9% ue

[pinqy]

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".

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.

And discouraged workers went up March - April. It looks like it was other marginally attached and re-entrants that increased unemployment.

Now we have--

...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.​

Yes...

--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.

 

[thereisnospoon]

At the end of the day none of this really matters.
As long as the general perception of Americans is the economy is in the shitter, it will stay right there.
IN the past, Americans looked to the stock and bond markets as a yardstick of the overall economy. No more. We look across our kitchen table. We see bills, we look out of our front doors and see homes for sale and in some neighborhoods, empty homes. We go to the local strip shopping centers and see empty retail space. We see town sponsored activities which used to be part of the community ,shut down because of budgetary constraints.
As long as we continue to hear conflicting news out of Washington. As long as we continue to see our federal reserve print money and weaken our spending power. As long as we continue to live under the threat of new and higher taxes...As long.....
When these things mentioned above cease, only then will the economy recover.
Nothing else matters.

 

[expat_panama]

...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.

That's absolutely right if we get back into consistent definitions.

Like, the number of unemployed can grow even as the rate drops, and the number of employed can shrink even while the rate drops. The only way to have both at the same time is by fudging back and forth with whether discouraged/underutilized workers are 'unemployed'.

We hear that kind of talk a lot [too much] --people saying 'the true unemployment number is the U6 at 18%' and it's still sloppy and misleading. Just like like saying 'jobs were created while the rate increased --without mentioning the switch from payroll to cps data or whether people with jobs are 'employed'.

 

[Trajan]

Pay no attention to the economy. We killed Osama bin Laden!!!!

i thought giving the "job creators" tax cuts for the past ten years should have created jobs.

how's that trickle down voodoo economics working for us?

hows that Keynesian 1.6 trillion dollar stimulus working out for us?

 

[editec]

Pay no attention to the economy. We killed Osama bin Laden!!!!

i thought giving the "job creators" tax cuts for the past ten years should have created jobs.

how's that trickle down voodoo economics working for us?

hows that Keynesian 1.6 trillion dollar stimulus working out for us?

The BUSH II/OBAMA TARP response was NOT a Keynesian solution.

In fact it was pretty much an ANTI-Keynesian response rather than something Keynes would have devised.

The GM bailout was more along the lines of what Keynes would have proposed, only he'd have proposed a hell of lot more of that sort of thing that Bush or Obama did.

Following the collapse of Leman brothers, the nationalization of FAnnie Mae, Freddie Mac and the bailout of AIG, Bush gave the bankSTERS a $700 BILLION dollar bailout (TARP).

Neither Bush II nor Obama did the things that a Keyneisan can approve of.

Neither has tried to really jump start the economy, they merely saved the very people who screwed the economy to begin with...the BANSTERS.

You cluelss partisans truly don't know what happened, and yet you imagine that you do.

Read a book, boys. In fact read a LOT of books.

Your nation needs you to KNOW how this scam against our national economy was AND STILL IS being foisted upon us.

The sooner you put down your partisan blinders and actually understand the blow by blow RIP OFF, the sooner we might be able to get these GANG-BANKSTERS out of power (maybe...I'm not really counting on it, though)

Are you guys aware that CITIBANK has been saved three times in the last 30 years?

That's not Keynesian economic theory, kids!

That's rewarding economic turpitude

 

[pinqy]

...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.

That's absolutely right if we get back into consistent definitions.

Then why the Hell did you say "for the most part?" What on earth besides changes in employment and unemployment do you think could affect the UE rate?

Like, the number of unemployed can grow even as the rate drops, and the number of employed can shrink even while the rate drops. The only way to have both at the same time is by fudging back and forth with whether discouraged/underutilized workers are 'unemployed'.

Try that again, in English. Or Russian, or French, or German, I don't care, but make some sense. Both what at the same time? And for unmployed to go up and the rate to go down...that would have to have a huge increase in employed. Very unlikely.

. Just like like saying 'jobs were created while the rate increased --without mentioning the switch from payroll to cps data or whether people with jobs are 'employed'.

all people with jobs are employed. I'm not sure where this "whether" is coming from.

 

[uscitizen]

The answer is simple. More people to pay more taxes and consume more products.

Have babbies.

 

[expat_panama]

...the number of unemployed can grow even as the rate drops, and the number of employed can shrink even while the rate drops. The only way to have both at the same time is by fudging back and forth with whether discouraged/underutilized workers are 'unemployed'.

...Both what at the same time?...

LOL and GOOD MORNING! --this is why I prefer the morning shift, everything's so much clearer and easier. Now I see why my trading only US market hours is such a good idea.

If you really didn't follow me maybe this wording would be better:

...when the unemployment rate drops it can sometimes happen a rise in the number of unemployed, or with a drop in the number of employed workers, and only way to have both at the same time is by also changing definitions of say, whether discouraged/underutilized workers are 'unemployed' or not.

Ya got to love the markets, it's the only place where people can say 'A + B = C' and now both A and B increased while C stayed the same! They get paid to say it too btw. I don't know if you're making a living buying/selling like I am but the fact that is that it doesn't matter if most people talk stupid, we still have to figure out what they're saying and what they see and think.

See how easy it is?

 

[pinqy]

...the number of unemployed can grow even as the rate drops, and the number of employed can shrink even while the rate drops. The only way to have both at the same time is by fudging back and forth with whether discouraged/underutilized workers are 'unemployed'.

...Both what at the same time?...

LOL and GOOD MORNING! --this is why I prefer the morning shift, everything's so much clearer and easier. Now I see why my trading only US market hours is such a good idea.

If you really didn't follow me maybe this wording would be better:

...when the unemployment rate drops it can sometimes happen a rise in the number of unemployed, or with a drop in the number of employed workers, and only way to have both at the same time is by also changing definitions of say, whether discouraged/underutilized workers are 'unemployed' or not.

Nope, still don't know what you mean by "both at the same time." Both of what doing what? If unemployment goes up and employment goes down, it is impossible for the rate to be lower. There's no "only way" because there's no way at all....that's basic math. Definitions have nothing to do with it. Unemployment is the numerator, and Unemployment + Employment is the denominator. So if the numerator goes up, in order for the rate to go down, then the denominator has to go up by a lot more.

Ya got to love the markets, it's the only place where people can say 'A + B = C' and now both A and B increased while C stayed the same!

And I have no idea what you're talking about now. If you're still talking about the UE rate, then the actual equation would be U/(U+E)=R. So of course it's possible for bothe U and E to increase and R remain unchanged.