pinqy
Gold Member
No, what I'm saying is that implying that any change in employment or unemployment is the result of a change in the labor force is nonsensical. The Labor Force changes as a result of the changes in employment and unemployment.From an earlier post I'd understood--
No, the increase in the labor force this month was 15,000, not nearly enough to have caused the 190,000 drop in employment.
What do you mean "not nearly enough to cause the ... drop?" Labor Force is simply Employed plus unemployed...
--to mean you considered the "rise in unemployment" to be the result of "the increase in the labor force" AKA "enough discouraged workers became... ahem... 'encouraged' again".
And discouraged workers went up March - April. It looks like it was other marginally attached and re-entrants that increased unemployment.
Now we have--
Yes......we're also together with how CPS data from Mar. to Apr. show changes of:
employment down by 190,000
labor force up by 15,000,
and unemployment up by 205,000.
--and we both see that from Mar. to Apr. the increase in the labor force was not significant, and that the increase in the unemployment rate was for the most part the result of increased unemployment and decreased employment.
What do you mean "for the most part?" There are no other parts.
Last edited: