• 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

iguanaman said:
Simple is right. Except you are wrong

Investing in Stock Buybacks, Not People
Click to expand...


Its not their fault that the US economy is such a risky investment opportunity.

If you want a honest analysis of how sick or healthy this economy REALLY is just follow the money.

Or the investment decisions that are being made by organizations who are protecting their assets.
 
DA60 said:
Here is another perspective:

fredgraph.jpg


Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - 55 years and over - FRED - St. Louis Fed
Click to expand...

Your graph is fine and great, but you're not addressing the nuances and problems with the participation rate itself. For example, one historic explanation for the decline in the participation rate of 18-24 year olds is that more people in this age bracket have enrolled in school, skewing the participation rate of this age bracket downwards for a positive reason. How can you then argue that the increase of older workers participating in the labor force is a bad thing when the jobs younger workers would take are empty because they're all at school?

Further, how do you address the argument that older workers have increasingly participated in the workforce since 1990 because of the erosion of private pension systems and the lack of preparation for retirement, something that has nothing to do with partisan politics? In fact, on this point it's pretty clear that LFP in the older age bracket is a long term trend and not something you can blame on Obama. You've sort of argued against yourself here.

EDIT: Further, the graph you've presented shows 55+ LFP pretty much maxing out around 2009/2010. This rise in LFP, demographically speaking, is due to the number of people moving into the age bracket, and now that the baby boomer generation is starting to reach old age we'll see LFP in this age bracket level off (already have seen this) and start to decline.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Your graph is fine and great, but you're not addressing the nuances and problems with the participation rate itself. For example, one historic explanation for the decline in the participation rate of 18-24 year olds is that more people in this age bracket have enrolled in school, skewing the participation rate of this age bracket downwards for a positive reason. How can you then argue that the increase of older workers participating in the labor force is a bad thing when the jobs younger workers would take are empty because they're all at school?

Further, how do you address the argument that older workers have increasingly participated in the workforce since 1990 because of the erosion of private pension systems and the lack of preparation for retirement, something that has nothing to do with partisan politics? In fact, on this point it's pretty clear that LFP in the older age bracket is a long term trend and not something you can blame on Obama. You've sort of argued against yourself here.
Click to expand...
For the record:

I am not just blaming Obama...not in the slightest.

I blame him AND GW Bush AND the Fed AND Congress (for letting the above do what they are/have done).

This madness started well before Obama...but he is the one who is in office now.

Please believe me, if the next guy/gal in the WH is as inept as the last two, I will blame him/her as well (along with the Fed).

I don't care who is in the White House, just as long as they do a good job.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
So Corporations are NOT buying back massive amounts of their outstanding shares ?

I believe since 2008, they've devoted 52 cents of every dollar of profit and cash flow to the repurchase of shares.
Click to expand...

Share buybacks represented roughly 35% of all free cash flow and short term cash equivalents in 2013. Here is a good take on the situation.

FWIW, private nonresidential fixed investment does not include share buybacks and dividends.
 
DA60 said:
For the record:

I am not just blaming Obama...not in the slightest.

I blame him AND GW Bush AND the Fed AND Congress (for letting the above do what they are/have done).

This madness started well before Obama...but he is the one who is in office now.

Please believe me, if the next guy/gal in the WH is as inept as the last two, I will blame him/her as well (along with the Fed).


Good day.
Click to expand...

Okay but I don't see how your argument is consistent then. Here was your argument:

It's not so much the numbers of jobs created/lost that I find astounding...it's the ratio of over 55 to under 55 (over 7:1) that I find so concerning.

Maybe this should be called the 'Obama seniors recovery'.
Click to expand...

You're not addressing the nuances in the LFPR. For example, this increase could be a good thing in the sense that the under 55 LFP has dropped due to enrollment in education.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Okay but I don't see how your argument is consistent then. Here was your argument:



You're not addressing the nuances in the LFPR. For example, this increase could be a good thing in the sense that the under 55 LFP has dropped due to enrollment in education.
Click to expand...

Such a high increase in continued education is indicative of unemployablity with a four year degree; these are 26 year olds, still living at home, that are going back for their Masters and Ph.D.s because they can't find a job...and they're doing it with enormous loads of additional student debt. These "masters" will end up, in the long run, as marginally better paid slaves.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Okay but I don't see how your argument is consistent then. Here was your argument:



You're not addressing the nuances in the LFPR. For example, this increase could be a good thing in the sense that the under 55 LFP has dropped due to enrollment in education.
Click to expand...

My posting of that chart had but one purpose, to show that roughly half the reason the LFPR was dropping was not due to Americans retiring.

Hey, up until a few days ago...I thought that statement was true.

Just as I was also surprised - and disturbed - that such a huge percentage of the new employment in America since the Great Depression 'officially' ended has gone towards over 55's compared to under 55's (over 7:1).

Who cares whose fault it is...it has to be reversed or at least balanced out for America's future, imo.


Btw...thanks for being civil (for once).
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Because facts don't matter to you.

In fact, the August jobs report was revised upweard,
showing the President actually should be blamed for hurting his party low-balling the jobs report .
Click to expand...

Keep grasping at those invisible straws.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
... the economic impact of building a pipeline v. building a hotel. The point was (and is) in terms of job creation, the Keystone Pipeline is much to do about nothing.... Even if you just want to focus on the build... the Keystone pipeline creates about as many jobs as five major hotels.
Click to expand...

If you think only 2,000 people are going to be effected by the pipeline, you don't know anything about pipelining.
 
DA60 said:
Ummm...the chart shows that the LFPR of those over 55 has increased since 2000.

How can 1/2 of the drop in the LFPR since 2000 be attributed to seniors when the BLS states that the LFPR of those over 55 has gone up since 2000?

Come on now.
Click to expand...

So prove it!

Find the multiplicative factor for both labor force and the total population, and use it to smooth population dynamics so that you can accurately compare population trends from 1995 with 2013. A less accurate, but easier approach would be to use averages for both population and employment. Then compare the differences for the over 55 cohort.

Or..... you can just use that data provided in the White House's research. They take an even more methodical approach, using lifecycle data among multiple cohort groups to weed out consistencies in participation as a function of age. If that isn't enough, the authors include two additional methods of modeling: Time Series and Structural Micro-Data modeling.

The authors were detailed enough to analyze other factors influencing labor force participation; cyclical and residual, employing both Time Series and Multivariate linear analysis.

Their results have been provided multiple times in this thread.

total aging trend.JPG
 
I have 2 issues with this release of information......

1) It is not accounting for all those people who gave up looking.

AND

2) Jobs as fry cooks at McDonald's and greeters at Wal-Mart seem to be the vast majority of the jobs people are picking up.

Look, folks. The effects of the Great Recession are going to be felt for at least a generation. When The Great Depression hit, it wasn't until the 1950's that things were going at the rate they were before the depression hit. It's the same here. Rosy outlooks are only seen through rose colored glasses, but the ugly fact that our economy still needs improvement is not going to go away any time soon. I don't give a damn who is in office, Republican or Democrat. This problem will be with us for some time to come.
 
danarhea said:
I have 2 issues with this release of information......

1) It is not accounting for all those people who gave up looking.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to consider them unemployed and the same as people trying to find work? What does someone who hasn't looked for work in February tell me about the job market in August?

But the number of people not looking (regardless of whether they ever looked) but say they want a job, is tallied and available. A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

AND

2) Jobs as fry cooks at McDonald's and greeters at Wal-Mart seem to be the vast majority of the jobs people are picking up.
Click to expand...
There's no way to know that. At best you can look at overall industry.
 
Kushinator said:
Share buybacks represented roughly 35% of all free cash flow and short term cash equivalents in 2013. Here is a good take on the situation.

FWIW, private nonresidential fixed investment does not include share buybacks and dividends.
Click to expand...


Hmm...then they backed off a bit. It was over 50 percent.

Still a substantial amount and a clear indicator that they're not as confident in these jobs numbers as some of the posters here are.
 
Kushinator said:
So prove it!

Find the multiplicative factor for both labor force and the total population, and use it to smooth population dynamics so that you can accurately compare population trends from 1995 with 2013. A less accurate, but easier approach would be to use averages for both population and employment. Then compare the differences for the over 55 cohort.

Or..... you can just use that data provided in the White House's research. They take an even more methodical approach, using lifecycle data among multiple cohort groups to weed out consistencies in participation as a function of age. If that isn't enough, the authors include two additional methods of modeling: Time Series and Structural Micro-Data modeling.

The authors were detailed enough to analyze other factors influencing labor force participation; cyclical and residual, employing both Time Series and Multivariate linear analysis.

Their results have been provided multiple times in this thread.

View attachment 67174009
Click to expand...

The BLS states that the LFPR of those over 55 has gone up significantly since 2000.

if that is not proof enough for you that the notion that the White House is putting forward that roughly half of the LFPR drop since 2000 is due to senior retirement is erroneous...so be it.

As much as I belittle the BLS, I will take their word over the White House's 'model's' on this any day.


I will let those with an open mind decide which argument makes more sense.


We are done here, for now.

Good day.
 
pinqy said:
Why would you want to consider them unemployed and the same as people trying to find work?
Click to expand...

'Unemployed
[uhn-em-ploid]
adjective
1.
not employed; without a job; out of work:
an unemployed secretary.'

Unemployed | Define Unemployed at Dictionary.com

Why? Because by definition (I don't care about the BLS definition), they ARE unemployed.
it amazes me that types like you believe that people who are unemployed and want a job and are available to work can be considered NOT unemployed.

But the number of people not looking (regardless of whether they ever looked) but say they want a job, is tallied and available. A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
Click to expand...

And if you count all those that are available to work now and who want a job the unemployment rate would be (by my quick calculations) 9.1%.

And that number is why, imo, the BLS is allowed/instructed to tabulate the 'official' unemployment rate as it does.

Because 5.9% sounds a WHOLE lot better then 9.1%.
 
DA60 said:
'Unemployed
[uhn-em-ploid]
adjective
1.
not employed; without a job; out of work:
an unemployed secretary.'

Unemployed | Define Unemployed at Dictionary.com

Why? Because by definition (I don't care about the BLS definition), they ARE unemployed.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand that there's a difference between a dictionary definition and a technical definition used for a specific purpose, there's not much help for you.

By the dictionary definition you cite, the unemployment rate would be approximately 54%. By the dictionary definition you would be including infants, prisoners, people in a coma, and everyone not able to work or who doesn't want to work as unemployed.

Why do you think that's useful?

Oh, now, before you come back with "well, of course I didn't mean to include infants etc, they fit the dictionary definition and you can't get around that.

it amazes me that types like you believe that people who are unemployed and want a job and are available to work can be considered NOT unemployed.
Click to expand...
I believe that people who are not trying to work or are unavailable for work do not tell us anything useful about the actual conditions of the labor market. And again, your dictionary definition doesn't say anything about desire or availability. You can't have it both ways...say the BLS definition is wrong because it doesn't match the dictionary, but then come up with your own definition that doesn't match the dictionary either.

And you're avoiding the point....what does someone who is not trying to work tell us about the current availability of jobs?



And if you count all those that are available to work now and who want a job the unemployment rate would be (by my quick calculations) 9.1%.

And that number is why, imo, the BLS is allowed/instructed to tabulate the 'official' unemployment rate as it does.

Because 5.9% sounds a WHOLE lot better then 9.1%.[/QUOTE]
 
pinqy said:
If you don't understand that there's a difference between a dictionary definition and a technical definition used for a specific purpose, there's not much help for you.

By the dictionary definition you cite, the unemployment rate would be approximately 54%. By the dictionary definition you would be including infants, prisoners, people in a coma, and everyone not able to work or who doesn't want to work as unemployed.

Why do you think that's useful?

Oh, now, before you come back with "well, of course I didn't mean to include infants etc, they fit the dictionary definition and you can't get around that.

I believe that people who are not trying to work or are unavailable for work do not tell us anything useful about the actual conditions of the labor market. And again, your dictionary definition doesn't say anything about desire or availability. You can't have it both ways...say the BLS definition is wrong because it doesn't match the dictionary, but then come up with your own definition that doesn't match the dictionary either.

And you're avoiding the point....what does someone who is not trying to work tell us about the current availability of jobs?



And if you count all those that are available to work now and who want a job the unemployment rate would be (by my quick calculations) 9.1%.

And that number is why, imo, the BLS is allowed/instructed to tabulate the 'official' unemployment rate as it does.

Because 5.9% sounds a WHOLE lot better then 9.1%.
Click to expand...

1) My dictionary point is that you are calling people NOT unemployed who ARE unemployed...by the English language definition AND (I assume) by most people's definition.

Now, if you want to call them as different classes of unemployed...fine. But you are not even doing that.

This argument is pointless as you clearly have your mind made up.

All I am saying is that these people that do not have a job, want a job and are available to work ARE unemployed...by definition.

And unless I am wrong, most people use a dictionary rather then the BLS to tell them what words mean.


2) I was not avoiding anything. I took from your post what interested me and commented on it.

But I will answer your question...the first thing that occurs to me is it tells me they are either wealthy enough that they do not need a job (which is the VAST minority) or that they want a job, but sincerely believe that there is not a job available to them a) at all; or b) that will make a meaningful improvement in their life (i.e. they need far more money then the only job they think they can get will pay).
 
DA60 said:
Ummm...the chart shows that the LFPR of those over 55 has increased since 2000.

How can 1/2 of the drop in the LFPR since 2000 be attributed to seniors when the BLS states that the LFPR of those over 55 has gone up since 2000?

Come on now.
Click to expand...
Umm, because of math?

Let's say we have 100 people in the labor force. 10% of them are over 55 (10 people). 60% of those over 55 do not participate because of retirement (6 people). This means 6 people out of 100 (6%) is not in the labor force because of retirement.

Now, 15 years later, we still have 100 people in the labor force. 40% of them are over 55 (40 people). Of them, only 30% (an improvement of 30%) do not participate because of retirement (12 people). This means 12 people out of 100 is not in the labor force because of retirement. But our percentage of people not in the labor force because of retirement has still increased (6% to 12%).

Obviously I made those particular numbers up, but they clearly show that just because the percentage in one subgroup increase, that doesn't mean the percentage of the overall group cannot decrease because of that group.

So, yeah...math. In other words, your chart really had nothing to do with anything (like usual).
Fenton said:
Well I would disagree with thee Democrats wouldn't I ?
Click to expand...
Ugh, my bad, wrong thread. I answered in the correct thread.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
Yes, everyone. The fact you found an article which agrees the recession technically ended in summer 2009 (which even I said was true) doesn't change the fact the EFFECTS from the recession continued on long after.

But thank you for wasting my time with an irrelevant source that simply confirmed what I already agreed to and in no way disputed what I said. Good day.
Click to expand...

A few other sources that think the 'recovery' started in 2009:

The U.S. Economic Recovery: Long, Slow, but Still Going - Businessweek

The recovery began in 2009 but 2013 will get the credit [UPDATE] - UPI.com


So, UPI, Businessweek and the the Pew Research Center (for starters) saying the recovery began in July, 2009.

Jeez...even Paul Krugman agrees with me (that it started in 2009 anyway).

'And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html


I give up on this.

Anyway, I have made my point...you don't agree, so be it.

I are done here.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
A few other sources that think the 'recovery' started in 2009:

The U.S. Economic Recovery: Long, Slow, but Still Going - Businessweek

The recovery began in 2009 but 2013 will get the credit [UPDATE] - UPI.com


So, UPI, Businessweek and the the Pew Research Center (for starters) saying the recovery began in July, 2009.

Jeez...even Paul Krugman agrees with me (that it started in 2009 anyway).

'And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html


I give up on this.

Anyway, I have made my point...you don't agree, so be it.

I are done here.


Good day.
Click to expand...

Employment is a lagging indicator.
 
Fenton said:
Wow, given that statistic, it would seem the FED is also less than objective.

Wasn't it Yellen ( Fellow Keynesian ) who claimed the falling Labor participation rate was due to demographics ?
Click to expand...

She did say this recently:

'What is more difficult to determine is whether some portion of the increase in disability rates, retirements, and school enrollments since the Great Recession reflects cyclical forces. While structural factors have clearly and importantly affected each of these three trends, some portion of the decline in labor force participation resulting from these trends could be related to the recession and slow recovery and therefore might reverse in a stronger labor market'

FRB: Speech--Yellen, Labor Market Dynamics and Monetary Policy--August 22, 2014


I am not sure if she is just saying that to justify continuing low interest rates after the initial Fed target of 6% U-3 rate is now met OR if she just really feels that way.

Two things about Yellen for me:

1) I trust that she means what she says (more or less)/

2) I trust that she is a macroeconomic ignoramus (like most at the Fed).
Sure, she is a fantastic bean counter. But a good economist? :rofl:
 
danarhea said:
I have 2 issues with this release of information......

1) It is not accounting for all those people who gave up looking.
Click to expand...

So? If they give up looking, then they are not seeking a job, and thus they aren't unemployed, they are either retired or doing something else (like volunteer work, being a homemaker, going to school...you know, the things that republicans now despise but used to value).

2) Jobs as fry cooks at McDonald's and greeters at Wal-Mart seem to be the vast majority of the jobs people are picking up.
Click to expand...

Sure. Those are still jobs. Conservatives seem to not even want the minimum wage to exist, they seem perfectly fine with low wage employment, so no conservative should be complaining about lots of low wage jobs being created. That's simply where the demand for workers is, and with wages not increasing (and conservatives seem to not want that to happen), more and more jobs will be low wage.

Look, folks. The effects of the Great Recession are going to be felt for at least a generation. When The Great Depression hit, it wasn't until the 1950's that things were going at the rate they were before the depression hit. It's the same here. Rosy outlooks are only seen through rose colored glasses, but the ugly fact that our economy still needs improvement is not going to go away any time soon. I don't give a damn who is in office, Republican or Democrat. This problem will be with us for some time to come.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But the drop in unemployment is real, and it's a step toward that recovery. No one is claiming that our economy is 100% sound, only that it is slowly and very steadily improving. Most of us would much rather see slow steady growth than booms and crashes - so the nice thing is that since we aren't having a boom, as long as we stay the course we are not likely to see a crash anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom