Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 442

Thread: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Why on Earth would you think that's a good idea? (though I'm not sure what you mean by "tabulation" model...it's not a phrase generally used).
    Surely you don't think that was a more accurate measure?
    Umm...surely I do.

    The CPi tabulation process was changed (especially in the mid/late 90's) to skew the numbers downwards. The new C-CPI-U model will do this even more so (as freely admitted by government officials).

    You call today's (just passed by Congress) C-CPI-U model an accurate inflation measurement?

    If you do, then - with respect - you have NO idea what you are talking about on this particular subject.

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,350

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age for the UE rate and
    Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
    Although I find it strange that I really need to link to the press release....it's not like it's obscure information.
    You can be sure It is very obscure on the sites these righty's frequent. Remember, good news for the U.S. is BAD news for them. And they avoid it like the plague. They know their ideology is fading fast and their only hope is catastrophe.

  3. #33
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I already know you are totally against most/all of this.
    Dont assume anything

    One) change the CPI tabulation model to what it was in 1980. This would leave the CPI well over the present Fed mandate and force them to raise interest rates to what they should be.
    I see. Makes no sense but okay. You want basically to make people even spend less and contract the economy even more..

    Two) tell the Fed to end QE immediately or I will end the Fed immediately (assuming I had the power).
    You need a national bank of some sort. I agree the Fed is strange.. basically a private company of rich people and not a national bank, but if not the fed... then what?

    As for QE it is not ideal but there is not much else that can be done to be honest. As long as you believe in the "free market" and that banks are so big and powerful and refusing to lend money.. then well what else can they do to keep the economy going .. You cant force the banks to lend money, or clean their bank balances, or give breaks to people that are swamped and so on..

    Three) balance the budget (by - among other things - cutting the defence budget in 1/3-1/2 and bringing all the troops home).


    Over what time frame? I have no problem with a balanced budget, but the shorter time frame the more damage it will do to the economy in the short run and most likely in the medium run.

    Four) never again bailout another bank or corporation.
    Hmm I agree, but I suspect our definitions are different. Do you want to bail out the depositor of a failed bank? And what about corporate wealth fare.

    Basically, balance the budget and let the economy fix itself.
    Sounds great but in reality it is no where near that easy especially during an economic hole that we all are in presently. You have to remember the basics of macro economics... an economy has 3 parts... public, private and export. If public and private spending goes down then you have a recession. Private spending is also totally dependent on how people view their situation in the now and near future.. if they believe that they might loose their job, or hear doom and gloom all the time, then they will cut their spending and increase their saving and that does not help the economy one bit.

    Your love of all things 'big government' is well documented.
    Oh like what? I believe in government yes, but only the government that is needed .. no more, no less and only provided that this government works for the people and not special interests. I see government as controlling element for unbridled greed and exploitation of the private sector. Without government and some very brave politicians through out the centuries, we would not be where we are today and we would still have slavery, child labor and so on.
    PeteEU

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Dont assume anything



    I see. Makes no sense but okay. You want basically to make people even spend less and contract the economy even more..



    You need a national bank of some sort. I agree the Fed is strange.. basically a private company of rich people and not a national bank, but if not the fed... then what?

    As for QE it is not ideal but there is not much else that can be done to be honest. As long as you believe in the "free market" and that banks are so big and powerful and refusing to lend money.. then well what else can they do to keep the economy going .. You cant force the banks to lend money, or clean their bank balances, or give breaks to people that are swamped and so on..



    Over what time frame? I have no problem with a balanced budget, but the shorter time frame the more damage it will do to the economy in the short run and most likely in the medium run.



    Hmm I agree, but I suspect our definitions are different. Do you want to bail out the depositor of a failed bank? And what about corporate wealth fare.



    Sounds great but in reality it is no where near that easy especially during an economic hole that we all are in presently. You have to remember the basics of macro economics... an economy has 3 parts... public, private and export. If public and private spending goes down then you have a recession. Private spending is also totally dependent on how people view their situation in the now and near future.. if they believe that they might loose their job, or hear doom and gloom all the time, then they will cut their spending and increase their saving and that does not help the economy one bit.



    Oh like what? I believe in government yes, but only the government that is needed .. no more, no less and only provided that this government works for the people and not special interests. I see government as controlling element for unbridled greed and exploitation of the private sector. Without government and some very brave politicians through out the centuries, we would not be where we are today and we would still have slavery, child labor and so on.
    None of the following is meant to offend or belittle in any way...but...

    You are on my ignore list because I do not respect your viewpoints on economics and do not wish to waste my time debating with you on them...as I feel your mind is closed on the subject (otherwise, you seem a relatively decent sort).

    I sometimes glance at Ignore list posts for the heck of it.

    I did with yours, saw an interesting question and decided to answer it.

    But I do not wish to get into a long, LONG debate with someone whose mind is (IMO) already made up...that seems a waste of both of our times.


    So I will simply thank you for the question, sincerely wish you a good day and be on my way.


    However...I will answer your above post (since you took the time to type it) by saying that,

    Yes, I realize what I typed would hurt the economy in the short run - probably send it back into a recession...possibly a short, very bad one.

    But I feel this would be mild compared to the nightmare that faces America if this debt/spending madness that the government/Fed is presently employing is allowed to continue to reach it's inevitably disastrous conclusion.
    Last edited by DA60; 05-03-13 at 12:19 PM.

  5. #35
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    It is not a lie.

    But it IS a shell game, IMO.

    To not include workers who have left the workforce (disgruntled workers) for NO other reason then they cannot find work BUT would still take a job immediately if they could find it, as officially having left the work force is a joke.
    You seem to have your defintions confused. Discouraged workers are defined as:
    persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.
    They are not classified as Unemployed (part of the Labor Force) because they are not currently looking. And it's very subjective...they say they want a job, but is that reliable since they're not actually trying to get one? And it's based on their perception of the labor market. We know that if someone is looking for a job and is not hired that they cannot get a job. If someone does not try to get a job, they certainly will not be hired, but just because they belive they would not be doesn't make it true.

    Discouragement is subjective, not objective, and it's not timely...someone who isn't hired in April because they haven't tried to get a job in April (or for the last X months) tells us nothing about how hard it is to get a job in April.

    These people are clearly persons still looking for work and should thus still be considered unemployed.
    By definition they are NOT looking for work.

    The government (IMO) deliberately does this to make the U-3 number appear to be smaller then it otherwise would be.
    No, because it's less accurate and is not objective and work search requirement has always been part of the defintion of unemployed.

    You and I both know that to include even 1/2 of the people that have left the workforce since Obama took office would raise the U-3 rate to well over 9%.
    I know no such thing. Labor Force participation has dropped 2.4 percentage points since Jan 2009. The percent of the population that does not want a job has increased 2.2 percentage points. Your math would require adding in people who don't want to work as unemployed.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Now, if we could just get EVERYONE to stop looking for jobs and willingly go on the government dole, the unemployment rate would drop to 0.0%.

    Damn job hunters.
    That is an example of the semi-lunacy of the present unemployment rate tabulation process.

    If no one in America had a job BUT every single one of them had officially given up looking for work then the unemployment rate would be 0.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,036

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    That is an example of the semi-lunacy of the present unemployment rate tabulation process.

    If no one in America had a job BUT every single one of them had officially given up looking for work then the unemployment rate would be 0.
    It also doesn't take into account the troubling drop in self-employed Americans. The new system is going to destroy the small business sector.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    You seem to have your defintions confused. Discouraged workers are defined as: They are not classified as Unemployed (part of the Labor Force) because they are not currently looking. And it's very subjective...they say they want a job, but is that reliable since they're not actually trying to get one? And it's based on their perception of the labor market. We know that if someone is looking for a job and is not hired that they cannot get a job. If someone does not try to get a job, they certainly will not be hired, but just because they belive they would not be doesn't make it true.

    Discouragement is subjective, not objective, and it's not timely...someone who isn't hired in April because they haven't tried to get a job in April (or for the last X months) tells us nothing about how hard it is to get a job in April.

    By definition they are NOT looking for work.

    No, because it's less accurate and is not objective and work search requirement has always been part of the defintion of unemployed.

    I know no such thing. Labor Force participation has dropped 2.4 percentage points since Jan 2009. The percent of the population that does not want a job has increased 2.2 percentage points. Your math would require adding in people who don't want to work as unemployed.
    You sound like a bureaucrat.


    I know how the U-3 is tabulated and I know what a 'discouraged worker' is in the government's eyes.

    And I say that the way the government tabulates it is wrong insofar as giving an accurate picture of the true unemployment rate in America.
    Among other things, the '12 months' timeframe should be changed to 'infinite'.


    And if the participation rate today was the same as it was when Obama took over, and only half of the difference was counted, then the unemployment rate today would be 9.2/9.3%.

    That is a (IMO) FAR closer number to the actual unemployment situation in America today then the 7.5% U-3 figure released today.

    That was my point.
    Last edited by DA60; 05-03-13 at 12:34 PM.

  9. #39
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    The % of women in the workforce explains that lower participation rate, though you're right and I do believe we are still better off now.
    True that much of the increase in the labor force until 2000 was increased participation of women, but I would disagree that 7.5% unemployment rate is better than the 3-4% in the mid 1950's



    Where'd you get 293K rather than the 165K from the source? You sure it wasn't a net change of 82K to the labor force increasing it by .07% as Gallup is reporting which keeps exactly in line w/ population change? (Which is of course, NOT GOOD)
    Table A-1 from the Current Population Survey
    Seasonally Adjusted Employed March 2013 = 143,286,000
    Seasonally Adjusted Employed April 2013 = 143,579,000
    Change of +293,000
    Unemployment dropped 83,000, so 293,000-83,000 = 210,000 change in the Labor Force.

    The 165,000 is the change in Non-Farm Payroll jobs and is not used in the Labor Force Statistics. Differences between Employment figures from the two surveys
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  10. #40
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    re: U.S. unemployment falls to 7.5% in April [W: 348, 360]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Which measure are you considering more accurate and why? Certainly not the U4, U5, or U6, where the standard errors are going to be much higher as the groups are much smaller and the definitions more subjective.

    Besides which, I was asked for links to support my cites of the not seasonally adjusted numbers. The alternative measures don't change that at all.
    Would a snapshot of the employment picture as it relates to the nations economic health, be more accurate if it included underemployed and discouraged workers?

    Why do you think adjustments are made to numbers?

Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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