• 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!

May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

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.
 
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?
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

This is gobbledy-gook. The numbers that I cited are accurate, as is the interpretation. It is the number needed to keep U-3 relatively steady, exactly as I said. I had already noted in an earlier post, had you paid attention, that swings in the LFPR create statistical anomalies.

The fact remains that it is because of these anomalies that Obamabots can claim that unemployment is where it was when Obama took office, yet we are more than 2 million jobs short of where we would have needed to be for that to be accurate, if not for the huge manipulation of the LFPR by the Administration.
 
This is gobbledy-gook. The numbers that I cited are accurate, as is the interpretation. It is the number needed to keep U-3 relatively steady, exactly as I said. I had already noted in an earlier post, had you paid attention, that swings in the LFPR create statistical anomalies.

The fact remains that it is because of these anomalies that Obamabots can claim that unemployment is where it was when Obama took office, yet we are more than 2 million jobs short of where we would have needed to be for that to be accurate, if not for the huge manipulation of the LFPR by the Administration.
Nope. The U-3 is hinged upon multiple variables, all of which vary from month to month. This range you've cited as necessary to keep unemployment "relatively steady" (whatever that means), is pure conjecture and not rooted in actual math of any kind.

Conspiratoral nonsense.The Administration is not involved in the collection of LFPR data.
 
The employment picture is perfect, it's smooth sailing from here. All we have to do is sit back drink Mint Juleps. Ahhhhhh
 
More of the same. Willful misunderstanding, I guess. That is just strange that it caused you to laugh. Again, misleading, a cornerstone of the left.

I laughed because you think using facts in an argument is misleading. Apparently you prefer just to use your blind biases.
 
Nope. The U-3 is hinged upon multiple variables, all of which vary from month to month. This range you've cited as necessary to keep unemployment "relatively steady" (whatever that means), is pure conjecture and not rooted in actual math of any kind.

Conspiratoral nonsense.The Administration is not involved in the collection of LFPR data.

What liberal bull****. Every month, due to constants such as birth rates and immigration, a predictable and fairly constant number of people join the potential work force. above and beyond those that leave the workforce for equally predictable reasons. Thus, a certain number of jobs must be available in order to maintain the status quo U-3.

But anything to blow smoke to cover for the failure of Obamanomics.
 
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.

Rainman was accurate when you accidentally dropped a box of tooth picks in front of him......." 643 tooth picks, yea..time for Wapner "

As for your claims of Qe's effectiveness let's just say were NOT on our 3rd round of it because it did what it was supposed to do. It will NEVER have a POSITIVE effect on our economy because all it is is a asset swap.

QE1...Basically the FED buying massive amounts of toxic MBS's, from Fannie and Freddie no less which reminds me....we have a Lib poster here who likes to brag about Fannie and Freddie's " Success" and their mountains of profit....LOL !! Yea it's easy to make a profit when all of your toxic debt is being purchased by the Central Bank..

Anyway, it was supposedly meant to provide banks with massive amounts of liquidity, bail out the housing industry and trigger lending. Of-course, it didn't work, It didn't work because the underlying reason for the stagnant economy was ignored and after the 2008 Sub-Prime collapse there were not allot of people really looking for lines of credit. All it did was load up the FED's portfolios with massive amounts of toxic debt.

QE2, the FED's attempt to fight off deflation with " mild inflation" by buying massive amounts of assets, bonds and securities. Of-course it had no positive effect on the economy and just led to bonds and asset prices falsely over inflated in value with printed currency and a weaker and unstable dollar. A weaker dollar transmits directly to higher oil prices and prices on everything else. All it did was drive up gold prices as people hedged against the FED overshooting and if anything hurt the economy.

QE3....Wow, poor Bernake, forced to push this monetary malfeasance under the most corrupt and incompetent President in our Nations History. NO amount of QE is going to help this desperately sick economy. QE3 is there for one reason, and that's to keep Obama's massive new debt,.....cheap as the FED buys up unprecedented amounts of short term treasuries, keeps paying banks interest on their MASSIVE reserves so he can influence their overnight rates and removes the risk from Wall Street investors.

No, the DOWs record climb has nothing to do with anything that's REAL, it's backed by Bernake's perpetual QE, as low interest rates removes the risk on otherwise risky private securities.

No, QE is a disaster for us, as the FED and Democrats completely ignore the real underlying issues of our stagnant economy and with these policies of perpetual QE, guarantee the economies of the future are held back with a massive inflationary weight that's currently being constructed by Bernake's printing.

It is by far, the most destructive thing Obama has done to the Country and is by far the biggest lie. Obama's economy, one man controls it, ( Bernake ) and as soon as he says enough, that QE is going to stop, that's the end.

Because there will be a massive sell off of overvalued securities and bonds, and a spike in Bond yields as interest rates climb to bring all of that excess money back.
 
I laughed because you think using facts in an argument is misleading. Apparently you prefer just to use your blind biases.

So, you think that you can't be misleading by using facts? I already gave an example of that. But, we are straying far from the topic, no accident, as usual.
 
What liberal bull****. Every month, due to constants such as birth rates and immigration, a predictable and fairly constant number of people join the potential work force. above and beyond those that leave the workforce for equally predictable reasons. Thus, a certain number of jobs must be available in order to maintain the status quo U-3.

Well, t h at made almost no sense. Can you give an example showing the actual math?
 
Well, t h at made almost no sense. Can you give an example showing the actual math?

Not going to waste my time. You have already chosen not to learn.
 
Not going to waste my time. You have already chosen not to learn.
Oh, I learned a long time ago...I do this for a living.
Like I thought. You clearly don't understand the terms or concepts ("potential workforce," really?) Not surprised you can't do the math, you obviously don't understand the real relationships.
 
May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs - CBS News

A modest figure, but one that exceeded expectations by a slight amount. Also important to note is the loss of 14,000 positions at the federal level, reflecting budget cuts, and a sizable decline in manufacturing employment (8k). The full and official report can be found here:

Employment Situation Summary
A modest figure? Try a blatantly doctored, hilariously dishonest figure. This article best breaks it down.
Try again.
 
A modest figure? Try a blatantly doctored, hilariously dishonest figure. This article best breaks it down.
Try again.

When your source starts out with a lie, you should know you're in trouble:
Isn’t it a funny coincidence that the revisions are almost always downward? Isn’t it funny how the original figure is always good news…is announced in screaming headlines…and results in a soaring stock market. But no one ever notices the downward revision a month later. This government accounting scam happens almost every month.
Let's look: Nonfarm Payroll Employment: Revisions between over-the-month estimates, 1979-present
The payroll jobs are revised twice. Looking at the final revisions in the Seasonally Adjusted numbers (3rd-1st) we see that in 2009 there were 4 months revised down, 8 revised up.
2010: One month revised down, 11 revised up.
2011: Three months down, 9 months up.
2012: Three months down, 9 months up.
2013: January revised down, February and March revised up, 1st revision to April was down.

So I don't know where he learned his math that 13 out of 52 is "almost always."

As for the jobs quality, he's correct, but that's not an issue with the number, just on the spin people put on it afterwards.

So if you're trying to show doctoring and dishonest: Try again.
 
So, you think that you can't be misleading by using facts?
Sure, but not when the facts are relevant to the discussion. The facts I presented are relevant to the discussion, and the only thing which can be considered misleading is when you wish to omit the relevant facts.

Only one of us is trying to be misleading, and it's not the person who provided facts relevant to the conversation.
 
What liberal bull****.

Every month, due to constants such as birth rates and immigration, a predictable and fairly constant number of people join the potential work force. above and beyond those that leave the workforce for equally predictable reasons. Thus, a certain number of jobs must be available in order to maintain the status quo U-3.
LOL!

Birth rates and immigration are not constants. Variables is the term you're looking for, as they quite obviously fluctuate on a regular basis. Also got a chuckle out of your use of the term "fairly constant" as if further qualifiers will redeem your cause! There is no official figure, range, or "fairly constant" number that is required on a consistent basis, the administration is not involved in the collection of labor statistics, and changes in the LFPR are not in any way an anomaly. Whoever provided you with this information took you for a sucker.
 
Back
Top Bottom