Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122
Results 211 to 219 of 219

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

  1. #211
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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?

  2. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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 by Cardinal Fang; 12-10-12 at 10:58 PM.

  3. #213
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    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.

  4. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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.

  5. #215
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    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.

  6. #216
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    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?

  7. #217
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    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.

  8. #218
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

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

    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
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #219
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    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.

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12202122

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •