• 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!

Jobs Report: U.S. Adds 257,000 Jobs; Unemployment Ticks Up to 5.7%

Slyfox696 said:
I think it's funny how people pout when they've been shown to be wrong and less informed than others. Egos are so important, I guess...


He gets it. He knows you know way more about this than he does, but your constant use of facts derail his intent to criticize.
Click to expand...

Oh, the funny part is that he then sent me a couple of PMs.
 
DA60 said:
When I want an opinion about the BLS from an ex-BLS bureaucrat (like you claim to be) who is INCREDIBLY biased and has shown time and time and time and time and time again to be GIGANTICALLY pro-BLS to the point of creepy (imo)...I will let you know.
Click to expand...
There is no credible reason to criticize the BLS.

After all, if they were truly biased, why would we know that U3 hit 10%? Or that LFPR has been dropping since 2001?


But since, as the Head of Gallup stated, the U-3 is a 'big lie'...I am not holding my breath on that one either.
Click to expand...
The funny thing about that "big lie" is that it isn't the BLS telling it.

BLS has published a variety of statistics for years. They haven't been hiding things like marginalized workers, discouraged workers, not in the labor force etc.

It's up to the media, politicians and public to figure out which of the offered measures they want to use. The BLS does nothing wrong, and tells no lies, by publishing the U3 numbers.
 
Erod said:
The truth? Yeah, I do. And those folks aren't even counted in the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Why should they be? I often hear people complain that "people who stopped looking are no longer counted as unemployed," but no one ever tries to explain WHY they should be considered unemployed.

Ok, so why should someone who is not trying to get a job be classified as unemployed? And if you don't want to include all not trying to work (such as retirees, housewives, students, disabled etc) then why do you want to include whatever group you do want to include?
 
upsideguy said:
...Cons will have to shift their criticism to income disparity, where they do have a case... as long as they are honest that income disparity is a 30 year problem, not something created by Obama.
Click to expand...

How ironic that cons are taking up an issue that is usually reserved for liberals, and ones that they often claim they don't care about.
 
Erod said:
The harsher reality is.....
Click to expand...
"Obama unemployment rate?" lol

You do know how to read that chart, right? In 2002-2004, the U6 unemployment rate was ALSO at 10%.

Participation in the labor force also flattened out in 2014. While it is low by recent standards (it was last at its current rates in the 1980s), and 1 year does not indicate a trend, it is certainly not the case that we are at the lowest LFPR in US history. In the 1950s, LFPR was below 60%; between 1960 and 1980, it was below 62%.

Its peak was 66%. We should also note the reasons for this: From the 1960s to 2001, women were steadily joining the workforce (a change conservatives protested for decades), as men were gradually exiting it. Women's participation peaked in 2001, and has slowly dropped.

LFPR is not just a function of people working. It also reflects people retiring, and people staying in school longer.
 
Erod said:
The harsher reality is.....

Gallup CEO: Number of Full-Time Jobs as Percent of Population Is Lowest It’s Ever Been (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
Click to expand...

The topic that I find most interesting is "what do we do when technology has replaced the need for human labor to the point that there are not enough 40 hour a week jobs for every family to have one". My favorite answer for the solution to the problem is shorter working hours to spread the available work in such a way that we have more jobs.

This fact is evidence that our economy is moving exactly in this direction.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Here is a link to the jobs report: Employment Situation Summary


" The labor force participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage point to 62.9 percent, following a decline of equal magnitude in the prior month." So really, there isn't a change in the LFPR as we were at 62.9 back in December. So that really doesn't mean much.

"Job gains occurred in retail trade, construction, health care, financial activities, and manufacturing." The largest industry in which new jobs occur is retail, jobs which we know are low-paying.
Click to expand...

The labor force participation rate pretty much leveled off about 14 mths ago. I suspect that's a sign that our economy started a "for real" recovery around that time. I suspect that ultimately the lfpr will continue to fall, as we become a more wealthy nation, and as our society ages and chooses to retire.

Retail jobs may be low paying, but the other three categories are generally considered high paying. So what's your point?
 
Erod said:
The harsher reality is.....

Gallup CEO: Number of Full-Time Jobs as Percent of Population Is Lowest It’s Ever Been (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
Click to expand...

And he's wrong:
fredgraph.png


Low? Yes. Lowest it's ever been? Nope.
 
Erod said:
The truth? Yeah, I do. And those folks aren't even counted in the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Why would employed people be counted as unemployed?

Also, the percent of people who are employed part time by choice is increasing, while the percent who are employed part time for economic reasons is declining.

Seems that for the most part, we are CHOOSING to work shorter hours.
 
imagep said:
Why would employed people be caused as unemployed?

Also, the percent of people who are employed part time by choice is increasing, while the percent who are employed part time for economic reasons is declining.

Seems that for the most part, we are CHOOSING to work shorter hours.
Click to expand...

The thing that makes least sense is that Part time for Economic reasosns is subjective and would make things very confiusing.

For example: Person A and Person B are both servers as the same restaurant. A only wants a part time job in order to look after the kids before and after school, so works 20 hours/week. B works a full time schedule of 40 hours/week. Then business gets a litle slow and B and has a couple of shifts cut short so only works 34 hours that week, which happens to be the reference week for the Household Survey. A is Employed, Usually Works Part Time, and B is Employed, Part Time for Economic Reasons.

So some people want B to be called Unemployed in which we would have the case where B usually works twice the number of hours as A, still has a job and makes more money than A, but B is unemployed and A is employed. That's nonsensical.
 
imagep said:
The labor force participation rate pretty much leveled off about 14 mths ago. I suspect that's a sign that our economy started a "for real" recovery around that time. I suspect that ultimately the lfpr will continue to fall, as we become a more wealthy nation, and as our society ages and chooses to retire.

Retail jobs may be low paying, but the other three categories are generally considered high paying. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

Yes retail jobs are low-paying, however when you compound that with previous economic data, such as in November 2014 with retail being the one of the two largest growers (Employment Situation Summary) the situation doesn't look well.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yes retail jobs are low-paying, however when you compound that with previous economic data, such as in November 2014 with retail being the one of the two largest growers (Employment Situation Summary) the situation doesn't look well.
Click to expand...


Is ~18% of new jobs added really abnormal or terrible in one report?
Employment by major industry sector Am I reading this correctly? It seems like Retail is around 10%, and it makes sense if the economy is still rebounding some that of course people are shopping more (even if December #s were down)

Their forecast is an overall decline in retail on a % basis by 2022.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Is ~18% of new jobs added really abnormal or terrible in one report?
Employment by major industry sector Am I reading this correctly? It seems like Retail is around 10%, and it makes sense if the economy is still rebounding some that of course people are shopping more (even if December #s were down)

Their forecast is an overall decline in retail on a % basis by 2022.
Click to expand...

My point isn't necessarily focusing on that one report, but rather the fact that many of the jobs being created not just then in November 2014 but more generally are low-paying. It isn't about people shopping, but rather that people are getting these low-paying retail jobs that is problematic.
 
imagep said:
The labor force participation rate increased. Many conservatives claim that is more important than the U3.
Click to expand...

It is important. And it seems to belie the claim of many on the left that the labor force participation rate drop was solely attributable to the increased level of retirements in the workforce.

Will be interesting to see if, with a world recession seeming to be around the corner, and American job numbers improving lately, if the labor force numbers drastically tick up again to reflect optimism in the job market and if jobs can actually be found to fill the demand.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It is important. And it seems to belie the claim of many on the left that the labor force participation rate drop was solely attributable to the increased level of retirements in the workforce.
Click to expand...
I don't recall any claiming the drop in LFPR was "solely" due to retirees.
 
pinqy said:
I don't recall any claiming the drop in LFPR was "solely" due to retirees.
Click to expand...

And I do.

And no, I have no intention of trying to research back months and years of threads to find an example for you.

I accept that you don't recall things the way I do.
 
imagep said:
The labor force participation rate increased. Many conservatives claim that is more important than the U3.
Click to expand...

Just another note - the labor force participation rate in Canada is 65.7% as opposed to the US rate this month of 62.9%. Canada's unemployment rate, as a result, is 6.6%. Why do you think the participation rate is less in America?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I think that's the biggest complaint I have with those who call themselves conservative...they have no convictions, no standards. Their only conviction, their only standard, is to criticize President Obama.

It just makes them look so damn stupid. A real conservative would be happy the economy is gaining so many private sector jobs. It just seems like most of those who call themselves "conservative" (at least those who shout the loudest) are actually upset when good news come from the jobs report, because all they can see is how it affects their team.
Click to expand...

I expect the next meme from conservatives will be that the President has nothing to do with employment. That is usually something they only resort to when a Republican is in office and that is their response to the low employment numbers that Republicans usually show. It was very popular when GW Bush was in office.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just another note - the labor force participation rate in Canada is 65.7% as opposed to the US rate this month of 62.9%. Canada's unemployment rate, as a result, is 6.6%. Why do you think the participation rate is less in America?
Click to expand...

More jobs shoveling snow?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
My point isn't necessarily focusing on that one report, but rather the fact that many of the jobs being created not just then in November 2014 but more generally are low-paying. It isn't about people shopping, but rather that people are getting these low-paying retail jobs that is problematic.
Click to expand...

And my point is they are saying that retail - as a % of the workforce- will decrease (albeit by a small amount) by 2022. So in fact they are predicting that more people will be getting the "non"lowpaying jobs
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just another note - the labor force participation rate in Canada is 65.7% as opposed to the US rate this month of 62.9%. Canada's unemployment rate, as a result, is 6.6%. Why do you think the participation rate is less in America?
Click to expand...


Far fewer public sector jobs ?
(on a % basis)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom