• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%

They've been at this level since about 2009.
There was actually a 3% increase between 2009 and 2010. You are making stuff up, plain and simple.

There is a larger, more general decline in labor force participation among young adults that can't be explained by relatively small, upward recessionary swings in college enrollment.
Hmmm. 16-to-24-year-olds have declined as a share of the non-institutionalized population as a whole, falling from 17.7% in 1990 to 16.0% in 2010. Their absolute growth is projected to be flat over the current decade meaning that their share will fall even further to 14.5%. They are also the most volatile segment of the population in terms of labor force particpation. So what we have here is a continuous decline in the population share of its most volatile cohort plus an historic economic decline and historically high numbers locked up in post-secondary education. Where is this "unexplained" part that you claim again?
 
it's slowly crawling back. let's hope that the both sides don't screw it up by letting us go over the cliff, or by enacting the changes too quickly.

The formula to determine unemployment is extremely flawed.

Unemployment is calculated by dividing the currant workforce by those currently receiving unemployment benefits. What about those who exacerbated their benefits or those who worked seasonal or temp positions and don't qualify for unemployment?

Truth is unemployment should be shrinking because of the aforementioned facts.

Those who love Obama knowingly champion deceptive statistics, and quite frankly I find it disgusting considering they damn well know they're duping people, when the truth is (which they could care less about) is that Obama's policies are a failure, they know it but spew deception. Of course they do so in an attempt to take advantage of the ignorant that don't know the truth and how unemployment is calculated..
 
The offical figure is 268,000.
It's a figure alright, but not official by any standards. The FRB of Atlanta has a neat little tool that helps calculate the minimum growth necessary to reach desired unemployment figures. The model takes into account population growth based on last year's census data compilation, the current LPFR and the ratio of household employment vs payroll employment. In no scenario currently imaginable does a figure of 268,000 merely "break even."

Jobs Calculator: How Many Jobs? Details behind the Jobs Calculator
 
The formula to determine unemployment is extremely flawed.

Unemployment is calculated by dividing the currant workforce by those currently receiving unemployment benefits. What about those who exacerbated their benefits or those who worked seasonal or temp positions and don't qualify for unemployment?

Truth is unemployment should be shrinking because of the aforementioned facts.

Those who love Obama knowingly champion deceptive statistics, and quite frankly I find it disgusting considering they damn well know they're duping people, when the truth is (which they could care less about) is that Obama's policies are a failure, they know it but spew deception. Of course they do so in an attempt to take advantage of the ignorant that don't know the truth and how unemployment is calculated..

i agree that the figures should be calculated differently. it's important to note that the current method has been in place since 1994.

i'm still happy that things aren't worse, and i hope that partisan nonsense doesn't screw it up.
 
It's a figure alright, but not official by any standards. The FRB of Atlanta has a neat little tool that helps calculate the minimum growth necessary to reach desired unemployment figures. The model takes into account population growth based on last year's census data compilation, the current LPFR and the ratio of household employment vs payroll employment.
Ah, my figure wasn't simply trying to account for population growth.
 
There was actually a 3% increase between 2009 and 2010. You are making stuff up, plain and simple.
Among which age groups, hmm?


Hmmm. 16-to-24-year-olds have declined as a share of the non-institutionalized population as a whole, falling from 17.7% in 1990 to 16.0% in 2010. Their absolute growth is projected to be flat over the current decade meaning that their share will fall even further to 14.5%. They are also the most volatile segment of the population in terms of labor force particpation. So what we have here is a continuous decline in the population share of its most volatile cohort plus an historic economic decline and historically high numbers locked up in post-secondary education. Where is this "unexplained" part that you claim again?
Now you're catching up. You did read the claim I was responding to, did you not?
 
The formula to determine unemployment is extremely flawed.

Unemployment is calculated by dividing the currant workforce by those currently receiving unemployment benefits. What about those who exacerbated their benefits or those who worked seasonal or temp positions and don't qualify for unemployment?
Oddly enough, I don't recall Conservatives ever lodging any such complaints during any of the years between 1994 and 2010, even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics employed the same methods for collecting unemployment data as they do now amid the whining from the right??

:shrug::shrug:
 
The formula to determine unemployment is extremely flawed.
It isn't a formula. It's a tabulation of the survey responses received from about 60,000 households each month.

Unemployment is calculated by dividing the currant workforce by those currently receiving unemployment benefits.
Don't quit your day job. The only role that the number of people receiving UI benefits plays is a tiny one in calculating revised seasonal adjustment factors at the end of each year. Otherwise, the number doesn't enter into the process at all.
 
i agree that the figures should be calculated differently. it's important to note that the current method has been in place since 1994.
The methodology has been in place since 1940. All that has changed since then is that the survey questions have been sharpened and expanded in order to collect better and broader versions of the same data as always. The BLS data are regarded everywhere as being the best unemployment numbers on the planet.

i'm still happy that things aren't worse, and i hope that partisan nonsense doesn't screw it up.
The people who work on all national economic data are highly qualified and fiercely independent career civil servants. They have gone through many Presidents and Congresses already and will go through many more. There are no partisan influences on their work, and if any were to arise, it would be an instant scandal.
 
People leaving the labor force.
LOL! The labor force declined by 350,000. It's been alternating directions all year, and that's about an average monthly change. The number of people employed increased by 122,000 while the number on non-farm payrols increased by 146,000. What other numbers are you using (and why) in order to come up with 268,000 as an answer to anything?
 
Among which age groups, hmm?
The age groups comprising total post-secondary enrollment that you had characterized as having been about the same since 2009, but which actually increased by 3% between 2009 and 2010.

Now you're catching up. You did read the claim I was responding to, did you not?
I don't care in the slightest what you might have been responding to. You claimed that there was some unexplained decline in labor force participation among young people. In terms of the statistics, that means those aged 16 to 24. We have since seen that both the demographic and cyclical factors have been working to reduce the LFPR of this age group. Where do you find any "unexplained" behavior going on?
 
Last edited:
The age groups comprising total post-secondary enrollment that you had characterized as having been about the same since 2009, but which actually increased by 3% between 2009 and 2010.
You either don't know what age groups I was referring to, or you have bad data.

I don't care in the slightest what you might have been responding to. You claimed that there was some unexplained decline in labor force participation among young people.
No such claim was made, perhaps you should read that again.

And you really ought to try understanding the argument before you respond to it - here you are looking exceedingly foolish believing me to hold a position very close to the one I originally challenged. Of course there are a lot of factors, that was the whole point to begin with.
 
You either don't know what age groups I was referring to, or you have bad data.
You were not referring to age groups at all in falsely claiming that post-secondary enrollments had been about the same since 2009. And the data I am using are from the reports on post-secondary enrollment issued annually by the National Center for Education Statistics. Got some better source?

No such claim was made, perhaps you should read that again.
You posted this accidentally, then...

There is a larger, more general decline in labor force participation among young adults that can't be explained by relatively small, upward recessionary swings in college enrollment

And you really ought to try understanding the argument before you respond to it - here you are looking exceedingly foolish believing me to hold a position very close to the one I originally challenged. Of course there are a lot of factors, that was the whole point to begin with.
You really ought to try not posting made-up claims and arguments for which there is no actual evidence or support.
 
You posted this accidentally, then...

There is a larger, more general decline in labor force participation among young adults that can't be explained by relatively small, upward recessionary swings in college enrollment
Ah, I see now. It's not that you didn't read it closely enough, it's that you don't quite understand what you're reading. The latter portion of the sentence is what's known as a "prepositional phrase." The preposition "by" indicates that a relationship is being made between (in this instance) two noun phrases. The sentence essentially states that the first cannot be explained by the second (not - as you seem to believe - that the first cannot be explained at all). That is, "upward recessionary swings in college enrollment" provide an insufficient explanation for what is "a larger, more general decline in labor force participation." Meaning, of course, that contrary to an explanation proffered earlier, there is more to understanding the decline in labor force participation among the young than college enrollment.
 
Ah, I see now. It's not that you didn't read it closely enough, it's that you don't quite understand what you're reading. The latter portion of the sentence is what's known as a "prepositional phrase." The preposition "by" indicates that a relationship is being made between (in this instance) two noun phrases. The sentence essentially states that the first cannot be explained by the second (not - as you seem to believe - that the first cannot be explained at all). That is, "upward recessionary swings in college enrollment" provide an insufficient explanation for what is "a larger, more general decline in labor force participation." Meaning, of course, that contrary to an explanation proffered earlier, there is more to understanding the decline in labor force participation among the young than college enrollment.
Thanks so much, but my facility with the language is superior to your own as well. The sentence in question claims that some large, general decline in the LFPR of young adults exists that lies outside the bounds of what is explained by historically high numbers of young adults being enrolled in post-secondary education. To this point in time, a reader would be free to assume that this claim is just another bunch of crap, as you haven't taken a single step toward pointing to, quantifying, or in any way documenting any such large unexplained decline at all. It is just words you have typed on a page. Do you have anything more to offer than that, or should we just go with the "crap" assumption and move on?

Got a derivation of your 268,000 number worked out yet, by the way?
 
The sentence in question claims that some large, general decline in the LFPR of young adults exists that lies outside the bounds of what is explained by historically high numbers of young adults being enrolled in post-secondary education. To this point in time, a reader would be free to assume that this claim is just another bunch of crap
A reader is always free to assume whatever they wish, but the rational reader would not jump to such a conclusion.

you haven't taken a single step toward pointing to, quantifying, or in any way documenting any such large unexplained decline at all. It is just words you have typed on a page. Do you have anything more to offer than that, or should we just go with the "crap" assumption and move on?
Why would you label it "crap" when you yourself have already offered additional explanations? I fail to see any logic in your line of argument.

Got a derivation of your 268,000 number worked out yet, by the way?
I don't have it written down, but it wasn't that difficult to derive. Should have a chance to redo later this afternoon.
 
An interesting article to help understand how many jobs are needed, and why the numbers we are being fed, are phony.

The press quotes all sorts of figures for the number of monthly job gains needed to keep up with population growth. We see numbers like 80,000, 100,000, 125,000 and 175,000 thrown around like statistical snow as the number of jobs needed each month just to keep up. What's the right one? How many jobs are needed each month just to keep up with population growth?
The actual monthly amount can be calculated and the Atlanta Fed even did us a huge favor by publishing an interactive monthly jobs calculator so you can go check for yourself. This month shows we need 104,116 payroll jobs to maintain the same unemployment rate of 8.1% with all of the other same terrible conditions the state of employment is in.
That's the key, the current terrible conditions the state of employment is in today. One of the reasons the number of jobs to keep up with population growth is so low is due to so many having dropped out of the labor force. If we had more people being counted as needing a job, the number of jobs to keep up with population growth would be much higher.

How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist
 
An interesting article to help understand how many jobs are needed, and why the numbers we are being fed, are phony.
There is nothing interesting about it, and it of course says nothing at all about why the numbers you are being "fed" are phony. The unemployment rate comes from the responses provided each month by about 60,000 American households. The jobs added to non-farm payrolls number comes from the responses provided each month by about 140,000 American business and agencies representing about 485,000 separate worksites. Only those knowing nothing aout the actual processes involved and also being desperate to be deluded can buy into such ideas as that the data released by any of the US statistical agencies are phony. This is lower than Obama-was-born-in-Kenya level stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom