• 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!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

pinqy said:
So why did they cook the books to make the Labor Force Participation rate lower? It seems odd that you claim cooking the books but then cite the very same people as support for your position.
Click to expand...

Easy! This Administration has a long record of data manipulation.

The heads are still counted, they just shift them into a different category.

Here's a good article (Don't worry, it has pretty pictures and graphs for those of you that don't like to read and only get your news from sound bites.)


How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics


... the government is effectively saying that because the job situation has been so bad for many millions of unemployed people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens, they can no longer be considered to be potential participants in the work force at all. Because there is no hope for them - they no longer need to be counted. And it is this steady statistical cleansing from the workforce of the worst of the economic casualties - of these very real millions of individual tragedies - that is being presented as a rapidly improving jobs picture.

What the government's statistical deception is hiding is a catastrophic degree of change in generational employment levels, with the situation being much worse for the young and middle-aged than what is publicly presented. As the fundamental force of aging Boomers increasingly collides with the fundamental force of an employment disaster among younger Americans, the results may change everything that we think we know about economic growth, budget deficits, Social Security and Medicare, as well as all categories of investments.
 
BringIt said:
No just taking it it context.

Personally, before I go and vote, I want to know the real story not one fabricated from cherry picked data.
Click to expand...

You need to look at the "whole" story. All of the data, not just the good or the bad.
 
imagep said:
T
Once the unemployment rate drops below 5%, wage increases should start exceeding inflation.
Click to expand...

And incomes will start exceeding productivity (inflation!).
 
BringIt said:
I know you're being facetious and sarcastic with your comment,
Click to expand...
No, I'm serious. You do realize that the current participation rate is higher than anytime before 1978. Male participation has been declining since 1948.
The thing is that while it does have its uses, the participation rate is more influenced by non labor market factors. Changing demographics is the major one. More retirees, more students, a shift to more stay-home spouses...all would cause the participation to drop.


but it makes one ponder... What will happen to the job market when the President makes all the new illegal democrat voters, oops I mean immigrants, in to take the jobs, driving down wages, and then have to be counted in the tallies?
Click to expand...
They're already included. The survey doesn't ask about legal status. It asks about country of birth, but that's it.
 
apdst said:
All this means, is that more people stopped looking for a job.
Click to expand...

Not at all. This time, we didn't have people dropping out of the labor force, we actually had people getting jobs. You should read the report.
 
lizzie said:
That sounds good on the surface, until you understand that the labor force participation rate has steadily declined since 2008.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Labor Force Participation rate has been falling since the 1990s:

fredgraph.png
 
rcart76 said:
Top 3 excuses
Click to expand...

1) People not looking for a job anymore

2) People are not making what they use to

3) BENGHAZI !!!!!!!!
Click to expand...



Some people on the right will always find something to complain about when Obama's name comes up.

I can't wait to hear what they have to say after they lose again in 2016.

The clock is ticking.
 
lizzie said:
That sounds good on the surface, until you understand that the labor force participation rate has steadily declined since 2008.
Click to expand...

The labor force participation rate stopped declining about a year ago. It's been holding steady for the past 10 mths.

You are reporting news that is outdated and is no longer valid.
 
BringIt said:
Duh! They always cook the books just before an election.

---------------------------------------

To those of us that are not abject Obama lovers, this is a number they never mention!

How do you like this number from the same Bureau of Labor Statistics ?



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Data extracted on: October 3, 2014 (9:04:56 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over


View attachment 67173852
Click to expand...

Here is the rate from 2000
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2000_2014_all_period_M09_data.gif
 
vesper said:
I'm surprised that no one here connected the dots for a decrease in unemployment. Congress refused to extend unemployment benefits as they have in the past few years. As people's unemployment benefits run out, they start looking for a job and all of sudden aren't so picky at what they will take which coincides with the disappointing wages and an average workweek of 34 hours also stated in the OP article of new jobs.
Click to expand...

That's entirely possible and likely.

But if that explained the bulk of the new hires, I would have expected to see that effect last Dec just before the benefits ran out, and in January. New job creation was quite low during those months. Maybe it's just a delayed effect.
 
vesper said:
I'm surprised that no one here connected the dots for a decrease in unemployment. Congress refused to extend unemployment benefits as they have in the past few years. As people's unemployment benefits run out, they start looking for a job and all of sudden aren't so picky at what they will take which coincides with the disappointing wages and an average workweek of 34 hours also stated in the OP article of new jobs.
Click to expand...
Except that there are three applicants for every job opening.

Making the unemployed miserable arguably increases labor supply, as workers become less choosy and more willing to take whatever job they can find. But the US labor market in 2014 isn't constrained by supply, it’s constrained by demand: given what firms can sell, they have no need for as many hours of work as workers are willing to give.

So make the long-term unemployed more desperate; so what? They can't do anything to increase the amount of work demanded, and in fact their reduced purchasing power reduces labor demand.

You might imagine that the long-term unemployed, through their desperation, might take jobs away from existing workers, but it's not easy to see how that might work, and there’s no evidence that this is happening.
 
Kushinator said:
And incomes will start exceeding productivity (inflation!).
Click to expand...

Not neccessarally.

When was the last time that incomes started exceeding productivity?

I would assume that if ever end up having a labor shortage (highly unlikely), that rising compensation levels will lure discouraged workers back into the labor force, and we will quickly see an equalibrium point.

Either that or we will just import some more illegals in.
 
BringIt said:
Duh! They always cook the books just before an election.

---------------------------------------

To those of us that are not abject Obama lovers, this is a number they never mention!

How do you like this number from the same Bureau of Labor Statistics ?
Click to expand...
pinqy said:
So why did they cook the books to make the Labor Force Participation rate lower? It seems odd that you claim cooking the books but then cite the very same people as support for your position.
Click to expand...
:lamo:lamo:lamo

BringIt is the new champion of the game "how quickly can I contradict myself".

These threads get more and more fun, as Republican/conservatives keep desperately grabbing for ANY excuse to explain away an economy which is continually growing jobs, excuses they find necessary only because a Democrat is President.
 
When was the last time bad unemployment news came out before an election?

Books cooked.
 
imagep said:
Not at all. This time, we didn't have people dropping out of the labor force, we actually had people getting jobs. You should read the report.
Click to expand...

Ummm the labor force decreased by 97,000
Total employed went up 232,000
Unemployed went down 329,000
 
Kushinator said:
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with a stronger overall economy, higher profit margins for employers, increased private domestic investment, etc....
Click to expand...
Just 24 hours ago the DOW dropped 130 points before it corrected itself. Parts of Europe are in deflation, growth worries continue in China, and Islamic extremists have added a new layer of instability to the Middle East. I don't see any huge increase in private domestic investment. Most buying are companies buying back their own stock. a neat trick to top corporate executives whose compensation is tied to the performance of the company’s stock, but it does little to help a nation struggling from the aftermath of the crash in 2008. Nope, I'm more inclined to believe when the spigot was shut off on unemployment benefits people started taking any job they could find. Funny how that works.
 
Taylor said:
Roflmao, not at this rate.
Click to expand...

So?

You aren't aware that baby boomers are now retiring? The youngest baby boomers started retiring in 2009 with reduced ss benefits, and started retiring in mass with full benefits in 2011 or 2012. What's surprising is that the lfpr stopped declining almost a year ago - I expect this leveling off of the lfpr is a temporary thing.

This decline in the lfpr was projected decades ago. We even changed our ss tax rates in the early 1980s to accomidate for it. It should have surprised no one.

It's not an Obama issue, or even an economic one, it's an age demographic thing.
 
As per usual, the media look at the headline numbers and do not (for the most part) do their homework and look under the surface.

This is actually a fair report at BEST (I personally think it was a bad but not terrible report)...and typical of the Obama/Fed recovery (the Mercedes/McDonald's recovery)

(All these numbers are from the household survey)

Of the 232,000 more people employed in September,

- a whopping 230,000 are over 55!

- 45,000 were teenagers (16-19)

How did the rest do? Lousy.

- 20-24 years old went DOWN 72,000

- the all important 25-54 went DOWN 10,000

So all of the newly employed are either teenagers or over 55. The 20-54 age range had 82,000 less people employed.

Plus (or minus in this case), the average hourly wage dropped by a penny.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

So, basically, the less of the prime money making Americans are working and more of the lower wage, McDonald's/Walmart-type positions opened up.

Once again, the Mercedes/McDonald's recovery is in full swing (where the rich get richer and the middle class give up there solid jobs to work at McDonald's).
 
The headline in the OP says it all.Hiring Surge Pushes U.S. Jobless Rate to Six-Year Low of 5.9% - Bloomberg At this point in out failing economy you want to see unemployment numbers go up not down. That would mean people who had dropped out of the job market had decided to start looking for work again because they could see the economy improving. Instead what we see is even less people looking for work. The participation rate fell at least as much or more than the unemployment rate so unfortunately the unemployment rate numbers are worthless. This is the "new norm". This is OB changing America.
 
vesper said:
I don't see any huge increase in private domestic investment. Most buying are companies buying back their own stock. a neat trick to top corporate executives whose compensation is tied to the performance of the company’s stock, but it does little to help a nation struggling from the aftermath of the crash in 2008.
Click to expand...

I cannot comment on your myopic take of reality:

fredgraph.png


Nope, I'm more inclined to believe when the spigot was shut off on unemployment benefits people started taking any job they could find. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

A politically convenient belief does not translate into accuracy.
 
Kushinator said:
Have a look:

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know nearly as much about economics as you do, you are going to have to explain to me what that chart has to do with increases in income exceeding increases in employment and that resulting in driving inflation.

I don't see anything about income or employment or inflation on that graph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom