Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 289

Thread: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

  1. #231
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    That's only 18-65 year old people.
    Where do you find the figures broken down like that?

    Regardless, I'm glad that to know that there is a metric that is narrowed to a more reasonable working age as the traditional civilian work force population metric includes everyone 16 years or older with no top end age.

    The percent of potential workers actually working has been dropping since Bill Clinton was president (2000), so this isn't exactly an Obama issue. As we continue to replace the need for human labor with technology, the percentage of us who need to have a job will continue to decline. Thats a good thing, as long as we can figure out a way to ensure that ever family has an income source.

    There will be a day when the need for human labor is so insignificant, we will probably have to limit the number of jobs per household to just one, and limit the number of hours worked, so that there are enough jobs for every family to have an earned income (as opposed to the vast majority of us being on welfare).

    George Jetson's workday was 3 hours long, and his workweek was only one day a week. Technology produced pretty much everything that everyone wanted. Ultimately, I hope that is where we are headed.
    Last edited by imagep; 06-13-14 at 08:44 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  2. #232
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,376

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    That's only 18-65 year old people.
    You see, when you don't care if what you say is truth or not, that's the same as lying. You have no idea what the age groups actually are...at best you're just assuming.

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Where do you find the figures broken down like that? .
    Well, you don't...BLS never uses 65 as an upper bound. But we can derive the 18-64 Not in the Labor Force. A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race
    Total age 16+ Not in the Labor Force: 91,782,000
    Age 16-17 Not in the Labor Force: 7,006,000
    Age 65+ Not in the Labor Force: 36,324,000
    So: 91,782,000-7,006,000-36,324,000=48,452,000

    And doing the same for Unemployed:
    16+ = 9,443,000
    16 - 17 = 443,000
    65+ = 419,000
    9,443,000-443,000-419,000 = 8,581,000

    Which means total without work age 18-64 is 57,003,000
    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. #233
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    You see, when you don't care if what you say is truth or not, that's the same as lying. You have no idea what the age groups actually are...at best you're just assuming.


    Well, you don't...BLS never uses 65 as an upper bound. But we can derive the 18-64 Not in the Labor Force. A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race
    Total age 16+ Not in the Labor Force: 91,782,000
    Age 16-17 Not in the Labor Force: 7,006,000
    Age 65+ Not in the Labor Force: 36,324,000
    So: 91,782,000-7,006,000-36,324,000=48,452,000

    And doing the same for Unemployed:
    16+ = 9,443,000
    16 - 17 = 443,000
    65+ = 419,000
    9,443,000-443,000-419,000 = 8,581,000

    Which means total without work age 18-64 is 57,003,000
    Thanks for that, obviously you put in some effort to figure that out. And thanks for pointing out that there is no upper age limit, I was 100% sure that there was no upper age limit, but I started to wonder if the poster who claimed that there was had found some sort of alternative CLFPR metric.

    The declining CLFPR has no real significance in economics, or in determining the condition of our standard of living. Even though it has been falling for 14 years, it is still higher than it was for the first 202 years that this country existed. Our aggregate standard of living is determined by our GDP plus however much value that stay at home spouses add to our lives, much more than the CLFPR. As long as we keep producing more value per work hour (mostly due to technology), we can afford to have fewer and fewer people working in jobs outside the home - without suffering a decline in standard of living.

    One of the things that we "demand" is leisure time and time for self improvement (education, raising our children, taking time to off from work to care for elderly or ill family members, etc). It occurs to me that these are the types of things, and values, that conservatives USED to stand for. These days, they act as they are bad things. That's part of the reason that I have moved away from the republican party - republicans no longer stand for anything other than for further enriching the already rich.

    Our declining CLFPR is pretty much a bullcrap way that some Obama haters use to degrade Obama. It's interesting that they never b other to mention the fact that the CLFPR also fell under Bush.

    Seriously, it's pretty pathetic that haters are having to stretch so far and having to depend on their assumption that others are ignorant to support their anti-Obama case, especially when there are plenty of legitimate things that they could be bashing Obama about.
    Last edited by imagep; 06-13-14 at 11:00 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  4. #234
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    No.

    the CLFPR includes people over 65, and every high school and college age person. That's one of the issues with that metric.

    Due to the fact that the baby boomers have been retiring in mass, we now have a larger percent of retired people than ever, which makes the CLFPR look much worse than it actually is. We should probably narrow the age range to something like age 25-65.
    Please try and look over the conversation before commenting. The working-age population has gone up a lot, yet the employment level is the same. Many people work in high school, never mind college where it is even more common. Not only do you have to consider those who are reaching working age, but those moving into the average age of higher employment. All stats point to one unavoidable conclusion: a large percentage of workers have left the work force for economic reasons. How much of it is a product of that is up for dispute, but no one would argue that the economy is not a heavy contributor. Higher levels of retirement would have continued a much slower gradual decline, but the economy caused a more precipitous decline. This is recognized as fact among every expert economist and serious commentator. It is also a significant part of what is causing the decline in the unemployment rate as many who were unemployed have ceased looking for work due to a lack of available jobs and are thus no longer considered in the unemployment stats. The low-level growth of jobs does provide some benefit to the economy as any increase in wage-earners has a positive impact, but the U.S. is not even close to being at its pre-crisis point of economic well-being.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #235
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,165

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Please try and look over the conversation before commenting. The working-age population has gone up a lot, yet the employment level is the same. Many people work in high school, never mind college where it is even more common. Not only do you have to consider those who are reaching working age, but those moving into the average age of higher employment. All stats point to one unavoidable conclusion: a large percentage of workers have left the work force for economic reasons. How much of it is a product of that is up for dispute, but no one would argue that the economy is not a heavy contributor. Higher levels of retirement would have continued a much slower gradual decline, but the economy caused a more precipitous decline. This is recognized as fact among every expert economist and serious commentator. It is also a significant part of what is causing the decline in the unemployment rate as many who were unemployed have ceased looking for work due to a lack of available jobs and are thus no longer considered in the unemployment stats. The low-level growth of jobs does provide some benefit to the economy as any increase in wage-earners has a positive impact, but the U.S. is not even close to being at its pre-crisis point of economic well-being.
    are young people entering the work force faster than the boomers are now retiring from it?
    i have looked for the data and was unable to find it
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  6. #236
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Please try and look over the conversation before commenting. The working-age population has gone up a lot, yet the employment level is the same. Many people work in high school, never mind college where it is even more common. Not only do you have to consider those who are reaching working age, but those moving into the average age of higher employment. All stats point to one unavoidable conclusion: a large percentage of workers have left the work force for economic reasons. How much of it is a product of that is up for dispute, but no one would argue that the economy is not a heavy contributor. Higher levels of retirement would have continued a much slower gradual decline, but the economy caused a more precipitous decline. This is recognized as fact among every expert economist and serious commentator. It is also a significant part of what is causing the decline in the unemployment rate as many who were unemployed have ceased looking for work due to a lack of available jobs and are thus no longer considered in the unemployment stats. The low-level growth of jobs does provide some benefit to the economy as any increase in wage-earners has a positive impact, but the U.S. is not even close to being at its pre-crisis point of economic well-being.
    Yes, we have a smaller percent of our population working outside of the home than we have at any time since 1978. that percentage has been dropping since the year 2000, 9 years BEFORE Obama b.ecame president. You can't pin our declining CLFPR on Obama, nor is it necessarally a bad thing, except for the people who are unemployed but who are actively seeking work.

    And yes, the high unemployment rate which was the result of the Great Bush Recession sped up the process. So what does that have to do with Obama? You do realize that the Great Bush Recession ended three months after Obama took office, and that job growth started six months after he took office don't you?

    Those so-called "discouraged workers" have obviously found alternative means of support (often doing odd jobs like cutting yards or consulting or freelancing, or alternatively chosing to become homemakers), or else they would still be seeking employment - so I have little concern for them as they are doing whatever it is that they chose to do.

    Also, we have a higher percentage of our young people enrolled in high school and college than ever before, and a higher percent of people who are age 65+ than ever before. That's not a bad thing, that just means that those people have a means of support other than working. For the retired folks, it's most likely their own savings plus ss, for the younger folks that's most likely family support.

    This is a postive socio-economic issue, not an issue to bash Obama with.

    By the way, I did not vote for Obama either time, and I did make the mistake of voting for Bush. I don't even support Obama, he's been a terrible president, but I don't like people distorting facts and blaming him for things that are not under his control.
    Last edited by imagep; 06-13-14 at 11:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  7. #237
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    are young people entering the work force faster than the boomers are now retiring from it?
    i have looked for the data and was unable to find it
    I have no clue about that, but

    I've seen some figures that suggest that young people are now tending to wait until they are older to enter the work force - mostly due to a record high percent of new high school graduates attending college, and a lack of available jobs for teenagers (which probably explains why they are now more likely to attend college).
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  8. #238
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    are young people entering the work force faster than the boomers are now retiring from it?
    i have looked for the data and was unable to find it
    Compare the figures on page 3 of this 2007 report to the figures from May 2014. When you break the stats down you have roughly 5.9 million retirees in the past seven years out of the 13 million not in the labor force. Another 2.3 million of the 13 million are in the 16-24 range. Roughly the same amount of the 13 million are in the 55-64 range. In other words, 2.5 million more people 25 to 54 are not in the labor force and, overall, 7.1 million more people of working age are not in the labor force since 2007. Were those 7.1 million people in the labor force right now, the labor force participation rate would be about 65.8%. That would leave the labor force participation rate effectively unchanged from 66% in 2007. There are other points to consider, though, but no matter how you look at it the labor force participation rate among those of working-age is the primary driver of the decline.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  9. #239
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Do you just not like facts that disagree with you or something?
    Except they don't?
    The working-age population has increased considerably
    Exactly. That was my point all along. There are more people in the labor force than there was before the recession.

    while employment levels are at the same level they were before the increase. Obviously, that translates to a lower labor-force participation rate among people below retirement age
    Not everyone retires at the same age. I thought this was common sense. We're talking about Baby Boomers and they are retiring, whether your acknowledge it or not.

    and thus points to the labor force participation figure not being affected merely by retirement of baby-boomers.
    I never said JUST the Baby Boomers. Is it really so hard for people to understand an argument completely before making ridiculous posts about it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    92,000,000 people aren't working. And you are the stats god?

    LOL, only in your warped little delusional world.
    I guess when you were proven wrong over and over again, all you had left was to say something which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. That's an incredibly dishonest tactic you just tried to employ. I would be ashamed of myself if I felt the need to make useless and unrelated comments to avoid admitting I was wrong, like you just did.

    Just admit you don't understand how jobs reports work and admit you were wrong about the number of people in the labor force. It'll be cleansing for you to simply admit you were wrong. While you're at it, you can admit you don't seem to understand red herrings either (as evidenced, once again, by this latest post).

  10. #240
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: U.S. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Exactly. That was my point all along. There are more people in the labor force than there was before the recession.
    Working-age population, not working population.

    Not everyone retires at the same age. I thought this was common sense. We're talking about Baby Boomers and they are retiring, whether your acknowledge it or not.
    By no means am I suggesting that Baby Boomers are not retiring, but the figures make it clear that they are not the ones contributing most to the decline. The biggest decline by number and by percentage is in the under 55 crowd. Are you saying those people are "retiring" in the millions?

    I never said JUST the Baby Boomers.
    You have done nothing but talk about retirement when addressing the labor force participation rate, and only suggest the possibility that there may be other causes as though there was some uncertainty over that fact.

    Just admit you don't understand how jobs reports work and admit you were wrong about the number of people in the labor force.
    Number of people in the labor force =/= labor force participation rate. It is a percentage of the population and it is much lower among much younger populations. Your focus on the number is like someone boasting that their wages haven't gone down when they haven't gone up either. In real terms, they are still losing money due to inflation. The narrative is presenting is as if somehow people got their jobs back, but that's garbage. More people are able to work than in 2007, but the number of people in the labor force in flat.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... 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
  •