- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Technically, no, the report methodology is always changing, and the most recent change actually revised the last 4 years of unemployment numbers up by about .2%.
And next month is another methodology change. You can read about it in the OP link to the bls report.
That is not number manipulation.
Now my emphasis. LOL.
The pressing question, then, after a positive four-month run in the market is sustainability. Expectations for today's report already had been strong, but the primary concern is whether the hirings were mostly seasonal and would fade once the economy gets back to tangling with the unresolved questions of European debt crisis contagion and the political stalemate in Washington.
Some economists warned that the steadying in markets came about because Europe's debt woes have faded from the headlines, a trend unlikely to last.
"With the boost from these temporary factors fading and concerns in Europe resurfacing, we expect the US economy to slow in the second half of the year," Neil Dutta, economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a note. "Consider the stronger data we've seen a reversion to the mean as opposed to the start of a new trend."
Correct, but they also aren't "... done the same way they've always been done." as you stated.
The numbers are not manipulated...they are done the same way they've always been done.
We have a growing population and a declining labor force, how is that positive?
We have people dropping off the unemployment roles because theya re discouraged, how is that positive?
We have almost 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans, how is that positive?
We have more unemployed today than when Obama took office by over a million, how is that positive when the debt has increased by 4.5 trillion dollars?
Job growth is trending in a good direction. That's the good news. We all know that no matter what happens you will try to criticize any good news as long as Obama is President. Job growth can either drop, remain stable, or increase. It's increased...that's good news.
So declining labor force, more discouraged workers, 4.5 trillion added to the debt is a good thing and a trend in the right direction? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
I said job gain increasing is a good trend. Nobody mentioned anything about the labor force, discouraged workers or debt. You're the one talking about those things. Quit being such a Debbie Downer your hate of Obama has turned you into a pill.
But we aren't gaining jobs, do you not understand what a declining labor force means? I hate Obama economic policies and the results indicate that I am right.
We are gaining jobs. The unemployment % takes into account labor force and available jobs. The number of jobs created per month has nothing to do with labor force.
I'm not saying your wrong in saying that those number DO matter. The fact is, people are aware of those numbers and nobody is touting it's "Morning in America". We're working from a huge hole facing a lot of uncertainty so the fact we're seeing the number of jobs created each month increase....is good news.
That is not number manipulation.
I was responding to a post by someone that called it manipulation. Context matters. I was arguing against the idea that numbers are being intentially skewed in order to show a lower unemployment rate, not that seasonally adjusted benchmarks never change.
It won't surprise anyone that as of December, the real implied unemployment rate was 11.4% (final chart) - basically where it has been ever since 2009 - and at 2.9% delta to reported, represents the widest divergence to reported data since the early 1980s. And because we know this will be the next question, extending this lunacy, America will officially have no unemployed, when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election.
Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate | ZeroHedge
Typically, I try to tie the beginning of Wonkbook to the news. But today, the most important sentence isn't a report on something that just happened, but a fresh look at something that's been happening for the last three years. In particular, it's this sentence by the Financial Times' Ed Luce, who writes, "According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."
Remember that the unemployment rate is not "how many people don't have jobs?", but "how many people don't have jobs and are actively looking for them?" Let's say you've been looking fruitlessly for five months and realize you've exhausted every job listing in your area. Discouraged, you stop looking, at least for the moment. According to the government, you're no longer unemployed. Congratulations?
Wonkbook: The real unemployment rate is 11 percent - The Washington Post
It is not number manipulation it's a system that is flawed when facing long term unemployment and disporportionately high number of discouraged workers. The last time we have a recession even comparable to now is the 1970's and the gap (using your last graph) between real and reported unemployment was even higher than it is now.Actually it is number manipulation. Done by a formula that is construed to create a false result when there are severe fluctuations in numbers, as we have had in the last 3 years, that being the decline of the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR).
it has to be put into perspective, it has been 2 1/2 years after the end of the recession and we still have more unemployed, fewer employed, and a lower labor than when Obama took office. That is a concern as cost to generate those job increases, 4.5 trillion dollars. It does seem that 15.1 trillion in debt is something many cannot comprehend but that is more than the yearly GDP of the country. Bush left the country a 10.6 trillion dollar debt and that debt is now up 4.5 trillion dollars. That isn't good long term for America.
The numbers are pure, unadulterated BS! and anyone doing their rah, rah cheering for Obama based on them are dupes.
It is not number manipulation it's a system that is flawed when facing long term unemployment and disporportionately high number of discouraged workers. The last time we have a recession even comparable to now is the 1970's and the gap (using your last graph) between real and reported unemployment was even higher than it is now.
It is not number manipulation it's a system that is flawed when facing long term unemployment and disporportionately high number of discouraged workers. The last time we have a recession even comparable to now is the 1970's and the gap (using your last graph) between real and reported unemployment was even higher than it is now.
Sorry but how old were you in 1981-82 when there was a 20 misery index? How is this economy worse than that one?
:lmao: Is that the best you got? It's too much work to look for work? :lmao:
Wow, that does more to damage your "President" than help him in this argument.
j-mac
Well, not quite. The dynamic of the early 80's was a rapidly increasing LFPR, so the gap takes on a bit of a different perspective. While it was well below the mean, the participation rate was going UP then.
The difference then to now is stark, primarily in that we have diverging slopes. One says its getting better, while the other says it is getting worse. It is not only a flaw in the formula used, but more importantly, it is a number, LFPR, generated by government. Unlike the number of employed, which is essentially generated by payrolls, most of them private, there is no entity other than government which decides the LFPR ..... "Poof" .. here it is !
There are a multitude of sources out there (include Eric Cantor) who estimate that about 10,000 boomers are retiring each day.
Thus, over two months, that would be around 600,000 - so 500,000 seems very reasonable to me.
I wasn't born.....but what does inflation (a component of the misery index) have to do with unemployment? The unemployment argument has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation it has to do with the jobless rate. The late 70's and early 80's are comparable with now regarding long term unemployment.
The decrease in LFPR has been decreasing for awhile now. It's no suprise. Boomers are nearing retirement age and it's been something discussed for a long time.
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Those that are are nearing retirement age are making the decision to get out of a bad labor market. It's just accelerating long term trends.
Not discounting it, but that estimate is based on turning 65, not an actual retirement index, of which I do not believe there is one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?