• 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!

Payrolls Climb More Than Forecast, U.S. Jobless Rate at 5.5%

Still just juking the stats

The participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people working or looking for a job, decreased to 62.8 percent from 62.9 percent in January.
 
Still just juking the stats
lol

Yes, employment can't possibly improve while a Democrat is President. It's unpossible!

Big jump in employment rates, almost no drop in the labor force participation rate. Wages are still flat, but otherwise it's a very good sign. Q1 may be impacted by bad weather again, but otherwise I for one am looking forward to more good news in the months to come.
 
The rate is calculated no different now then it has been for the last couple of decades. So there are no shenanigans going on with the rate.

That said these are solid job gains. After 2008 I never thought we'd see the rate anywhere near 5% again.
 
Maybe it's the Republican controlled Congress that we should be thanking in addition to President Obama.
 
The rate is calculated no different now then it has been for the last couple of decades. So there are no shenanigans going on with the rate.

That said these are solid job gains. After 2008 I never thought we'd see the rate anywhere near 5% again.

Indeedy. I am under the impression that USA incomes are comparable to 1970 levels as regards real spending power.
MickeyD jobs don't seem to strike me as real jobs because they are part time. I don't think I believe gov't statistics.
 
lol

Yes, employment can't possibly improve while a Democrat is President. It's unpossible!

Big jump in employment rates, almost no drop in the labor force participation rate. Wages are still flat, but otherwise it's a very good sign. Q1 may be impacted by bad weather again, but otherwise I for one am looking forward to more good news in the months to come.


It can, it improved a lot when Clinton was president.

The fact is that the unemployment rate can give a false picture because of the strict definition of it. People who were so discouraged they have stopped looking for work make the unemployment number look good but they haven't rejoined the workforce as the labor participation rate shows.

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2005_2015_all_period_M02_data.gif


This pretty much tells the whole story. The labor participation rate should actually be higher now with many more single parent households but it continues to drop. The excuse of the baby boomer retirement has passed since a big chunk of baby boomers are older than 65 and they would not be included in the rate working or not.
 
The rate is calculated no different now then it has been for the last couple of decades. So there are no shenanigans going on with the rate.

That said these are solid job gains. After 2008 I never thought we'd see the rate anywhere near 5% again.

the rate has always been a bad indicator of the actual job market especially when it is in direct conflict with the labor participation rate. If both were improving that would be one thing but less people are working now than in 2008 thats not a gain that just doing less bad.
 
I don't think I believe gov't statistics.

I don't necessarily trust the stats either, But don't blame that on the current president. Again, how the rate is calculated hasn't changed in decades. Reagan and Clinton admins did change how the calculations were done to make the stats look rosier than they really were. But since Clinton, there's been no changes.
 
The excuse of the baby boomer retirement has passed since a big chunk of baby boomers are older than 65...
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=baby+boomers


BB years : 1946 through 1964 => 18 years

2015 - 65 = 1950

It seems that the first four out of 18 years has hit 65.
It seems that three quarters of the years available to be born a baby boomer could leave you less than 65.



http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf
The baby boomersbegan turning 65 in 2011 and are now driving growthat the older ages of the population. By 2029, when allof the baby boomers will be 65 years and over, morethan 20 percent of the total U.S. population will be overthe age of 65.


:shrug:
 
Still just juking the stats

Good luck with that in 2016. Complaining that baby boomers are retiring, students are staying in school, and more women are staying home to raise young children won't do much to convince voters to turn against policies that have brought the economy back from the brink of the disaster it was nearly pushed into by deregulation of the financial sector.

The relatively low LFPR, combined with a growing belief among economists that the natural unemployment rate (NAIRU) in the US may now be as low as 4%, will allow the Fed to hold off on raising interest rates. We are now six years into a twenty-year expansion … if we can avoid screwing things up.
 
Maybe it's the Republican controlled Congress that we should be thanking in addition to President Obama.

Exactly what have republicans done to lower the unemployment rate?

I don't think that we should be thanking anyone other than the American economy.
 
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=baby+boomers


BB years : 1946 through 1964 => 18 years

2015 - 65 = 1950

It seems that the first four out of 18 years has hit 65.
It seems that three quarters of the years available to be born a baby boomer could leave you less than 65.



http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf
The baby boomersbegan turning 65 in 2011 and are now driving growthat the older ages of the population. By 2029, when allof the baby boomers will be 65 years and over, morethan 20 percent of the total U.S. population will be overthe age of 65.


:shrug:

If you look at the actual birth rate the drop off of birth rate is in 1959 with a lesser drop in 1949 yet there is no correlation of that in the labor participation rate which continues to drop at a steady rate. If baby boomers were the cause you would see the labor participation rate start to level off in 2011 but that is not the case.
 
i forgot that it was jobs report Friday.

let the celebrating begin!

or

DEBUNK-O-RAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111ONEONEONEONEONE

:lol::lol:
 
It can, it improved a lot when Clinton was president.

The fact is that the unemployment rate can give a false picture because of the strict definition of it. People who were so discouraged they have stopped looking for work make the unemployment number look good but they haven't rejoined the workforce as the labor participation rate shows.

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2005_2015_all_period_M02_data.gif


This pretty much tells the whole story. The labor participation rate should actually be higher now with many more single parent households but it continues to drop. The excuse of the baby boomer retirement has passed since a big chunk of baby boomers are older than 65 and they would not be included in the rate working or not.

The only thing that the lfpr proves is that fewer Americans are having to work. I don't know that that's a bad thing. I wish I didn't have to work. It has nothing to do with the economy.
 
Good luck with that in 2016. Complaining that baby boomers are retiring, students are staying in school, and more women are staying home to raise young children won't do much to convince voters to turn against policies that have brought the economy back from the brink of the disaster it was nearly pushed into by deregulation of the financial sector.

The relatively low LFPR, combined with a growing belief among economists that the natural unemployment rate (NAIRU) in the US may now be as low as 4%, will allow the Fed to hold off on raising interest rates. We are now six years into a twenty-year expansion … if we can avoid screwing things up.

People dont vote on numbers, the unemployment rate could be 0.1% but if a guy has been out of work the past 8 years he not going to think that those policies are working. The fact is there are a lot of people out of the workforce who would rather be in it and that 5.5% means jack **** to them.
 
Hmmm Something isnt right here. Dont we have a total population of about 320,000,000 counting everyone?
So 95,000,000 people (of illegible work age) outside the labor force puts it somewhere around 30% right of total population. I do enjoy a good fairy tale though.

participation rate sept 2014.jpg
 
The only thing that the lfpr proves is that fewer Americans are having to work. I don't know that that's a bad thing. I wish I didn't have to work. It has nothing to do with the economy.

if they dont have to work who is supporting them? single adult households are sky rocketing so its not spouses/significant others. Its the government that is subsidizing their living and that is a bad thing.
 
So, the headline is 295,000 more Americans employed.

But that is the establishment data and nothing to do with the U-3 unemployment rate...which dropped to 5.5%.

However, looking at the household data - which IS what is used for the official U-3 unemployment rate - only 176,000 more Americans are employed.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

And if you look further, on Table A-9, only 96,000 more Americans are employed.

Plus, if you look at the Full time and Part time workers...only 48,000 more Americans are employed.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm


With such lousy household survey numbers, how did the official unemployment rate drop?

Same reason as usual over the last few years, large numbers of people left the work force...178,000; and the participation rate dropped to 62.8%.


ALWAYS look beyond the headlines.
 
Exactly what have republicans done to lower the unemployment rate?

I don't think that we should be thanking anyone other than the American economy.

I was being facetious. Obama has done nothing to lower the unemployment rate, but people love to pretend he does.

The American economy has good bones - it always did. The fundamentals of the economy are strong, as John McCain correctly said in 2008. People laughed at him then and scoffed at his words. He was correct.
 
Maybe it's the Republican controlled Congress that we should be thanking in addition to President Obama.

Nope. On the day Obama was inaugurated the GOP held a meeting where they promised opposition to Obama's economic policies, and they stuck to it. 8 days later the House Republicans voted a unanimous no to Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

Even though millions of people were losing their jobs and homes the GOP put politics and party ahead of those people and did all they could to hinder economic growth. So to hell with them.
 
i forgot that it was jobs report Friday.

let the celebrating begin!

or

DEBUNK-O-RAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111ONEONEONEONEONE

:lol::lol:

With a few gratuitous Grubers thrown in!
 
Nope. On the day Obama was inaugurated the GOP held a meeting where they promised opposition to Obama's economic policies, and they stuck to it. 8 days later the House Republicans voted a unanimous no to Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

Even though millions of people were losing their jobs and homes the GOP put politics and party ahead of those people and did all they could to hinder economic growth. So to hell with them.

It's as partisan to credit Obama for this as it would be to credit the GOP controlled Congress. That was the point of my post. And the stimulus isn't the reason that the economy has rebounded. The economy is the reason the economy has rebounded. It has nothing to do with our government - including Obama. The economy of this country was bound to turn around to pre-2008 unemployment rates. And we did - 7 years later.
 
Back
Top Bottom