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

OrphanSlug · Mar 6, 2015

Visbek said:
Out of curiosity, when has he done that? I don't recall him ignoring the wage issue. I don't think he's even made a statement yet on the new numbers.

On this latest report, not yet so far as I can tell. But, it would be extremely foolish for you to suggest Obama has not tried in the past, many times over, to take credit for what can be construed as a favorable economic report.

pinqy · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
labor participation rate only counts those 16 to 65

are you talking Europe? Because in the U., Canada, and Mexico, there's no upper limit.

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

Rearden said:
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.

View attachment 67181474

Children and institutionalized people aren't included as part of the potential labor force. Also, as our population grows, it's only to be expected that the raw number of people who aren't working will increase.

Rearden · Mar 6, 2015

You know they will never let the standard of living go up but will take it from somewhere else. That would be like giving people a non taxable raise. We cant have that.

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Lower gas prices will cause job cuts in the energy sector, but because lower gas prices mean more money in the pockets of consumers that is good for the rest of our economy.

Visbek · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
labor participation rate only counts those 16 to 65....

Incorrect. It's 16 and older. People over 65 certainly count, which is why LFPR is more comprehensive a measure than unemployment figures.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I will again point out that if baby boomer early retirement was the major cause of the rate drop then in 2011 when the baby boomers aged out of the rate calculation the rate would start to flatten out but it hasnt.

And you will be reminded again that you are wrong.

Again, Boomers are currently aged 51 to 69, and the oldest cohort is the smallest. Roughly 2/3 have not yet hit 65. Half are not eligible for Social Security yet. They probably won't be mostly out of the workforce until 2034.

Rearden · Mar 6, 2015

I dont believe I said they were but quoted total population at approximately 320,000,000.

imagep said:
Children and institutionalized people aren't included as part of the potential labor force. Also, as our population grows, it's only to be expected that the raw number of people who aren't working will increase.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 6, 2015

ludin said:
it has everything to do with the unemployment rate though. these people aren't counted in the unemployment rate. so it lowers the unemployment rate whenever they stop actively looking for work making it seem way better than what it was.

It is a total distortion of the actual unemployment rate. the U6 number is way better number to look at because it includes all of the people not just some cherry picked rosy scenario in order to gain political points.

But if someone isn't actively looking for work then how can they be considered part of the labor force?

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
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.

I'm no supporter of welfare, but most of those people aren't on welfare.

The number of rich people increases every year, and the number of retired people also increases. Also the current trend today is for young folks to stay in their parents households longer. And more families are becoming single income earner families so that the spouse doesn't have to work outside the home.

Back in the good ole days, it was expected that the wife would stay at home and be a homemaker and a good mom. Republicans used to believe in family values, obviously they no longer believe in family values.

ludin · Mar 6, 2015

imagep said:
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.

some minor credit goes to the congress for lawsuits and other things that have stopped some of Obama's more destructive items from going through.
otherwise things would be worse.

the American economy though has once again shown it's strength of muscle. however I think also companies are profiting but not needing to expand as much
as they did before 2008. they are running slimmer and leaner and building up huge reserves I think in case something like that would happen again.

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

DA60 said:
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.

I always look forward you your jobs report analysis. You are most capable of finding the black lining in every white cloud.

ludin · Mar 6, 2015

imagep said:
I'm no supporter of welfare, but most of those people aren't on welfare.

The number of rich people increases every year, and the number of retired people also increases. Also the current trend today is for young folks to stay in their parents households longer. And more families are becoming single income earner families so that the spouse doesn't have to work outside the home.

Back in the good ole days, it was expected that the wife would stay at home and be a homemaker and a good mom. Republicans used to believe in family values, obviously they no longer believe in family values.

if they aren't working and not getting some kind of government living check then they are living with their parents or they are involved in something illegal under the table.
none of this is a good thing.

you would be 100% wrong on the family values and you have no evidence to support this claim.

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
labor participation rate only counts those 16 to 65 so it doesnt matter how big the percentage of our population is over 65 it has no bearing on the rate and I will again point out that if baby boomer early retirement was the major cause of the rate drop then in 2011 when the baby boomers aged out of the rate calculation the rate would start to flatten out but it hasnt.

No, there is no upper limit to lfpr.

My 99 year old granny is included in the lfpr.

ludin · Mar 6, 2015

imagep said:
I always look forward you your jobs report analysis. You are most capable of finding the black lining in every white cloud.

because when you get into the details there wasn't a white cloud to begin with.

ludin · Mar 6, 2015

Khayembii Communique said:
But if someone isn't actively looking for work then how can they be considered part of the labor force?

then why claim victory of a lower unemployment rate when the main reason for the drop was people not looking for work?
you can't. it is a BS number. a person not looking for work or given up looking for work is still unemployed. they have no job and more than likely their unemployment check ran out.
that doesn't make them less unemployed.

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

ludin said:
it has everything to do with the unemployment rate though. these people aren't counted in the unemployment rate. so it lowers the unemployment rate whenever they stop actively looking for work making it seem way better than what it was.

It is a total distortion of the actual unemployment rate. the U6 number is way better number to look at because it includes all of the people not just some cherry picked rosy scenario in order to gain political points.

There is no relationship between the unemployment rate and the lfpr.

You are welcome to look at the U6, that's perfectly valid, but don't compare todays U6 to previous U3 figures. Back when Bush was POTUS, which number did you pay attention to?

SlevinKelevra · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
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.

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.

Except that it has been shown that ~ half of the decline in LFPR is due to boomers retiring.
Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News

upsideguy · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
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.

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.

Another person that does not understand what the labor participation rate is, more specifically the not in the workforce number. Feel free to better understand the number and then get back to us... (note: I do appreciate the fact that it takes a little while to research this.... the BLS does not track the components of Not in WorkForce that well... the number are out there).

Let me help you. Substantially all of the Not in Workforce number consists of retired persons, students and stay at home moms. Discouraged workers are about 2% of the NIWF number. The Labor Force Participation rate falling can be a sign of a good economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/u...what-they-do-instead.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Its a shallow, almost nonsensical response to improving unemployment numbers put forth by right-wing radio guys that play upon their uneducated dittoheads. As dittoheads never check things out for themselves, they just repeat it and their friends repeat it, making for a larger pool of ignorant people. Instead of actually making an intelligent argument from things they understand, they throw facts around in a way that dumbs us all down. Frankly, its rather pathetic.

Simon W. Moon · Mar 6, 2015

Crovax said:
labor participation rate only counts those 16 to 65 so it doesnt matter how big the percentage of our population is over 65 it has no bearing on the rate and I will again point out that if baby boomer early retirement was the major cause of the rate drop then in 2011 when the baby boomers aged out of the rate calculation the rate would start to flatten out but it hasnt.

Who are the people who will reach the age of 65 between now an 2029 if not Baby boomers?
Seems to be a definition kind of thing almost.

The graph seems to indicate that the rate at which people arrive at an age of 65 or older will increase.
That rate increase indicates that the "big chunk" you refer to includes only a minority of Boomers.

Most Boomers have not retired nor reached retirement age it seems.

ymmv

Khayembii Communique · Mar 6, 2015

ludin said:
then why claim victory of a lower unemployment rate when the main reason for the drop was people not looking for work?
you can't. it is a BS number. a person not looking for work or given up looking for work is still unemployed. they have no job and more than likely their unemployment check ran out.
that doesn't make them less unemployed.

It's not a BS number. It makes complete sense. If someone doesn't have a job, and is actively looking for work, they are unemployed. If someone is not actively looking for work, they are outside of the labor force because of the very fact that they aren't looking for work. How does that not make sense to you?

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

ludin said:
if they aren't working and not getting some kind of government living check then they are living with their parents or they are involved in something illegal under the table.
none of this is a good thing.

you would be 100% wrong on the family values and you have no evidence to support this claim.

No, lot's of people live off of their lifetime savings.

Bill Gates is included as not working in the lfpr - he is retired, and I doubt that he is getting welfare. My 99 year old granny lives off a combination of her lifetime savings and social security.

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

ludin said:
then why claim victory of a lower unemployment rate when the main reason for the drop was people not looking for work?
you can't. it is a BS number. a person not looking for work or given up looking for work is still unemployed. they have no job and more than likely their unemployment check ran out.
that doesn't make them less unemployed.

If 295,000 more people are employed, that's a victory. It's a pretty strong number in any economy, and far more new jobs than were produced on average during the Reagan years.

But keep looking for creative ways to bash our economy, I am sure that will make things better.

DA60 · Mar 6, 2015

imagep said:
People who aren't looking for a job aren't unemployed, most of them are students, homemakers and retired folks, so the lfpr could matter less to the voter.

But why are they doing those things? Because they want to? Or because they have no choice as they cannot find work?

The U-3 rate is a joke. Even the Fed - in essence - agrees as they used to use it as a guidepost to raise rates again. 6% was the magic number. Well, we are well past that and no rate hikes. In fact, the Fed no longer even mentions the unemployment rate because they obviously, finally realized that it is an INCREDIBLY flawed indicator of the American employment situation.

You could have no one working in America and still theoretically have a U-3 rate of zero (or almost zero). Ridiculous.

As far as I am concerned - and I could care less what the BLS thinks - if you want a job but cannot find a job and have given up looking for work...you ARE unemployed. I don't care what you chose to do take up your time. Homemaking, school, underwater basket weaving...whatever. If you still want a job and took up those other things primarily because you could not find work...then you ARE unemployed, IMO.

And the principle reason the government does not count them is to make the U-3 number look better, IMO.

ludin · Mar 6, 2015

imagep said:
There is no relationship between the unemployment rate and the lfpr.

You are welcome to look at the U6, that's perfectly valid, but don't compare todays U6 to previous U3 figures. Back when Bush was POTUS, which number did you pay attention to?

I look at both of them as well.

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

here is a great graph.
you can see where the recessions hit.

however still under bush the U6 number stayed in the 8-10 range.
for Obama it has been falling but it is still in the 10-12% range.

you can see it falling which means more people are working. maybe U6 isn't as good as it does include part-time workers that work for economic reasons only.
U5 would be a good source as well.

I think between U5 and U6 you can get a good picture of what the economy is actually doing.
U3 is great if you only want to look at the active work force.
it is crap when it drops simply because people leave the work force.

more so when more people leave than get hired.

imagep · Mar 6, 2015

DA60 said:
But why are they doing those things? Because they want to? Or because they have no choice as they cannot find work?...

If they don't bother to look for a job, of course they aren't going to be able to find work, and they have obviously discovered a way to survive without working. Like retirement.

Simon W. Moon · Mar 6, 2015

What Baby Boomers’ Retirement Means For the U.S. Economy | FiveThirtyEight

It’s no coincidence that the U.S. labor force participation rate — the share of the adult population that has a job or is trying to find one — hit a record high in the late 1990s, when the boomers were at the peak of their working lives.

It’s been downhill ever since. The participation rate hit a 36-year low last month, and while there are multiple reasons for the decline, the aging of the baby boom generation is a dominant factor. In 2003, 82 percent of boomers were part of the labor force; a decade later, that number has declined to 66 percent, and it will only continue to fall.

Missing: Up To 4 Million Workers | FiveThirtyEight

A lot of economists have tried to solve the puzzle of declining labor force participation, with widely varying results. Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, for example, recently concluded that about two-thirds of the decline in the labor force can be attributed to demographics and other so-called structural factors. But economists at the International Monetary Fund mostly blame the weak economy.

One reason for this disagreement is that there are actually two different questions, which often get muddled: The first is how many people would have left the labor force even if the recession had never happened. The second is how many of those who have left will ever return.[SUP]2[/SUP] It’s worth considering these separately.

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

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...

pinqy

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Rearden

Active member

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Rearden

Active member

Khayembii Communique

imagep

Villiage Idiot

ludin

imagep

Villiage Idiot

ludin

imagep

Villiage Idiot

ludin

ludin

imagep

Villiage Idiot

SlevinKelevra

Sage

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Simon W. Moon

Khayembii Communique

imagep

Villiage Idiot

imagep

Villiage Idiot

DA60

ludin

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Simon W. Moon