Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 197

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

  1. #121
    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 JasperL View Post
    The BLS reports all those numbers and has six alternate definitions of "unemployment rate" to cover multiple scenarios. Are you saying the "official" rate that is now designated as U-3 ought to be U-5 or U-6? That would be fine, but as someone else pointed out, you'll have to go back in time and redefine "unemployment" from at least the early Clinton administration, which is as I recall the last time the definitions were changed. Or, you could pull U-5 and/or U-6 from all those years and present that in a graph for a more comprehensive look at true "unemployment."
    1) The only official unemployment rate is the U-3...you surely know as well as I do that almost no one in either the mass media or amongst the ignorant masses pays any attention to anything but the U-3.

    2) Why do you need to go back and change past U-3's?
    When they changed the CPI calculation process over the years, they did not go back and change previous years/decades CPI levels (to my knowledge).

    Besides, it ain't hard to change the previous numbers if you did decide to do so. You just take those that I think should be included (as I mentioned above) and add that number to both the work force and the unemployed numbers and redo the calculation. It would take all of 45 seconds per year. Big deal.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-08-14 at 05:02 PM.

  2. #122
    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
    The definition you cite says nothing about "wants to work" nor does it say anything about availability, which you include in yours.

    By the dictionary definition, children, prisoners, people in institutions, are all unemployed. Only those working are not unemployed by the dictionary definition...which would put the unemployment rate at around 54%.
    Come on now.

    First, I am not talking about the Civilian Noninstitutional Population - I am obviously talking about the Labor Force.

    The definition for the former is:

    'Civilian noninstitutional population: Persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, who are not inmates of institutions (e.g., penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.'

    The definition of the latter is:

    'Civilian labor force: All persons in the civilian noninstitutional population classified as either employed or unemployed.'

    How are the labor force components (i.e., civilian noninstitutional population, civilian labor force, employed, unemployed, and unemployment rate) defined?


    Second, I guess you missed the part in my linked definition that said 'especially involuntarily'.

    Which obviously means, in essence, that anyone who does want to work.



    Listen, I don't much care about your opinions on this. I ONLY care about your technical knowledge because (according to you) you supposedly worked at the BLS.

    I don't care what your interpretations of various BLS bullsh!t is...I ONLY care about raw data and actual definitions.

    No offense, but why on Earth would I care in the slightest what some faceless, nameless guy on a chat forum (with an apparent closed mind on this subject) thinks about this? ANd that goes for anyone else that fits that description on almost any subject.

    The same goes for your previous post - which I basically saw no links within so I ignored it.





    Good day.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-08-14 at 05:12 PM.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Yeah, leave it to a member of the Ayn Rand Institute to blame the government.....

    I see yours and raise you mine (and my Forbes article is by an actual published contributor to Forbes, not something written on their website....)

    http://www.business.cch.com/bankingf...ime_WP_rev.pdf
    Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
    Thomas, Hennessey and Holtz-Eakin: What Caused the Financial Crisis? - WSJ
    Three Causes of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis - ForensisGroup.com


    I can also give you a first hand witness account of this as I did a considerable amount of business planning for a boiler-room mortgage originator with big credit lines (and tons of unreasonable incentive) provided by Lehman and Countrywide.
    I've read three or four books on the bubble and burst and it's just clear that this was mostly deregulation gone amok. The data is there, the accounts of insiders confirm it. But all that really isn't needed. The bottom line is the lenders at that time were begging people to take out loans - the commercials ran non-stop in my region - low doc, no doc, bad credit, "Take out a home equity loan - go to Paris!!!" etc. The stock prices for the big lenders were hitting all time highs. Bonuses hitting all time highs for the CEOs, all the way down to individual selling loans who were all paid huge bonuses to get a warm body sign on the dotted line. Multiple people have testified about widespread fraud on the part of lenders to fake income numbers to get loans approved. Etc.

    To believe the lenders were "forced" to do anything defies belief. They were making record profits, record bonuses, and people are honestly claiming the government "forced" them to rake money in by the bucketful? It's crazy talk.

    Second and even more damning is there was a WORLDWIDE debt and housing bubble. The "it was all the democrats' fault" people will have to explain how CRA reached most of Europe, and allowed debt and housing bubbles bigger than our own. The bottom line is a global bubble requires a global cause and that global cause was a worldwide flood of easy money, make largely possible by the ballooning of derivatives from roughly a standing start to $600T in notional amounts outstanding.

    Sept09_CF1.jpg

    Barry Ritholtz does a good job debunking the right wing talking points here:

    Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    1) The only official unemployment rate is the U-3...you surely know as well as I do that almost no one in either the mass media or amongst the ignorant masses pays any attention to anything but the U-3.

    2) Why do you need to go back and change past U-3's?
    When they changed the CPI calculation process over the years, they did not go back and change previous years/decades CPI levels (to my knowledge).

    Besides, it ain't hard to change the previous numbers if you did decide to do so. You just take those that I think should be included (as I mentioned above) and add that number to both the work force and the unemployed numbers and redo the calculation. It would take all of 45 seconds per year. Big deal.
    The point is all those numbers are gathered and reported, with apples to apples comparisons over decades. U-3 in 2014 = U-3 in 1994 = U-3 in 2004. It would be easier to convince the "media" to ignore U-3 and quote only U-5 or U-6.

    Look, I get it, you think the employment situation is worse than the "official" numbers suggest. Probably, although the "official" number has always had the same biases you're complaining about. And I agree that U-3 doesn't tell the whole story, but all it takes to tell the whole story is to pick one of the other definitions already reported by BLS and just focus on THAT. The data are there. I just don't see the big deal here. Anyone who cares about the data knows where to find the numbers.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,228

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I've read three or four books on the bubble and burst and it's just clear that this was mostly deregulation gone amok. The data is there, the accounts of insiders confirm it. But all that really isn't needed. The bottom line is the lenders at that time were begging people to take out loans - the commercials ran non-stop in my region - low doc, no doc, bad credit, "Take out a home equity loan - go to Paris!!!" etc. The stock prices for the big lenders were hitting all time highs. Bonuses hitting all time highs for the CEOs, all the way down to individual selling loans who were all paid huge bonuses to get a warm body sign on the dotted line. Multiple people have testified about widespread fraud on the part of lenders to fake income numbers to get loans approved. Etc.

    To believe the lenders were "forced" to do anything defies belief. They were making record profits, record bonuses, and people are honestly claiming the government "forced" them to rake money in by the bucketful? It's crazy talk.

    Second and even more damning is there was a WORLDWIDE debt and housing bubble. The "it was all the democrats' fault" people will have to explain how CRA reached most of Europe, and allowed debt and housing bubbles bigger than our own. The bottom line is a global bubble requires a global cause and that global cause was a worldwide flood of easy money, make largely possible by the ballooning of derivatives from roughly a standing start to $600T in notional amounts outstanding.

    Sept09_CF1.jpg

    Barry Ritholtz does a good job debunking the right wing talking points here:

    Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

    LOL !!

    What " Books " have you read ? 3 or 4 huh ?

    And you still dont know what you're talking about.

    Its easy to believe the Federal Government forced lenders to lower their standards.

    Janet Reno even bragged about the effectiveness of the new CRA regulations in 1998. Said the New Regulations forced banks to offer " fair credit ".

    She bragged about the 13 lenders she successfully sued so far and the coming new lawsuits she had planned.

    And it wasn't just the DOJ targeting lenders. HUD sued banks and so did Plaintiff attorney's like Barrak Obama.

    All for " discrimination ".

    It worked apparently. Homeowner-ship under Clinton shot up from 63 percent in 1993 to 68 percent in 2000.

    Yay for lowering standards.....

    It rose another 1 percent under Bush
    Last edited by Fenton; 09-08-14 at 05:25 PM.

  6. #126
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    LOL !!

    What " Books " have you read ? 3 or 4 huh ?
    You want to address the worldwide bubble and explain how Janet Reno forced lenders in Spain to make loans to deadbeats? And it's LOL funny to believe lenders raking in record profits and record bonuses on record stock values were "forced" to do a damn thing.

    Oh please Pres. Bush and Pres. Clinton, please, please don't throw us in the briar patch!!!

    And you give away your right wing bias by not mentioning anything that happened post Clinton, except to blame Obama - WFT?. You funny.
    Last edited by JasperL; 09-08-14 at 05:29 PM.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,228

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    You want to address the worldwide bubble and explain how Janet Reno forced lenders in Spain to make loans to deadbeats?

    Yea sure, because its impossible to research Subprime and easy credit bubbles on a National scale...

    No, they must have all been interlinked....so NOT the Democrats fault.....yea right.

    Nations like Spain, Italy and Ireland actually participated in their own isolated credit bubbles, beleive it or not.

    All you have to do is READ about it. For example, Spain's Banks borrowed bueacuop dollars and then made tons of loans to Spanish developers.

    Those developers went and built literal ghost towns.

    One has a a international sized airport and everything. ....its brand new and it sits EMPTY right now.

    Those entire ghost towns sit empty filled with brand new infrastructure, homes, apartments and of course empty airports.

    Spanish Politicians actually were prosecuted for it. Go read about it, nothing is stopping you but your loyalty to a false narrative.

    With respect to Americas Subprime Fiasco, ALLOT of our poison DID make it out into the International Capital Market's

    In the form of bundles and bundles of securities backed by Subprime loans tucked away in CDO tranches like little time bombs waiting to go off.

    When they DID go off they corrupted the entire CDO portfolio and nearly Collapsed Capital markets all over the world.

    I actually HAVE read books on this subject, and HAVE researched it thoroughly and literally none of it is good news for the Democrats.

  8. #128
    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 JasperL View Post
    The point is all those numbers are gathered and reported, with apples to apples comparisons over decades. U-3 in 2014 = U-3 in 1994 = U-3 in 2004. It would be easier to convince the "media" to ignore U-3 and quote only U-5 or U-6.

    Look, I get it, you think the employment situation is worse than the "official" numbers suggest. Probably, although the "official" number has always had the same biases you're complaining about. And I agree that U-3 doesn't tell the whole story, but all it takes to tell the whole story is to pick one of the other definitions already reported by BLS and just focus on THAT. The data are there. I just don't see the big deal here. Anyone who cares about the data knows where to find the numbers.
    Do you honestly think the government is going to focus on a U- number that is higher then the current U-3? Especially if it is not called the 'official' unemployment rate?

    Of course they won't.

    And the mass media will probably do the same.

    If you want the government/mass media to acknowledge a higher unemployment calculation process - then you - imo - HAVE to start calling it the 'Official' unemployment rate or almost no one will pay attention to it.

    And unfortunately, almost no sitting government is going to do that unless they have no choice.


    I appreciate your apparent open mind on this - but I personally think you have to change the official unemployment rate or the vast majority will ignore it.

    I bet you most Americans do not even know what the U-6 is.

  9. #129
    Guru
    Hari Seldon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,574

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    So in your world the CRA can be blamed for nothing at all. Thank you for you input. Next.
    My world and those that live in the real world. Backed up by studies and numbers. All you have is "faith" that the CRA must be the main cause because you want to blame democrats. You should put your post in the Religion Thread.

    Have a wonderful evening.
    Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
    Isaac Asimov

  10. #130
    Guru
    Hari Seldon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,574

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    LOL !!

    Yes, the GSEs are bankrupt because they bought " PRIME " loans.

    Trillions in CDOs all over the world went belly up all at once because their tranches were filled with Securities backed by " Prime " Loans.

    Give me a break.

    Problem with that assertion is even Clintons AG disagreed with it as she specifically mentioned the 1995 CRA changes as the mechanism for the 86 percent increase in CRA commitments from 1995 to 1998.

    What's qualifies as a CRA loan ? Well according to Clinton appointee Jamie Gorelick ( Vice Chair at Fannie Mae ) they were ANY loan made with " flexible underwriting techniques " and up to 3 percent down.

    AThe Federal Reserve Boards assesment lacks allot of credibility considering they didn't even mention that the CRA laws were CHANGED in 1995.
    Got it , the Federal Reserve lacks credibility. I guess The Daily Caller would have been a better source. Sorry.

    Fannie Mae reported net income of $3.7 Billion for the 2nd qtr 2014, $17 Billion in 2012 and $84 Billion in 2013. The Treasury is doing quite well on their investment. Like GM they have recovered nicely and have improved their standards and operations. The credit union I work for sells directly to them and they are quite diligent with what they buy along with monthly reporting and settlements. If they scrutinize our small portfolio and we are a drop in the bucket of their $3.3 Trillion Balance Sheet. The government taking them over was a good thing and us being able to sell mortgages enables us to do more loans. I wonder if I can find those CATO Institute opinions that claimed the GSE's weren't doing enough for low income buyers. Too funny.
    Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
    Isaac Asimov

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •