• 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. Adds 217,000 Jobs in May, Unemployment Rate Stays at 6.3%[W:218]

Our current labor force participation rate is higher than it was at any time prior to 1978. Were things terrible during the mid 20th century?

Our per work out productivity rate is higher today than it has ever been. As we produce more per work hour, then we either need shorter work hours, or fewer workers, or both.
It's only natural that as we become a richer society, we will have fewer workers working at any one point in time. We simply don't need as many workers.

Sorry, I just don't see what the issue is. The work force participation rate has been dropping since the year 2000, so it's not an Obama problem, or even a Bush issue, it dates back to Clinton. I don't think that it is a political or an economic issue it all, it's just a natural occurance based upon socio-technological-demograpic factors more than anything else.

And yes, the higher than normal unemployment rate does factor into it.

I often use the term "Great Bush Recession" just to take a little jab at those who like to blame the recession on Obama. I am actually not an Obama supporter, didn't vote for him either time, and wouldn't vote for him today, but it disgusts me when people blame ever little thing that happens in the world, including the recession that started 14 months before he took office, on him. I believe it has to do more with racism than anything else. Sorry, probably shouldn't have used that term with you.

Enough of the armchair economics. Please read the words of basically any expert on the matter before talking about this again. The decline of the labor force participation right is not a product of technology or demographics, but a product of the weak economy. It is just a fact. You don't have to accept that, but it is true all the same.
 
Enough of the armchair economics. Please read the words of basically any expert on the matter before talking about this again. The decline of the labor force participation right is not a product of technology or demographics, but a product of the weak economy. It is just a fact. You don't have to accept that, but it is true all the same.

That doesn't explain why it started declining in the year 2000.

You can't seem to get it into your head that this didn't just happen when the Great Recession started, it was going on years before that, even when our economy was booming. I've pointed this out over and over again, then you pretend like it's not a fact because the real life data doesn't fit your theory.
 
That doesn't explain why it started declining in the year 2000.

You can't seem to get it into your head that this didn't just happen when the Great Recession started, it was going on years before that, even when our economy was booming. I've pointed this out over and over again, then you pretend like it's not a fact because the real life data doesn't fit your theory.

It declined slightly over the course of the previous recession (the one that started in 2000), flattened out for several years, and then started a precipitous decline when the recession hit.
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05/LFP%20Rate_0.jpg

LFP%20Rate.jpg
 
I am not sure what point you are trying to make, unless you are merely confirming what I just said.

The clfpr dropped until late 2005, went up for one and a half years when we were at the peak of the construction boom, and then started falling again.

The first Bush recession ended in 2001 or 2002, and was very mild, yet the clfpr continued to drop. Your theory is disproven by actual historic facts.

While these recessions definitely contributed to the issue, they were not likely the cause, any more than Obama was.
 
The clfpr dropped until late 2005, went up for one and a half years when we were at the peak of the construction boom, and then started falling again.

The first Bush recession ended in 2001 or 2002, and was very mild, yet the clfpr continued to drop. Your theory is disproven by actual historic facts.

I am sure you have heard that this was called a "jobless recovery" and the statistics bear that out. There were job losses and weak job growth extending into 2003 and that is roughly how long the labor force participation rate was declining before it turned around.
 
I am sure you have heard that this was called a "jobless recovery" and the statistics bear that out. There were job losses and weak job growth extending into 2003 and that is roughly how long the labor force participation rate was declining before it turned around.

I don't see much of a correlation between the clfpr and unemployment:
EmployPopJune2012.jpg
 
I don't see much of a correlation between the clfpr and unemployment:
EmployPopJune2012.jpg

When you put out ridiculous charts like that it can be hard to see correlations.
 
I am sure you have heard that this was called a "jobless recovery" and the statistics bear that out. There were job losses and weak job growth extending into 2003 and that is roughly how long the labor force participation rate was declining before it turned around.

Agreed.
But I would call it more a 'McDonald's job recovery'.

Take the last 12 months for example (according to the BLS):

1,382,000 jobs were created.

BUT - of those jobs, only 78,000(!?!) of those were between the all-important 25-54 age ranges. And men between 25-54 actually lost 30,000 jobs.

Yet the unemployment rate dropped from 7.4% to 6.3%.

That means 94.4% of all the jobs created in America over the past 12 months have been for those under 25 and those over 55.

A prime example of how the headline number looks good - but the fine print shows the REAL story...this is a McDonald's/WalMart-type fueled recovery.



Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
 
Last edited:
Agreed.
But I would call it more a 'McDonald's job recovery'.

Take the last 12 months for example (according to the BLS):

1,382,000 jobs were created.

BUT - of those jobs, only 78,000(!?!) of those were between the all-important 25-54 age ranges. And men between 25-54 actually lost 30,000 jobs.

Yet the unemployment rate dropped from 7.4% to 6.3%.

That means 94.4% of all the jobs created in America over the past 12 months have been for those under 25 and those over 55.

A prime example of how the headline number looks good - but the fine print shows the REAL story...this is a McDonald's/WalMart-type fueled recovery.



Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

I was talking about the early 2000's recovery, for the record. Of course, they have CHARTS and so apparently that means people never stop looking for work altogether due to bad economic conditions. :roll:
 
Agreed.
But I would call it more a 'McDonald's job recovery'.

Take the last 12 months for example (according to the BLS):

1,382,000 jobs were created.

BUT - of those jobs, only 78,000(!?!) of those were between the all-important 25-54 age ranges. And men between 25-54 actually lost 30,000 jobs.

Yet the unemployment rate dropped from 7.4% to 6.3%.

That means 94.4% of all the jobs created in America over the past 12 months have been for those under 25 and those over 55.

A prime example of how the headline number looks good - but the fine print shows the REAL story...this is a McDonald's/WalMart-type fueled recovery.



Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Is that a problem?

more jobs for younger folks and for older folks, and more jobs for ladies. Bought time those people went to work.

I have a theory that if we raised minimum wage, we would probably see that trend reverse. More jobs for 25-55 year olds, and fewer for younger folks. Which would essentially result in a stablizing of job growth in all age ranges.
 
Is that a problem?

more jobs for younger folks and for older folks, and more jobs for ladies. Bought time those people went to work.

I have a theory that if we raised minimum wage, we would probably see that trend reverse. More jobs for 25-55 year olds, and fewer for younger folks. Which would essentially result in a stablizing of job growth in all age ranges.

Is that a problem?

What age group of the above do you think has the most responsibility?
Who has the most dependents living under their roof?
Has the most mortgages, buys the most houses, the most cars, the most cottages, the most RV's, the most furniture, the most big ticket items? Obviously it is - by a mile - the 25-54 group.
And which group contains the ages when the prime money making in a person's career takes place? Again - the 25-54 group.
And which group is by MILES the largest group - the 25-54 group...yet they have BY FAR the smallest growth?

So the 25-54 group is by FAR the largest group, has by FAR the most responsibilities and purchase by FAR the most big ticket items...yet they have by FAR the smallest growth (and the male jobs in the group are contracting in number).

Come on now man - are you seriously asking if that is a problem?
 
Last edited:
Is that a problem?

What age group of the above do you think has the most responsibility?
Who has the most dependents living under their roof?
Has the most mortgages, buys the most houses, the most cars, the most cottages, the most RV's, the most furniture, the most big ticket items? Obviously it is - by a mile - the 25-54 group.
And which group contains the ages when the prime money making in a person's career takes place? Again - the 25-54 group.
And which group is by MILES the largest group - the 25-54 group...yet they have BY FAR the smallest growth?

So the 25-54 group is by FAR the largest group, has by FAR the most responsibilities and purchase by FAR the most big ticket items...yet they have by FAR the smallest growth (and the male jobs in the group are contracting in number).

Come on now man - are you seriously asking if that is a problem?

then we need to increase minimum wage.
 
Agreed.
But I would call it more a 'McDonald's job recovery'.

Take the last 12 months for example (according to the BLS):

1,382,000 jobs were created.
Are you talking net change in jobs or net change in employment? (not the same thing). In either case, I'm not seeing where you're getting the 1,382,000 number from. Assuminb you mean employment, not jobs, since you're linking to Table A-9, I look at it and see that the not seasonally adjusted (nsa) change for age 16+ from May 2013 to May 2014 was 1,966,000 and the seasonally adjusted change was 1,895,000 (not seasonally adjusted is better for comparing the same month in different years and for averages, seasonally adjusted is better otherwise). So where did you get 1,382,000?

BUT - of those jobs, only 78,000(!?!) of those were between the all-important 25-54 age ranges.
age 25-54 nsa:
May 2013: 94,963,000
May 2014: 95,510,000
change: +547,000

age 25-54 sa
May 2013: 94,554,000
May 2014: 95,041,000
change +487,000

And men between 25-54 actually lost 30,000 jobs.
Men age 25-54 nsa
May 2013: 50,867,000
May 2014:51,105,000
change: +238,000

Men age 25-54 sa
May 2013: 50,605,000
May 2014: 50,837,000
change: +232,000



Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

I'm really baffled how you can cite numbers that bear absolutely no relation to your own link. How did you manage that?
 
...

I'm really baffled how you can cite numbers that bear absolutely no relation to your own link. How did you manage that?

Extremist right wing bias?

Economic reality never supports extremist theories, so they make up their own reality. It must be nice to be able to live in ones on little fantasy world that always proves themselves right.
 
Extremist right wing bias?

Economic reality never supports extremist theories, so they make up their own reality. It must be nice to be able to live in ones on little fantasy world that always proves themselves right.
No, it's not bias....he certainly didn't make up the numbers and I'm confident he isn't trying to skew things at all. He either misread the table or relied on someone else and didn't think to double check.
 
Are you talking net change in jobs or net change in employment? (not the same thing). In either case, I'm not seeing where you're getting the 1,382,000 number from. Assuminb you mean employment, not jobs, since you're linking to Table A-9, I look at it and see that the not seasonally adjusted (nsa) change for age 16+ from May 2013 to May 2014 was 1,966,000 and the seasonally adjusted change was 1,895,000 (not seasonally adjusted is better for comparing the same month in different years and for averages, seasonally adjusted is better otherwise). So where did you get 1,382,000?


age 25-54 nsa:
May 2013: 94,963,000
May 2014: 95,510,000
change: +547,000

age 25-54 sa
May 2013: 94,554,000
May 2014: 95,041,000
change +487,000


Men age 25-54 nsa
May 2013: 50,867,000
May 2014:51,105,000
change: +238,000

Men age 25-54 sa
May 2013: 50,605,000
May 2014: 50,837,000
change: +232,000



Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

I'm really baffled how you can cite numbers that bear absolutely no relation to your own link. How did you manage that?

You are absolutely right, I completely misread the stats...I took the non-seasonally adjusted numbers from May 2013 and compared them to the seasonally adjusted numbers from May 2014 (DUH!!!).

I applaud and thank you for spotting that.


But, now let's compare two apples instead of apples and oranges (like I did above)

The trend still bears out what the general pattern that I stated earlier, just not as drastically:

Over the last year (seasonally adjusted):

1,895,000 more people were employed.

662,000 in the 16-24 age range.

487,000 in the (IMO) all-important 25-54 age range.

746,000 in the 55 plus age range.


So, that means, of all the increase in employment in the past 12 months, only 25.6% of it was in the important 25-54 age range (even though this age range makes up 65% of the total number of employed)

The other 74.4% of the increases were for those under 25 and those over 55.

So, once again, the vast majority of the additional employment during the past 12 months was due to jobs for students and seniors (relatively speaking)...McDonald's/WalMart-type jobs.
 
Last edited:
Extremist right wing bias?

Economic reality never supports extremist theories, so they make up their own reality. It must be nice to be able to live in ones on little fantasy world that always proves themselves right.

Hey...I did not see you notice...and I gave you the link?

So I would not get too high on the hog were I you.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely right, I completely misread the stats...I took the non-seasonally adjusted numbers from May 2013 and compared them to the seasonally adjusted numbers from May 2014 (DUH!!!).
That was going to be the next thing I was going to check.

[quoyr]I applaud and thank you for spotting that.[/quote] No problem.


But, now let's compare two apples instead of apples and oranges (like I did above)

The trend still bears out what the general pattern that I stated earlier, just not as drastically:

Over the last year (seasonally adjusted):

1,895,000 more people were employed.

662,000 in the 16-24 age range.

487,000 in the (IMO) all-important 25-54 age range.

746,000 in the 55 plus age range.


So, that means, of all the increase in employment in the past 12 months, only 25.6% of it was in the important 25-54 age range (even though this age range makes up 65% of the total number of employed)

The other 74.4% of the increases were for those under 25 and those over 55.

So, once again, the vast majority of the additional employment during the past 12 months was due to jobs for students and seniors (relatively speaking)...McDonald's/WalMart-type jobs.
To nit pick, when looking at the same month in different years, it's more accurate to use the not seasonally adjusted data because there's no need to compensate for seasonal variations when the same factors apply. Not a huge deal but seasonal adjustment does distort the numbers a little in this case.

But the trend is the same, so no real issue.

You do have to think about changes to the 55+ age group...A 54 year old with a job turns 55...that's a gross addition to the 55+ group. 55+ continued to rise in employment throughout the recessection.

And characterizing the increasse in employment as low level McDonalds/Walmart is a little simplistic and only a guess. I'm to lazy to attempt to track the changes and the employment type isn't broken down by age group, so we can't really say for sure. Real wages have been dropping so that is a sign of decline in job quality, but it could also be a function of the fact that workers aren't in much position to try to get higher salary but just get what they can.

Bottom line is that the labor market is improving, but too slowly and not well. I think you're being a little more specific than can reasonably be determined in characterizing the changes as minimum wage type. That's where I think your bias shows.
 
To nit pick, when looking at the same month in different years, it's more accurate to use the not seasonally adjusted data because there's no need to compensate for seasonal variations when the same factors apply. Not a huge deal but seasonal adjustment does distort the numbers a little in this case.

But the trend is the same, so no real issue.

You do have to think about changes to the 55+ age group...A 54 year old with a job turns 55...that's a gross addition to the 55+ group. 55+ continued to rise in employment throughout the recessection.

And characterizing the increasse in employment as low level McDonalds/Walmart is a little simplistic and only a guess. I'm to lazy to attempt to track the changes and the employment type isn't broken down by age group, so we can't really say for sure. Real wages have been dropping so that is a sign of decline in job quality, but it could also be a function of the fact that workers aren't in much position to try to get higher salary but just get what they can.

Bottom line is that the labor market is improving, but too slowly and not well. I think you're being a little more specific than can reasonably be determined in characterizing the changes as minimum wage type. That's where I think your bias shows.

Well I did use the terms 'relatively speaking' and '-type' for a reason.

I am not saying that all the jobs are with McDonald's/Walmart. But clearly, when the vast majority of new employment is in under 25 and over 55, then I think one can reasonably assume that they are not well paying jobs.

Additionally, as I pointed out in a later post, when employment in the 45-54 - which many consider the prime money making years - age range is actually dropping...this doubly (IMO) indicates that the jobs being created in the U.S. economy over the last 12 months are of a generally lower pay scale on average. Quantity over quality.


And I will state again, I have no political bias AT ALL. I detest both parties. I have ZERO political affiliation to ANY political organization.

My bias is to the truth and to the best possible economy for all humans (American and otherwise).

And I think that it is becoming more and more clear to those it's an open mind that a Fed/central bank-stimulated economy is not the best possible economy.

That is not a bias - if it works, power to it - that is just an observation of the available data mixed in with, IMO, common sense.

Though I understand why you would believe I was biased...most on here are.

Me? I don't give a **** who wins the elections...I just wish they would stop messing up the economy (as both parties presently are, IMO).


Once again, I want to thank you for correcting me and not rubbing my nose too much that I messed up. I give you flak sometimes, but I have never questioned your expertise on statistics.

I am here to learn (investing IS my profession, after all) and if I am reading the stats wrongly, I learn nothing.
 
Last edited:
then we need to increase minimum wage.

Because we are failing to make quality jobs/careers available for our youth, we need to increase minimum wage? How about we fix the economy and create the right jobs so they can get a mortgage, and their kids can pick up their burger flipping job.

You see the right problem, but you have the wrong solution.

I should add, if there were to be an increase in minimum wage, it should be done at the state level, not federal.
 
Last edited:
Because we are failing to make quality jobs/careers available for our youth, we need to increase minimum wage? How about we fix the economy and create the right jobs so they can get a mortgage, and their kids can pick up their burger flipping job.

You see the right problem, but you have the wrong solution.

I should add, if there were to be an increase in minimum wage, it should be done at the state level, not federal.

I think you are missing the point.

Conservatives generally argue that increasing the minimum wage shifts jobs from younger workers to more mature workers, because if employers are going to have to pay a decent wage, they prefer to have more mature workers that possibly require less training and less babysitting. Economic history supports this point of view.

Someone was arguing that our jobs have shifted away from the middle ages adult and towards the young and older Americans (although someone later succesfully refuted that claim), and they were complaining about that. So I suggested that a possible "fix" for jobs moving away from middle aged folks would be to increase the minimum wage, which has been proven to shift jobs away from younger folks toward middle age folks.

In otherwords, maybe the fact that min wage hasn't kept up with inflation for at least 5 years, explains or partially explains why jobs have shifted towards younger people and people close to retirement age (if that has happened at all, it's debateable).
 
I've not been wrong about anything. I've given sources for everything I've said.

Please learn the difference between a total number and a percentage. There's a very large difference and you don't seem to understand it. It's really simple. There are more people in the workforce now than in December 2007. This is indisputable. There is also a lower percentage of capable Americans working than in December 2007. This is indisputable as well.

However, what people were saying in this thread was that fewer people in the workforce. That was 100% false, as I proved. Please pay attention to important details if you're going to respond to me.

You DARE to refute his source CNSNews.com? Their fair and balanced is right there in their tag line.

CNSNews.com
THE RIGHT NEWS. RIGHT NOW.

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."​

A news source that cites their parent company as a way to somehow appear nonbiased should ALWAYS be trusted.

:lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom