• 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%

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?

because the person is still unemployed and who knows the reason.

if everyone left the work force we could have an unemployement rate of 0% based on U3 calculations you should be jumping for joy there are no unemployed people in the US.
it is a BS number.

cool I have 100k people find a job ol wait I had 175k people stop looking for work for X,Y reason *cheers the unemployment rate dropped*
that is not a good sign at all. in fact it is a bad sign.

it didn't drop because people found more work it dropped because people quit looking for work.
that is why you need to look at the U5 and U6 numbers not U3.

what part of this don't you understand. U3 is a joke and everyone knows it.
 
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.

If you want a job but aren't looking for a job then it is stupid to consider yourself unemployed.
 
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.

Rates will start climbing this summer. Been tired of gaining .99% on my savings, and I doubt I will see the 8% I had when I was a kid, but I would settle for 3-4%.
 
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.

You cannot look for a job forever without doing something else. Eventually, you have to move on.

And if the only reason that person retired was because they could not find work - AND that person would work if they could find it AND is physically capable of working - then that person is, IMO, unemployed.
 
because the person is still unemployed and who knows the reason.

if everyone left the work force we could have an unemployement rate of 0% based on U3 calculations you should be jumping for joy there are no unemployed people in the US.
it is a BS number.

cool I have 100k people find a job ol wait I had 175k people stop looking for work for X,Y reason *cheers the unemployment rate dropped*
that is not a good sign at all. in fact it is a bad sign.

it didn't drop because people found more work it dropped because people quit looking for work.
that is why you need to look at the U5 and U6 numbers not U3.

what part of this don't you understand. U3 is a joke and everyone knows it.

+1


Well...everyone knows it who is not close minded.

Unfortunately, that seems to make up a huge number of Americans.
 
An interesting bit of research:

The Impact of Unemployment Benefit Extensions on Employment: The 2014 Employment Miracle?
We measure the effect of unemployment benefit duration on employment. We exploit the variation induced by the decision of Congress in December 2013 not to reauthorize the unprecedented benefit extensions introduced during the Great Recession. Federal benefit extensions that ranged from 0 to 47 weeks across U.S. states at the beginning of December 2013 were abruptly cut to zero. To achieve identification we use the fact that this policy change was exogenous to cross-sectional differences across U.S. states and we exploit a policy discontinuity at state borders. We find that a 1% drop in benefit duration leads to a statistically significant increase of employment by 0.0161 log points. In levels, 1.8 million additional jobs were created in 2014 due to the benefit cut. Almost 1 million of these jobs were filled by workers from out of the labor force who would not have participated in the labor market had benefit extensions been reauthorized.
 
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.

And yet you said in post #62 she was included in LPFR, which is it???
 
Cutting UI benefits creates jobs?

"1.8 million additional jobs were created in 2014 due to the benefit cut"

How does that chain of events work I wonder.

I expected it to say that jobs were found/gotten/accepted.
But created?

Fascinating.

I believe they found that letting UI benefits expire drove people to find a job, 1.8 million of them. Out of that, 55% would have continued staying on UI instead of getting a job.

I think there are about 4.8 million open jobs right now. They don't count as created until someone is hired though.
 
I truly do not understand how this is mysterious to anyone. We said this 4 years ago and it is continually being proven true. As long as the labor rate participation pool increases and people become ineligible for services, the unemployment rates will 'improve'. Trumpeting 'success' in the face of 93 million Americans no longer in the work force, the highest unemployment numbers in 37 years, record numbers of women unemployed, ridiculously high unemployment rates of black Americans, etc. sounds a little silly. Hell...bump that up another 30-40 million and we could have unemployment down around 3-4%.
 
I think there are about 4.8 million open jobs right now. They don't count as created until someone is hired though.
Can you provide some backing for your assertion that jobs are not "created" until they are filled?
I have never heard of that before.
 
Interestingly these made up numbers are no longer making the WSers fell all warm and fuzzy. Maybe they think Yellens "patients" has run out. Oh happy day Interest rates going up will do wonders for that 18 trillion washington has rung up on the credit card.
DJIA$DJI
17,953.37-182.35(-1.01%)
 
I truly do not understand how this is mysterious to anyone. We said this 4 years ago and it is continually being proven true. As long as the labor rate participation pool increases and people become ineligible for services, the unemployment rates will 'improve'. Trumpeting 'success' in the face of 93 million Americans no longer in the work force, the highest unemployment numbers in 37 years, record numbers of women unemployed, ridiculously high unemployment rates of black Americans, etc. sounds a little silly. Hell...bump that up another 30-40 million and we could have unemployment down around 3-4%.

But--------------- 249 million Americans are employed, the most in history.
 
I truly do not understand how this is mysterious to anyone. We said this 4 years ago and it is continually being proven true. As long as the labor rate participation pool increases and people become ineligible for services, the unemployment rates will 'improve'....
Yes, that's why we also look at U6 and labor force participation rates.

In particular, LFP rates started falling in 2001, and have stayed at around 62.8% since October 2013.

And as already noted: Much of this is...
• More people spending more time in school
• More people retiring
• More people collecting disability

There's no question that there were some cyclical factors at work. However, there are also broader demographic ones which have pushed down LFPR for over a decade, and which are not any politician's fault.

By the way, let's also look at some other good news.
• The number of people taking part-time work for economic reasons, while still high, has dropped to 7 million, from a high of 9 million in 2010.
• The number of people unemployed for 27+ weeks has dropped to near-normal 3 million, from a high of nearly 7 million in 2011
• The percent of long-term unemployed has dropped to 35%, from a high of 45% in 2010
• The number of people who are unemployed because of job losses has dropped to 4 million, from a high of 10 million in 2010
• The number of temporary layoffs stayed steady, while long-term fell to 3 million from a high of 8 million in 2010
• Contrary to your assertion, the unemployment rate for women is at a very normal 5.5%
• The unemployment rate for blacks is back to normal ranges, while the rate for Hispanics is actually below normal
• Unemployment rate for people with only a high school degree is fairly normal at 8%, down from a high of 16% in 2010
• The number of people not in the labor force looking for a job is higher than usual, but around the same as in the mid 1990s
• The number of discouraged workers, while higher than normal, is at around 750,000 -- down from a high of 1.2 million in 2010

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

Oh, and the quits rate is slowly edging up, and heading towards normal territory. This is a measure of how willing people are to leave their jobs, which also means how confident they are they'll get another job, or got hired already for another job.


Trumpeting 'success' in the face of... the highest unemployment numbers in 37 years
Incorrect.

The U3 rate has dropped from 10% to 5.5% in just a few years, and we're on the longest streak of adding jobs since the late 90s. U6 is also back to 2009 levels, and trending down.


ridiculously high unemployment rates of black Americans
Unemployment rates for African-Americans have always been higher than for the general population.


Hell...bump that up another 30-40 million and we could have unemployment down around 3-4%.
My understanding is that due to the demographic shifts (mostly Boomers getting older), economists are starting to revise the numbers for "full employment" down to 4%, from 5%.

Not everything is rosy and bright, but the trends are definitely in the right direction, and there are a lot fewer discouraged workers than just a few years ago.
 
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.

Babyboomers did not offically turn 65 until 2011. Since the babyboomer generation were born from 1946 until 1964, hardly any of them are retired (i.e., those born 1946-1948 have retired at 65).
 
Can you provide some backing for your assertion that jobs are not "created" until they are filled?
I have never heard of that before.
Perhaps it would help if you posted the official methodology where the bls counts all the created, unfilled jobs and inserts that into our employment statistics.
 
Employment and Unemployment
"ayroll Survey (also Establishment or Current Employment Statistics Survey) -- The payroll survey generates an estimate of the number of nonfarm jobs in the U.S. economy, based on a monthly non-random sampling of payroll tax filings of about 160,000 U.S. corporations and government agencies. The survey measures the number of jobs (some individuals hold more than one job).

The household survey is conducted during the week that includes the 12th of the month. The payroll survey is conducted as of the payroll period that includes the 12th of the month. Other than for seasonal factors, the household survey gets revised only with series or population redefinition. The payroll series is revised for two months following the initial release and then again in an annual benchmark revision.

Where the household survey includes farm workers, the self-employed and workers in private homes, the payroll survey does not. The payroll survey counts jobs, making no adjustment for multiple jobholders. Yet, adjusting for all differences, the BLS never has been able to reconcile the two series within one million jobs.

Conventional wisdom in the financial community is that the payroll survey is more accurate, given its larger sampling base. To the contrary, the household is scientifically designed, and the error can be estimated to any degree desired. The payroll data are haphazard at best, and the BLS has no idea of potential reporting error.

The BLS estimates a 90% confidence interval for a change in the unemployment rate of ±0.22%, and a 90% confidence interval for the monthly change in payrolls of ±108,000. The BLS, however, admits the payroll survey's confidence interval is not solid, given built in biases and the lack of randomness in the monthly sample.

The payroll survey used to include a regular monthly bias factor of about +150,000 jobs. Those jobs were added each month for good measure, as an estimate of jobs created by new companies. Companies that went out of business generally were assumed to be employing the same number of people as before they went out of business.

In the last couple of years, the BLS has modeled and seasonally adjusted its bias factor; there is no more guesstimation. Accordingly, new monthly bias factors have ranged from -321,000 to +270,000 during the last year. This, combined with continuous seasonal adjustment revisions, has added to the volatility of recent monthly reporting.

Suggesting that the household survey is more accurate than the payroll survey, however, does not mean household survey accurately depicts unemployment. While its measures have definable statistical accuracy, the accuracy is related only to the underlying questions surveyed and to the universe of people surveyed.

The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration's monthly household survey.

While the preceding concentrates on the numbers that tend to move the markets, the household survey also measures employment. The payroll survey also surveys average hourly and weekly earnings and average workweek."
 
Addendum to Installment One (Published 9/7/04)

Bureau of Labor Statistics' Correction to Payroll Survey Description

In response to my comments on the "non-random" and "haphazard" nature of the payroll employment survey in Installment One, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) advised that my information was outdated, that the payroll survey used scientifically designed probability sampling, which had been phased in over several years and completed as of June 2003.

I was aware of the changes to the system, but did not think they improved the quality of the reported results much. I have just reviewed the BLS's current sampling methodology and have not changed my mind. While I may have used inaccurate terminology in describing the sampling method for the series, my general comments remain, and I still believe the household survey to be the more accurate of the two.

The household survey is proactive in nature and designed and sampled so its results can be determined with measurable statistical confidence.

While the payroll survey sampling approach may be sounder statistically than it was several years ago, it still is responsive, in nature, subject to whatever is reported or not reported by U.S. corporations. While individual companies are selected at random for following, the universe they are selected from still is not random and can vary meaningfully with changing times. An element of haphazardness is inherent in the universe of reporting companies.

During a recession, for example, firms go out of business and stop reporting, but the BLS does not know whether a company is out of business or did not report for some other reason. This supposedly is accounted for by the business birth (creation)/death (going out of business) modeling of companies, which replaces the old bias factor system.

There is no way to model these numbers with any meaningful accuracy, and the monthly swings in the birth/death data now often are greater than the reported monthly changes in total payrolls.

The BLS has a Herculean task in trying to measure monthly payrolls with meaningful results, and it has expended significant effort to improve its system. Nonetheless, it is difficult to see noticeable improvement in monthly reporting quality. Contrary to BLS expectations of improved results, I would be extraordinarily surprised if revisions to the series don't get larger, as opposed to smaller, as a result of what now is probably over-modeling of the series.

This already is evident in the monthly revisions to some individual industry series that I follow closely. It will be interesting to see how large the next several annual benchmark revisions are for the new system.
 

Only hard core Obama apologist and or economically illiterate low information Americans are actually cheering about this jobs report.
Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 92.9 Million As Participation Rate Declines Again | Zero Hedge

What this jobs report represents is just how cynical and cold the Democrat party and the Obama administration are.

To put out economic information without the context needed to qualify it as either good or bad news is one hing, but the Obama administration is claiming this is a great success and proof that his policies are working and the economy is improving.

It's not and his policies are to blame
 
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.

prove that all of these people are retiring.
you are making an assumption not supported by evidence.
 
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.

Actually, its right on target as the over 65 population is indeed included in the Labor Force and counted in the unemployed AND the Not in the labor force number.

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.
Labor force participation rate
The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally attached workers.)

http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#concepts

The over 65 set makes up the largest component of the "Not in Labor Force" number as many are retired and thus not looking for work. The over 65, collecting social security accounts for about 45M or roughly half the Not in Labor Force number. There is also a large number (unknown) of under 65 retirees...

Currently, only 6.5M of the 93.5M Not in Labor Force want jobs...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's the Republican controlled Congress that we should be thanking in addition to President Obama.

Yeah, that pipeline they spent all their time on sure seems to have helped.

Oh wait.......
 
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.

do you want the truth or feel good emotions? lets look at the report.

The jobless rates for adult men (5.2
percent), adult women (4.9 percent), whites (4.7 percent), blacks (10.4 percent),
Asians (4.0 percent), and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little or no change.

ok please how me where that is a good thing?

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 2.7 million in February. These individuals accounted for 31.1 percent
of the unemployed.

please show me where this is a good thing? of course the main reason for this is the constant extension of jobless benefits and now companies won't hire them or they
are less likely to get employment.

the participation rate dropped by .1 so that in and of itself is a large number of people not being counted.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in February at 6.6 million.
These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working
part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find a full-time job.

where is the good news here? this is reflected in the U5 and u6 numbers

it isn't all bad news but the news isn't as good as what people would have you believe. and the U5 and U6 numbers tell a more accurate story of
what is going on than the U3 number.

I mean as someone said if everyone decided to leave the workforce and not look for a job then according to the U3 number unemployment would be at 0%.
that is great news isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom