Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 153

Thread: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

  1. #101
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Sincerely, thank you for double checking to make sure you weren't putting out
    wrong information.


    It doesn't, necessarily. I was mostly just contradicting the claim that the Labor Force was declining, when it is growing, though not as fast as the population.

    Why does it mean that? The number of people who don't want a job...and the percent of people not in the labor force who don't want a job, have been increasing. Some of it is retirees, some of it is spouses deciding to stay home with the kids, and a lot of it are students.


    Why? Seriously...what is the practical difference between someone not trying to work because they don't think they'll get a job, and someone not trying to work because they don't or can't work? Who is more likely to get a job?

    It's a question of what you're trying to measure. The point of measuring unemployment is to see how many people who could be working...who could have been hired in a particular month...are not working. People not looking for work could not have been hired...could not have been working.

    Analogy time....if you're a retailer and you sell out of a particular item. You sold 150. You find out that 180 people came to your store to buy it. And you find out that 20 people called the store, or found out from someone who called or visited, that you were out and so didn't show up. And you find out there were 10 more people who say they wanted it, but didn't check to see if you had any either by contacting you or a friend.

    How many could you have sold if you had had enough inventory? Obviously the 150 you did sell. Obviously the 30 more from the people who showed up and walked away empty handed. We can also assume the 20 people who called or asked would have showed up and bought if they knew there was inventory. So that's 200 we know, or are fairly certain you could have sold.

    But what about the 10 people who didn't show or check. Can you say that they would have bought if there was enough inventory? No. Regardless of your inventory, they wouldn't have shown up anyway, even though they say they wanted it.

    Now, it's useful to know that there are 10 more people who might buy the item sometime in the future, but you can't say that for the particular day in question that you could have sold 210, but you can say you could have sold 200.

    Does that make more sense? That "but they still didn't get the item they wanted" doesn't mean they would have gotten it if you had enough.
    LOL !!!

    Watching you Democrats squirm, obfuscate anf mitigate is entertaining to say the least.

    From Obama's snooping to the IRS targeting to the MASSIVE lie that is the US economy.

    It's unreal.

  2. #102
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,372

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    LOL !!!

    Watching you Democrats squirm, obfuscate anf mitigate is entertaining to say the least.
    I've never voted Democrat for a Presidential election. Maybe in a local election, I'm not sure.

    But I note that you don't actually have anything to say. Do you really think that you made an actual point?
    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.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    I've never voted Democrat for a Presidential
    election. Maybe in a local election, I'm not sure.

    But I note that you don't actually have anything to say. Do you really think that you made an actual point?
    Oh I provide plenty of relevent content, posters like yourself just ignore it.

    Now I haven't found one honest objective poster who believes this economy or these jobs numbers are representitive of our true economic health.

    Iv'e explained the Feds destructive policies and how they relate to this false narrative of a " recovery".

    So what's your problem ? If your not a blind ideologue, a typical Obama supporter who lacks the base intelligence to see through the Presidents lies then what motivates you to be perennially wrong ?

  4. #104
    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: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Why does it mean that? The number of people who don't want a job...and the percent of people not in the labor force who don't want a job, have been increasing. Some of it is retirees, some of it is spouses deciding to stay home with the kids, and a lot of it are students.
    The Fed itself put out a report a few years ago - I posted a link to it a few weeks/months ago on this site somewhere - that in essence stated that a minimum of 1/2 of those that leave the work force probably do so because they cannot find work. Plus, I have seen even pro-Keynesian think tanks say something similar.
    Also, of those that do retire; surely at least some of them do so simply because they cannot find work so they take an early retirement.


    Why? Seriously...what is the practical difference between someone not trying to work because they don't think they'll get a job, and someone not trying to work because they don't or can't work? Who is more likely to get a job?

    It's a question of what you're trying to measure. The point of measuring unemployment is to see how many people who could be working...who could have been hired in a particular month...are not working. People not looking for work could not have been hired...could not have been working.

    Analogy time....if you're a retailer and you sell out of a particular item. You sold 150. You find out that 180 people came to your store to buy it. And you find out that 20 people called the store, or found out from someone who called or visited, that you were out and so didn't show up. And you find out there were 10 more people who say they wanted it, but didn't check to see if you had any either by contacting you or a friend.

    How many could you have sold if you had had enough inventory? Obviously the 150 you did sell. Obviously the 30 more from the people who showed up and walked away empty handed. We can also assume the 20 people who called or asked would have showed up and bought if they knew there was inventory. So that's 200 we know, or are fairly certain you could have sold.

    But what about the 10 people who didn't show or check. Can you say that they would have bought if there was enough inventory? No. Regardless of your inventory, they wouldn't have shown up anyway, even though they say they wanted it.

    Now, it's useful to know that there are 10 more people who might buy the item sometime in the future, but you can't say that for the particular day in question that you could have sold 210, but you can say you could have sold 200.

    Does that make more sense? That "but they still didn't get the item they wanted" doesn't mean they would have gotten it if you had enough.
    As far as I am concerned, if someone wants a job and is over 16 and not incarcerated or in the military AND could immediately take a job if one became available...then they are unemployed.

    I don't care if they are 'actively' looking or not.

    People cannot 'actively' look forever. They eventually have to move on with their lives.

    Either they enroll in school or they take a job under the table or they simply stay at home and look after their family.

    But the BLS says these people are no longer actively looking for work - even though they would take a job tomorrow if they could find it.

    I care not much what anyone says in this - these people ARE unemployed to me.


    Plus, it is HUGELY in the government's best interests to not count these people as unemployed. So that makes it even more suspect.

    Do you honestly think if it made the government look better somehow to count them as unemployed, that they would not instruct the BLS to do just that?

    Just like the government adjusts the CPI for their benefit (as they recently did by changing the tabulation model used to the C-CPI-U), they will of course do the same for unemployment.
    Governments have being doing this for decades.

  5. #105
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,372

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The Fed itself put out a report a few years ago - I posted a link to it a few weeks/months ago on this site somewhere - that in essence stated that a minimum of 1/2 of those that leave the work force probably do so because they cannot find work. Plus, I have seen even pro-Keynesian think tanks say something similar.
    Also, of those that do retire; surely at least some of them do so simply because they cannot find work so they take an early retirement.
    Again, it comes down to what you're trying to measure. The UE rate measures what percent of people in a given month could actually be working and were not. For That Particular Month. Someone who stopped looking for work back in October does NOT tell us anything about job prospects in May. The Unemployment rate is not a measure of suffering. Not classifying someone as unemployed is not a disparagement. I refer you again to my analogy.



    As far as I am concerned, if someone wants a job and is over 16 and not incarcerated or in the military AND could immediately take a job if one became available...then they are unemployed.

    I don't care if they are 'actively' looking or not.

    People cannot 'actively' look forever. They eventually have to move on with their lives.

    Either they enroll in school or they take a job under the table or they simply stay at home and look after their family.
    Job under the table would be employed in the household survey. But ok, WHY? WHY is that your definition? What exactly are you trying to measure and why are you trying to measure it? What's the usefulness?

    But the BLS says these people are no longer actively looking for work - even though they would take a job tomorrow if they could find it.
    The point is that they absolutely could not find one even if there were plenty of jobs, because they're not looking for one.

    I care not much what anyone says in this - these people ARE unemployed to me.
    And that's fine. But it's a subjective definition and not useful in examining the labor market.


    Plus, it is HUGELY in the government's best interests to not count these people as unemployed. So that makes it even more suspect.
    No it's not. Why would it make a difference?

    Do you honestly think if it made the government look better somehow to count them as unemployed, that they would not instruct the BLS to do just that?
    Back in 1984, active duty military in the US were added to the Current Population Survey as Employed. That had the effect of basically boosting the employment numbers and the labor force and thus the UE rate was lower than the civilian version. Eventually the UE rate which included the military was dropped (and in the 1994 revamping, military were excluded from the population). So, yes...it's not about looking good, it's about accuracy as far as BLS is concerned.
    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. #106
    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: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Again, it comes down to what you're trying to measure. The UE rate measures what percent of people in a given month could actually be working and were not. For That Particular Month. Someone who stopped looking for work back in October does NOT tell us anything about job prospects in May. The Unemployment rate is not a measure of suffering. Not classifying someone as unemployed is not a disparagement. I refer you again to my analogy.



    Job under the table would be employed in the household survey. But ok, WHY? WHY is that your definition? What exactly are you trying to measure and why are you trying to measure it? What's the usefulness?

    The point is that they absolutely could not find one even if there were plenty of jobs, because they're not looking for one.

    And that's fine. But it's a subjective definition and not useful in examining the labor market.


    No it's not. Why would it make a difference?

    Back in 1984, active duty military in the US were added to the Current Population Survey as Employed. That had the effect of basically boosting the employment numbers and the labor force and thus the UE rate was lower than the civilian version. Eventually the UE rate which included the military was dropped (and in the 1994 revamping, military were excluded from the population). So, yes...it's not about looking good, it's about accuracy as far as BLS is concerned.
    Look man, no offense - you seem a relatively decent sort, but I usually do not do the multi-quote-post reply.

    They usually lead to INCREDIBLY long posts on both sides as every single point is debated and on and on.

    I realize most people on here seem to like to debate even the smallest points on and on...I am NOT one of those people. I am on here to learn, teach and kill a little time.

    I will debate facts - but debating theories usually seems a complete waste of time to me.

    Plus, I really do not care that much about this particular issue...nothing personal.


    I have made my point - you have made yours.

    I think the BLS is not counting people that I consider unemployed as unemployed because the government likes it that way.

    You disagree - fine.



    If you have links to factual evidence to back them up - facts/stats, not opinions...I don't care much about opinions on financial questions - I will probably look at them.

    Otherwise, why don't we just agree to disagree on this and move on for now?
    Last edited by DA60; 06-12-13 at 04:33 PM.

  7. #107
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    But QE has NO effect on jobs. No effect on the free market so why is Bernake contiuing ?

    There's only one right amswer.
    Two dubious claims.

    Something tells me ya don't got it.

  8. #108
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    Two dubious claims.


    Something tells me ya don't got it.
    Well, DO elabrate on my dubious claims then.

    Shouldn't be too hard to contradict a "rainman" asshole Conservative now should it ?

  9. #109
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Well, DO elabrate on my dubious claims then.

    Shouldn't be too hard to contradict a "rainman" asshole Conservative now should it ?
    Pretty self explanatory. The claim that purchasing billions monthly worth of financial assets in order to increase the monetary base and free up reserves has no effect on employment or the "free market" is rather naive.

    LOL! Come on dude! Rainman was accurate.

  10. #110
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    But there sure as hell is an undeniable unofficial range, and its currently around 135-145K per month with regards to an increase in the workforce.

    Here's the facts. Since Obama was sworn in, Jan 2009, thru Dec 2012, there have been all of 3,918,000 non-farm jobs added.
    ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaeu.txt

    That amounts to 81,625 per month. Of well over 50K per month less than we would need to keep unemployment level. Yet "unemployment" is where it was when he took office !!!!

    Almost 2.5 million more folks not working !!

    Obamanomics is not only a massive fail, but the Democrats hide behind smoke-and-mirrors. And pretending there's "no official number".
    Erm, no. If the workforce were to grow by a tenth of one percent while remaining variables stabilized at current levels, the number of jobs required to lower the unemployment level would be about 315 thousand. Try it for yourself. Jobs Calculator - Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

    Your chart is in raw, non seasonally adjusted form and bit off from the official figures. The net total is actually just over 2 million.

    If the LFPR remained static, yes.

    No, that would be a decline (in potential, not real terms) in the workforce. Neither the amount of individuals working or the number of individuals categorized as unemployed has increased by that amount.

    No pretending. There simply isn't.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •