Nonfarm Payroll employment Increased by 211,000, Unemployment Rate stays at 5%

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
Nope. But it does give a true picture of the labor market.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Discouraged workers believe that they will not be hired even if they look. Some believe it's because there are no jobs at all. Some believe there are no jobs in their field. Some believe there don't have the right skills, education, or experience. Some believe they'll be discriminated against. The point is that these are BELIEFS and may or may not be true. So they are not a good measure for the reality of the labor market. They are a good measure for potential labor.

Huh? If a person is looking for work (and could start immediately) they are unemployed, regardless of whether they ever even had a job, let alone unemployment benefits. If they are not looking for work, they are not unemployed regardless of why (unless they're only temporarily laid off). But I have no idea what that has to do with part time workers. Part time because they can't find a full time job are employed.

It doesn't make any statement about the strength of the U.S. economy....only the labor market.

Where do you think they come from then? Even with the low unemployment rates under Clinton, there were still hundreds of thousands of discouraged.

No, sorry disagree completely, it gives one measure of the labor market ignoring labor participation rate, slow labor force growth, and basically ignores why people are under employed and discouraged

Why exactly should what people FEEL have any affect on the true employment/under employment picture. The numbers of jobs out there should be more of a factor but aren't. Liberalism is about feelings thus more weight is given to people who feel there aren't jobs when the papers tell a different story

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

Conservative said:
No, sorry disagree completely, it gives one measure of the labor market ignoring labor participation rate, slow labor force growth, and basically ignores why people are under employed and discouraged

Correct. And the labor force participation rate gives another, and ignores unemployment. And the U-6 ignores participation and masks actual unemployment.

Why exactly should what people FEEL have any affect on the true employment/under employment picture.

That's what I'm saying. You're the one arguing how people feel should be part of the measurement. Discouraged is all about how people feel, not how hard it is to actually find work. Are you sure you have your definitions correct?

Liberalism is about feelings thus more weight is given to people who feel there aren't jobs when the papers tell a different story

No, you're the one wanting to include people who feel there aren't jobs as unemployed regardless of whether or not there are.

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
Correct. And the labor force participation rate gives another, and ignores unemployment. And the U-6 ignores participation and masks actual unemployment.

That's what I'm saying. You're the one arguing how people feel should be part of the measurement. Discouraged is all about how people feel, not how hard it is to actually find work. Are you sure you have your definitions correct?

No, you're the one wanting to include people who feel there aren't jobs as unemployed regardless of whether or not there are.

No, I am arguing that the 1.3 million discouraged workers skewed the official unemployment rate downward and that is wrong. I don't tout the 5% unemployment rate as a good thing like many here. The 9.9% is a truer picture of the economic conditions in this country and show how poor the Obama economy really is after adding 7.6 trillion o the debt.

Discouraged workers came from where?????????

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

Conservative said:
No, I am arguing that the 1.3 million discouraged workers skewed the official unemployment rate downward and that is wrong.

Why are they classified as Discouraged instead of just Not in the Labor Force? Because of how they FEEL.

Discouraged workers came from where?????????

Discouraged workers are those who stopped looking for work because the FELT there are no jobs. Someone who stopped looking for family reasons or school, or transportation problems is Marginally Attached and also part of the U-6. Someone who stopped looking because they'd just rather couch-surf and smoke pot is Not in the Labor Force. That same person who lies and says he really wants a job but isn't looking because of prejudice is Discouraged.

But why don't you give your definition of what Unemployed should be? I'm honestly curious.

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
Why are they classified as Discouraged instead of just Not in the Labor Force? Because of how they FEEL.

Discouraged workers are those who stopped looking for work because the FELT there are no jobs. Someone who stopped looking for family reasons or school, or transportation problems is Marginally Attached and also part of the U-6. Someone who stopped looking because they'd just rather couch-surf and smoke pot is Not in the Labor Force. That same person who lies and says he really wants a job but isn't looking because of prejudice is Discouraged.

But why don't you give your definition of what Unemployed should be? I'm honestly curious.

Pretty simple, someone collects unemployment and is classified as unemployed, the unemployment insurance runs out, that person remains unemployed and should be counted as such

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

Conservative said:
Pretty simple, someone collects unemployment and is classified as unemployed, the unemployment insurance runs out, that person remains unemployed and should be counted as such

What about people who are not eligible for unemployment insurance or chooses not to collect? Those are currently classified as unemployed, so you've just declared about 4.9 million no longer unemployed. Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment (those who completed temp jobs, job leavers, entrants and reentrants are not usually eligible for UI benefits so you would not count them as unemployed)

And running out of unemployment insurance does not mean a person is no longer classified as unemployed.... So that's no change.

Again...here's how it works...if a person is not working, but is looking for work and can start work immediately, s/he is unemployed...whether or not s/he has ever collected unemployment benefits. If a person is on benefits and runs out...it doesn't make any difference: they're still unemployed. Only if a person stops trying to get a job are they classified differently (and not necessarily discouraged).

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
What about people who are not eligible for unemployment insurance or chooses not to collect? Those are currently classified as unemployed, so you've just declared about 4.9 million no longer unemployed. Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment (those who completed temp jobs, job leavers, entrants and reentrants are not usually eligible for UI benefits so you would not count them as unemployed)

And running out of unemployment insurance does not mean a person is no longer classified as unemployed.... So that's no change.

Again...here's how it works...if a person is not working, but is looking for work and can start work immediately, s/he is unemployed...whether or not s/he has ever collected unemployment benefits. If a person is on benefits and runs out...it doesn't make any difference: they're still unemployed. Only if a person stops trying to get a job are they classified differently (and not necessarily discouraged).

What about determining how many of those 700,000 who became unemployed ran out of unemployment insurance and then stopped looking for work first? Your belief in people claiming they are discouraged simply because they FEEL like they cannot find a job to me isn't qualifications for being not considered unemployed. Again, if they stop looking for work after being officially unemployed they are still unemployed and should be counted.

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

Conservative said:
What about determining how many of those 700,000 who became unemployed ran out of unemployment insurance and then stopped looking for work first?

The survey doesn't ask about unemployment insurance. It does not and has never been part of classification.

Your belief in people claiming they are discouraged simply because they FEEL like they cannot find a job to me isn't qualifications for being not considered unemployed.

Nor me. It doesn't matter what someone feels...either they're available and looking for work (unemployed), or they're Not in the Labor Force. Doesn't matter if they're discouraged, marginally attached, or just don't want to work..if they're not looking or can't start, they're not unemployed. I don't know why you think someone's feelings would make them not unemployed. If someone feels they can't find a job, but are still looking, then they're still unemployed. If someone is sure a job will come along, but isn't looking, he's still Not in the Labor Force.

Again, if they stop looking for work after being officially unemployed they are still unemployed and should be counted.

Since job search is what makes someone officially unemployed, your definition is odd. Example: A woman is looking for a part time job for extra money. She finds out she's pregnant and decides she'd rather stay home with the kid, at least for a few years. Why do you want to say she's unemployed even though she no longer wants to work?
Or someone who is looking for work, but whose disability becomes worse and they can no longer work, so they stop looking. Still unemployed?

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
The survey doesn't ask about unemployment insurance. It does not and has never been part of classification.

Nor me. It doesn't matter what someone feels...either they're available and looking for work (unemployed), or they're Not in the Labor Force. Doesn't matter if they're discouraged, marginally attached, or just don't want to work..if they're not looking or can't start, they're not unemployed. I don't know why you think someone's feelings would make them not unemployed. If someone feels they can't find a job, but are still looking, then they're still unemployed. If someone is sure a job will come along, but isn't looking, he's still Not in the Labor Force.

Since job search is what makes someone officially unemployed, your definition is odd. Example: A woman is looking for a part time job for extra money. She finds out she's pregnant and decides she'd rather stay home with the kid, at least for a few years. Why do you want to say she's unemployed even though she no longer wants to work?
Or someone who is looking for work, but whose disability becomes worse and they can no longer work, so they stop looking. Still unemployed?

Of course it doesn't but you are very willing to remove discouraged workers from the roles of the unemployed simply based upon how someone answers a survey and how someone else feels. I don't put any faith regardless of who is in office for the official rate without studying the data and finding out how many are discouraged, how many are part time for economic reasons.. Let's just hire millions and millions of part time workers and put millions more as discouraged, then you can make the unemployment rate anything you want

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

Conservative said:
Of course it doesn't but you are very willing to remove discouraged workers from the roles of the unemployed simply based upon how someone answers a survey and how someone else feels.

I really don't know what you mean. No one is removed from classification of unemployed based on how anyone feels. It is based on a survey, and a person's answers are matched up with the definitions and a person is classified accordingly.

How do you think the classification and process currently works? I'm pretty sure we're talking past each other.

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
I really don't know what you mean. No one is removed from classification of unemployed based on how anyone feels. It is based on a survey, and a person's answers are matched up with the definitions and a person is classified accordingly.

How do you think the classification and process currently works? I'm pretty sure we're talking past each other.

By definition, you are wrong

In economics, a discouraged worker is a person of legal employment age who is not actively seeking employment or who does not find employment after long-term unemployment. This is usually because an individual has given up looking or has had no success in finding a job, hence the term "discouraged".

In other words, even if a person is still looking actively for a job, that person may have fallen out of the core statistics of unemployment rate after long-term unemployment and is therefore by default classified as "discouraged" (since the person does not appear in the core statistics of unemployment rate). In some cases, their belief may derive from a variety of factors including a shortage of jobs in their locality or line of work; discrimination for reasons such as age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability; a lack of necessary skills, training, or experience; or, a chronic illness or disability.[1]

As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

Conservative said:
By definition, you are wrong

That definition is wrong and does not correctly describe discouraged workers.

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
That definition is wrong and does not correctly describe discouraged workers.

LOL, of course it is, discouraged workers taken out off the unemployment roles does what to the unemployment rate?

pinqy · Dec 9, 2015

A Discouraged worker is someone behold is NOT currently looking for work.
BLS Glossary
Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.

Conservative · Dec 9, 2015

pinqy said:
A Discouraged worker is someone behold is NOT currently looking for work.
BLS Glossary
Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.

So the operative definition here and what you and others want to give Obama credit for is information affect by people who are available to work but aren't currently looking for work because they believe there are no jobs available? Interesting so how do you get that information and isn't the govt. relying on individuals being honest? Isn't it possible that there in incentive to get people to declare themselves discouraged to understate the unemployment numbers? If someone is able to work, eligible to work and aren't working, aren't they unemployed?

Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify

.[/

pinqy · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
So the operative definition here and what you and others want to give Obama credit for is information affect by people who are available to work but aren't currently looking for work because they believe there are no jobs available?

Where have I given credit to anyone? And discouraged a very small part of those not in the labor force....less than half even of the marginally attached. You seem to think there are only three categories: employed, officially unemployed, and discouraged. You keep ignoring the millions not trying to work who aren't discouraged.

Interesting so how do you get that information and isn't the govt. relying on individuals being honest?

Sure. Which is one of the reasons why discouraged is not a good indicator. No one is going to lie and say they're not looking for work when they really are, but many people not looking will claim they actual want a job, but make excuses as to why they're not looking.

Isn't it possible that there in incentive to get people to declare themselves discouraged to understate the unemployment numbers?

No. It's not possible. It wouldn't make any sense. Even if you wanted to understate unemployment, why get them to say discouraged instead of just don't want a job? Why try to lower the U-3 but not the U-4, U-5, or U-6?

If someone is able to work, eligible to work and aren't working, aren't they unemployed?

No. Many people don't want to work. I don't even know what "eligible to work means." And what we want to look at is how many people could be working but aren't.

If you were a hiring manager and wanted to know how many people you could have hired last week, do you consider job applications from 6 months ago? Do you consider the people who picked up applications and never turned them in? Of course not.

.[/[/QUOTE]

Kushinator · Dec 10, 2015

pinqy said:
Where have I given credit to anyone? And discouraged a very small part of those not in the labor force....less than half even of the marginally attached. You seem to think there are only three categories: employed, officially unemployed, and discouraged. You keep ignoring the millions not trying to work who aren't discouraged.

IMO, you are wasting your time by trying to reason with one of, if not the biggest, political hacks on this site. He continues to attack strawmen, e.g. claiming you are supporting Obama when you've yet to make a single political statement. Dude lives in his own world.

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

pinqy;1065345447]Where have I given credit to anyone? And discouraged a very small part of those not in the labor force....less than half even of the marginally attached. You seem to think there are only three categories: employed, officially unemployed, and discouraged. You keep ignoring the millions not trying to work who aren't discouraged.

Yes, that is true but 1.3 million are Americans who do not believe the economy is good enough to support their effort to find a job. You really have a passion for this issue as do I especially when it comes to people giving Obama credit for cutting the unemployment rate to 5%. He did so by creating part time workers and discouraged. Does it really matter how many for it if is one it still affects the unemployment rate

Sure. Which is one of the reasons why discouraged is not a good indicator. No one is going to lie and say they're not looking for work when they really are, but many people not looking will claim they actual want a job, but make excuses as to why they're not looking.

Is that right? how do you know? That is the problem with the official unemployment rate, it is affected by discouraged workers as well as part time employment for people who are part time because of economic reasons

No. It's not possible. It wouldn't make any sense. Even if you wanted to understate unemployment, why get them to say discouraged instead of just don't want a job? Why try to lower the U-3 but not the U-4, U-5, or U-6?

Discouraged workers and part time employees affect the Unemployment rate in different ways, discouraged workers understate the unemployment rate and part time workers overstate the low rate especially those part time for economic reasons

No. Many people don't want to work. I don't even know what "eligible to work means." And what we want to look at is how many people could be working but aren't.

If they are able to work, originally unemployed, but now classified as discouraged they should be counted. I am still waiting for your explanation as to why the discouraged workers rose from Bush levels to 1.3 million?

If you were a hiring manager and wanted to know how many people you could have hired last week, do you consider job applications from 6 months ago? Do you consider the people who picked up applications and never turned them in? Of course not.

No, I would hire people who took A job which wasn't necessarily THE job because that shows initiative and drive rather than living long term off unemployment

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

Kushinator said:
IMO, you are wasting your time by trying to reason with one of, if not the biggest, political hacks on this site. He continues to attack strawmen, e.g. claiming you are supporting Obama when you've yet to make a single political statement. Dude lives in his own world.

LOL, political hack? I find it interesting that people who claim to have so much knowledge are so street stupid. Never said that he supported Obama, just a policy that provides unemployment numbers that supporters of Obama trumpet as a success.

pinqy · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
Yes, that is true but 1.3 million are Americans who do not believe the economy is good enough to support their effort to find a job.

Where are you getting that number from? There are only about 594,000 discouraged. But my point is that discouraged make no more difference than any other Not in the Labor Force when it comes to Unemployment. Your source was wrong: people looking for work are not and cannot be classified as discouraged.

He did so by creating part time workers and discouraged. Does it really matter how many for it if is one it still affects the unemployment rate

How did he "create" either?

Is that right? how do you know?

Besides common sense? And working in that field for over a decade? What incentive or reason can you think of for anyone looking for work to falsely claim to be discouraged?

That is the problem with the official unemployment rate, it is affected by discouraged workers as well as part time employment for people who are part time because of economic reasons

Person A is employed full time. Business is slow and his hours are cut to 32 hours/week. He is now part time for economic reasons. How has that affected the UE rate?
Person B and Person C are both unemployed looking for full time work. Person B gets a full time job, Person C takes a part time job because he can't find anything else. How does C affect the UE rate differently from B? For both, unemployment is down by one and employment up by one.
D, E, F, and G were all unemployed. D wins the lottery, doesn't want a job anymore and stops looking. E wants a job, but her mother is sick, so she stops looking to take care of her mom. F was the same as E, but his mom is better now, but F hasn't started looking for work yet, though he's available. G stops looking because all he can find are minimum wage jobs and he doesn't want one of those. For D, E, F, and G, they all left the labor force. D is Not in the Labor Force, does not want a job. E is Not in the Labor Force, wants a job. F is marginally attached. G is discouraged.

So, you claim that A, C, and G affect the UE rate, but not any of the others? Or at least that C affects it differently than B. Why is that?

Discouraged workers and part time employees affect the Unemployment rate in different ways, discouraged workers understate the unemployment rate and part time workers overstate the low rate especially those part time for economic reasons

They only understate it or overstate it if you redefine them to be the same as unemployed. Which no one ever has.

If they are able to work, originally unemployed, but now classified as discouraged they should be counted.

What about the marginally attached who are not discouraged? And you still haven't explained why discouraged should be considered the same as people actually trying to work.

I am still waiting for your explanation as to why the discouraged workers rose from Bush levels to 1.3 million?

Because there was a recession and more people stopped looking for work and many, but not all, claimed it was due to discouragement.

No, I would hire people who took A job which wasn't necessarily THE job because that shows initiative and drive rather than living long term off unemployment

I didn't ask who you would hire. I asked what the maximum possible number of people you could have hired if you had enough slots. How many people were available for you to hire, whether or not they were qualified? Would you consider a 6 month old resume with no updates available? Would you consider someone who read your classified ad but who didn't respond to it someone available?

Look at it this way. 50 people are not working. A company announces they're hiring. 45 people show up, 30 get hired. If the company had 50 slots, how many people would have been hired? If the company needed at least 50 people to open a new branch, could they be sure they'd have enough bodies?

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

pinqy;1065345871]Where are you getting that number from? There are only about 594,000 discouraged. But my point is that discouraged make no more difference than any other Not in the Labor Force when it comes to Unemployment. Your source was wrong: people looking for work are not and cannot be classified as discouraged.

You know exactly where the number came from since you are an expert on BLS. There is a reason that GW Bush had an average of 450,000 discouraged workers over his term and Obama close to a million, where did those extra people come from

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2005 to 2015

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917
2014 837 755 698 783 697 676 741 775 698 770 698 740
2015 682 732 738 756 563 653 668 624 635 665 594

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

How did he "create" either?

Very poor economic policy, the stimulus and Obamacare

Besides common sense? And working in that field for over a decade? What incentive or reason can you think of for anyone looking for work to falsely claim to be discouraged?

Unemployment benefits being more than minimum wage in some states but that is short term thinking. Taking a job makes one more marketable than someone who collected unemployment for 1 1/2 years

Person A is employed full time. Business is slow and his hours are cut to 32 hours/week. He is now part time for economic reasons. How has that affected the UE rate?
Person B and Person C are both unemployed looking for full time work. Person B gets a full time job, Person C takes a part time job because he can't find anything else. How does C affect the UE rate differently from B? For both, unemployment is down by one and employment up by one.
D, E, F, and G were all unemployed. D wins the lottery, doesn't want a job anymore and stops looking. E wants a job, but her mother is sick, so she stops looking to take care of her mom. F was the same as E, but his mom is better now, but F hasn't started looking for work yet, though he's available. G stops looking because all he can find are minimum wage jobs and he doesn't want one of those. For D, E, F, and G, they all left the labor force. D is Not in the Labor Force, does not want a job. E is Not in the Labor Force, wants a job. F is marginally attached. G is discouraged.

Have you ever worked in the private sector? All speculation and situations that are unique and not the norm. Where did the over million discouraged workers come from after Obama took office and why so much more than most of the Bush term?

They only understate it or overstate it if you redefine them to be the same as unemployed. Which no one ever has.

Have you been paying attention to the posts here? People are giving Obama credit for the 5% unemployment rate ignoring the 9.9% U-6 rate and the true state of the economy. That is my entire point

What about the marginally attached who are not discouraged? And you still haven't explained why discouraged should be considered the same as people actually trying to work. Because there was a recession and more people stopped looking for work and many, but not all, claimed it was due to discouragement.

See above, it is about perception and reality. discouraged workers need to be better defined and put into categories. Simply not looking for work because they feel the economy doesn't have a job for them should make them part of the official unemployment number

I didn't ask who you would hire. I asked what the maximum possible number of people you could have hired if you had enough slots. How many people were available for you to hire, whether or not they were qualified? Would you consider a 6 month old resume with no updates available? Would you consider someone who read your classified ad but who didn't respond to it someone available?

The paper is full of want ads so don't tell me there aren't jobs available

pinqy · Dec 10, 2015

Conservative said:
Unemployment benefits being more than minimum wage in some states but that is short term thinking. Taking a job makes one more marketable than someone who collected unemployment for 1 1/2 years

WTF? That has nothing to do with what I asked Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with anything. You suggested there was an incentive for people to report themselves as discouraged instead of unemployed. I asked what that would be.

Have you ever worked in the private sector? All speculation and situations that are unique and not the norm. Where did the over million discouraged workers come from after Obama took office and why so much more than most of the Bush term?

Please answer my question. You claimed that part time for economic reasons and discouraged have affected the UE rate. I'm asking you to clarify.
A did not affect the UE rate at all.
B and C affected it the same way, though only C was part time for economic reasons.
D, E, F, and G all affected it the same way, though only G is discouraged.
Agree or disagree, and please explain.

See above, it is about perception and reality. discouraged workers need to be better defined and put into categories. Simply not looking for work because they feel the economy doesn't have a job for them should make them part of the official unemployment number.

WHY????? How does that help us understand the ACTUAL labor market?

The paper is full of want ads so don't tell me there aren't jobs available

Then why is anyone discouraged? But again, you ignore the scenario. If 10 apply for a job with you, what is the maximum number you could hire? The answer is 10. Is that so hard? You want to count discouraged as unemployed? How can you hire someone who hasn't applied for a job??

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

pinqy;1065345970]WTF? That has nothing to do with what I asked Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with anything. You suggested there was an incentive for people to report themselves as discouraged instead of unemployed. I asked what that would be.

The incentive is for the Administration to get them reported as discouraged vs unemployed. You obviously know why

Please answer my question. You claimed that part time for economic reasons and discouraged have affected the UE rate. I'm asking you to clarify.
A did not affect the UE rate at all.
B and C affected it the same way, though only C was part time for economic reasons.
D, E, F, and G all affected it the same way, though only G is discouraged.
Agree or disagree, and please explain.

Employed part time for economic reasons truly indicates the state of the economy and that is the issue. If people weren't under employed the economy would be better. You ignore the context of what I am arguing. Try to get some help, people here are touting the low unemployment rate as a tribute to Obama and they do so by not truly understanding the numbers which you do but want to argue against. This is about what is the true state of the economy and that isn't truly represented by the official unemployment rate touted here by Obama supporters

Conservative · Dec 10, 2015

pinqy said:
Where are you getting that number from? There are only about 594,000 discouraged. But my point is that discouraged make no more difference than any other Not in the Labor Force when it comes to Unemployment. Your source was wrong: people looking for work are not and cannot be classified as discouraged.

Looks like you "conveniently ignored the Discouraged Chart from BLS I posted, why am I not surprised. You asked a question and I answered it, now you ignore the answer and yet you do not claim to be a liberal?

Nonfarm Payroll employment Increased by 211,000, Unemployment Rate stays at 5%

I'm not-low all the time