• 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!

Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

DA60 said:
+1


Well...everyone knows it who is not close minded.

Unfortunately, that seems to make up a huge number of Americans.
Click to expand...

the U3 number is a political pawn game to make it sound better than what it really is.

the U5 and U6 numbers give a better representation of the workforce. it is those numbers that should be aggregated together in order to get a good
focus on unemployment numbers.
 
Fenton said:
Only hard core Obama apologist and or economically illiterate low information Americans are actually cheering about this jobs report.
Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 92.9 Million As Participation Rate Declines Again | Zero Hedge

What this jobs report represents is just how cynical and cold the Democrat party and the Obama administration are.

To put out economic information without the context needed to qualify it as either good or bad news is one hing, but the Obama administration is claiming this is a great success and proof that his policies are working and the economy is improving.

It's not and his policies are to blame
Click to expand...

I would (and have suggested) that thinking that the aggregate number of Not in Labor Force OR a rising number of Not In Labor Force being a bad thing would constitute you as a low information voter (or one that is just disingenuous, assuming you actually know what Not in the Labor Force means.)
 
Fenton said:
Only hard core Obama apologist and or economically illiterate low information Americans are actually cheering about this jobs report.
Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 92.9 Million As Participation Rate Declines Again | Zero Hedge

What this jobs report represents is just how cynical and cold the Democrat party and the Obama administration are.

To put out economic information without the context needed to qualify it as either good or bad news is one hing, but the Obama administration is claiming this is a great success and proof that his policies are working and the economy is improving.

It's not and his policies are to blame
Click to expand...

The most amazing thing is that the rate has been climbing at the same pace since at least 2000. Who knew that Obama was already messing with our labor force way back then? He truly must be a interplanetary alien.

People%20not%20in%20labor%20force.jpg
 
Fearandloathing said:
In eight years with world economies ahead of the US, it is only a matter of physics that sooner or later even Obama's economy will start upward...
Under different circumstances the US would have led the 'recovery'
Click to expand...

This comment conveys no real meaning, which is why you've decided to omit any data.
 
iguanaman said:
The most amazing thing is that the rate has been climbing at the same pace since at least 2000. Who knew that Obama was already messing with our labor force way back then? He truly must be a interplanetary alien.

People%20not%20in%20labor%20force.jpg
Click to expand...


Lol !!

Thanks for the chart that shows just how innefective Stimulus and QE are when it comes to growing a economy.

8 Trillion in new debt, 4 Trillion in new " liquidity " with a average GDP a little over 2 percent and decreaseing Labor participation rate.
 
Fearandloathing said:
That is a fabrication, Obama has changed it and you are on a different scale than the countries around you. You count unemployed, the accurate stat is "jobless".....
Click to expand...
:doh So wrong on multiple levels. Obama has not changed the way unemployment is calculated and we've never counted the entire jobless population as unemployed, and for good reason. The mere state of being jobless ( Stay at home moms, retirees, the physically disabled, college students, and so on) is not a barometer of the health of the labor market, whereas the ability of those who are actively seeking a wage to find one are.
 
Crovax said:
labor participation rate only counts those 16 to 65 so it doesnt matter how big the percentage of our population is over 65 it has no bearing on the rate and I will again point out that if baby boomer early retirement was the major cause of the rate drop then in 2011 when the baby boomers aged out of the rate calculation the rate would start to flatten out but it hasnt.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. The LFPR's age category is merely 16 and up. It has no definitive ceiling.
 
ludin said:
do you want the truth or feel good emotions? lets look at the report.
Click to expand...
lol, yes let's

The jobless rates for adult men (5.2 percent), adult women (4.9 percent), whites (4.7 percent), blacks (10.4 percent),
Asians (4.0 percent), and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little or no change.

ok please how me where that is a good thing?[/quote]
1) The unemployment rate is very close to full employment. BNP Paribas is already saying we're there: BNP Paribas declares full employment - Business Insider

2) The trends are ALL POSITIVE. Job growth is steady, unemployment rate is falling, LFPR is flat.


The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2.7 million in February. These individuals accounted for 31.1 percent of the unemployed.

please show me where this is a good thing?
Click to expand...
1 month ≠ trend, and the trend is positive -- it's dropped almost 15% since 2010.

Plus, good news! People who dropped out of the workforce are, apparently, starting to rejoin the workforce:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/economy/jobs-unemployment-figures.html


of course the main reason for this is the constant extension of jobless benefits and now companies won't hire them or they are less likely to get employment.
Click to expand...
Job benefits mostly expired for many people last year, and are continuing to expire this year. Ironically, many conservatives claim this is has contributed to the drop in unemployment rates.


the participation rate dropped by .1 so that in and of itself is a large number of people not being counted.
Click to expand...
A drop in the LFPR by 0.1% is negligible, especially since the trend (there's that word again!) is flat since mid-2013.


The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in February at 6.6 million.
Click to expand...
Yet again: 1 month ≠ trend, and the trend is still moving in the right direction, and way off the 2010 peak.


I mean as someone said if everyone decided to leave the workforce and not look for a job then according to the U3 number unemployment would be at 0%.
that is great news isn't it?
Click to expand...
That's the most bizarre twisting of statistics I've seen in a long time. Congratulations!

Anyway. U3 is only one measure, and no one claims it's a complete measure. The Yellen Dashboard is more comprehensive, at the cost of being more complex:
Yellen's Dashboard

Quits rate, job openings, hiring are trending up; change in participation rate is largely flat, maybe a tiny bit up since 12/2009; U3, U6, involuntary part timers, long-term unemployed are trending down. The only real issue is that wages are flat, and that might not be the case for long if we are genuinely near or at full employment.

If you're looking at the numbers rationally, rather than responding emotionally or in a partisan fashion, you'll see that it's a very good monthly report, and that things are looking up.
 
Fearandloathing said:
In eight years with world economies ahead of the US, it is only a matter of physics that sooner or later even Obama's economy will start upward...

Under different circumstances the US would have led the 'recovery'
Click to expand...

We are currently in one of the longer economic upswings in history. It's not like the numbers just started improving last month.
 
ludin said:
because when you get into the details there wasn't a white cloud to begin with.
Click to expand...

I totally understand. It would be better for your party if unemployment would have gone up, or if we had lost jobs instead of gaining jobs.
 
DA60 said:
But why are they doing those things? Because they want to? Or because they have no choice as they cannot find work?...
Click to expand...

Since they aren't looking for a job, then apparently they don't really need a job. Obviously, while many of them claim that they would like a job, finding one isn't worth any effort on their part. I find it hard to be sympathetic to people who can't seem to find the time or energy to look for a job. Anyhow, how do they know that they can't find a job if they aren't looking for one?
 
ludin said:
I look at both of them as well.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

here is a great graph.
you can see where the recessions hit.

however still under bush the U6 number stayed in the 8-10 range.
for Obama it has been falling but it is still in the 10-12% range.

you can see it falling which means more people are working. maybe U6 isn't as good as it does include part-time workers that work for economic reasons only.
U5 would be a good source as well.

I think between U5 and U6 you can get a good picture of what the economy is actually doing.
U3 is great if you only want to look at the active work force.
it is crap when it drops simply because people leave the work force.

more so when more people leave than get hired.
Click to expand...

The U-6 was over 9% for more than half the time that Bush was in office and had hit 12% by the time he left office. It was also over 9% for most of the time that Clinton was in office.
 
Samhain said:
Rates will start climbing this summer. Been tired of gaining .99% on my savings, and I doubt I will see the 8% I had when I was a kid, but I would settle for 3-4%.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you should earn anything without doing something of value? It's rediculous to think that you can just save your money in a savings account or in low risk bonds and make a profit over the inflation rate, you should just be thankful that you got 0.99% last year because inflation was only 0.7%. Expecting to get something for doing nothing is the entitlement mentality, and people who have such expectations are just as bad as welfare slackers.

Long term historically, people never made a profit on low risk savings. Back in the olden days, when people tried to "save" their production, it rotted or was eaten by vermin and thus it lost value over time. Consider yourself fortunate that we live in the day when you can trade your production for the US dollar and put that dollar in a nearly risk free savings account and not lose your savings.

If you expect higher yields, then you should try INVESTING instead of just savings. Our economy doesn't really need your savings, it's pointless and has no value. The fed can produce unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. What we do need are entrapanures and wise investors - people who will put money to work, instead of sitting in their easy chair expecting their money just to magically grow without risk or personal effort.
 
DA60 said:
You cannot look for a job forever without doing something else. Eventually, you have to move on...
Click to expand...

If I was hungry, I would look until I found one. Maybe some of those slackers should get some JOB skills - if they REALLY want to work.
 
Taylor said:
Perhaps it would help if you posted the official methodology where the bls counts all the created, unfilled jobs and inserts that into our employment statistics.
Click to expand...
I am sure that you have quite an awesome point.
 
washunut said:
And yet you said in post #62 she was included in LPFR, which is it???
Click to expand...

Bill Gates and my granny are both included in the LFPR. Everyone is who isn't institutionalized and who is 16 or over. They are included as being in the portion of the potential labor force who aren't participating or trying to participate (seeking a job).
 
The thing I noticed today that I found heartening is that the ratio of seekers to openings has returned to nearly 1:1.

In recent years the number grew to more than 5:1
When there're 5 seekers for every opening, even people who're earnestly seeking employment are likely to have a hard time and take a while to find employment.
 
American said:
Babyboomers did not offically turn 65 until 2011. Since the babyboomer generation were born from 1946 until 1964, hardly any of them are retired (i.e., those born 1946-1948 have retired at 65).
Click to expand...

More are retiring every day, thus the lfpr will continue to decline. And many people don't wait until age 65 til they retire, about 15% of our population retires before age 65.

about half of the decline in the lfpr is due to our aging society - that's a fact.
 
imagep said:
More are retiring every day, thus the lfpr will continue to decline. And many people don't wait until age 65 til they retire, about 15% of our population retires before age 65.

about half of the decline in the lfpr is due to our aging society - that's a fact.
Click to expand...

Where's your source?

LFPR measure only those between the ages of 16 to 64 and excludes students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired as well. So try again.

 
Fenton said:
Lol !!

Thanks for the chart that shows just how innefective Stimulus and QE are when it comes to growing a economy.

8 Trillion in new debt, 4 Trillion in new " liquidity " with a average GDP a little over 2 percent and decreaseing Labor participation rate.
Click to expand...

As far as "labor participation rate" , QE and the stimulus were just as effective as Bush's tax cuts and housing bubble. The number has been climbing at the same rate since Bush was elected. Why is that?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The rate is calculated no different now then it has been for the last couple of decades. So there are no shenanigans going on with the rate.

That said these are solid job gains. After 2008 I never thought we'd see the rate anywhere near 5% again.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Republicans act as if the formula was hacked just for our foreign Muslin Christian Weak Tyrannical POTUS.
 
imagep said:
More are retiring every day, thus the lfpr will continue to decline. And many people don't wait until age 65 til they retire, about 15% of our population retires before age 65.

about half of the decline in the lfpr is due to our aging society - that's a fact.
Click to expand...

You using a acronym to impress me or yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom