Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 197

Thread: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

  1. #91
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Exactly, 92 million grubby dependents likely to vote for the greater hand out. Screw the rest!
    Look at the post above yours.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    The US is an aging population, with 10,000 per day (or 300,000 per month) turning 65. While the act of turning 65 does not mean you retire and leave the workforce, it is a leading indicator and support for why the "not in workforce" number will continue to climb. Its not a bad thing.
    It may explain why we would expect it to rise, but it doesn't explain why it's rising at the rate that it is.

  3. #93
    Sage


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,318

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low | CNS News




    The number of those not unemployed, but employable and not working seems to be going up. This is a crisis in my opinion.
    That 92 million number includes retirees, people in school, parents staying home with children, playboys on yachts and others not looking for work. It is a particularly dishonest number.

    The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave this Three Pinocchios.
    Are there 91 million Americans ‘on the sidelines’ looking for work? - The Washington Post
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  4. #94
    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: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Actually, I was using the seasonally adjusted numbers from Table A-1, but it doesn't really matter.


    Why? What seems off about it?

    Well, first the respondent is asked about work...if they own a business or farm, then if they've worked, and what they've done for work. The question for want to work is "Do you currently want a job?" CPS Questions and Interviewer's Manual



    I'm really not sure how you're reading the table. First is Total Not in the Labor Force: 91,794,000
    Then Persons who currently want a job: 6,382,000 (I have no idea how you got 5,016,000). Not sure why you thing other marginally attached is vague: It's everyone who is marginally attached but not discouraged.

    A better breakdown is Table A-38 which shows some of the reasons why the marginally attached quit looking.

    Where are you getting the idea that all of them are available? Or that they've looked for work? And it's verrrrry interesting you stress "frustration" when that's not true for most.

    Let's look at Table A-38
    Not in the Labor Force, want a job now: 6,382,000
    Of those....3,607,000 have not looked for work (including just asking friends or family) in over a year. So they have little to do with the current month, and are not likely to start looking for work. Seriously, if someone hasn't done anything at all about finding work in over a year, do you think they actually want a job or are being more hypothetical?

    Of the 2,775,000 who have looked in the last year but not last four weeks, 634,000 could not have started work during the reference week if offered a job. So that hurts your "available" claim.

    So now we're down to the Marginally Attached: People who want a job, recently looked for work, could take a job if offered, but not currently looking. Most had to stop for personal reasons....take care of kids, parents, going to school, etc

    So let's think about that. Someone was looking for work, and her elderly parent became ill and she had to act as caregiver. Now, the parent no longer needs care, but she hasn't started to look for work yet. So we can't say she's unemployed.

    Basically..the UE rate is a look at the labor market. Why you would want to include people who aren't looking is beyond me. We're not measuring desire for work, or poverty, or need...just who is trying and failing. If 100 people come into your store and 10 of them didn't buy anything, how many lost sales did you have? 10 lost sales or 7 billion lost sales counting all the people who didn't enter your store?
    I don't usually do long, multi-quote posts...life is way too short, no offense (that goes for everyone). They usually just go on and on and on as both parties often answer every bloody quote.

    But

    1) I got 5,016,000 by subtracting (in Table A-16) 'Other persons marginally attached to the labor force' from 'Persons who currently want a job'.

    2) Thanks for posting the A-38 chart (wish you had done it to start).

    Now with more details available, I would actually raise that number to 5,748,000 who I believe should be counted towards the U-3...which raises the U-3 rate to (hypothetically) 9.4%...yes, I did the last calculation wrong (forgot to add the added unemployed to the work force total).

    I get that number by including everyone who wants a job (6,382,000) minus only the 634,000 who claim they are not available for work...which leaves 5,748,000.

    a) those that 'Did not search for work in previous year' (I wish the bloody BLS would label the lines) I count because they want to work but gave up looking. I could care less what the BLS calls them, I call them unemployed. And I don't care how long they have been not searching - if they have no job, want a job and are available to work on reasonably short notice, then they are unemployed to me. Whether they have looked 'actively' or not is completely irrelevant to me on this. They are called 'discouraged' for a reason.
    I am not going to argue about this...you don't agree - fine, you don't agree.

    b) and the 'marginally attached' are described by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Shiftiness) as 'Persons "marginally attached to the labor force" are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.'

    So, they don't have a job, they want a job and were available to take a job when asked. The secondary reasons are just that, secondary.
    The fact some of them have ill health or a disability does not mean they are not available to work...it just adds a secondary reason for their discouragement. But they still want a job and are available (according to them) to take a job...despite their other problems.
    That means - in my book - they are part of the work force.

    This is simple; if you have no job, want a job and are generally available to work (regardless of your other complications or when you last 'actively' looked for work) - then you are an unemployed member of the work force in my opinion.

    The BLS (and you I assume) don't agree...fine, you don't agree. With respect, I don't much care if you two don't agree.


    Good day.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-07-14 at 06:26 PM.

  5. #95
    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: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

    Additionally to my above post,

    'un·em·ployed (nm-ploid, -m-)
    adj.
    1. Out of work, especially involuntarily; jobless.'


    unemployed - definition of unemployed by The Free Dictionary


    Thus, by definition, any person who is out of work, but wants to work, is unemployed.

    The proper definition of unemployed has NOTHING to do with whether you are 'actively' looking for work or not. Nothing.

    Calling some unemployed people 'marginally attached' or 'underemployed' is, IMO, just the BLS trying to legally twist the numbers to make the unemployment rate look lower - probably on orders from the White House/Congress.


    As far as I am concerned, as I stated in my post directly above and until I see unbiased, factual evidence to the contrary; the actual unemployment rate in the United States for August, 2014 was 9.4%.


    And, once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-07-14 at 10:35 PM.

  6. #96
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,297

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Of course the problem with leading from an article found on a political porn site is we get half the facts.

    No where in this article to they talk about the components of those not in the workforce, which includes stay at home moms (5 million), retirees (42 million per social Monthly Statistical Snapshot, July 2014 .... not including those that retired before applying for social security), the disabled (see social cite) full-time students (21 million - Fast Facts). I, for one, am also not "in the workforce" yet I am..... I do not draw a salary, but have a business (which now employs 70 people).... I may now be in the count, as after 3 years, I have started paying taxes, so I am again on the radar, but there are tons of entrepreneurs in start-up stage very much working (probably much harder than you) that are not in the workforce. This postulate that 92 million people are sitting at home, idle, wishing they had jobs is either an expression of ignorance or disingenuousness. Which is it?

    One of the prime reasons that people are exiting the workforce is that our population is getting older.... FAST. People are retiring.

    The notion we are living in a soft economy, right now anyway, is also an absurdity. Though I recognize that I am a data point of one, I am having a very difficult time finding people in a full employment economy, which is the case in Colorado.
    An administration that declares a 6.1% unemployment rate in this economy is either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #97
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,781

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    An administration that declares a 6.1% unemployment rate in this economy is either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
    neither--but you already knew that as you typed it--I'm sure you were right there questioning GWB's low numbers also--

    and averaging Obama's unemployment numbers,
    which include the Bush disaster numbers for well over a year, is both ignorant and disingenuous .
    Physics is Phun

  8. #98
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,781

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation R ate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Thus, by definition, any person who is out of work, but wants to work, is unemployed.
    Looks like you have a lot of work to do going back in time to rewrite history and recalculate unemployment numbers .
    Physics is Phun

  9. #99
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,781

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    considering that only 60 some million voters have ever voted for a President, so much for your 92 million grubby dependents slam .
    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Exactly, 92 million grubby dependents likely to vote for the greater hand out. Screw the rest!
    Last edited by NIMBY; 09-08-14 at 07:10 AM.
    Physics is Phun

  10. #100
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,297

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
    Do you even know what an MBS is? How a out a credit default swap or an interest rate swap. A monoline insurance company? The government did not force anybody to come up with those extremely complex financial instruments all based for the most part on the value of real estate which was parceled out to such an extent no one even knew who ultimately held the title to the foreclosed homes. But you can believe it was all the fault of the CRA.
    So in your world the CRA can be blamed for nothing at all. Thank you for you input. Next.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •