U.S. Added 209,000 Jobs in July; Unemployment at 4.3% (1 Viewer)

[Conservative]

That's not a "how," just a claim that they do. HOW do they affect the rate and "distort it?" And no UE rate does not measure the state of the economy, only the labor market. Try again.

I stand by my statement, you don't like it, don't respond. It is the U-6 that shows how good or bad the labor market is an only bean counters see it differently

 

[pinqy]

I stand by my statement, you don't like it, don't respond.

I'm trying to get you to think intelligently and actually do analysis. But you seem reluctant.

It is the U-6 that shows how good or bad the labor market is an only bean counters see it differently

You say that, but you can't explain how or why in any meaningful way.

Here, I'll give you an example:
In 1984, the military was added to the labor force. But because there is no free entry or exit into or out of the military, and because the military increases or decreases based on reasons other than the economy, then the result is a steady chunk of employed in the denominator, which means that changes in the numerator are slower to affect the rate.

The official rate was called the U-5 (but it was the same as the current U-3), and it was split into the U-5a (included military) and the U-5b (civilian). No one paid much attention to the U-5a and military were dropped in 1994.

That is an explanation of how.

 

[Media_Truth]

Obama wasn't POTUS in 2008. the stimulous bill was signed into law in march of 2009, three months later the gdp started growing and the recession ended!!! There were less than 6 months of recession under Obama, 13 months under Bush.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession

I'm still trying to decide if Trump will be a worse president than GW Bush. Duhbya was the worst ever. He left the country in a total chaotic mess. The fact that Trump can't develop a relationship with the House and the Senate may be a blessing in disguise.

 

[Conservative]

I'm trying to get you to think intelligently and actually do analysis. But you seem reluctant.

You say that, but you can't explain how or why in any meaningful way.

Here, I'll give you an example:
In 1984, the military was added to the labor force. But because there is no free entry or exit into or out of the military, and because the military increases or decreases based on reasons other than the economy, then the result is a steady chunk of employed in the denominator, which means that changes in the numerator are slower to affect the rate.

The official rate was called the U-5 (but it was the same as the current U-3), and it was split into the U-5a (included military) and the U-5b (civilian). No one paid much attention to the U-5a and military were dropped in 1994.

That is an explanation of how.

Intelligently? Is it intelligent to claim that the U-3 rate with 8 million part time for economic reasons is good economic results? Is it intelligent to claim the U-3 is good when you have 1.3 million discouraged workers not working because of the economy? I use those terms because the left tells us that the Stimulus was a success and that is the only meaningful Obama economic policy implemented during his term. The Obama stimulus spent 842 billion and generated these results yet the left wants to focus on the u-3 which of course now is even less but I still stick with the U-6 and even though you don't think it is intelligent it is logic and common sense

 

[Conservative]

I'm still trying to decide if Trump will be a worse president than GW Bush. Duhbya was the worst ever. He left the country in a total chaotic mess. The fact that Trump can't develop a relationship with the House and the Senate may be a blessing in disguise.

OMG, Media Truth? There is no such thing as media truth because you bought the rhetoric and ignored the results. Bush didn't create the problems alone so wish you leftists would make up your mind, does the President control the economy or not? Here is what you want to ignore

Bush 4.5 trillion added to GDP including the recession and Obama 3.8 trillion
Bush 4.9 trillion added to the debt Obama 93 trillion
Bush two years of 3% GDP Growth, Obama NONE which is worse because he inherited the 2008 year of negative GDP Growth and had 2009 which was worse
Bush signed TARP which brought us out of recession Obama recycled TARP that was repaid and blamed Bush for the deficit
Bush did not have a budget approved for 2009, Obama signed it in February
Bush spending authority ended on March 31, 2009 when the debt was 11 trillion, it was 19.9 when Trump took office, 19.8 trillion today

I could go on with more economic numbers but they don't matter as you bought the leftwing and media spin. Suggest doing some actual research

 

[Media_Truth]

OMG, Media Truth? There is no such thing as media truth because you bought the rhetoric and ignored the results. Bush didn't create the problems alone so wish you leftists would make up your mind, does the President control the economy or not? Here is what you want to ignore

Bush 4.5 trillion added to GDP including the recession and Obama 3.8 trillion
Bush 4.9 trillion added to the debt Obama 93 trillion
Bush two years of 3% GDP Growth, Obama NONE which is worse because he inherited the 2008 year of negative GDP Growth and had 2009 which was worse
Bush signed TARP which brought us out of recession Obama recycled TARP that was repaid and blamed Bush for the deficit
Bush did not have a budget approved for 2009, Obama signed it in February
Bush spending authority ended on March 31, 2009 when the debt was 11 trillion, it was 19.9 when Trump took office, 19.8 trillion today

I could go on with more economic numbers but they don't matter as you bought the leftwing and media spin. Suggest doing some actual research

I don't need to research, I lived through it. Bush messes that Obama had to fix:
1. Housing market bubble and associated banking crisis.
2. High Unemployment.
3. US Auto Industry bankruptcy.
4. Two active major wars.
5. Stock Market very, very depressed. American's 401Ks worth a fraction of the investments.
6. Unregulated CEO and Executive corruptions and scandals.
7. Lack of citizen confidence in the financial community.

You've been watching too much FOX News.

 

[Conservative]

I don't need to research, I lived through it. Bush messes that Obama had to fix:
1. Housing market bubble and associated banking crisis.
2. High Unemployment.
3. US Auto Industry bankruptcy.
4. Two active major wars.
5. Stock Market very, very depressed. American's 401Ks worth a fraction of the investments.
6. Unregulated CEO and Executive corruptions and scandals.
7. Lack of citizen confidence in the financial community.

You've been watching too much FOX News.

What exactly did Obama do to "fix" the issue?

Housing market bubble began in the 90's and it burst Under Bush, massive thread in this forum about that topic and enough information to prove that it didn't start under Bush and bubbles don't start and burst in a couple years

US auto industry isn't just GM and Chrysler, Chrysler sold to the Italians and GM bailed out by taxpayers at 52 dollars per share, still billions owed

The major war ended with the status of forces agreement in November 2008 and Obama lost the peace

Stock market is over 21000 today thank you Obama for giving us Trump

Unregulated CEO and Executive corruptions? What the hell are you talking about, keep ignoring the Democratic Party corruption

Citizen confidence in the economy is much higher than when Obama left office.

You keep making crap up based upon what you have been told and what you want to believe. Why such loyalty to liberalism and what are you getting out of that ideology?

 

[Media_Truth]

What exactly did Obama do to "fix" the issue?

I'm just quoting the first question, because the remainder is all your bias. The answer - EVERYTHING that was needed.

 

[Conservative]

I'm just quoting the first question, because the remainder is all your bias. The answer - EVERYTHING that was needed.

Got it, you buy the spin and ignore the results. Obama did absolutely nothing but promote a dependent society and class warfare, business and the private sector is responding to the reality that Obama and Democrats along with their class warfare legislation, penalizing wealth creation, and relegating this country to a backseat while the world is on fire. Results matter except to you and the rest of the left. No independent responds like you do as there is nothing independent in your posts including actual verifiable data

 

[Conservative]

I'm just quoting the first question, because the remainder is all your bias. The answer - EVERYTHING that was needed.

You appear to be someone who wants to believe the media spin and what you are told ignoring the actual official data that is presented which raises the question why you are so married to an ideology that lacks credibility and successful results. You see, you want to give Obama credit for creating jobs ignoring that as many as 8 million of them were part time due to economic conditions, people who want full time jobs but cannot find them in the Obama economy. July's report shows 500,000 fewer than at the same time last year and every month this year is better than anything Obama had but that reality escapes you. You want to give him credit but cannot site the legislation he authored to generate job gains but I can site the legislation that generated the part time jobs for economic reasons.

 

[pinqy]

Intelligently? Is it intelligent to claim that the U-3 rate with 8 million part time for economic reasons is good economic results? Is it intelligent to claim the U-3 is good when you have 1.3 million discouraged workers not working because of the economy?

Let's see...part time for economic reasons last spiked up to 8 million in Sept 2013, when the U-3 was 7.2%. No one considered that good except in comparison to coming down from 10% (and 9 million PTER). And when discouraged were at 1.3 million in December 2010, the U-3 was at 9.3% and nobody was saying it was good.

And you still can't explain how either discouraged or part time for economic reasons affect the U-3. And remember, if you're saying discouraged affect the U-3, you also have to explain why it's only them and no others Not in the Labor Force.

 

[Conservative]

Let's see...part time for economic reasons last spiked up to 8 million in Sept 2013, when the U-3 was 7.2%. No one considered that good except in comparison to coming down from 10% (and 9 million PTER). And when discouraged were at 1.3 million in December 2010, the U-3 was at 9.3% and nobody was saying it was good.

And you still can't explain how either discouraged or part time for economic reasons affect the U-3. And remember, if you're saying discouraged affect the U-3, you also have to explain why it's only them and no others Not in the Labor Force.

And you can't explain what Obama economic policies generated those results. I can. we have an incredible US economy that is going to prosper in spite of the negative economic policies of somebody who you say you didn't support but defends at every turn

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[DA60]

Let's see...part time for economic reasons last spiked up to 8 million in Sept 2013, when the U-3 was 7.2%. No one considered that good except in comparison to coming down from 10% (and 9 million PTER). And when discouraged were at 1.3 million in December 2010, the U-3 was at 9.3% and nobody was saying it was good.

And you still can't explain how either discouraged or part time for economic reasons affect the U-3. And remember, if you're saying discouraged affect the U-3, you also have to explain why it's only them and no others Not in the Labor Force.

The U-3 is an utter joke as the official unemployment rate.

'The unemployment rate—technically known as the U3 measure—also poses a challenge for Fed officials, because it only includes those who are actively looking for work. People who are working part-time but want full-time work are excluded, as are discouraged workers that would reenter the labor market if the economy improves. That means the unemployment rate, which has fallen rapidly over the past year and is currently 5.8 percent, is not representative of the true slack in the labor market.


“The unemployment rate doesn’t tell you everything you need to know right now,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. “It is way too close right now to what most economists consider full employment given how much slack remains.”

This isn’t a new problem for the Fed. In fact, it’s slowly getting better. As the economy improves, more of those part-time workers will find full-time work and more of those discouraged workers will reenter the labor force, reducing the distortion in the unemployment rate. That’s represented in the labor force participation rate, which has stabilized in the past 18 months after continuously falling since the financial crisis. But that rate remains far below its pre-crisis peak, partially because Baby Boomers are retiring but also because millions of prime-age workers still haven’t rejoined the labor market. Whether those workers will start looking for a job again as the recovery continues is an open question—and only makes the Fed’s job more difficult.

Janet Yellen and other Federal Reserve Board members are well aware that the inflation rate and unemployment rate no longer provide a full picture of the state of the economy. For much of the year, Yellen stressed that the Fed was using a broad range of economic statistics—a “dashboard,” as she refers to them—in forming policy. That includes the inflation and unemployment rates but also a number of other indicators, like wage growth, GDP growth and the labor force participation rate. It also includes “core” inflation, which subtracts food and energy prices to provide a more stable statistic, and a broader measure of the unemployment rate, known as the U6, which captures part-time and discouraged workers. The Brookings Institute has created a continuously updated page for Yellen’s entire dashboard if you want to see them all.

This isn’t exactly new. The Fed has long considered other pieces of economic data beyond the inflation and unemployment rates in setting monetary policy. But this year, more than almost any in the past, has required Yellen and company to explicitly and repeatedly address the insufficiency of the inflation and unemployment rates. “We’re not going to look at any single indicator like the unemployment rate to assess how we’re doing on meeting our employment goal,” Yellen said in June. “We will look at a broad range of indicators.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/120...flation-unemployment-rates-not-only-key-stats

Both the former chief economist for Joe Biden and Janet Yellen agree...the U-3 is basically USELESS as THE official unemployment rate. And this was way back in 2014.

Or are you suggesting you know better then the Head of the Federal Reserve on this?

If you have a problem with this - and I KNOW that you do - I suggest you contact the Federal Reserve, c/o Janet Yellen.


We are done here, for now.

Good day.

 

[pinqy]

And you can't explain what Obama economic policies generated those results. I can.

But I'm not claiming any of Obama's policies did. So why do you think I should explain a position I haven't taken?

we have an incredible US economy that is going to prosper in spite of the negative economic policies of somebody who you say you didn't support but defends at every turn

I have not defended Obama or his policies, I've only discussed the facts of the data. Pointing out what happened under Obamacare is not the same as crediting him or his policies.

Oh, and should I take a page from your book and keep asking the same question until you answer?
How do you think part time for economic reasons affects the U-3? How do discouraged workers affect it?

 

[Conservative]

But I'm not claiming any of Obama's policies did. So why do you think I should explain a position I haven't taken?


I have not defended Obama or his policies, I've only discussed the facts of the data. Pointing out what happened under Obamacare is not the same as crediting him or his policies.

Oh, and should I take a page from your book and keep asking the same question until you answer?
How do you think part time for economic reasons affects the U-3? How do discouraged workers affect it?

omg, are part time for economic reasons counted as employed in the U-3? Where do discouraged workers fit into the equation? Do they affect the labor market? This is an act, right? You are smarter than this?

 

[pinqy]

omg, are part time for economic reasons counted as employed in the U-3?

Of course they are. Shouldn't they be? They're classified as employed in all 6 measures of underutilization.If they weren't, you'd have the weird case of classifying some part time workers as unemployed and some as employed. Does that make sense to you?

Where do discouraged workers fit into the equation? Do they affect the labor market?

The same as all others not in the labor force, and no, they don't because they're not in the labor force.

Your turn: Do you think part time for economic reasons should be classified as unemployed?
How do you think discouraged workers, but not other marginally attached or not in the labor force affect the labor force? And of the 5.4 million not in the labor force who want jobs, why do you only think the 536,000 discouraged should really be considered unemployed.

You won't answer of course. You'll just assert, deflect, blame Obama, whatever.

 

[pinqy]

Note: I was a little sloppy in my wording above and wasn't completely accurate. Can Conservative spot it?

 

[pinqy]

The U-3 is an utter joke as the official unemployment rate.

'The unemployment rate—technically known as the U3 measure—also poses a challenge for Fed officials, because it only includes those who are actively looking for work. People who are working part-time but want full-time work are excluded, as are discouraged workers that would reenter the labor market if the economy improves. That means the unemployment rate, which has fallen rapidly over the past year and is currently 5.8 percent, is not representative of the true slack in the labor market.


“The unemployment rate doesn’t tell you everything you need to know right now,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. “It is way too close right now to what most economists consider full employment given how much slack remains.”

This isn’t a new problem for the Fed. In fact, it’s slowly getting better. As the economy improves, more of those part-time workers will find full-time work and more of those discouraged workers will reenter the labor force, reducing the distortion in the unemployment rate. That’s represented in the labor force participation rate, which has stabilized in the past 18 months after continuously falling since the financial crisis. But that rate remains far below its pre-crisis peak, partially because Baby Boomers are retiring but also because millions of prime-age workers still haven’t rejoined the labor market. Whether those workers will start looking for a job again as the recovery continues is an open question—and only makes the Fed’s job more difficult.

Janet Yellen and other Federal Reserve Board members are well aware that the inflation rate and unemployment rate no longer provide a full picture of the state of the economy. For much of the year, Yellen stressed that the Fed was using a broad range of economic statistics—a “dashboard,” as she refers to them—in forming policy. That includes the inflation and unemployment rates but also a number of other indicators, like wage growth, GDP growth and the labor force participation rate. It also includes “core” inflation, which subtracts food and energy prices to provide a more stable statistic, and a broader measure of the unemployment rate, known as the U6, which captures part-time and discouraged workers. The Brookings Institute has created a continuously updated page for Yellen’s entire dashboard if you want to see them all.

This isn’t exactly new. The Fed has long considered other pieces of economic data beyond the inflation and unemployment rates in setting monetary policy. But this year, more than almost any in the past, has required Yellen and company to explicitly and repeatedly address the insufficiency of the inflation and unemployment rates. “We’re not going to look at any single indicator like the unemployment rate to assess how we’re doing on meeting our employment goal,” Yellen said in June. “We will look at a broad range of indicators.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/120...flation-unemployment-rates-not-only-key-stats

Both the former chief economist for Joe Biden and Janet Yellen agree...the U-3 is basically USELESS as THE official unemployment rate. And this was way back in 2014.

None of that is saying the U-3 is useless, and the FED continues to use the U-3 as its standard measure of unemployment.

If you have a problem with this - and I KNOW that you do -

Apparently you don't know anything. I have no problem or complaints with what you've quoted...they're right. I've never claimed the U-3 gives the full labor market picture...of course it doesn't; no single measure can...but that doesn't mean it's useless. It measures what it is supposed to measure: the percent of the available labor force that is not working.

Chairman Yellen still regularly cites the U-3 as the measure of unemployment despite your false claims that the FED has abandoned it.