• 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!

Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'[W:88]

Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
U-4 includes discourage workers. Discouraged workers are individuals that specifically state they are not looking for a job because of market conditions. This number was 7.2% in December
U-6 includes persons "marginally attached to the labor force".

No the U6 number is used because it's remarkably higher than the U-3 number . A lot of people are used to hearing the u-3 number used so in good times they associate a 4% unemployment rate as normal. When they hear 14% U-6 used by some folks as the "real unemployment number" then they think "wow! It's much higher than normal". Even during the 90's U-6 hovered around 9%.
Click to expand...

U5 is the one that adds marginally attached workers, not U6. U6 adds part timers that want full time work, and the marginally attached.

What we have today, is a dramatic shift to workers only showing up in the surveys if you examine U4, U5, and U6. Unfortunately, they haven't surveyed those rates prior to 1994, so we can't really see a long term view, although in the late nineties, U6 dropped from 10% to 7% by 2002. U6 appears to be a leading indicator to a recession, as it shows movement long before U3 does.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

ocean515 said:
I asked the question because subjective numbers, and political appointees, are usually a poor mix when so much is made of the end result.
Click to expand...

Oh...gotcha.

The numbers are based on a survey to employers and a survey to households. If the BLS lied about the numbers it would be a pretty big scandal since they report an economic metric that is used global and trillions ride on their monthly report. In fact due to the importance only a handful of people actually know the numbers before they are released. They have different people working on different portions because getting those numbers early could result in huge potential money.

I guess it's possible an administration COULD fudge the numbers but not in a way that you could hide. Most of those statisticians have worked in the BLS forever. Here is a quote from a former BLS head
Keith Hall, who served as Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 until 2012, said in an interview Friday that there is no way someone at the agency could change any of the data from its two monthly employment surveys. The significant improvement in the unemployment rate may reflect normal statistical errors in the sampling process, he said, but that has nothing to do with manipulation.
“There’s nothing wrong with the numbers,” said Mr. Hall. “The only issue is the interpretation of the numbers. The numbers are what they are.”
For September, the politically important unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September from 8.1% the prior month, according to the Labor Department. That was the lowest level since January 2009 and well below the 8.1% forecast of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires. The unemployment rate estimate is derived from a survey of households, which came up with an estimate that 863,000 jobs were added for the month.
But the separate establishment survey from which the official payrolls number is derived reported a more modest seasonally adjusted gain of 114,000 jobs in September. That was below the consensus forecast of 118,000, though the previous two months were revised higher.
Mr. Hall said the inconsistent reports reflect the different samples used in the two surveys, one focused on households the other on businesses. The establishment survey has a huge sample size of 141,000 business and agencies covering 486,000 worksites, whereas the household survey covers just 60,000 homes.
“The household survey is much smaller. When you look at something like labor force and employment levels, the uncertainty of those numbers is much larger,” said Mr. Hall. “Within two months, the household survey could show the unemployment rate eking back up.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Oh...gotcha.

The numbers are based on a survey to employers and a survey to households. If the BLS lied about the numbers it would be a pretty big scandal since they report an economic metric that is used global and trillions ride on their monthly report. In fact due to the importance only a handful of people actually know the numbers before they are released. They have different people working on different portions because getting those numbers early could result in huge potential money.

I guess it's possible an administration COULD fudge the numbers but not in a way that you could hide. Most of those statisticians have worked in the BLS forever. Here is a quote from a former BLS head
Click to expand...

As Mr. Hall stated, it's "the interpretation of the numbers".

As a baby boomer myself, I am aware with how many of us have decided to continue working well beyond that time which statistically, we have retired in the past. Add in the impact of the recession, and far more are working than had planned to, or what one would have expected. Since the retirement numbers are derived from those supplied by the US Census, it's a variable with great impact.

Consider the role the labor force participation rate has had in pushing down the published unemployment rate over the last 5 years. It's not unreasonable to seek clarification of this "mulitplier" considering the political weight the number carries.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Samhain said:
U5 is the one that adds marginally attached workers, not U6. U6 adds part timers that want full time work, and the marginally attached.
Click to expand...

Sure but U-6 includes individuals marginally attached to the workforce. That's the main point. Also...people that are working part time (less than 35) but want full time work is a problem...but it's not unemployed. Someone working say 33 hours a week is not the same as someone that can't find a job. Like I said...I agree it's a problem but it's also another trend that has been occurring for awhile.

What we have today, is a dramatic shift to workers only showing up in the surveys if you examine U4, U5, and U6. Unfortunately, they haven't surveyed those rates prior to 1994, so we can't really see a long term view, although in the late nineties, U6 dropped from 10% to 7% by 2002.
Click to expand...
The 7% number you point to was way outside the average. That 7% is most likely a historical low just like the U3 was at a historical low those years.

Economist have compiled what they believe the U6 numbers have been in US history before we officially started posting the number.
U3U5UnemploymentGreatDepression.jpg
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

US Conservative said:
Folks, we can't keep this up, the numbers released by the Obama administration after 5 years of failed policies and smoke and mirrors are damning. 92 million outside the workforce. The jobs added are crap. This is what the democrat party gets us. Take a look at these trends.

People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge
LFP%20Participation_0.jpg

Not%20in%20Labor%20Force%20Dec_0.jpg
Click to expand...

So your graph shows that participation has been in steady decline since Bush took office. And people not in labor force has been on a steady rise since Bush 1 was in office. And this is all Obama's fault how?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Montecresto said:
So your graph shows that participation has been in steady decline since Bush took office. And people not in labor force has been on a steady rise since Bush 1 was in office. And this is all Obama's fault how?
Click to expand...

It shows Obama's policies do not work. The democrat party is useless.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

ocean515 said:
As Mr. Hall stated, it's "the interpretation of the numbers".
Click to expand...

Sure interpretation is open but the U-6 is the U-6. The U-3 is the U-3. The number of individuals that claim to leave the workforce due economic factors are the individuals noted to leave the workforce due to economic factors. There's no doubt it's open to interpretation as we're arguing now. Yes the labor force participation rate is dropping but why?

As a baby boomer myself, I am aware with how many of us have decided to continue working well beyond that time which statistically, we have retired in the past. Add in the impact of the recession, and far more are working than had planned to, or what one would have expected. Since the retirement numbers are derived from those supplied by the US Census, it's a variable with great impact.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and have seen that to be the case as well. Keep in mind the information provided by the US census is used to calculate the weight given to different demographics. If for example in the monthly survey X% of individuals aged 55 to 64 responded that they are in the labor pool that is then weighted by the size of that age group for the overall Labor Participation Rate.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

268979_10151634359833706_1026340878_n.jpg
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Oh...gotcha.

The numbers are based on a survey to employers and a survey to households. If the BLS lied about the numbers it would be a pretty big scandal since they report an economic metric that is used global and trillions ride on their monthly report. In fact due to the importance only a handful of people actually know the numbers before they are released. They have different people working on different portions because getting those numbers early could result in huge potential money.

I guess it's possible an administration COULD fudge the numbers but not in a way that you could hide. Most of those statisticians have worked in the BLS forever. Here is a quote from a former BLS head
Click to expand...

It's not just the BLS that compiles these reports....The census is also involved....

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report | New York Post
Click to expand...
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

j-mac said:
It's not just the BLS that compiles these reports....The census is also involved....
Click to expand...

Sure...if the Census Bureau or BLS lied about the numbers it would be a huge scandal.

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report | New York Post
Click to expand...

Ehhh...if it was true it would make major waves. It would be as big of a deal as the manipulation of the Interbank Lending rate. Do you honestly think Congressional Republicans wouldn't pursue this if it was true....
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

US Conservative said:
It shows Obama's policies do not work. The democrat party is useless.
Click to expand...

Which policy of Obama isn't working? Please be specific.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

US Conservative said:
It shows Obama's policies do not work. The democrat party is useless.
Click to expand...

The Democratic Party may well be useless. That doesn't change the fact that YOUR graph shows the decline beginning when George Bush took office. So if anything, you've proven that both parties are useless.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Sure...if the Census Bureau or BLS lied about the numbers it would be a huge scandal.



Ehhh...if it was true it would make major waves. It would be as big of a deal as the manipulation of the Interbank Lending rate. Do you honestly think Congressional Republicans wouldn't pursue this if it was true....
Click to expand...

Why? to have you label it another "non scandal"? There are really more important scandals being stonewalled out there at present to be addressed.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Tettsuo said:
Which policy of Obama isn't working? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Why derail the thread...?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

j-mac said:
Why? to have you label it another "non scandal"? There are really more important scandals being stonewalled out there at present to be addressed.
Click to expand...

No...if the Obama administration was interfering with the unemployment numbers that's a pretty huge deal. It has major implications and would be impeachable.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

j-mac said:
Why derail the thread...?
Click to expand...

How exactly is that question a thread derail? You cannot complain about Democrat policies but not reference which policy is a failure.

Or it is that you cannot articulate a policy that would be responsible for this decline because there isn't anything the Obama did to create the situation?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Tettsuo said:
How exactly is that question a thread derail? You cannot complain about Democrat policies but not reference which policy is a failure.

Or it is that you cannot articulate a policy that would be responsible for this decline because there isn't anything the Obama did to create the situation?
Click to expand...

Yes, because 1 employed for 5 that leave the workforce is a huge success...I'm sure you are proud.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
No...if the Obama administration was interfering with the unemployment numbers that's a pretty huge deal. It has major implications and would be impeachable.
Click to expand...

We don't have a speaker that will impanel a select committee...I'm not sure why, maybe progressives have his family hostage or something.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Montecresto said:
The Democratic Party may well be useless. That doesn't change the fact that YOUR graph shows the decline beginning when George Bush took office. So if anything, you've proven that both parties are useless.
Click to expand...

The democrat party, 5 years in-is stale fail.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

US Conservative said:
The democrat party, 5 years in-is stale fail.
Click to expand...

Boy, you just don't get it do you? YOUR graph shows the decline beginning when Bush took office and continuing to decline to this day. He was in office eight years, again, how is this all Obama's fault?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Montecresto said:
Boy, you just don't get it do you? YOUR graph shows the decline beginning when Bush took office and continuing to decline to this day. He was in office eight years, again, how is this all Obama's fault?
Click to expand...

The decline no, other than voting for, and supporting policies that led to the decline, like the CRA for instance, it isn't. But, what IS his fault, is that once he won office in 2008, he started more a political payback slog, rather than anything that really made a difference in changing the course. Stimulus was a prime example of that. He then launched what can only at this point be described as a 5 year assault on the American people, forcing one bill through, then working the rest of the time fighting the American people and wasting tax money trying to make that failed legislation somehow defy the inevitable and work like he wants it too instead of doing things that were good ideas within, and making those work.

Obama has squandered Americas standing in foreign policy, made domestic politics more divisive, and lied to the people repeatedly from day one. He refuses to do anything in a bipartisan manner, or work with repubs at all unless it is for the purpose of blaming them for his failures. He has raised taxes on everyone including the middle class he claims to champion. Obama is a disaster for this country, and a reminder why progressivism left to its own devise will kill a nation...Jimmy Carter is cheering, not because he likes Obama, but rather because there's a new kid on the block to take his place in history is the most ineffective, looser of a President in history. We now have a lost decade, and that is Obama's, and progressives fault period.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Montecresto said:
Boy, you just don't get it do you? YOUR graph shows the decline beginning when Bush took office and continuing to decline to this day. He was in office eight years, again, how is this all Obama's fault?
Click to expand...

Wheres the hope and change?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

j-mac said:
The decline no, other than voting for, and supporting policies that led to the decline, like the CRA for instance, it isn't. But, what IS his fault, is that once he won office in 2008, he started more a political payback slog, rather than anything that really made a difference in changing the course. Stimulus was a prime example of that. He then launched what can only at this point be described as a 5 year assault on the American people, forcing one bill through, then working the rest of the time fighting the American people and wasting tax money trying to make that failed legislation somehow defy the inevitable and work like he wants it too instead of doing things that were good ideas within, and making those work.

Obama has squandered Americas standing in foreign policy, made domestic politics more divisive, and lied to the people repeatedly from day one. He refuses to do anything in a bipartisan manner, or work with repubs at all unless it is for the purpose of blaming them for his failures. He has raised taxes on everyone including the middle class he claims to champion. Obama is a disaster for this country, and a reminder why progressivism left to its own devise will kill a nation...Jimmy Carter is cheering, not because he likes Obama, but rather because there's a new kid on the block to take his place in history is the most ineffective, looser of a President in history. We now have a lost decade, and that is Obama's, and progressives fault period.
Click to expand...

Worst president ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom