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.
Pretty easy to find for anyone who has any interest in knowing and is not too lazy:
Business Insider:
"...The "U-6" unemployment rate, which includes workers who are working part-time but would like to have full-time work, also fell in December, to 11.2% from 11.4%, another post-financial-crisis low..."
"...The U6 unemployment rate — which includes people who are working part time for economic reasons as well as people marginally attached to the labor force — did move slightly lower from 11.4% to 11.2%..."
"Job creation kept the pace in December, with the U.S. economy creating 252,000 jobs to close out the year, while the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent.
The U.S. was expected to create 240,000 jobs in December, after adding an unexpectedly strong 353,000 jobs the prior month. The unemployment rate was seen falling to 5.7 percent from 5.8 percent a month earlier. An alternative measure that includes the underemployed and those who have stopped searching for employment also fell, moving from 11.4 percent to 11.2 percent, its lowest reading since October 2008..."
Even Seeking Alpha - which generally has been pretty negative about past economic growth - is cheering this most recent news:
...As a big positive, the unemployment rate declined by 0.2% points to 5.6% in December 2014. Besides the headline unemployment rate, the U6 rate has also declined to 11.2% in December 2014 from 11.4% in November 2014. I believe that decline in U6 rate is a better indicator of an improving economy.
Among the other broad data that is positive, the nonfarm payroll employment increased by a robust 252,000 in December 2014, with the nonfarm payroll employment growth averaging 246,000 for 2014....
Does the U-6 rate get as much mention as the U-3 rate?
Of course not - the U-3 rate is the TRADITIONAL measure of unemployment - the one that's been around for the better part of a century. It ALWAYS gets more attention. That doesn't mean the U-6 isn't published or mentioned - ANY serious economic-oriented news source will mention the U-6 along with the U-3.
Ken
Well, thanks, Ken.
I don't have a TV and I'm engaged in all manner of leisurely pursuits both subtle and gross, so I don't have time to waste on silly websites pretending to provide "news."
The claim that the number of jobs "increased by a robust 252,000 in December 2014" is absurd and untruthful, contradicting reality.
147,666,000 Employed November 2014
147,190,000 Employed December 2014
---------------
476,000 Americans lost their jobs.
We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. - William Casey, CIA Director
I actually pull 58 different data sets each month, but then I'm trained in the ways of Economics.
It's been a pleasure...
Mircea
"I'm trained in the ways of Economics" - what a load of bullsh*t.
You use the unadjusted numbers when it suits you and the adjusted numbers when it doesn't. If you were REALLY "trained in the ways of Economics" you'd KNOW WHY such numbers are seasonally adjusted - and Why REAL ECONOMISTS consider the seasonally adjusted numbers for month to month changes more significant and give a better and more accurate picture of the economy than the unadjusted numbers.
And - as I said in an earlier post - you'd understand that the "number of people employed" is NOT the same statistic as the "number of jobs created".
Since you don't seem to understand either of those 2 things, the only possible "training" you got in economics was on the back of a cracker jack box.
I don't have a TV and I'm engaged in all manner of leisurely pursuits both subtle and gross, so I don't have time to waste on silly websites pretending to provide "news."
The claim that the number of jobs "increased by a robust 252,000 in December 2014" is absurd and untruthful, contradicting reality.
147,666,000 Employed November 2014
147,190,000 Employed December 2014
---------------
476,000 Americans lost their jobs.
We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. - William Casey, CIA Director
Looks like it's complete....
Mircea
Again:
1) Seasonally adjust numbers provide a more accurate long-term picture of the economy than unadjusted ones do
2) "number of people employed" is NOT the SAME STATISTIC as "number of jobs created". The number of "jobs created" can go up which the "number of people employed" can go down - just as the opposite is true.
I don't know what kind of "gross" pursuits you are involved in, but they certainly don't have anything to do with educating yourself in economics. If it did, I wouldn't have to explain those things to you (over and over and over again).
No, I said the "Civilian noninstitutional population" and the "Civilian Labor Force" are the same thing,
And you are wrong, because they are not the same thing.
Your government says so:
Quote:
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
Quote:
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The "two different statistics" statement I made was the following: "Make up your mind - first you claim this is referring to the "Population " THEN you claim it's the "Non-Institutional Civilian Population Age 16+" (ie the Labor Force). Apparently you don't even understand that those are 2 different statistics." In other words "Population" is DIFFERENT from "Non-Institutional Civilian Population Age 16+" - those are CLEARLY TWO DIFFERENT STATISTICS. "Population" includes EVERYONE - NOT just the "Non-Institutional Civilian Population Age 16+".
Ken
Face it, Ken, you're just a sore loser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Although factually correct and truthful, we're lacking context here. We need to be examining job creation relative to other factors.
So let's do that.
Top 10 Years of Net Jobs Created Relative to Population
In plain English, that's the number of new jobs created per person (and we're talking about the Non-Institutional Civilian Population Age 16+).
The Parentheses indicate a parenthetical remark, clarifying "population."
People like you who cannot handle Truth always engage in this Fallacy:
Quibbling We quibble when we complain about a minor point and falsely believe that this complaint somehow undermines the main point. To avoid this error, the logical reasoner will not make a mountain out of a mole hill nor take people too literally.
The context of this thread is Employment/Labor, which very obviously does not include children.
The BLS does not publish data on the entire population, only the population eligible or available to work, and intelligent people know that.
And how does the BLS style its data?
Quote:
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Stop quibbling and get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Apparently there are only two such years.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Well, now that you FINALLY came clean and actually posted your source, it's pretty obvious what your problem is.
Um, the only US Labor/Unemployment Data I have ever posted on this forum comes strictly from the BLS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
You are NOT looking at the NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED (ie the SUBJECT of this thread) - You're looking at the NUMBER OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED.
This may come as a shock to you, but jobs don't pay personal income taxes or FICA/HI payroll taxes.
People pay those taxes, not the jobs.
There 476,000 fewer Americans paying FICA/HI payroll taxes in December than in November.
Regardless of the number of jobs created, you didn't create enough jobs to keep the employment level from decreasing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
What makes you think it'a a ONE TO ONE RELATIONSHIP between the number of jobs and the number of people employed?
I never said there was relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Do you not understand that some people have MORE THAN ONE JOB?
Yes, that would be this....
Quote:
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU02026619
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Multiple Jobholders
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Multiple jobholders: Multiple job holders
Years: 1994 to 2014
What about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
You claimed the article was wrong, but you don't seem to understand that you're not even looking at the SAME STATISTIC. You can't look at the increase in the number of people employed and say "that's the number of new jobs created". If you want to look at the NUMBER OF JOBS, just look at the NUMBER OF JOBS.
Then you have framed the argument as Quantity vs Quality.
You're so desperate that creating a job that lasts 4 weeks is more important and valuable than creating a job that lasts 10 to 20 years.
Okay, so Obama has created more temporary jobs that folded after 4 weeks than any person who ever existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
THIS is the job creation statistic referenced by the article: CES0000000001 - NOT your statistics.
So why don't you drop the insults and look at the ACTUAL TABLE that was the subject of the OP and then get back to us with your "wisdom" and "debunking"?
The facts show that MORE JOBS were created in 2014 than in any year since 1999 - just as the OP claimed.
Ken
Wrong, Ken.
Quote:
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
Original Data Value
Series Id: CEU0500000001
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Years: 1939 to 2014
1984 4,105,000
1941 3,718,000
1978 3,680,000
1994 3,178,000
1997 2,990,000
1998 2,961,000
1988 2,878,000
1979 2,851,000
1995 2,851,000
1977 2,833,000
1942 2,747,000
1973 2,717,000
1999 2,685,000
1985 2,611,000
2014 2,503,000
2012 2,428,000
1966 2,427,000
1947 2,325,000
1996 2,322,000
2013 2,320,000
1987 2,299,000
2000 2,297,000
1989 2,286,000
1951 2,260,000
1976 2,251,000
2006 2,223,000
1969 2,131,000
2005 2,073,000
1972 2,010,000
1965 2,003,000
2011 1,971,000
1993 1,931,000
1943 1,732,000
1959 1,702,000
1986 1,661,000
1968 1,644,000
1946 1,626,000
1940 1,550,000
1955 1,487,000
2004 1,393,000
1953 1,370,000
1956 1,365,000
1967 1,296,000
2007 1,294,000
1950 1,274,000
1964 1,257,000
1962 1,256,000
1974 1,036,000
1990 988,000
1981 959,000
1948 834,000
1963 768,000
1952 755,000
1960 650,000
1983 578,000
1980 293,000
1957 148,000
1970 137,000
1992 134,000
1971 5,000
Why don't you explain why CNN cherry-picked the year 1999?
Is CNN claiming that the US was created in 1999?
Oh, maybe CNN chose 1999, since that's the year the US ceased to be a constitutional federal republic.
Whenever anyone on this forum mentions the Budget Deficit, what's the very first thing you and Finn start screaming about?
You can't do that....you can't look at the Budget Deficit by itself....you have to look at the deficit as a percentage of the GDP or as a percentage of the inverse square of the amount of Dark Matter between Earth and Alpha Epsilon or as percentage of the number of bats flying at 3:05 AM on a Tuesday morning....
Right?
Don't make me dig up your posts and throw them back in your face.
I have a BA in Economics, so I don't say stupid stuff like "Consumer Demand creates Jobs."
But Liberals do.
If Consumer Demand creates Jobs, then logically...
an increase in the Population creates an inherent increase in Consumers
and that should inherently increase Demand
which should inherently increase the number of Jobs created.
Question: Is that happening?
Answer: No.
In 1984...
Working Age Population: 176,383,000
Labor Force: 113,544,000
Jobs Created: 4,105,000
In 1994...
Working Age Population: 196,814,000
Labor Force: 133,056,000
Jobs Created: 3,178,000
In 2014...
Working Age Population: 247,947,000
Labor Force: 155,922,000
Jobs Created: 2,503,000
Spin it all you want.....2014 was a mediocre year.
Just like comparing the Budget Deficit as a percentage of GDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Not exactly. Yellen is worried because the last 3 recessions did not include wage recovery.
This also happened in Britain so it's not just a US phenomena.
3 recessions, 3 recoveries and no wage recovery with any of them.
Bucks historical trends and the Feds didn't give any reason why and neither did Britain.
I've explained that 50 Million times.
It's not my fault Yellen is too damn dumb to get it.
Which part of "2nd, 3rd and 4th World" does Yellen not understand?
That's what happens when government starts to believe its own Propaganda & Disinformation.
Why should wages recover?
What Economic Law, or Theory or Corollary says wages must recover after a recession?
None.
If Yellen doesn't understand that, then why is she in charge of anything?
Yellen's probably too stupid to understand why there are 2nd, 3rd and 4th World States.
Well, your wages will remain stagnant until all States are 1st World.
Get over it....
Why don't you explain why CNN cherry-picked the year 1999?
Is CNN claiming that the US was created in 1999?
Oh, maybe CNN chose 1999, since that's the year the US ceased to be a constitutional federal republic.
CNN (and damn near every news outlet) chose 1999 because it's the most recent year in which more jobs were created. There's nothing cherry-picked about it .
CNN (and damn near every news outlet) chose 1999 because it's the most recent year in which more jobs were created. There's nothing cherry-picked about it .
Indeed. It's pretty darned straightforward - and ANYONE who's not being deliberately dim should have NO problem understanding the comparison. Was last year one of the best years ever in regards to the number of jobs created? No, of course not - no one said it was - but it WAS the best year in the current century and the best in a decade and a half. That's worth mentioning.
Ken
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.
