• 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!

May employment report: Economy adds 175K jobs

FYI, the BLS did a study in 2004, based completely on census data, that measured the projected impact of baby-boomer retirements on the labor force for the 10 year period 2005-2014. These are hard numbers as folks can't grow old but at a very set rate. ;)

During that time frame, the impact was going to be all of a 0.4% negative influence on the LFPR. Which means that for Obama's term so far. where we have seen a 2.3% drop in the LFPR, only 0.2% can be blamed on retirements. 2.1% is on Obama's economy.

People dont retire at a set age, so they arent hard numbers.
 
I call them as i see them. anyone to make such a false claim are either idiots or liars and they have no creditability, They need to be called out for it so others know not to believe anything they say

Then be civil about it. Otherwise your post will be removed.
 
you uniformed idiot. you are a prime example how ignorance of the American public is what got Obama reelected
I said Labor Force, not Labor Force Participation Rate. If you don't understand the difference between Level and Rate, there's no hope for you.

And your dates are off, by the way....the reference period is the week that contains the 12th, not the last day of the month.

fredgraph.png

So like I said, some ups and downs, but mostly up.
 
Yeah, the rate went up. And what happened to the U-3? It went up too, despite enough jobs being created that it probably should have stayed at 7.5%.
I was talking about the UE rate.

That just shows how much higher the U-3 would be if all the discouraged workers that have left the work force since Obama took over were actually counted as part of the work force (which they should be, IMO).
Except the U4, which includes the Discouraged, went down in May because the number of Discouraged dropped.

During Obama's term(s), the LFPR (Labor Force Participation Rate) has been dropping like a stone.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Wow, you said something true.

As for the labor force going up? So what? All that means is the birth/immigration rate is still growing strong.
It means nothing of the sort. Do you even know what the Labor Force is? Births and immigration would have zero effect on it per se. The Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed. How you figure births have anything to do with it is beyone me.

What matters is that the LFPR is shrinking because of retirement/discouraged workers (probably mostly the latter) which is making the U-3 look far better then it really is.
Actually, it's mostly the 16-24 year olds either not entering or dropping out of the Labor Force.
 
Last edited:
If you can't understand how a decrease in the LFPR will mask real unemployment, then you won't understand any further explanation, and I surely do not waste my time when Google can be your friend.
See, you make all thes claims, but refuse to back them up. Define "real unemployment." (you won't, of course...or if you try to, you won't defend it methodologically) And since the Labor Force participation rate is a dependent variable, not an independent one, it cannot be manipulated.
 
Oh, what, exactly, are the tweaks you''re
claiming?

here's the tweak, and not just with jobs but Obama's entire economy.

Its actually the biggest scandal of the lot.

It's a lie. A huge rotten lie, and here's why.

It all goes away tomorrow, if Bernake stops his printing. It is NOT held up with any substantial growth. It's propped up with low interet rates which are being held down with TRILLIONS in new printing

It's unbeleivable, the corruption nd incompetence thats being ignored by the media and people like you.

So Bernakes printing is to fight " deflation" ?? WHY, after 4.5 years are we STILL fighting deflation.....

Why am I asking you ?

It is unbeleivable what you people are willing to show up on these forums and lie about.
 
The economy cannot supply enough jobs to the additional people looking for work. That is not really a good sign.
 
What does it say about a person that uses simple facts to mislead people?

If facts mislead you from what you want to believe, that says much more about you than me. I cannot tell you how hard I laughed when I read this comment of yours. Apparently, now, using facts is discouraged in conversation. Great.
 
It means nothing of the sort. Do you even know what the Labor Force is? Births and immigration would have zero effect on it per se. The Labor Force is Employed plus Unemployed. How you figure births have anything to do with it is beyone me.

Yes, you are right.

I was thinking of something else, sorry.


But how the heck does the labor force growing help the economy if the Labor Force Participation Rate is dropping like a stone over the last few years?

That just means that more and more people who don't have a job - but want one - are not being counted by the BLS as in the Labor Force.


Which is ridiculous.

If you are looking for a job but have given up looking because you cannot find one...you are still unemployed.

To call it otherwise is nothing but government sleight of hand...like they do with the CPI.
 
I said Labor Force, not Labor Force Participation Rate. If you don't understand the difference between Level and Rate, there's no hope for you.

And your dates are off, by the way....the reference period is the week that contains the 12th, not the last day of the month.

fredgraph.png

So like I said, some ups and downs, but mostly up.

the labor force is the amount of people who are capable of working. labor participation rate is the amount of people who are working or looking for a job

When you have an increase in the labor force but a decrease in labor participation you have a problem. so it is nothing to be proud of like you seam to be
 
the labor force is the amount of people who are capable of working. labor participation rate is the amount of people who are working or looking for a job
No, the Labor Force is the number of Employed plus the number of Unemployed. The participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the adult civilian non institutional population
 
See, you make all thes claims, but refuse to back them up. Define "real unemployment." (you won't, of course...or if you try to, you won't defend it methodologically) And since the Labor Force participation rate is a dependent variable, not an independent one, it cannot be manipulated.

Look. You really do not know what you are talking about, and are in zero position to criticize others here who do.

Tell us all .... where does one go to find the number of people out there who are no longer counted as part of the Labor Force ? Where is the determination made that X folks who are able to work, but have no job, are now not looking ? Where does one go to verify the number given by the BLS as the LFPR ?

You are clueless.
 
Look. You really do not know what you are talking about, and are in zero position to criticize others here who do.

Tell us all .... where does one go to find the number of people out there who are no longer counted as part of the Labor Force ? Where is the determination made that X folks who are able to work, but have no job, are now not looking ? Where does one go to verify the number given by the BLS as the LFPR ?

You are clueless.
Well, there's the Census Bureau www.census.gov/CPS who conducts the survey, or BLS who publishes it Current Population Survey (CPS)
Gallup does their own surveys for the numbers as well.
 
Well, there's the Census Bureau www.census.gov/CPS who conducts the survey, or BLS who publishes it Current Population Survey (CPS)
Gallup does their own surveys for the numbers as well.

Answer: You can't verify it. Government creates the number by making phone calls !!! They control who they call as well.

Meanwhile, Gallup uses different analysis tools.

But lastly, we are in uncharted waters. Never have we had a sustained contraction of the LFPR like this. It creates statistical anomalies, such that we have had many months where 2-3 times as many folks quit looking as found jobs, and where those that found jobs was not enough to keep a normal employment condition steady, which is about 140K new jobs per month. This condition makes the U-3 (which is supposed to be 'real unemployment' btw) actually go DOWN, when in fact it should have gone up.

If the number of folks on food stamps is going up as a percent of total population, then we are getting worse. This entire Obama economy is all smoke and mirrors.
 
The following says it all (from today):

'“The market has almost become addicted to monetary stimulus,” Erik Davidson, deputy chief investment officer for Wells Fargo Private Bank in San Francisco, said in a phone interview. His firm oversees $170 billion. “Any sense that the monetary stimulus will slow down or stop, and that by no means is the case in Japan, but just on the margin Japan won’t be more aggressive is the reason for the concern.”

U.S. Stocks Decline as BOJ Leaves Stimulus Unchanged - Bloomberg


Macroeconomic fundamentals are gone.

It's all about government stimulus/central bank money 'printing'.
 
175k jobs a month is like trying to fill a swimming pool with a table spoon. we need to create 150k to 200k a month just to keep up with population growth. We have the lowest labor participation rate in the last 40 years. if we had the same labor participation rate as we did 5 years ago unemployment would be about 9%
There is nor has there ever been an official number of jobs required to meet population growth or lower employment. The number required is ever changing based on a handful of metrics.
 
Last edited:
There is nor has their ever been an official number of jobs required to meet population growth or lower employment. The number required is ever changing based on a handful of metrics.

True.

But apparently the Fed has a number in mind.


Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View


'Chairman Ben S. Bernanke needs to see four months of job growth averaging at least 200,000 to justify reducing the pace of asset purchases, according to Vincent Reinhart, a former director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs. Roberto Perli, a former researcher in the division, said the central bank would need to see that pace “through the summer.”
“They would see that as confirmation that the economy is on a self-sustaining trajectory and they would thus be confident that they could reduce the pace” of quantitative easing, said Perli, a partner at Cornerstone Macro LP in Washington.'


Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View - Bloomberg
 
True.

But apparently the Fed has a number in mind.


Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View


'Chairman Ben S. Bernanke needs to see four months of job growth averaging at least 200,000 to justify reducing the pace of asset purchases, according to Vincent Reinhart, a former director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs. Roberto Perli, a former researcher in the division, said the central bank would need to see that pace “through the summer.”
“They would see that as confirmation that the economy is on a self-sustaining trajectory and they would thus be confident that they could reduce the pace” of quantitative easing, said Perli, a partner at Cornerstone Macro LP in Washington.'


Fed Hurdle of 4 Straight 200,000 Payrolls Sets Bernanke View - Bloomberg
For growth and an opportune moment to wind down easing, yes. Separate issue entirely.
 
While millions lose their jobs, we create 175,000. WOW, let's party. :roll:

And food stamps are at an all time high! Breakout the champagne!
 
For growth and an opportune moment to wind down easing, yes. Separate issue entirely.

Uhhh...no.

Talking about Moon landings would be a 'separate issue entirely'.


Separate from your point...maybe.

Separate from the OP...hardly.

Since American economic growth is (IMO) at present, almost entirely dependent on Fed QE's/artificially low interest rates, then it is certainly relevant what the Fed's 'tipping point' maybe.


Just because I quote a post, doesn't mean I am necessarily talking about the same, exact issue discussed within it.
 
Last edited:
There is nor has there ever been an official number of jobs required to meet population growth or lower employment. The number required is ever changing based on a handful of metrics.

But there sure as hell is an undeniable unofficial range, and its currently around 135-145K per month with regards to an increase in the workforce.

Here's the facts. Since Obama was sworn in, Jan 2009, thru Dec 2012, there have been all of 3,918,000 non-farm jobs added.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaeu.txt

That amounts to 81,625 per month. Of well over 50K per month less than we would need to keep unemployment level. Yet "unemployment" is where it was when he took office !!!!

Almost 2.5 million more folks not working !! Obamanomics is not only a massive fail, but the Democrats hide behind smoke-and-mirrors. And pretending there's "no official number".
 
If facts mislead you from what you want to believe, that says much more about you than me. I cannot tell you how hard I laughed when I read this comment of yours. Apparently, now, using facts is discouraged in conversation. Great.

More of the same. Willful misunderstanding, I guess. That is just strange that it caused you to laugh. Again, misleading, a cornerstone of the left.
 
the categories fastest growing in may were food service (38,000 jobs) and temps (26k)

hardly american-dream material

more broadly, the las vegas sun, sunday:

Obama falls flat on economy | Las Vegas Review-Journal

You don’t have to be a financial whiz to know that the economy isn’t good. Times are tough, and they’ve been tough for some time. The middle class has shrunk; wealth has diminished; poverty is up; and unemployment, especially for minorities, is nothing short of miserable.

But how bad is it, really?

Up until very recently, this was hard to quantify and thus became in large part a political argument. Today, however, enough time has passed that economists now have data points to scientifically put President Barack Obama’s economic policy in its proper place.

On the old legacy-o-meter, things aren’t looking good for Obama and his supporters, who so desperately wanted him to succeed.

I’m tempted to compare Obama’s performance on the economy to this year’s Phoenix Suns basketball team. But that might be too harsh — on the Suns.

President Obama, meanwhile, kept the same economic game plan and failed policies in place for 4½ years. Clear evidence is mounting to show that Obama’s stubbornness (or shall we call it ignorance) might earn him the title of Worst Economic President Ever.

An overreach, you say? Au contraire, mon ami. Ponder this: In what historians consider one of the most unsuccessful presidential terms in modern history, Jimmy Carter still produced four times as much economic growth as Barack Obama. If that doesn’t put it into perspective for you, nothing will.

Because historically speaking, the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.

[Forbes] points out that the record shows it takes an average of two years for the economy to recover all the jobs lost after a recession. But in the 4½ years of Obama’s reign, he has failed to accomplish that, and it’s now been 5½ years since the previous jobs peak.

In an article for Investor’s Business Daily: “Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9 percent ... but average annual real GDP growth during Obama’s entire first term was less than half as much at a pitiful 0.8 percent.”

That performance will establish Obama firmly as the worst president ever on the economy. Obama’s GDP growth is less than half as much as the worst president in the past 60 years.

Let that process slowly. That means that if President Obama could go back in time and find a way to double his GDP performance, he’d still hold the record for the worst economic president in the past 60 years.

That’s bad. So bad, in fact, I want to circle back and apologize to the Phoenix Suns. You’re bad, but you’re not Obama bad.

a trillion in "stimulus," approaching 4T in qe...

what happens when borrowing costs are allowed to correct themselves?

abc emphasizes that the tepidity of the may jobs report is good news for the dow---bernanke will keep rates (artificially) low

Jobs Report: Unemployment Rate Rises to 7.6 Percent as 175,000 Jobs Are Added - ABC News
 
Yes, you are right.

I was thinking of something else, sorry.
Sincerely, thank you for double checking to make sure you weren't putting out wrong information.


But how the heck does the labor force growing help the economy if the Labor Force Participation Rate is dropping like a stone over the last few years?
It doesn't, necessarily. I was mostly just contradicting the claim that the Labor Force was declining, when it is growing, though not as fast as the population.

That just means that more and more people who don't have a job - but want one - are not being counted by the BLS as in the Labor Force.
Why does it mean that? The number of people who don't want a job...and the percent of people not in the labor force who don't want a job, have been increasing. Some of it is retirees, some of it is spouses deciding to stay home with the kids, and a lot of it are students.


If you are looking for a job but have given up looking because you cannot find one...you are still unemployed.
Why? Seriously...what is the practical difference between someone not trying to work because they don't think they'll get a job, and someone not trying to work because they don't or can't work? Who is more likely to get a job?

It's a question of what you're trying to measure. The point of measuring unemployment is to see how many people who could be working...who could have been hired in a particular month...are not working. People not looking for work could not have been hired...could not have been working.

Analogy time....if you're a retailer and you sell out of a particular item. You sold 150. You find out that 180 people came to your store to buy it. And you find out that 20 people called the store, or found out from someone who called or visited, that you were out and so didn't show up. And you find out there were 10 more people who say they wanted it, but didn't check to see if you had any either by contacting you or a friend.

How many could you have sold if you had had enough inventory? Obviously the 150 you did sell. Obviously the 30 more from the people who showed up and walked away empty handed. We can also assume the 20 people who called or asked would have showed up and bought if they knew there was inventory. So that's 200 we know, or are fairly certain you could have sold.

But what about the 10 people who didn't show or check. Can you say that they would have bought if there was enough inventory? No. Regardless of your inventory, they wouldn't have shown up anyway, even though they say they wanted it.

Now, it's useful to know that there are 10 more people who might buy the item sometime in the future, but you can't say that for the particular day in question that you could have sold 210, but you can say you could have sold 200.

Does that make more sense? That "but they still didn't get the item they wanted" doesn't mean they would have gotten it if you had enough.
 
For growth and an opportune moment to wind down easing, yes. Separate issue entirely.

But QE has NO effect on jobs. No effect on the free market so why is Bernake contiuing ?

There's only one right amswer.
 
Back
Top Bottom