Population Ratio
....really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Yada, yada, yada - same old denial nonsense.
SSDD
None of of which changes the reality that the economy continues to heal.
Ken
If the economy continued to heal, as you claim, then your both your LFP and E-Pop Ratios would be increasing....except they are not.
You have 12 Million fewer people working now, than you did before......good luck paying those unfunded liabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Seniors make up a higher PERCENTAGE of the population today than ever before in US history...
Immaterial.
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.
"13,000 Boomers reach retirement age every day...."
Proves what?
It proves 13,000 Boomers reach retirement age every day.
It is not proof that 13,000 Boomers are retiring every day; nor is it proof that 13,000 Boomers are filing for OASI benefits every day; nor is it proof that 13,000 Boomers are leaving the work-force every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Now, as the babyboomers start reaching old age, the LFPR is forced down, and SS rolls forced up.
Um, collecting OASI benefits does not bar one from employment.
This evidence refutes your baseless claims...
LNU00000097
(Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over
Going forward, starting in the late 2000s, you have to understand that the LFPR calculation is going to include a large number of retired Baby Boomers which will lower the ratio.
Assumptions and projections are not evidence.
What people said Boomers will do, or should do, or could do, or would do is not evidence.
Boomers are not leaving the work force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Here is a BLS article on the subject of the babyboomer affect on the LFPR from MAY OF 2000 -
The only thing your BLS article proves, is that BLS failed to take an inter-disciplinary approach and consult with Sociologists, Medical Professionals, Health Professionals, and Demographers.
Lost Generation
GI Generation
Silent Generation
Boomer Generation
One of those things is not like the others......the Boomers.
Since the early 1990s, it has been known that the Boomers do not have the same attitudes toward retirement that the previous 3 Generations had.
The Lost Generation, GI Generation and Silent Generation, if you were standing anywhere near the time-clock on Retirement Day, they would have knocked you down and ran you over getting out of the building.
But the Boomers? You're going to have to call a SWAT unit and drag their asses out the door.
I've commented extensively on this, since it was the attitudinal surveys and studies of the Boomers in the early 1990s that uncovered a new Generation called the Tweener Generation....1960-1964. The attitudes of the Tweeners are nothing like the Boomers, and nothing like the Millennials who follow them.
There is one thing Tweeners and Boomers have in common....working into their 70s...it's just that the Tweeners will be more active in community groups than with corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Part-time jobs ALWAYS outnumber full time jobs.
Ken
Are you going to provide evidence for such a stupid claim, or not?
Says who, you? Uh, we've already established that you're one of the least competent economists on the forum.
And why did the LFPR increase?
Because women began entering the work-force in ever larger numbers, and yes, that would be a demographic thing.
What did you say? Oh, yeah.....
Well, based on the increasing Labor Force Participation Rate during those periods, one could draw several conclusions, among them...
1] society has changed and now accepts women in the work-force; and
2] the economy was growing at rates sufficient to absorb women entering the work-force without causing the UE Rate to rise.
Right?
Did all those women cause the UE Rate to climb? No.
I guess that proves you wrong.
Not necessarily.
You keep threatening that retiring Boomers are causing the increase, yet you can't provide any evidence.
While your ability to type, slap your head and laugh (out loud) at the same time is impressive, indeed, your inability to provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims is not impressive.
'LNU00000097
(Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over
Wow, look at the decline. If you know how to use the data, the LFPR is very useful.
Good luck paying all of your unfunded liabilities.
I would discuss how their Life-Time Earnings Curve is negatively impacted, causing loss of future potential tax revenues at the municipal, county, State and federal level, but I feel I would be talking over your heads and that wouldn't be fair.
Let's look at the 25-34 crowd....
'LNU00000089
'(Unadj) Population Level - 25-34 yrs.
So.....what, this age group is taking early retirement, too?
Yes, intelligent people know that, and now you have proof. Just keep ramming BLS Data down their throats until they get it.....assuming they ever will.
To add insult to injury....
20-24 Year Olds
8,595,000 employed Full-Time Oct 2013
8,475,000 employed Full-Time Nov 2013
------------- 120,000 Full-Time jobs lost....
20-24 Year Olds
5,092,000 employed Part-Time Oct 2013
5,314,000 employed Part-Time Nov 2013
------------- 222,000 gain Part-Time jobs....
20-24 Year Olds
220,000 Part-Time Jobs
-120,000 Full-Time Jobs
-------- Net gain 100,000 Part-Time jobs....
I can see where you're well on your way to paying down the National Debt....
Mircea
I'd rep you for this but I'm tapped out of reps (for you) right now so we'll have to settle for !
People who're not completely mesmerized by the first family are just now starting to realize how scary bad this direction we're taking is going to get. Those that are still mesmerized? Well, they probably won't wake up until they're crying about how much a part time minimum wage pays them.
[quote=Mircea;32628339]Says who, you? Uh, we've already established that you're one of the least competent economists on the forum.
And why did the LFPR increase?
Because women began entering the work-force in ever larger numbers, and yes, that would be a demographic thing.
What did you say? Oh, yeah.....
Well, based on the increasing Labor Force Participation Rate during those periods, one could draw several conclusions, among them...
1] society has changed and now accepts women in the work-force; and
2] the economy was growing at rates sufficient to absorb women entering the work-force without causing the UE Rate to rise.
Right?
Did all those women cause the UE Rate to climb? No.
I guess that proves you wrong.
Not necessarily.
You keep threatening that retiring Boomers are causing the increase, yet you can't provide any evidence.
While your ability to type, slap your head and laugh (out loud) at the same time is impressive, indeed, your inability to provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims is not impressive.
'LNU00000097
(Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over
I feel you Smitty. I understand simple math and dont have agenda driven blinders on. Funny how the population growth has been positive for quite some time yet only recently the labor participation rate has gone done.
Must be nice to be part of the oligarchy so one can hand pick who does and doesn't count. It's good to be king.
I also don't have agenda driven blinders and can do simple math. Which is why I understand that to prevent the LFPR from declining with 10k a day retiring (assuming that number is correct) you would need around 19.6k a day entering. That is more than the 13k a day (again assuming that number is correct) of young people turning 16.
No agenda, just simple math.
The LFPR calculation suffers from many of the same problems as the measurements of Unemployment. This is not surprising since it is partially based on the measurements of unemployment.
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.
