Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 189 of 189

Thread: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

  1. #181
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    Yes & NoÖ While, like you point out, the UE rate is Unemployed/labor force and the labor force participation rate is Labor force / population. But it doesnít end there. As the author pointed out, the population is being decreased because, as the chart above demonstrates, more and more people are now being classified as Discouraged Workers.
    Discouraged workers are going down. The author was clearly claiming the government changed the labor force participation rate and that was used to calculate the number of unemployed. By saying only jobs and population are hard numbers, he is stating that the number of unemployed is derived from the participation rate.

    And, as you know, those who have no job and are classed as marginally attached or Discouraged Workersóare by definition ó counted as ďnot in the labor forceĒ.
    Of course. But that cannot be manipulated as the author implied...it's all based on responses.


    Iíll start with a question: If, during the survey call, an unemployed worker states that he hasnít looked for a job in the last 4 weeks because he believes that there is no job available to them in their line of work, where should this person be placed?
    Not in the Labor Force. Any further sub-classification would depend on when he last looked for work, desire for work, and availability for work.

    Previously, this person would would be classified as unemployed.
    That is not quite true. Before 1967 it might have been true, depending. The definition of Unemployed was:
    all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this latter category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.
    Note the caveat that it was meant to apply to situations where the say, the mine shut down and all the men are out of work. Discrimination was specifically not included.
    From 1967-1993, the definition was
    comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
    Nothing remotely like discouraged would be in that definition. In 1994 the part "were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days" was removed, but no other changes to the definition of unemployed were made.


    While still unemployed and in need of work,
    But they're not unemployed, by definition. And whether or not they need a job is not known...it's irrelevant.

    He (along with everyone else considered Not In The Labor Force) is then removed from the list of Unemployed.
    Ther's no list. The count is made and aggregated.
    In effect, he vanishes from the calculation and the Unemployment great drops by one person.
    That's also true for anyone who stops looking for work for any reason. Why are you considering the Discouraged "still unemployed?" They have no more effect on the labor market than any other person Not in the Labor Force.
    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.

  2. #182
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    ...
    That's also true for anyone who stops looking for work for any reason. Why are you considering the Discouraged "still unemployed?" They have no more effect on the labor market than any other person Not in the Labor Force.
    Some people pretend to believe that not working = unemployed.

    When we all know that someone is only considered unemployed if they are looking for work but don't have a job.

    That way they can claim that our unemployment rates is 40%, and thus make the economy look far worse off than it is. It's intellectual dishonesty, nothing more and nothing less.
    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.

  3. #183
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    Question from poll worker: So youíre an airline pilot and were laid off. Why donít you have a job now?

    Respondent Answers: Because there arenít any jobs available in my their line of work.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: So how come you havenít applied for a job in the last four weeks?

    Respondent Answers: They havenít been able to find work.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: How come you havenít been able to find a job?

    Respondent Answers: Because I donít have any skills or training.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: Well since you were laid off and you say you really need the money, and you applied to all of these places, why do you think they didnít hire you?

    Respondent Answers: Because Iím to old.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: How come you havenít been able to find a job?

    Respondent Answers: Because Iím discriminated upon.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.
    None of those are valid questions, and even if they were, none of the responses are enough to classify someone as Discouraged.
    Let's assume we've already established the respondent does not own a business or farm, is not temporarily absent from a job, did not work at all during the reference week and is not on temporary layoff (expecting to be recalled within 6 months):
    "Have you been doing anything to find work during the last four weeks?" If the answer is "no" or "yes" but the job search method is passive (looked at want ads, picked up an application) then the person is not unemployed (which requires active job search)
    "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"
    "What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the LAST 4 WEEKS?"
    "Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?"
    "Did you actually WORK at a job or business during the last 12 months?" Follow up if yes: "Did do any of this work during the last 4 weeks?" and "Since you LEFT that job or business have you looked for work?
    "Last Week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?"
    IF the answers show the person wants a job, could have started a job if offered, looked for work in the last 12 months and gives the reason as
    • Believes no work available in line of work or area
    • Couldn't find any work
    • Lacks necessary schooling, training, skills or experience
    • Employers think too young or too old
    • Other types of discrimination

    THEN he would be classified as Discouraged. But note that none of that actually matters....lack of job search is enough to put the person Not in the Labor Force. As far as calculating the Labor Force, Discouraged, other Marginally attached, not available, don't want, etc are all the same.
    Why do you want to make a special exception? What impact do discouraged have on the Labor Market for the current month that others Not in the Labor Force don't?


    And that's not a "technique?" The government can't decide they want a lower UE rate and use Discouraged to lower it. It's not arbitrary.

    And again....The Number of Discouraged has been DROPPING! The drop in the Labor Force Participation is due to fewer people wanting to work.
    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.

  4. #184
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    Why didn't you mention the IRS? the EPA? the USGCRP? or The DOJ?
    Those were implied in the "those that are mostly policy and put out some statistics"

    All government workers are human. A large majority of government workers are Democrats. [/quote]
    Where did you get that idea from?

    A certain percentage of those workers are die hard Obama supporters.[/qutoe] And a certain percentage loathe him.
    You can't tell me that there isn't any fudging of the rules at a micro level that doesn't have a cumulative effect on the output of dedicated statistical agencies such as Census, BEA, BLS, NASS, etc.
    Actually, I can. At the micro level there is no way to know what if any effect a change would have. And there's too much oversight and double-checking, and sharing between some agencies (BLS, BEA, and Census have sharing agreements for some data series) The conspiracy would have to be huge. But since you seem convinced it happens, please present your evidence.

    There were allegations that such manipulation was done in 2012 and this was investigated by the Dept of Commerce office of the Inspector General.
    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT U.S. Census Bureau Unsubstantiated Allegations that the Philadelphia Regional Office Manipulated the Unemployment Survey Leading up to the 2012 Presidential Election to Cause a Decrease in the National Unemployment Rate
    An interesting part:
    Addressing allegations raised in the media, we found no evidence that the national unemployment rate was manipulated by staff in the Philadelphia Regional Office in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. To accomplish this, our analysis concluded that it would have taken 78 Census Bureau Field Representatives working together, in a coordinated way, to report each and every unemployed person included in their sample as ďemployedĒ or ďnot in labor forceĒ during September 2012, an effort which likely would have been detected by the Census Bureauís quality assurance procedures.



    I find your naivety overwhelming. If that's what you really believe, then you are either looking through rose colored glasses or turning a blind eye to reality. In either case, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

    Really. Oh my.
    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.

  5. #185
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    Well, I briefly read the study (or the relevant parts, anyway). I don't really see much of that evidence. For the most part, you can see that performance-based stock compensation has increased 7.2% from 2009 to 2013 (page 13). It also shows that performance awards are the most prevalent form of compensation (page 21). I haven't seen anything regarding CEO underperforming or performing well for these awards.

    Again, what the article (not the study) does is evaluate CEO performance by looking at their compensation relative to stock performance. This is one of the most popular ways of determining whether or not a CEO is overpaid, which only makes sense if you are an investor. Stock prices are a reflection of future earnings. When the company makes more revenue, stock prices increase and CEO compensation must increase as an inevitable result. As an investor, the CEO's must have investors best interest at heart and make sure shareholder's equity is preserved. However, when Board of Directors determine CEO compensation, it is determined on a wide range of different factors, and each company is different. I don't see any factors determining an increase in CEO performance compensation or time based stock (or the decline in options).
    You have nothing to support the notion that CEO pay is based on performance other than your opinion.

    Noted....
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #186
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by BringIt View Post
    Question from poll worker: So youíre an airline pilot and were laid off. Why donít you have a job now?

    Respondent Answers: Because there arenít any jobs available in my their line of work.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: So how come you havenít applied for a job in the last four weeks?

    Respondent Answers: They havenít been able to find work.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: How come you havenít been able to find a job?

    Respondent Answers: Because I donít have any skills or training.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: Well since you were laid off and you say you really need the money, and you applied to all of these places, why do you think they didnít hire you?

    Respondent Answers: Because Iím to old.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    Question from poll worker: How come you havenít been able to find a job?

    Respondent Answers: Because Iím discriminated upon.

    Classification Category: Discouraged Worker - removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.



    In all of the above examples, the respondent is actually unemployed, willing and able to work and all five of them can be classed (without their knowledge) as a Discouraged Worker. By definition they are no longer unemployed and they are removed from the Labor Force Participation calculation.
    Forgot to add...your deal of "removed from the labor force" is not quite accurate. 1/4 of the sample is rotated every month. Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 8, and back in for 4, with the montly sample divided into 8 panels so that there are roughly equal households in their first month, second month, third month, fourth month, 1st month back, 2nd month back, third month back, last month. You make it sound like there's some static list of people individually put into slots. In addition....the survey is by Street Address, not occupants, so if a family moves out and a new family moves in, then the new family will become the survey respondents.

    Someone classified as Discouraged could have been classified as "does not want a job now," "not available for work" or could have not been in the population at all the month before (was not yet 16, was out of the country, was serving on active duty military, was in prison, or an institution). So they would not be "removed."
    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.

  7. #187
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    You have nothing to support the notion that CEO pay is based on performance other than your opinion.

    Noted....
    Very little of what I said was my own opinion. Half of it based on my 12 year experience in capital markets, while the other half is based on your own evidence, which doesn't seem to support your assertions. If you want to argue that CEOs are overpaid due to poor stock performance and retaining shareholders' equity, that is one thing. However, there is really nothing in your study which shows that CEO compensation isn't derived from any metric of company performance. For the most part, your study shows that the component with the largest growth in CEO compensation is performance-based stock.


    Why is this? This is because bonuses have slowly replaced short-term incentive planned payouts (also, not my opinion. Its stated in the study). The nature of these goals varies depending on the business, company strategy and other conditions specified by the board of directors. It can be anything from increasing revenue or marketshare, developing new products, improving profit margins and/or expanding into a new market. These goals are determined using a three tier benchmark system: threshold (below expectations), target (met expectations) and stretch (exceed expectations). This is different from long-term incentive planned payouts, which aligns more with the equity performance (returns to shareholders, earnings per share, returns on assets etc), not company performance. This ranges anywhere from three to five years, and is one of the largest components of CEO compensation.

    CEO pay is determined by performance, but performance is benchmarked differently. For the most part, we can see that the largest growth in CEO compensation is through performance awards, but you won't know what type of criteria was met until you've looked at each corporation and evaluate how executive compensation aligns with their short-term and long-term goals.
    Last edited by WallStreetVixen; 12-10-14 at 01:27 PM.

  8. #188
    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: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    According to the Gallup employment survey, underemployment is actually up slightly since early August.

    Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

  9. #189
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,374

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    According to the Gallup employment survey, underemployment is actually up slightly since early August.

    Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
    Keep in mind that Gallup's definition of "Underemployed" is worked less than 30 hours/week and wants to work more. No questions about availability to work full time nor reason for working part time.
    The BLS measure of Part Time for economic reasons is worked less than 35 hours/week, wants to and is available to work 35+ and is working less due to slow business or inability to find full time work.
    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.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •