Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

Taylor said:

This is a new one. Apparently you can write anything you want and it won't be biased so long as you cite more than 50 others who actually had their work peer-reviewed.

Click to expand...

Do you have any issues with the regression analysis employed? How does it differ from the data by Erceg & Levin (2013), Shierholz (2012), Van Zandweghe (2012), etc...???

Taylor said:

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that was made, or show it to be "incorrect."

Click to expand...

Whatever you say.

Kushinator said:

Do you have any issues with the regression analysis employed? How does it differ from the data by Erceg & Levin (2013), Shierholz (2012), Van Zandweghe (2012), etc...???

Click to expand...

I have an issue with your earlier claim that because they cited over 50 peer-reviewed papers, their paper can't be biased. I was questioning your logic, not theirs.

shrubnose said:

Or all of the illegal aliens voted for the Democratic Party.

You can be sure that they'll have some wacky excuse.

Click to expand...

Aw yes. I forgot the ever so popular non-existing voter fraud epidemic that tilted the election to democrats. and BENGHAZI !!!!!

Taylor said:

I have an issue with your earlier claim that because they cited over 50 peer-reviewed papers, their paper can't be biased. I was questioning your logic, not theirs.

Click to expand...

There are over 50 citations regarding the subject matter, not simply any peer-reviewed papers. We must also consider what DA60 tends to source; blog posts from zerohedge. I found it nothing short of ridiculous he would dare call the report issued from the White House biased given his track record.

Re: Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% ipn September, Payrolls Jump

While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

(From a mobile site)

pinqy said:

I already gave them to you
Series Report tool

Population LNS10000000
Not in Labor Force LNS15000000
Labor force participation rate LNS11300000
Not in labor force wants job now LNS15026639

So the red line is (not in the labor force minus not in the labor force wants a job now)/population In other words: those who do not want a job as a percent of the population.
And the blue line is the labor force participation rate.

Click to expand...

okay, thank you.

1) the 'nice chart' you posted was, no offense, almost a complete waste of time. It is one of those charts that uses two totally different measurements PLUS posts them using data that appears to go up/down to the same percentage...when the two stats are measured using very different variances.
I.E. the data on the left goes up using intervals that are roughly half of the percentage intervals of the data on the right.
Obviously, whomever made this chart desired to make the two lines look like they are going in matching, opposite directions..when they statistically are not.
That is why I try not to pay attention to 'nice charts'...they are little more then visual aids. And sometimes they visually distort the truth.
The raw data is (IMO) almost always a better source.

2) I think we have been over this before.

If you have a point to make, please make it using only the BLS site because I still cannot find what you are talking about.

Are you talking about the A-16 chart?

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

Come on man, some of us have lives and have better things to do then track down the sources for your theories/ideas.

How many of you supporting the Idiot in chief, are paid by the democratic party to come on here, and try to convince everyone things are so good.

SENSIBLE PATRIO said:

How many of you supporting the Idiot in chief, are paid by the democratic party to come on here, and try to convince everyone things are so good.

Click to expand...

:funny

That's not a sensible thing to say nor is it patriotic.

DA60 said:

okay, thank you.

1) the 'nice chart' you posted was, no offense, almost a complete waste of time. It is one of those charts that uses two totally different measurements PLUS posts them using data that appears to go up/down to the same percentage...when the two stats are measured using very different variances.
I.E. the data on the left goes up using intervals that are roughly half of the percentage intervals of the data on the right.
Obviously, whomever made this chart desired to make the two lines look like they are going in matching, opposite directions..when they statistically are not.
That is why I try not to pay attention to 'nice charts'...they are little more then visual aids. And sometimes they visually distort the truth.
The raw data is (IMO) almost always a better source.

2) I think we have been over this before.

If you have a point to make, please make it using only the BLS site because I still cannot find what you are talking about.

Are you talking about the A-16 chart?

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

Come on man, some of us have lives and have better things to do then track down the sources for your theories/ideas.

Click to expand...

surely it cant be news to you how the jobless rate has dropped. Its been consistant for years.

pbrauer said:

:funny

That's not a sensible thing to say nor is it patriotic.

Click to expand...

Very sensible, and Patriotic, anyone supporting this BOZO is no patriot.

Taylor said:

Yes, thanks for illustrating my point. There has been no steady decline since 2000. In fact, there was no decline at all for much of that decade.

Click to expand...

That's true, however it's important to factor in the housing bubble which inflated many statistics.

Why isn't the Administration patting them selves on the back for this chart? :roll:

Data extracted on: October 3, 2014 (12:13:18 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS13025703
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Of Total Unemployed, Percent Unemployed 27 Weeks & over
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Duration : unemployed/laid off: 27 weeks and over
Percent/rates: Percent of unemployed within group

Kushinator said:

It is not a matter of interpretation.

You will not find a single credible study that supports your opinion.

Speaking of meaningless thoughts... why do you continue to participate in this discussion without contributing anything of value?

Click to expand...

Again, I am confident with my personal experience and knowledge on the subject. Why do you reply to someone who obviously doesn't care a bit about anything you have to offer?

DA60 said:

okay, thank you.

1) the 'nice chart' you posted was, no offense, almost a complete waste of time. It is one of those charts that uses two totally different measurements

Click to expand...

What do you mean two different measurements? Both are percentage of the population.

PLUS posts them using data that appears to go up/down to the same percentage...when the two stats are measured using very different variances.

Click to expand...

Not that much variance. It is roughly the same. The left Y axis has a range of 3.5 percentage points and the right Y axis has a range of 4.2 percentage points.

I.E. the data on the left goes up using intervals that are roughly half of the percentage intervals of the data on the right.

Click to expand...

Your math sucks. The intervals on the left Y axis is .5 percentage points and the interval on the right is .6 percentage points Not really an issue.

You do realize that since they're both percentages of the same thing, it doesn't matter that one is from 31.5% to 35% and the other is 62.4 to 66.2? The difference is minimal.

Obviously, whomever made this chart desired to make the two lines look like they are going in matching, opposite directions..when they statistically are not.

Click to expand...

I made it and I just created it so you could see both together. And they both are going in opposite directions...Not in the Labor Force does not want a job went up 2.7 percentage points and the labor force participation rate went down 2.9 percentage points. Again, they're both percentage of the population. So how does the chart not accurately reflect the 2.7% increase in percent that doesn't want a job and the 2.9% drop in the labor force percent?

2) I think we have been over this before.

If you have a point to make, please make it using only the BLS site because I still cannot find what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

How many times have you rejected my links to BLS because it's biased? Be consistent. And I did link to the BLS site and gave you the series report numbers.

Are you talking about the A-16 chart?

Click to expand...

Sort of. Though I was using the seasonally adjusted data.

Come on man, some of us have lives and have better things to do then track down the sources for your theories/ideas.

Click to expand...

For the third time posting the link and codes: Go to BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Put in the series report numbers I gave you:
Population LNS10000000
Not in Labor Force LNS15000000
Labor force participation rate LNS11300000
Not in labor force wants job now LNS15026639

To get those who are not in the labor force and don't want a job, subtract "wants a job now" from the total labor force.
I assume you know how to divide that result from the population to get the percentage.

That's why I used the FRED site. Easier, and it's the same data.

Oh, and as an example, if I had put both lines on the same Y axis, the result would be:

Which is not helpful at all to see any changes.

ocean515 said:

Again, I am confident with my personal experience and knowledge on the subject.

Click to expand...

That's great! I am very happy for you.

More than half of the decline in participation is attributable to age.

Why do you reply to someone who obviously doesn't care a bit about anything you have to offer?

Click to expand...

Here is what you originally stated:

ocean515 said:

The youngest baby boomers aren't even 60 yet. The oldest Baby Boomers are just now reaching 65. Given the significant loss in asset values for many baby boomers, (home prices, etc.) they are putting off retirement because they don't have the potential retirement income they were hoping for.

Perhaps you need to revisit your conclusions.

Click to expand...

Which was in response to Image's point:

imagep said:

It's not an Obama issue, or even an economic one, it's an age demographic thing.

Click to expand...

You care enough to keep responding, and as such i will continue to offer you the opportunity to fess up to your lapse in thinking.

Kushinator said:

That's great! I am very happy for you.

More than half of the decline in participation is attributable to age.



Here is what you originally stated:



Which was in response to Image's point:



You care enough to keep responding, and as such i will continue to offer you the opportunity to fess up to your lapse in thinking.

Click to expand...

It's not that I care, I just like seeing you go to so much effort. I imagine it's much like your avatar. A curious affliction I would hazard to guess, this need for attention from words that appear on a screen.

BTW:

Many Baby Boomers Reluctant to Retire

justabubba said:

damn, and i thought it expressed a reality that the percentage of those seeking employment had declined

i strongly suspect that had this percentage increased, you would have been in a thread castigating Obama for that indicator of economic decline

Click to expand...

Oh, it did decline...because more unemployed people quit looking for a job, or if they did get a job, it's a part time job.

BTW, who was president 36 years ago; the last time the labor participation rate was this low?

ocean515 said:

BTW:

Many Baby Boomers Reluctant to Retire

Click to expand...

Finally some content, although it does not less your impact as much as you would like.

You see, i am not disagreeing with the notion that there are some baby boomers are retiring later than they would like or they have historically. I get this, and the literature i provided has identified similar evidence. It's just that the rate of this foregone retirement is not nearly enough to circumvent old age on the aggregate. So even as boomers are retiring later, they are still dropping out of the labor force enough to constitute more than half of this 3% drop since 2007.

Hopefully this clears up any discrepancies you have with respect to this subject.

So once again for the 55th straight month, good news for America is bad news for the GOP and its posters.
Good news met with every possible dishonest manipulation by the usual DP suspects defending the indefensible from the conservoright.

Oh for the days when these same rightie posters were defending a job loss of 740,000 a month until it became Obama's job loss in Feb. 2009.
Then GOPs lyingly gave Obama the 2.2 million job loss in Obama's first three months as on Obama's watch.
Talk about low information voters who vote against their best interests for the GOP .

Kushinator said:

Finally some content, although it does not less your impact as much as you would like.

You see, i am not disagreeing with the notion that there are some baby boomers are retiring later than they would like or they have historically. I get this, and the literature i provided has identified similar evidence. It's just that the rate of this foregone retirement is not nearly enough to circumvent old age on the aggregate. So even as boomers are retiring later, they are still dropping out of the labor force enough to constitute more than half of this 3% drop since 2007.

Hopefully this clears up any discrepancies you have with respect to this subject.

Click to expand...

But you wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. Now you're a giving it a nod?

BTW:

The Truth About Retirement for Baby Boomers - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Shame on people retiring and lowering the number of folks in the work force.

ocean515 said:

But you wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. Now you're a giving it a nod?

Click to expand...

If your opinion is "age attributed to half of the decline in the labor force participation rate", i am giving it a nod.

We have already agreed, pages ago, that boomers are delaying retirement. If this is your only opinion, why use it as a means to reject the position of someone who agrees with the bold?

NIMBY said:

Talk about low information voters who vote against their best interests for the GOP .

Click to expand...

It is rather interesting to watch them flail around like fish on a dry dock.