May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

Fisher said:

So unemployment went up but we like headlines that will make people believe it went down???

Click to expand...

Not really misleading. After his bold part, there's an explanation. Overall this is a positive.

Boo Radley said:

Not really misleading. After his bold part, there's an explanation. Overall this is a positive.

Click to expand...

So, it's a healthy sign when the unemployment rate goes up because the labor force participation rate goes up?

But it's not a bad sign when he unemployment rate goes down because the LFPR goes down?

a351 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only sucker here is you. So just how much has out population growth "fluctuated" by year ? By all accounts, our growth over the past decade has been at a low of 0.89% per year to a high of 0.97 %

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
United States 0.91 0.9 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.9

Definition of Population growth rate: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as threatening by neighboring countries.
United States - Population growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Click to expand...

That is all of a 10% variation between high and low for the last decade. That is relatively constant, and it translates to a required jobs growth within a 10% range, such as from 130K per month to 143K per month.

So easy, most fools can figure it out.

But not all. :roll:

a351 said:

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

Click to expand...

For the record...

'...the US government spent, a total of $335.9 billion, was the largest May outlay in history, and only the 4th greatest spending month ever.'

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...rgest-spending-month-ever.html#post1061919478

Eighty Deuce said:

The only sucker here is you. So just how much has out population growth "fluctuated" by year ? By all accounts, our growth over the past decade has been at a low of 0.89% per year to a high of 0.97 %



That is all of a 10% variation between high and low for the last decade. That is relatively constant, and it translates to a required jobs growth within a 10% range, such as from 130K per month to 143K per month.

So easy, most fools can figure it out.

But not all. :roll:

Click to expand...

Right, it's a variable. To assume that a constant jobs figure can be derived from that metric, you would also have to assume that the LFPR lacks elasticity, which it clearly does not. A tenth of a percent change in the LFPR changes the amount of jobs required to prevent a hike in the U3 by 213,000. So much for that 10 percent range..

DA60 said:

So, it's a healthy sign when the unemployment rate goes up because the labor force participation rate goes up?

But it's not a bad sign when he unemployment rate goes down because the LFPR goes down?

Click to expand...

I don't believe I said that.

Boo Radley said:

I don't believe I said that.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you did, I was asking a question.

DA60 said:

I didn't say you did, I was asking a question.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, no. But sometimes there are levels of good. Having more people drop out and still have the unemployment rate grow would certainly be worse yet

a351 said:

Right, it's a variable. To assume that a constant jobs figure can be derived from that metric, you would also have to assume that the LFPR lacks elasticity, which it clearly does not. A tenth of a percent change in the LFPR changes the amount of jobs required to prevent a hike in the U3 by 213,000. So much for that 10 percent range..

Click to expand...

That has already been addressed. You are choosing to remain ignorant on this topic. I can only assume its to pretend that Obama hasn't failed miserably.

Its real simple, if the US does not create 130-145K new jobs every month to absorb immigrants and folks reaching an age old enough to work, irrelevant of other changes in the LFPR, then we will have a larger percent of folks not working than the month before.

Eighty Deuce said:

That has already been addressed. You are choosing to remain ignorant on this topic. I can only assume its to pretend that Obama hasn't failed miserably.

Its real simple, if the US does not create 130-145K new jobs every month to absorb immigrants and folks reaching an age old enough to work, irrelevant of other changes in the LFPR, then we will have a larger percent of folks not working than the month before.

Click to expand...

Does the president create jobs? We have to grow government a lot if you want the president hiring people. I think you over rate how much a president can do.

Boo Radley said:

Does the president create jobs? We have to grow government a lot if you want the president hiring people. I think you over rate how much a president can do.

Click to expand...

Boo, just how dumb can a post get ? Obama proposed his jobs bill, did he not ?

"Pass this jobs bill now." Did you forget ?

So he proposes high-spending jobs bills, which won't be passed, which can't create jobs (as you note), but now he blames Congress because his "jobs" bill didn't pass !!!!

So who over-rated whom .............. "Pass this jobs bill now" !!

Fact is, Obama's policies are all BS. He has stifled job growth ! You better believe that dumb government can do that !!! And Obama has doneit !!!!

Boo Radley said:

Does the president create jobs? We have to grow government a lot if you want the president hiring people. I think you over rate how much a president can do.

Click to expand...

So then all that rhetoric Obama was spouting during the campaign about the millions of jobs he created was BS right?

All that nonsensical gibberish that his Stimulus would create shovel ready jobs was exactly that. Shovel ready BS.

Eighty Deuce said:

Boo, just how dumb can a post get ? Obama proposed his jobs bill, did he not ?

"Pass this jobs bill now." Did you forget ?

So he proposes high-spending jobs bills, which won't be passed, which can't create jobs (as you note), but now he blames Congress because his "jobs" bill didn't pass !!!!

So who over-rated whom .............. "Pass this jobs bill now" !!

Fact is, Obama's policies are all BS. He has stifled job growth ! You better believe that dumb government can do that !!! And Obama has doneit !!!!

Click to expand...

And that has what to do with I said?

Because you buy the hype of presidents don't mean they actually control the economy. At best they can do minor things that help or hinder, but largely nothing that can make a major difference. They manipulate voters by hoping to get lucky and take credit for what wasn't their doing or be able to blame others when it didn't fix itself.

Bronson said:

So then all that rhetoric Obama was spouting during the campaign about the millions of jobs he created was BS right?

All that nonsensical gibberish that his Stimulus would create shovel ready jobs was exactly that. Shovel ready BS.

Click to expand...

Of course, just as was for Bush and every other president before him. All government can do, is spend money to hire people. That would be shovel ready propositions. It helps stop the bleeding, but it is not the answer in the long run. in the long run they need factors outside government control to start working. It's a fiction that you can fix our economy based on who is elected.

Slyfox696 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Keep dreamin'.

Boo Radley said:

Of course, just as was for Bush and every other president before him. All
government can do, is spend money to hire people. That would be shovel ready propositions. It helps stop the bleeding, but it is not the answer in the long run. in the long run they need factors outside government control to start working. It's a fiction that you can fix our economy based on who is elected.

Click to expand...

Mass psychosis....those with common sense and a good understanding of our free market economy are witness to a mass psychosis.

Its either that or there is a common link between all Liberals. Maybe they weren't raised correctly, never taught the value of integrity and humility who knows.

There are OBVIOUS correlations to the health of this economy and the media creation you guys fell for in 2008....and 2012.

I mean it would take a head full of ideological backed ignorance to make a statement like the one you just made.

Eighty Deuce said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, explain that math. The U-3 is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed) so in order to maintain a steady U-3, unemployment would have to go up as well, by the same percent. Now that's certainly possible but it certainly complicates the matter of number of "new jobs needed." Usually people are talking about the number of new jobs to keep the Employment-Population ratio steady.

Oh, and you should look up the difference between jobs and total employment. The jobs numbers aren't used in the labor force statistics because they only count non-farm payroll jobs. To apply new jobs, you have to translate into approximate change of total employment.

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.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how you think the LFPR can be manipulated. Do you think it's arbitrarily set?

pinqy said:

Yeah, explain that math. The U-3 is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed) so in order to maintain a steady U-3, unemployment would have to go up as well, by the same percent. Now that's certainly possible but it certainly complicates the matter of number of "new jobs needed." Usually people are talking about the number of new jobs to keep the Employment-Population ratio steady.

Oh, and you should look up the difference between jobs and total employment. The jobs numbers aren't used in the labor force statistics because they only count non-farm payroll jobs. To apply new jobs, you have to translate into approximate change of total employment.

I have no idea how you think the LFPR can be manipulated. Do you think it's arbitrarily set?

Click to expand...

I cannot fix what ails you.

You will never be an actuary, btw.

Eighty Deuce said:

I cannot fix what ails you.

Click to expand...

Nothing ails me. I understand the actual concepts and methodolgy very well. But what you're saying makes no sense, so clearly your understanding is off. I find it interesting that you make assertions, but then refuse to back them up.

Fact: the Labor Force Participation rate cannot be manipulated. There's no way to do it. I'm curious how you think it's done, otherwise I can't correct your misunderstanding.

You will never be an actuary, btw.

Click to expand...

I'm fine as a labor economist, thank you.

pinqy said:

Fact: the Labor Force Participation rate cannot be manipulated. There's no way to do it. I'm curious how you think it's done, otherwise I can't correct your misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

Then show us how it is verified ?

I'm fine as a labor economist, thank you.

Click to expand...

OK .............. :roll:

Eighty Deuce said:

Then show us how it is verified ?

Click to expand...

Why would it need to be verified? You don't seem to know what the Participation rate even means.

But ok, let's try this: For a fictional country, we'll say the Total Population is 10,000,000. There are 7,700,000 people 16 and older who are not in the military, prison, or an institution. There are 4,260,000 employed, 385,000 looking for work, 2,695,000 not in the labor force, but 202,000 of them say they really want a job, but they're not looking and/or not available.

So how, if you were a dishonest govt beaurocrat, would you manipulate the LFPR and manipulate so that the UE rate is what you want it to be?

pinqy said:

Why would it need to be verified? You don't seem to know what the Participation rate even means.

But ok, let's try this: For a fictional country, we'll say the Total Population is 10,000,000. There are 7,700,000 people 16 and older who are not in the military, prison, or an institution. There are 4,260,000 employed, 385,000 looking for work, 2,695,000 not in the labor force, but 202,000 of them say they really want a job, but they're not looking and/or not available.

So how, if you were a dishonest govt beaurocrat, would you manipulate the LFPR and manipulate so that the UE rate is what you want it to be?

Click to expand...

LFPR is "determined" by a phone survey conducted on behalf of the BLS. These people have banks of phone numbers, with known or anticipated results based on previous results. You maintain that it is objective. Just like the IRS eh ? Show us where these numbers have ever been "verified". Point being, you can't.

Have you ever been called ? Has anyone here ever been called ?

Eighty Deuce said:

LFPR is "determined" by a phone survey conducted on behalf of the BLS. These people have banks of phone numbers, with known or anticipated results based on previous results.

Click to expand...

Wrong right away. The Current Population survey does not use phone numbers in the sample. The sample is by household address. Initial interviews are required to be in person with the Census agent (unless the respondent contacts Census and sets up a phone interview). Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4. The return to the survey is also required to be in person. The other months can be by phone if the respondent prefers (and most do).

But you dodged my question as you always do. You don't say how exactly and from what information and by what the LFPR is determined. I gave you an example, but you can't tell me how you could manipulate the LFPR from that info. I'm pretty sure you couldn't even figure out the UE rate.

As for your conspiracy theory...the survey has been going on since 1942. Conducted by Census, processed by BLS, available for access by BEA, raw data available to researchers, Congressional oversight. Thousands and thousands of people would have to have been involved in this conspiracy over the last 70 years, but noone has ever claimed manipulation.

There's no particular reason I or anybody I know would be in the survey....60,000 houses each month and with the rotation scheme it works out to around 200,000 houses a year. Very low odds of an individual house being picked.



You maintain that it is objective. Just like the IRS eh ? Show us where these numbers have ever been "verified". Point being, you can't.

Have you ever been called ? Has anyone here ever been called ?[/QUOTE]

Fenton said:

Mass psychosis....those with common sense and a good understanding of our free market economy are witness to a mass psychosis.

Its either that or there is a common link between all Liberals. Maybe they weren't raised correctly, never taught the value of integrity and humility who knows.

There are OBVIOUS correlations to the health of this economy and the media creation you guys fell for in 2008....and 2012.

I mean it would take a head full of ideological backed ignorance to make a statement like the one you just made.

Click to expand...

You must have a psychosis then as there is no link to the economy and either liberal or conservative leadership. Both sides try to show one. Both sides present numbers. And both sides are using flawed data, rip with logical reasoning errors.

Boo Radley said:

You must have a psychosis then as there is
no link to the economy and either liberal or conservative leadership. Both sides try to show one. Both sides present numbers. And both sides are using flawed data, rip with logical reasoning errors.

Click to expand...

Oh Bull Sh**.

Its it my fault your too aflicted to understand the consequences of perpetual QE ?

Because its not. I don't need to lie for Obama, nor do I need to rehash old and empty talking points about George Bush to understand we're screwed financially.

Everything I've said so far is accurate, even without links to back it up.

You guys elected a corrupt ideology, not a man and have burdened millions of American citizens with your gullibillity and ignorance for years to come.