Another Coincidence?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

I agree, his comment wasn't necessary; everyone knows Tom's undisputed status in the right wing loony bin..

Yes, it was necessary - your guys can't seem to comprehend it.
So sayth the Grand Puba!

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Which means, as the rest of the class has shown they understand, as the participation rate declines, all other things being equal, the unemployment rates decline. So a declining unemployment rate can mean more people are working, but it can also mean that more people have stopped looking for work, for whatever reason.
We need to know what the reason is. Have they stopped looking because they need a job but can't find one or have they stopped because they choose to pursue other options and have no need nor desire for a job. The LPR is calculated by adding the total number of non-institutionalized people who are employed or seeking employment and dividing that number by the total number on non-institutionalized persons between the ages of 16 and 64. If even 5% of that total number are people who have no desire to work, that would change the LPR upwards by more than 3%.



The economy, and particularly the labor force, are so different today from then as to make any such comparison totally meaningless. That was an era of single-income families. The low participation rate of women in particular was a matter of choice.

Today we live largely in an era of dual-income families. When both people can find work. Back then, a single-income family reflected cultural values. Today, it often reflects economic desperation. Both result in similar labor force participation rates.

It is a different era and not for the better. We need an economy where a single income would support a family according to Teddy Roosevelt's standard, and where there were jobs available for anyone else who wanted a little more. In other words, we need a Democratic economy.

[Mike at A+]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Your contention in your original post was that when there was a drop in the unemployment rate, it was typically 0.1%. I proved that wrong over the relevant period.

What is even stranger is the allegation from you and many others here that the Obama administration is cooking the books on the unemployment numbers. Just how do you propose they are doing that? I believe more than 60,000 households are survey by phone and in person. The survey is conducted by the census bureau. The numbers are crunched by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All the raw data is available somewhere. If there was any hanky panky going on, the Republicans in Congress would be all over it.

These surveys are done by career employees. I'm sure there are penalties and jail time for falsifying official reports. Who is going to risk their jobs and their freedom to make any administration look good?

I will rephrase. A CHANGE OF MORE THAN 0.1% IN A SINGLE MONTH IS UNLIKELY. That is what I meant and I should have been more clear. I think most people knew what I meant.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Tom

Yes, it was necessary - your guys can't seem to comprehend it.
So sayth the Grand Puba!

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/ha...y-emoticon.gif

[Mike at A+]

Originally Posted by mostpost

It is a different era and not for the better. We need an economy where a single income would support a family according to Teddy Roosevelt's standard, and where there were jobs available for anyone else who wanted a little more. In other words, we need a Democratic economy.

But private sector job creators can't print money. So where do all these increases come from?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

It's been factually established plenty of times here that it's impossible for politicians to manipulate unemployment data. As usual, that's had no impact on some people's opinions.

And anyway, what's the implication? That it might affect elections? Well now, I was all ready to vote for Senator Red in November, but did you see that unemployment downtick? It's Senator Blue for me now!

How shallow of you. You need high standards like I have. I plan to vote for Sen. Durbin, but two gallons a month of ice cream from Mr. Oberwies' dairy could change my mind.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

In other words, we need a Democratic economy.

We have had a Democratic economy for 5 years. Median income is down during that time, during a "recovery". Income inequality is up. The number of people working is back up to 2008 levels, but the population is now 15 million higher. The labor force participation rate is at a modern low. Major cities are in deep financial trouble, if not actually bankrupt. I think we have had about as much of that kind of recovery as we can stand.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

We need to know what the reason is. Have they stopped looking because they need a job but can't find one or have they stopped because they choose to pursue other options and have no need nor desire for a job.

I'm sure that the reason is that ObamaCare has freed them from job lock, and they have all gone off to pursue their passions, becoming writers and photographers and poets.

Pursue other options? Is that you, Nancy???

[Clocker]

From zerohedge.com

While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

And while the official unemployment rate has dropped, the employment -population ratio is virtually stagnant under this administration. I guess that shows that as the population grows, more and more people can afford to pursue other options in this thriving economy.

From the BLS:



Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

[JustRalph]

Dave Schwartz was right on target..............

this is your example

Bullshit, it's lower than it has been since 78. You remember 78.......when the country was falling apart from Another Dem Wonderboy.......

[BlueShoe]

Originally Posted by Mike at A+

Isn't it amazing how the published unemployment rate always seems to drop more than the typical 0.1% right before elections?

Easy explanation, many have stopped looking and have dropped out of the labor pool. Under the Obama Administration, they have found out that is easier for them, or someone in their household, to get on welfare, receive food stamps, WIC vouchers, get housing assistence, etc. Why bother to work, or to even look for work, when Big Brother promises to take care of you and yours, in return, of course, you must promise to always vote for his Party.

[JustRalph]

Even Andrea Mitchell can't sell this shit anymore

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...the-rnc-chair/

[YT="Andrea"]VtFC7HJmxrE[/YT]

[davew]

It is great and another 600,000 have given up trying to find work so have dropped out of the reported unemployment rate. I prefer the U6 rate myself but it says a different story.

http://www.portalseven.com/employmen...nt_rate_u6.jsp

[classhandicapper]

If the employment picture was actually improving, it would be a testament to the ability of relatively free markets and capitalism to slowly overcome the most incompetent president of my lifetime.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the economy is improving on the back of deficits, negative real interest rates, and money printing. We are in another bubble and this one will end badly for whoever inherits the mess that is Obama.

[RaceBookJoe]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If the employment picture was actually improving, it would be a testament to the ability of relatively free markets and capitalism to slowly overcome the most incompetent president of my lifetime.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the economy is improving on the back of deficits, negative real interest rates, and money printing. We are in another bubble and this one will end badly for whoever inherits the mess that is Obama.

Agreed, and some more food for thought ( not my writing) :

Jobs numbers again viewed as strong by the gross numbers, but the headlines are not that great and the makeup shows the same weakness.

I suppose you can argue that 248K jobs is a strong number, particularly when compared to 210K expected and 180K (revised from 142K) in August. Nonetheless, 248K jobs only looks good when you have a history of 200K average.

After the initial recovery from the lows, going nowhere the past four years.

A LOOK AT THE REAL NUMBERS

1. Wherefore art thou, workers?

The unemployment rate dropped 0.2% to 5.9% from 6.1%. More employed, right?

Employed +232K. Unemployed -329K. Looks promising.

But, factor in the facts of life:

Participation rate: 62.7%, down from 62.8% in August. From 66.0% in 2008.
That ties the low at February 1978. Recall what a banner year that was for the economy, 2 years after Jimmy Carter's election. A stumbling, bumbling economy that had ups and downs but was a best a malaise. The parallels with the current economy are frighteningly similar.

Workforce overall lost 97K workers

Those Not in the Workforce: +315K
Total not in the Workforce to 92.6M, a NEW ALL-TIME HIGH.

Working age population growth, last 6 years: 248.4M from 234.6M (14M) versus labor force growth of 155.9M from 154.9M (1M). In other words, the labor force grew just 7% of the gain in the working age population (1M versus 14M).

Not in workforce + unemployed = 102M or 41% of the US' adult population.

So, a 'whopping' 248K jobs added but those working continued to fall. Finding it easier not to work than work? Why? Take a look at the jobs quality.

2. Wherefore art thou, jobs quality?

248K jobs created. 207K or 84% were in the services sector, the lowest paying scale of jobs.

Services jobs again dominate the recovery over 'breadwinner' construction, manufacturing jobs and thus it is no surprise the hourly earnings are falling. Note how the hourly earnings are well, well off of the pre-crisis levels. Simply no recovery because of low quality jobs.

3. Wherefore art thou, workers in their prime?

55+: Gained 230K of the 248K jobs, or 93% of all jobs. All-time record high at 32.6M workers. From 12/07 this group has gained 5.5M jobs.

25-54: -10K jobs. Since 12/07 this group is -2.04M jobs!!

SUMMARY OF THE JOBS REPORT:

84% of the jobs created were in the service sector. 93% of the new hires were in the 55+ age group. The breadwinner jobs were just 8% of the total for the month and the important 25-54 demographic lost 10K jobs, sliding further into the hole.

So, the economy and jobs market remains in the 'Hello, welcome to Wal-Mart where I work as a greeter so I can try to scratch out a living in my golden years thanks to the financial crisis and the Administration's worst recovery in US history' mode. Been there for 6 years, the entirety of the recovery.

But . . . the unemployment rate is 5.9% because more and more people are realizing they don't need to work or even look for work, particularly when it is for the low wage service jobs that dominate the job creation (4 of 5 jobs). Instead, just go ahead on and take disability, childcare assistance, free phones, food stamps, etc. AND take some cash side jobs (of course not paying taxes on those earnings) and come out in better shape than that poor sap working two or three 29 hour a week (thanks to the ACA's hour limits) part-time jobs wondering what the hell he is working so hard for so little for. But don't feel bad for the worker; with the participation rate hitting a 36 year low (1978, remember those golden years?) and keeps falling, the trend in participation shows that 'sap' is wising up and leaving the workforce, adopting a better or equivalent pay scale for much less work.