• 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!

U.S. Payrolls Gain More-Than-Expected 200,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 8.5%

Technically, no, the report methodology is always changing, and the most recent change actually revised the last 4 years of unemployment numbers up by about .2%.

And next month is another methodology change. You can read about it in the OP link to the bls report.

That is not number manipulation.
 
Now my emphasis. LOL.

The pressing question, then, after a positive four-month run in the market is sustainability. Expectations for today's report already had been strong, but the primary concern is whether the hirings were mostly seasonal and would fade once the economy gets back to tangling with the unresolved questions of European debt crisis contagion and the political stalemate in Washington.

Some economists warned that the steadying in markets came about because Europe's debt woes have faded from the headlines, a trend unlikely to last.

"With the boost from these temporary factors fading and concerns in Europe resurfacing, we expect the US economy to slow in the second half of the year," Neil Dutta, economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a note. "Consider the stronger data we've seen a reversion to the mean as opposed to the start of a new trend."
 
Correct, but they also aren't "... done the same way they've always been done." as you stated.

I was responding to a post by someone that called it manipulation. Context matters. I was arguing against the idea that numbers are being intentially skewed in order to show a lower unemployment rate, not that seasonally adjusted benchmarks never change.
 
The numbers are not manipulated...they are done the same way they've always been done.

Yes, since 1994, but discouraged workers have never been at this level since being dropped from the labor force

Please answer the following questions

We have a growing population and a declining labor force, how is that positive?
We have people dropping off the unemployment roles because theya re discouraged, how is that positive?
We have almost 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans, how is that positive?
We have more unemployed today than when Obama took office by over a million, how is that positive when the debt has increased by 4.5 trillion dollars?
 
We have a growing population and a declining labor force, how is that positive?
We have people dropping off the unemployment roles because theya re discouraged, how is that positive?
We have almost 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans, how is that positive?
We have more unemployed today than when Obama took office by over a million, how is that positive when the debt has increased by 4.5 trillion dollars?

Job growth is trending in a good direction. That's the good news. We all know that no matter what happens you will try to criticize any good news as long as Obama is President. Job growth can either drop, remain stable, or increase. It's increased...that's good news.
 
Job growth is trending in a good direction. That's the good news. We all know that no matter what happens you will try to criticize any good news as long as Obama is President. Job growth can either drop, remain stable, or increase. It's increased...that's good news.

So declining labor force, more discouraged workers, 4.5 trillion added to the debt is a good thing and a trend in the right direction? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
So declining labor force, more discouraged workers, 4.5 trillion added to the debt is a good thing and a trend in the right direction? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

I said job gain increasing is a good trend. Nobody mentioned anything about the labor force, discouraged workers or debt. You're the one talking about those things. Quit being such a Debbie Downer your hate of Obama has turned you into a pill.
 
I said job gain increasing is a good trend. Nobody mentioned anything about the labor force, discouraged workers or debt. You're the one talking about those things. Quit being such a Debbie Downer your hate of Obama has turned you into a pill.

But we aren't gaining jobs, do you not understand what a declining labor force means? I hate Obama economic policies and the results indicate that I am right.
 
But we aren't gaining jobs, do you not understand what a declining labor force means? I hate Obama economic policies and the results indicate that I am right.

We are gaining jobs. The unemployment % takes into account labor force and available jobs. The number of jobs created per month has nothing to do with labor force.

I'm not saying your wrong in saying that those number DO matter. The fact is, people are aware of those numbers and nobody is touting it's "Morning in America". We're working from a huge hole facing a lot of uncertainty so the fact we're seeing the number of jobs created each month increase....is good news.
 
We are gaining jobs. The unemployment % takes into account labor force and available jobs. The number of jobs created per month has nothing to do with labor force.

I'm not saying your wrong in saying that those number DO matter. The fact is, people are aware of those numbers and nobody is touting it's "Morning in America". We're working from a huge hole facing a lot of uncertainty so the fact we're seeing the number of jobs created each month increase....is good news.

it has to be put into perspective, it has been 2 1/2 years after the end of the recession and we still have more unemployed, fewer employed, and a lower labor than when Obama took office. That is a concern as cost to generate those job increases, 4.5 trillion dollars. It does seem that 15.1 trillion in debt is something many cannot comprehend but that is more than the yearly GDP of the country. Bush left the country a 10.6 trillion dollar debt and that debt is now up 4.5 trillion dollars. That isn't good long term for America.
 
That is not number manipulation.

Actually it is number manipulation. Done by a formula that is construed to create a false result when there are severe fluctuations in numbers, as we have had in the last 3 years, that being the decline of the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR).

Give this a look:

Labor%20Force%201.jpg


That far right drop shows a drop in number of people counted as the work force. It has dropped precipitously under Obama. You can blame the Recession, which is fine, but regardless, the formula used to calculate this 8.5% is artificially skewered when there are radical changes in the workforce, essentially presenting a false number. The dotted line represents the mean since 1980. When calculated against the mean, our unemployment rate is a more accurate 11.4%

Here is a look at a more realistic measure, if we hold the work force rate at the mean:

Labor%20Force%203_0.jpg


For the most part, the implied numbers, those arrived at by adjusting for the flaws created by the Work Force fluctuations, mirror the actual reported numbers with regard to trends. This is because most changes in the Work Force have been more gradual. However, when looking at the top graph, you see the precipitous drop that has happened in the last 3 years. When looking at the bottom chart, we see an actual fallacy in the numbers, in that the actual (implied) employment situation is trending worse in the past 3 years, while the reported employment says it is getting better.

While December was essentially a break-even month, and the numbers are improved for the year, the trend is still that we are stagnant, as adding 1.6 million jobs in a year is actually just at or below what is considered break-even for any year, due to population growth.

more: Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate | ZeroHedge
 
Last edited:
I was responding to a post by someone that called it manipulation. Context matters. I was arguing against the idea that numbers are being intentially skewed in order to show a lower unemployment rate, not that seasonally adjusted benchmarks never change.


Bologna!

It won't surprise anyone that as of December, the real implied unemployment rate was 11.4% (final chart) - basically where it has been ever since 2009 - and at 2.9% delta to reported, represents the widest divergence to reported data since the early 1980s. And because we know this will be the next question, extending this lunacy, America will officially have no unemployed, when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election.

Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate | ZeroHedge

And just for those partisans that will no doubt say that this is just unreliable opinion...

Typically, I try to tie the beginning of Wonkbook to the news. But today, the most important sentence isn't a report on something that just happened, but a fresh look at something that's been happening for the last three years. In particular, it's this sentence by the Financial Times' Ed Luce, who writes, "According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."

Remember that the unemployment rate is not "how many people don't have jobs?", but "how many people don't have jobs and are actively looking for them?" Let's say you've been looking fruitlessly for five months and realize you've exhausted every job listing in your area. Discouraged, you stop looking, at least for the moment. According to the government, you're no longer unemployed. Congratulations?

Wonkbook: The real unemployment rate is 11 percent - The Washington Post

The numbers are pure, unadulterated BS! and anyone doing their rah, rah cheering for Obama based on them are dupes.

j-mac
 
Actually it is number manipulation. Done by a formula that is construed to create a false result when there are severe fluctuations in numbers, as we have had in the last 3 years, that being the decline of the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR).
It is not number manipulation it's a system that is flawed when facing long term unemployment and disporportionately high number of discouraged workers. The last time we have a recession even comparable to now is the 1970's and the gap (using your last graph) between real and reported unemployment was even higher than it is now.
 
it has to be put into perspective, it has been 2 1/2 years after the end of the recession and we still have more unemployed, fewer employed, and a lower labor than when Obama took office. That is a concern as cost to generate those job increases, 4.5 trillion dollars. It does seem that 15.1 trillion in debt is something many cannot comprehend but that is more than the yearly GDP of the country. Bush left the country a 10.6 trillion dollar debt and that debt is now up 4.5 trillion dollars. That isn't good long term for America.

Of course not, no one is arguing the long term economic stagnation is good for America or that massive deficit spending is good.

The disagreement is that any good news has to be discounted because we haven't completely rebounded over night.
 
The numbers are pure, unadulterated BS! and anyone doing their rah, rah cheering for Obama based on them are dupes.

Like I mentioned....they are not BS...the measurement is flawed.....if we include those that are not actively looking for a job the new norm for unemployment would be higher even during good times.

There's two methods...you can either always include everyone even if they aren't actively searching skewing the numbers higher than what unemployment would normally be....or you can discount anyone not actively which is accurate in a good job market but is skewed lower during a long term bad job market.

This is not a new issue....I remember having this discussion in an economics class like a decade ago.
 
It is not number manipulation it's a system that is flawed when facing long term unemployment and disporportionately high number of discouraged workers. The last time we have a recession even comparable to now is the 1970's and the gap (using your last graph) between real and reported unemployment was even higher than it is now.

Sorry but how old were you in 1981-82 when there was a 20 misery index? How is this economy worse than that one?
 
It is not number manipulation it's a system that is flawed when facing long term unemployment and disporportionately high number of discouraged workers. The last time we have a recession even comparable to now is the 1970's and the gap (using your last graph) between real and reported unemployment was even higher than it is now.

Well, not quite. The dynamic of the early 80's was a rapidly increasing LFPR, so the gap takes on a bit of a different perspective. While it was well below the mean, the participation rate was going UP then.

The difference then to now is stark, primarily in that we have diverging slopes. One says its getting better, while the other says it is getting worse. It is not only a flaw in the formula used, but more importantly, it is a number, LFPR, generated by government. Unlike the number of employed, which is essentially generated by payrolls, most of them private, there is no entity other than government which decides the LFPR ..... "Poof" .. here it is !

In essence, they can pee on your leg, and tell you its raining. They are doing it now.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but how old were you in 1981-82 when there was a 20 misery index? How is this economy worse than that one?

I wasn't born.....but what does inflation (a component of the misery index) have to do with unemployment? The unemployment argument has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation it has to do with the jobless rate. The late 70's and early 80's are comparable with now regarding long term unemployment.
 
:lmao: Is that the best you got? It's too much work to look for work? :lmao:

Wow, that does more to damage your "President" than help him in this argument.

j-mac

There are a multitude of sources out there (include Eric Cantor) who estimate that about 10,000 boomers are retiring each day.

Thus, over two months, that would be around 600,000 - so 500,000 seems very reasonable to me.
 
Well, not quite. The dynamic of the early 80's was a rapidly increasing LFPR, so the gap takes on a bit of a different perspective. While it was well below the mean, the participation rate was going UP then.

The difference then to now is stark, primarily in that we have diverging slopes. One says its getting better, while the other says it is getting worse. It is not only a flaw in the formula used, but more importantly, it is a number, LFPR, generated by government. Unlike the number of employed, which is essentially generated by payrolls, most of them private, there is no entity other than government which decides the LFPR ..... "Poof" .. here it is !

The decrease in LFPR has been decreasing for awhile now. It's no suprise. Boomers are nearing retirement age and it's been something discussed for a long time.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Those that are are nearing retirement age are making the decision to get out of a bad labor market. It's just accelerating long term trends.
 
There are a multitude of sources out there (include Eric Cantor) who estimate that about 10,000 boomers are retiring each day.

Thus, over two months, that would be around 600,000 - so 500,000 seems very reasonable to me.

Not discounting it, but that estimate is based on turning 65, not an actual retirement index, of which I do not believe there is one.
 
I wasn't born.....but what does inflation (a component of the misery index) have to do with unemployment? The unemployment argument has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation it has to do with the jobless rate. The late 70's and early 80's are comparable with now regarding long term unemployment.

The misery index is a combination of inflation and unemployment. Obama inherited a recession that was ending and a misery index under 8. The 81-81 recession had a misery index of over 19 so which one affected the American people the most?
 
The decrease in LFPR has been decreasing for awhile now. It's no suprise. Boomers are nearing retirement age and it's been something discussed for a long time.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Those that are are nearing retirement age are making the decision to get out of a bad labor market. It's just accelerating long term trends.

If they have a job, they aren't going to go anywhere while they can still get paid.

The IT department here is dominated by people in their 60s and 70s, mainly because you can't find a good mainframe programmer these days.
 
Not discounting it, but that estimate is based on turning 65, not an actual retirement index, of which I do not believe there is one.

True...but in a bad labor market you will see people opt for retirment rather than look for another job after getting laid off (if that's the case) or even decide to retire rather than face squeezes employers are putting on employees.


I think it's pretty safe to say that it's accelerating a long term trend. I'll go as far to say this is very good for younger workers because it will end up opening up positions....of course now we'll be dealing with the entitlement conscequences of an aging population.
 
Back
Top Bottom