- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,483
- Reaction score
- 8,227
- Location
- North Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What do you mean by "job participation rate?" Do you mean Labor Force Participation rate or the Employment to Population Ratio?We're dismayed by the job participation rate which is at its lowest since the 70's as well as the fact that these jobs added are nothing compared to the number that left the workforce.
Why on Earth would you think that's a good idea? (though I'm not sure what you mean by "tabulation" model...it's not a phrase generally used).One) change the CPI tabulation model to what it was in 1980.
I am not a layman and I've worked in this field for over a decade. So I will try to explain and keep things comprehensible.
That seems awfully high. Either your source was waaaay off, or you are mis-remembering.
There is not and cannot be a set number..it's obviously going to change as the population changes. Also, it can be complicated because "jobs" and "employment" are different concepts and the jobs numbers are not used in the UE rate calculations.
There are 2 surveys in the Employment Situation Report. The "Jobs" numbers come from a survey of approx 145,000 businesses (557,000 individual establishments). The Jobs numbers exclude agriculture, the self employed, people who work in other people's houses, people working off the books, and unpaid family workers. It's also a count of jobs, so a person who works two jobs will be counted twice.
The Current Population Survey is a survey of approx 60,000 households. It includes everyone 16 and older and Employed are those who worked at least 1 hour for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family business/farm. It's a count of people and people are counted only once no matter how many jobs they have. It's also the survey that counts Unemployed and those Not in the Labor Force (neither working nor looking for work).
So to "keep up with the population" we're looking at the Employment to Population ratio...but that's Employment from the Household survey. You have to do some adjustments to get the number of nonfarm payroll jobs (making assumptions about self employed and agriculture etc). A decent tool is at Jobs Calculator - Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Leaving the labor force can happen in many ways. To leave the population altogether (which of course is a minus to the labor force as well), you can die, go to jail, join the military, get institutionalized, or leave the country. To leave the labor force and stay in the population you can retire or otherwise lose/leave your job and not (yet) start looking for work. Until you start looking, you're not unemployed. If Unemployed, you stop looking for work. Most of that is for personal reasons: school, family obligations, illness/injury etc.
The Labor Force bounces up and down all the time. It reached its peak back in 2000 and is unlikely to get that high again for a while. Keep in mind that many people are loosely attached to the labor force: students/stay home spouses/retirees/Paris Hilton..who don't necessarily need a job but often want one for some extra cash. So these groups dropping out, increased retirees, more people deciding they're better off staying home with the kids, can all drop the labor force (or the participation rate) without meaning anything dire.
It's not a shell game or a lie, it's just that technical definitions and methodology just doesn't, and can't, match casual/everyday language usage. You can say a 19 year old pothead living in his mom's basement is "unemployed" but is that really a good way to measure the job market? (yes, that was an extreme example to prove a point)
What do you mean by "job participation rate?" Do you mean Labor Force Participation rate or the Employment to Population Ratio?
And while the LFPR is the lowest since 1979, it is higher than anytime before that. So you can't really use that as a gauge of the economy or labor market unless you want to say the we're now better off than any time before 1979 (which would be a really silly thing to say).
And the Labor Force increased in April. Total employment went up 293,000, Unemployment went down 83,000 for a net change of 210,000 to the Labor Force. That's a change of 0.14% which is close enough to the population change of 0.07% that the Participation rate didn't change.
Why on Earth would you think that's a good idea? (though I'm not sure what you mean by "tabulation" model...it's not a phrase generally used).
Surely you don't think that was a more accurate measure?
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age for the UE rate and
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Although I find it strange that I really need to link to the press release....it's not like it's obscure information.
I already know you are totally against most/all of this.
One) change the CPI tabulation model to what it was in 1980. This would leave the CPI well over the present Fed mandate and force them to raise interest rates to what they should be.
Two) tell the Fed to end QE immediately or I will end the Fed immediately (assuming I had the power).
¨Three) balance the budget (by - among other things - cutting the defence budget in 1/3-1/2 and bringing all the troops home).
Four) never again bailout another bank or corporation.
Basically, balance the budget and let the economy fix itself.
Your love of all things 'big government' is well documented.
None of the following is meant to offend or belittle in any way...but...Dont assume anything
I see. Makes no sense but okay. You want basically to make people even spend less and contract the economy even more..
You need a national bank of some sort. I agree the Fed is strange.. basically a private company of rich people and not a national bank, but if not the fed... then what?
As for QE it is not ideal but there is not much else that can be done to be honest. As long as you believe in the "free market" and that banks are so big and powerful and refusing to lend money.. then well what else can they do to keep the economy going .. You cant force the banks to lend money, or clean their bank balances, or give breaks to people that are swamped and so on..
¨
Over what time frame? I have no problem with a balanced budget, but the shorter time frame the more damage it will do to the economy in the short run and most likely in the medium run.
Hmm I agree, but I suspect our definitions are different. Do you want to bail out the depositor of a failed bank? And what about corporate wealth fare.
Sounds great but in reality it is no where near that easy especially during an economic hole that we all are in presently. You have to remember the basics of macro economics... an economy has 3 parts... public, private and export. If public and private spending goes down then you have a recession. Private spending is also totally dependent on how people view their situation in the now and near future.. if they believe that they might loose their job, or hear doom and gloom all the time, then they will cut their spending and increase their saving and that does not help the economy one bit.
Oh like what? I believe in government yes, but only the government that is needed .. no more, no less and only provided that this government works for the people and not special interests. I see government as controlling element for unbridled greed and exploitation of the private sector. Without government and some very brave politicians through out the centuries, we would not be where we are today and we would still have slavery, child labor and so on.
You seem to have your defintions confused. Discouraged workers are defined as:It is not a lie.
But it IS a shell game, IMO.
To not include workers who have left the workforce (disgruntled workers) for NO other reason then they cannot find work BUT would still take a job immediately if they could find it, as officially having left the work force is a joke.
They are not classified as Unemployed (part of the Labor Force) because they are not currently looking. And it's very subjective...they say they want a job, but is that reliable since they're not actually trying to get one? And it's based on their perception of the labor market. We know that if someone is looking for a job and is not hired that they cannot get a job. If someone does not try to get a job, they certainly will not be hired, but just because they belive they would not be doesn't make it true.persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.
By definition they are NOT looking for work.These people are clearly persons still looking for work and should thus still be considered unemployed.
No, because it's less accurate and is not objective and work search requirement has always been part of the defintion of unemployed.The government (IMO) deliberately does this to make the U-3 number appear to be smaller then it otherwise would be.
I know no such thing. Labor Force participation has dropped 2.4 percentage points since Jan 2009. The percent of the population that does not want a job has increased 2.2 percentage points. Your math would require adding in people who don't want to work as unemployed.You and I both know that to include even 1/2 of the people that have left the workforce since Obama took office would raise the U-3 rate to well over 9%.
Now, if we could just get EVERYONE to stop looking for jobs and willingly go on the government dole, the unemployment rate would drop to 0.0%.
Damn job hunters.
That is an example of the semi-lunacy of the present unemployment rate tabulation process.
If no one in America had a job BUT every single one of them had officially given up looking for work then the unemployment rate would be 0.
You seem to have your defintions confused. Discouraged workers are defined as: They are not classified as Unemployed (part of the Labor Force) because they are not currently looking. And it's very subjective...they say they want a job, but is that reliable since they're not actually trying to get one? And it's based on their perception of the labor market. We know that if someone is looking for a job and is not hired that they cannot get a job. If someone does not try to get a job, they certainly will not be hired, but just because they belive they would not be doesn't make it true.
Discouragement is subjective, not objective, and it's not timely...someone who isn't hired in April because they haven't tried to get a job in April (or for the last X months) tells us nothing about how hard it is to get a job in April.
By definition they are NOT looking for work.
No, because it's less accurate and is not objective and work search requirement has always been part of the defintion of unemployed.
I know no such thing. Labor Force participation has dropped 2.4 percentage points since Jan 2009. The percent of the population that does not want a job has increased 2.2 percentage points. Your math would require adding in people who don't want to work as unemployed.
True that much of the increase in the labor force until 2000 was increased participation of women, but I would disagree that 7.5% unemployment rate is better than the 3-4% in the mid 1950'sThe % of women in the workforce explains that lower participation rate, though you're right and I do believe we are still better off now.
Table A-1 from the Current Population SurveyWhere'd you get 293K rather than the 165K from the source? You sure it wasn't a net change of 82K to the labor force increasing it by .07% as Gallup is reporting which keeps exactly in line w/ population change? (Which is of course, NOT GOOD)
Which measure are you considering more accurate and why? Certainly not the U4, U5, or U6, where the standard errors are going to be much higher as the groups are much smaller and the definitions more subjective.
Besides which, I was asked for links to support my cites of the not seasonally adjusted numbers. The alternative measures don't change that at all.
And yet you used the word "disgruntled" instead of "discouraged" and got the defintion wrong, especially in claiming that they were "clearly" still looking for work.You sound like a bureaucrat.
I know how the U-3 is tabulated and I know what a 'discouraged worker' is in the government's eyes.
Why? Why is someone who hasn't done anything about getting a job in over a year helpful in judging the current labor market? And do you really think it's reliable?Among other things, the '12 months' timeframe should be changed to 'infinite'.
9.1% by my math...close enough. But think about it. All you're saying is that if more people were unemployed then the unemployment rate would be higher. Which is "duh." And how are you justifying adding in people who don't want to work or who aren't available for work? And you're switching goalposts again because your half the difference is still 3.5 times the number of Discouraged workers. Do you need me to show the math?And if the participation rate today was the same as it was when Obama took over, and only half of the difference was counted, then the unemployment rate today would be 9.2/9.3%.
Ok, the actual rate (not "massaged" through seasonal adjustment) is 7.1%, and the not seasonally adjusted change in jobs was +932,000
Although somehow I suspect that's not what you meant, though I also suspect it would have been what you meant if the unadjusted numbers were worse.
Yes, I realize what I typed would hurt the economy in the short run - probably send it back into a recession...possibly a short, very bad one.
But I feel this would be mild compared to the nightmare that faces America if this debt/spending madness that the government/Fed is presently employing is allowed to continue to reach it's inevitably disastrous conclusion.
Would a snapshot of the employment picture as it relates to the nations economic health, be more accurate if it included underemployed and discouraged workers?
Why do you think adjustments are made to numbers?
Fine, I dont agree with it allbut fine. It is not "probably"..it is most definite since you are cutting trillions out of the economy without replacing it with something. It will also not be short, but medium to long term since people will not feel secure enough to risk anything like buying a new car or tv... the old one can hold another decade attitude. Poverty will shoot up and income inequality will sky rocket... not something that is good for any economy.
Such changes have to be over time and preferably when the private sector can take up the slack. As it stands now, that is simply not going to happen with the amount of private sector problems that the private sector with the help of favorable politicians have created. And of course as long as the political elite are in total denial of what the problems actually are.. then they wont change anything.
Good morning, Ocean515. :2wave:
This is just a wild guess on my part, you understand, but I think it's possible that attempts are being made to hide the awful truth about the state of our economy, and the lack of decent paying jobs for people who want to work..
Nah, that's probably too ridiculous to even consider! :think:
You can be sure It is very obscure on the
sites these righty's frequent. Remember, good news for the U.S. is BAD news for them. And they avoid it like the plague. They know their ideology is fading fast and their only hope is catastrophe.
Out till later today. :2wave: Garden work calling me.
Be well.
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?