April Jobs report looks dismal, March numbers to be revised????

[Liability]

 

[pinqy]

For another look at March-April, let's go to a BLS research series: Labor Force Flows

We see that of the 87,897,000 people Not in the Labor Force in March, 3,515,000 looked for and found work (or had looked months before, stopped looking but were finally hired from the older application), 2,761,000 started looking (unsuccessfully) for work, 81,433,000 stayed Not in the Labor Force, and 189,000 left the population (died, emmigrated, went to jaii or nursing home or the military).

At the same time, 3,993,000 people went from Employed to Not in the Labor Force. Some retired, some stayed home to look after the kids, some just hadn't started looking for work yet. 2,686,000 unemployed stopped looking for work, and 306,000 immigrated without work, or (mostly) turned 16 without working or looking for work, or otherwise entered the population as Not in the Labor Force.

Interesting point: 2,010,000 people went from Employed to Unemployed, but 2,272,000 went from Unemployed to Employed.
(How many of the UE went to the not in cat)

Another interesting point: While many are claiming the increase in NILF is due to people "giving up," more of the gross change into NILF was from Employed. Less than half the people going into NILF "stopped looking."

Good Information
The not-in number went up 500,000 in April

I already included the UE to NILF data: " 2,686,000 unemployed stopped looking for work,"
Note that's fewer than from employed.

 

[itfitzme]

Spin was not my intent. My intent was to show that the UE rate has fallen well over 1% in the last 12 months, yet the rate of employment to the population is unchanged
Does it not make sense those leaving the work force for what ever reason is the only reason the UE rate has fallen?

okay

Yeah, I think it's an excellent question, when the ratios aren't adding up right. And it bugged me.

I'm assuming that pingy is right as he seems to be generally so and he found an excellent report on the flows.

I'm totally with you on the annoyance of the ratios being at odds. And it turns out there are to possible reasons.

I like to be sure I understand how the formulas work so I get what the number really mean. After I understand the formulas, then I can go looking at the numbers more closely when they are funny.

The basic thing is that when the economy is coming out of an "employment recession" (employment lags behind the recession) is exactly the time when these ratios get all squirrely.

For me, first I need to make sure I understand how the formulas work out. Then I have to put this into plain English. I don't really get it until I have it in plain English. Then I can go look at the numbers and see how they fit.

Sometimes the plain English is clear. I can say that the ratios get all squirrely, and it's a good statement. But is doesn't explain why. And the good explanation of why just doesn't yield to simple plain English.

Most of this we already get;

The (un)employment to labor force numbers are only two,

Emp_rate + Unemp_rate = 1 If Emp_rate goes up, Unemp_rate must go down.

But we also get that they are all ratios of the labor force.

Emp/LF + Unemp/LF = 1 and LF = Emp + Unemp.

We know that if the labor force is changing "oddly" then the ratios do not necessarily mean what we expect. What we expect them to mean is that people move from unemployed to employed and the labor force. But, we also get that, people might just leave the labor force and the numbers get messed up.

Typically, we expect this to occur as they leave the ranks of the unemployed. Unemp drops a bunch, LF drops by the same amount, but by a lesser ratio. So Unemp_rate falls. At the same time, no one leaves the employment ranks and the labor force falls, so the emp-rate increases. And we get that this confounds what the ratios mean. And, it's a condition where the ratios are changing in a way that we were expecting to be a good thin when in fact it's not.

I liked pingy's point that the BLS is giving the same numbers that they always do. It's what they always provide. There not going to come up with some new one.

The fact that this current situation highlights a problem with the meaning of the ratios makes it stand out. A more comprehensive examination quickly points out that we can get the opposite effect with an increasing labor force. People decide to look for work, LF goes up a little, unemp goes up a lot, and unemployment rises. It's the same effect as the other, it just doesn't bug us. It's telling us that things are "worse" then they really are, not better then they really are.

The situation is worsened with the CPOP ratios. The reason is that it takes three ratios to get to one.

Er-pop + UEr-pop + NILFr-pop = 1

And LF_participation_rate = Er-pop + UEr-pop

These have what the mathy guys call two degrees of freedom. If only one is pinned down, the other two can still move about.

It's not so odd when interpreting the first one. If Er-pop stays constant, then for UE-r-pop to fall, NILFr-pop must go up. That's great because it's what we expect.

For the second one, we would be all cool with it if Er-pop increases while UEr-pop fell, and LF_participation _rate stayed constant. That is what we want.

The thing gets odd if Er-pop is constant , then for UEr-pop to fall LF_participation_rate must fall. This is annoying because that isn't what we want the numbers to do. And it can happen for two reasons.

The first is what we immediately consider, that people are leaving the labor force. And yeah, it could be just that.

The problem is that it can happen for a completely innocuous reason, simply that population is increasing and employment is increasing proportionally. In this case, unemployment is falling as a percentage of population, which is okay, not great, but okay. The only thing left to give is the labor force participation rate. It has to fall, not because people are leaving the labor force, but because population is increasing faster then they are joining. They are joining the employment, just not the unemployment.

Think of it this ways, people are entering employment as fast as they are leaving unemployment and others are entering unemployment as fast as the first are entering employment. It just gets a bit odd because everything is at this awkward balance.

And the really annoying part is that this shit happens exactly when the economy is transitioning out of a recession. At the very time when we really want these numbers to make sense, they don't.

So it isn't so particularly odd that we find Er-pop flat while UEr is falling. It is annoying. The first thing is that Er-pop is a different ratio then UEr. One is per population, the other per labor force. And currently I haven't figured out how to compare them directly.

The pisser is that this problem with the ratios is likely to occur at exactly the time when we want them to make sense, when the economy is transitioning out of an employment recession. It means that, for a period of time, we can't tell what the H is happening by just looking at the ratios themselves.

I really think pingy is on the right track, looking at the flows. I'm not there yet. I still have to look at the actual levels and see if they fit into the situation that we intuitively expect or that odd situation.

 

[pinqy]

Most of this we already get;

The (un)employment to labor force numbers are only two,

Emp_rate + Unemp_rate = 1 If Emp_rate goes up, Unemp_rate must go down.

Actually, no. "Employment Rate" refers to the Employment to Population Ratio. I'm not aware of anyone who uses E/LF for anything. It's not necessary since it's just the reciprocal.

But let's put all 8 published ratios into words. ALL are "true," but they give a different perspective because they measure different things.

Labor Force Percentage: Labor Force as a percent of the population. Labor Force being Employed + Unemployed. This tells us the percent of the population that is available for work...they WANT to work, they CAN work, and they're DOING something about it...either by working or looking for work.

Employment Rate: aka employment-population ratio.
This tells us how much of the population is working...but it DOESN'T tell us why people arent' working.

Next the "Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization." These give different aspects of how available or potentially available labor is not fully used.

U-1: Unemployed 15 or more weeks as a percent of the Labor Force.
This tells us how much available labor has been not used for over 3 months. It has been very high lately. Before the Recession it was around 1.5%, during the Recession it got as high as 5.9% The worst it had ever been before was 4% for one month in 1983.

U-2: Job losers and people who have finished temp jobs as a percent of the Labor Force.
This tells us what how much of unused labor is involuntary. New entrants and reentrants to the Labor Force are "ggod" unemployment....people who are starting to look for work. Quits are ok unemployment (frictional unemployment). Job losers and finished temp jobs tell us how much unemployment is involuntary and signs of contraction.

U-3: The official rate: Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force.
This tells us how much available labor is not being used.

U-4: Unemployed and Discouraged Workers as a percent of the Labor Force plus Discouraged Workers.
This basically expands Unemployment to include people who are willing, able, and have recently looked for work, but aren't looking now because they don't think they'll find anything. There is legitimate debate about including them as Unemployed, but because it's so subjective (it's what they believe, not necessarily reality) we lose accuracy. The U-4 IS useful to gauge perception of the labor market, and as POTENTIAL workers. Diiscouraged are likely to start looking again if things improve.

U-5: Unemployed and all Marginally Attached as a percent of the Labor Force and all Marginally Attached.
Marginally Attached includes Discourage Workers and everyone else who was looking but stopped, for whatever reason. Reasons include caring for family, transportation problems, illness, injury, school...all non-labor market related reasons. These are people who were looking, had to stop for some reason, and could be looking now, but just haven't started yet. Adding these to the Discouraged gives us ALL the people who are likely to start looking for work soon. They're not actually available (because they're not looking) but are likely to be soon.

U-6: Unemployed plus all Marginally Attached plus Part Time for Economic Reasons as a percent of the Labor Force plus all Marginally Attached.
This is NOT an "Unemployment Rate" because it includes people who are working and therefore, by any definition, not Unemployed. Part Time for Economic Reasons means the person is working less than 35 hours a week, wants and is able to work 35+ hours, but either can't find a full time job, OR has a full time job and had her hours cut (this is the most common and happened a lot during the Recession).
The U-6 is then the the number of people who want to and are available to work who aren't working or not working enough as a percent of everyone actually and potentially available to work. It's useful, but it is NOT the "real unemployment rate." And it is often misportrayed as just Discouraged.

ALL those ratios are useful FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. NONE IS "THE BEST."

U-3 is the most generally useful, but it doesn't tell everything.

 

[itfitzme]

For another look at March-April, let's go to a BLS research series: Labor Force Flows

We see that of the 87,897,000 people Not in the Labor Force in March, 3,515,000 looked for and found work (or had looked months before, stopped looking but were finally hired from the older application), 2,761,000 started looking (unsuccessfully) for work, 81,433,000 stayed Not in the Labor Force, and 189,000 left the population (died, emmigrated, went to jaii or nursing home or the military).

At the same time, 3,993,000 people went from Employed to Not in the Labor Force. Some retired, some stayed home to look after the kids, some just hadn't started looking for work yet. 2,686,000 unemployed stopped looking for work, and 306,000 immigrated without work, or (mostly) turned 16 without working or looking for work, or otherwise entered the population as Not in the Labor Force.

Interesting point: 2,010,000 people went from Employed to Unemployed, but 2,272,000 went from Unemployed to Employed.
(How many of the UE went to the not in cat)

Another interesting point: While many are claiming the increase in NILF is due to people "giving up," more of the gross change into NILF was from Employed. Less than half the people going into NILF "stopped looking."

I think you have found the best way of understanding it.

The flows for E to NILF and UE to NILF for April were

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,481,000

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,766,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,993,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,686,000

Any thing else, and it's all just supposition. Even the rates are squirrely.

 

[itfitzme]

Most of this we already get;

The (un)employment to labor force numbers are only two,

Emp_rate + Unemp_rate = 1 If Emp_rate goes up, Unemp_rate must go down.

Actually, no. "Employment Rate" refers to the Employment to Population Ratio. I'm not aware of anyone who uses E/LF for anything. It's not necessary since it's just the reciprocal.

But let's put all 8 published ratios into words. ALL are "true," but they give a different perspective because they measure different things.

Labor Force Percentage: Labor Force as a percent of the population. Labor Force being Employed + Unemployed. This tells us the percent of the population that is available for work...they WANT to work, they CAN work, and they're DOING something about it...either by working or looking for work.

Employment Rate: aka employment-population ratio.
This tells us how much of the population is working...but it DOESN'T tell us why people arent' working.

Just as a check, here are the april levelsas ratios.

Date april/2012
E/LF(seas) 91.9%
UE/LF(seas) 8.1%
E/CPOP(seas) 58.4%
UE/CPOP(seas) 5.2%
NILF/CPOP(seas) 36.4%

UE/LF is 8.1%

UE/CPOP is 5.2%


When we speak of the unemployment rate, aren't we talking about that 8.1%?

 

[edthecynic]

For another look at March-April, let's go to a BLS research series: Labor Force Flows

We see that of the 87,897,000 people Not in the Labor Force in March, 3,515,000 looked for and found work (or had looked months before, stopped looking but were finally hired from the older application), 2,761,000 started looking (unsuccessfully) for work, 81,433,000 stayed Not in the Labor Force, and 189,000 left the population (died, emmigrated, went to jaii or nursing home or the military).

At the same time, 3,993,000 people went from Employed to Not in the Labor Force. Some retired, some stayed home to look after the kids, some just hadn't started looking for work yet. 2,686,000 unemployed stopped looking for work, and 306,000 immigrated without work, or (mostly) turned 16 without working or looking for work, or otherwise entered the population as Not in the Labor Force.

Interesting point: 2,010,000 people went from Employed to Unemployed, but 2,272,000 went from Unemployed to Employed.
(How many of the UE went to the not in cat)

Another interesting point: While many are claiming the increase in NILF is due to people "giving up," more of the gross change into NILF was from Employed. Less than half the people going into NILF "stopped looking."

I think you have found the best way of understanding it.

The flows for E to NILF and UE to NILF for April were

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,481,000

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,766,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,993,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,686,000

Any thing else, and it's all just supposition. Even the rates are squirrely.

The not in labor force grew mostly from people who do not want a job, 2.8 million and most of them were people over 55 years old, 1.9 million. Discouraged workers actually went down 21 thousand over the year!!!!!!

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[itfitzme]

Most of this we already get;

The (un)employment to labor force numbers are only two,

Emp_rate + Unemp_rate = 1 If Emp_rate goes up, Unemp_rate must go down.

Actually, no. "Employment Rate" refers to the Employment to Population Ratio. I'm not aware of anyone who uses E/LF for anything. It's not necessary since it's just the reciprocal.

But let's put all 8 published ratios into words. ALL are "true," but they give a different perspective because they measure different things.

Labor Force Percentage: Labor Force as a percent of the population. Labor Force being Employed + Unemployed. This tells us the percent of the population that is available for work...they WANT to work, they CAN work, and they're DOING something about it...either by working or looking for work.

Employment Rate: aka employment-population ratio.
This tells us how much of the population is working...but it DOESN'T tell us why people arent' working.

Just as a check, here are the april levelsas ratios.

Date april/2012
E/LF(seas) 91.9%
UE/LF(seas) 8.1%
E/CPOP(seas) 58.4%
UE/CPOP(seas) 5.2%
NILF/CPOP(seas) 36.4%

UE/LF is 8.1%

UE/CPOP is 5.2%


When we speak of the unemployment rate, aren't we talking about that 8.1%?

Oh, it's a label issue. The term "employment rate" is reserved for E/CPOP, where "unemployment rate" is reserved for UE/LF. I am sure you are right. I am sure I assumed a symmetry that isn't.

It does point out that the unemployment rate and the employment rate are significantly different because of the denominator. We can't immediately assume that because the unemployment rate has gone down, that the employment rate must go up.

That one is per pop and the other per labor force makes them different.

For april, the unemployment level (unadj) fell by 911,000 while the labor force fell by 411,000. And employment level did go up by 583,000. So, in fact, it isn't just that LF fell or unemp fell, they both did and the question is "why?".

I still think the flows report you came up with is the only way to go if we are down to this level of detail.

 

[itfitzme]

For another look at March-April, let's go to a BLS research series: Labor Force Flows

We see that of the 87,897,000 people Not in the Labor Force in March, 3,515,000 looked for and found work (or had looked months before, stopped looking but were finally hired from the older application), 2,761,000 started looking (unsuccessfully) for work, 81,433,000 stayed Not in the Labor Force, and 189,000 left the population (died, emmigrated, went to jaii or nursing home or the military).

At the same time, 3,993,000 people went from Employed to Not in the Labor Force. Some retired, some stayed home to look after the kids, some just hadn't started looking for work yet. 2,686,000 unemployed stopped looking for work, and 306,000 immigrated without work, or (mostly) turned 16 without working or looking for work, or otherwise entered the population as Not in the Labor Force.

Interesting point: 2,010,000 people went from Employed to Unemployed, but 2,272,000 went from Unemployed to Employed.
(How many of the UE went to the not in cat)

Another interesting point: While many are claiming the increase in NILF is due to people "giving up," more of the gross change into NILF was from Employed. Less than half the people going into NILF "stopped looking."

I think you have found the best way of understanding it.

The flows for E to NILF and UE to NILF for April were

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,481,000

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,766,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,993,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,686,000

Any thing else, and it's all just supposition. Even the rates are squirrely.

The not in labor force grew mostly from people who do not want a job, 2.8 million and most of them were people over 55 years old, 1.9 million. Discouraged workers actually went down 21 thousand over the year!!!!!!

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

The report of predigested data is so much easier.

Here is are odd categories in the CPS flows.

Date...... series_description..............................................................value (thousands)
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Employed 136354
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Not in Labor Force to Not in Labor Force 82320
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Unemployed 7761

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Employed to other Marginal Outflows 24
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Employed 67
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Not in Labor Force 312
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Unemployed 15
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Not in Labor Force to other Marginal Outflows 189
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Unemployed to other Marginal Outflows 2

I have no idea what "marginal inflows" and "marginal outflows" means.

I don't want to assume what "unemployed to unemployed" means. It might mean exactly what it looks like, those that didn't move out of the category. If it does, then things should all add up to the totals. That

 

[pinqy]

I think you have found the best way of understanding it.

The flows for E to NILF and UE to NILF for April were

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,481,000

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,766,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force 3,993,000

4/1/2012 (Seas) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force 2,686,000

Any thing else, and it's all just supposition. Even the rates are squirrely.

The not in labor force grew mostly from people who do not want a job, 2.8 million and most of them were people over 55 years old, 1.9 million. Discouraged workers actually went down 21 thousand over the year!!!!!!

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

The report of predigested data is so much easier.

Here is are odd categories in the CPS flows.

Date...... series_description..............................................................value (thousands)
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Employed 136354
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Not in Labor Force to Not in Labor Force 82320
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Unemployed 7761

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Employed to other Marginal Outflows 24
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Employed 67
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Not in Labor Force 312
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Unemployed 15
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Not in Labor Force to other Marginal Outflows 189
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Unemployed to other Marginal Outflows 2

I have no idea what "marginal inflows" and "marginal outflows" means.

I don't want to assume what "unemployed to unemployed" means. It might mean exactly what it looks like, those that didn't move out of the category. If it does, then things should all add up to the totals. That

"Other inflows" are people who are entering the Population, meaning they turned 16, immigrated, or were released from the military, prison, or other institution.

"Other outflows" are people leaving the population: deaths, emigration, incarceration, institutionalization, and entering active duty military

And yes, X to X are those whose status hasn't changed.

 

[itfitzme]

The not in labor force grew mostly from people who do not want a job, 2.8 million and most of them were people over 55 years old, 1.9 million. Discouraged workers actually went down 21 thousand over the year!!!!!!

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

The report of predigested data is so much easier.

Here is are odd categories in the CPS flows.

Date...... series_description..............................................................value (thousands)
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Employed 136354
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Not in Labor Force to Not in Labor Force 82320
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Unemployed 7761

4/1/2012 (Unadj) Employed to other Marginal Outflows 24
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Employed 67
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Not in Labor Force 312
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Unemployed 15
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Not in Labor Force to other Marginal Outflows 189
4/1/2012 (Unadj) Unemployed to other Marginal Outflows 2

I have no idea what "marginal inflows" and "marginal outflows" means.

I don't want to assume what "unemployed to unemployed" means. It might mean exactly what it looks like, those that didn't move out of the category. If it does, then things should all add up to the totals. That

"Other inflows" are people who are entering the Population, meaning they turned 16, immigrated, or were released from the military, prison, or other institution.

"Other outflows" are people leaving the population: deaths, emigration, incarceration, institutionalization, and entering active duty military

And yes, X to X are those whose status hasn't changed.

Here are the May to April flows. I totaled the monthly flows including May 2011 through and including April 2012. That is 12 months, so it's right.

Description................Flow.........NetFlow

EtoUn.....................25139
UnToE.....................28459..........3320 To employment from unemployment

EtoNILF...................44737
NILFtoE...................42598.........-2139 To NILF directly from employment

UnToNILF..................35093
NILFtoUn..................33349.........-1744 To NILF from unemployment

EmpToMargOutflow............366
MargInflowsToE.............1517..........1151 A net flow to employment from outside

UnToOtherMargOutflows........31
MargInflowsToUn ............280...........249 A net flow to unemployment from outside

NILFToOtherMargOutflows ...2291
MargInflowsToNILF..........4526..........2235 A net inflow to NILF from outside.

More went to NILF directly from employed then went from unemployment to NILF. The marginal inflows to NILF were larger then either the flows from employment or unemployment to NILF.

Just a fuzzy scan and it seems consistent with pingy's presentation of the flows for the last month. Over all, it isn't NILF increasing predominately on people giving up. There is some, not a small amount, but overall it is marginal inflow and employment flow that is increasing NILF.

That is pretty consistent with people entering the civilian population from outside and people leaving employment that is the major increase in NILF.

I really didn't buy the AARP study attempt. Not because it isn't a reasonable place to get some feel of things but because it isn't definitive. The flows is definitive but doesn't tell us what the individuals are like.

Between the AARP study, the look at the NILF categories, and the flows, it kind of starts adding weight to the idea that the predominate increase in NILF is retirees and new younger population. There is a good 1744 dropping out of unemployment and into NILF. And that is nothing to sneeze. And the proportion may or may not be consistent with the proportions we can gauge.

I realized why, I think, the unemployment rate is UE/LF while the employment rate is E/CPOP. UE/LF is weak, because it has the underlying LF. But it is stronger then UE/CPOP. UE/CPOP is meaningless because there is that NILF.

E/CPOP is solid, but it doesn't indicate unemployment. If E/CPOP is flat, then employment is keeping up. If it's growing, it's better.

UE/CPOP has the same issue as UE/LF except that the different just disappears into NILF.

Between the two, the employment rate and the unemployment rate, we get a better picture. Unemployment can fall on a falling LF. But if the employment rate isn't falling, the unemployment rate isn't being affected entirely by a falling LF.

The truth is that, even if employment rate is increasing, it doesn't guarantee that LF isn't falling. It it all in the proportions.

Bottom line is that a couple of stats and a single month isn't going to describe everything. Even if there was some fancy way to come up with a single stat that didn't get squirrely, it would be so obscure that no one but a statistician would understand it anyways.

 

[JRK]

Most of this we already get;

The (un)employment to labor force numbers are only two,

Emp_rate + Unemp_rate = 1 If Emp_rate goes up, Unemp_rate must go down.

Actually, no. "Employment Rate" refers to the Employment to Population Ratio. I'm not aware of anyone who uses E/LF for anything. It's not necessary since it's just the reciprocal.

But let's put all 8 published ratios into words. ALL are "true," but they give a different perspective because they measure different things.

Labor Force Percentage: Labor Force as a percent of the population. Labor Force being Employed + Unemployed. This tells us the percent of the population that is available for work...they WANT to work, they CAN work, and they're DOING something about it...either by working or looking for work.

Employment Rate: aka employment-population ratio.
This tells us how much of the population is working...but it DOESN'T tell us why people arent' working.

Just as a check, here are the april levelsas ratios.

Date april/2012
E/LF(seas) 91.9%
UE/LF(seas) 8.1%
E/CPOP(seas) 58.4%
UE/CPOP(seas) 5.2%
NILF/CPOP(seas) 36.4%

UE/LF is 8.1%

UE/CPOP is 5.2%


When we speak of the unemployment rate, aren't we talking about that 8.1%?

1/2 million people leaving the work force is why, ot jobs
yes were talking 8.1
we have had 2 million leave the work force sense U-3 was at 9%

 

[JRK]

The simple way to see the economy is flat to slowing is the Employed rate vs population
we have about the same % rate (by memory 54.4%)
simply put there are no jobs being created
Person enters the work force, either he/she gets a job or one from 08-09 collapse gets a job
There has been allot more people left the work force than entered it by 100% (twice as many) but the Employed rate has not changed

 

[edthecynic]

The simple way to see the economy is flat to slowing is the Employed rate vs population
we have about the same % rate (by memory 54.4%)
simply put there are no jobs being created
Person enters the work force, either he/she gets a job or one from 08-09 collapse gets a job
There has been allot more people left the work force than entered it by 100% (twice as many) but the Employed rate has not changed

It was 58.4%
And in April 2011 there were 139,628,000 employed.
In April 2012 there were 141,865,000 employed.
That's an increase of 2,237,000 employed at the same 58.4% rate, that you say equals zero jobs created.

And the people who left the labor force mostly didn't want a job, like retirees, students, stay at home moms, etc., 2,785,000 in total. The number of people not in the labor force who WANT a job went DOWN during that same April 2011 to 2012 period from 6,482,000 to 6,328,000.

 

[JRK]

The simple way to see the economy is flat to slowing is the Employed rate vs population
we have about the same % rate (by memory 54.4%)
simply put there are no jobs being created
Person enters the work force, either he/she gets a job or one from 08-09 collapse gets a job
There has been allot more people left the work force than entered it by 100% (twice as many) but the Employed rate has not changed

It was 58.4%
And in April 2011 there were 139,628,000 employed.
In April 2012 there were 141,865,000 employed.
That's an increase of 2,237,000 employed at the same 58.4% rate, that you say equals zero jobs created.

And the people who left the labor force mostly didn't want a job, like retirees, students, stay at home moms, etc., 2,785,000 in total. The number of people not in the labor force who WANT a job went DOWN during that same April 2011 to 2012 period from 6,482,000 to 6,328,000.

Yes that is exactly the truth
your removing close to 3 people for every person your adding
Job creation will truly come when you start adding more jobs than is entering the labor force
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

The 6 million jobs we lost late 08 and most all of 09 have not been recoverd
Hence no real job growth
BTW you claim that those who left the labor force do not want a job? try and explain that 500,000 people a month leaving the work force do not want a job
That is crazy
according to SS that is not true, I have links to accurate info here-in from there web site

 

[JRK]

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012
you can do the same for 2011 I am sure

 

[starcraftzzz]

The simple way to see the economy is flat to slowing is the Employed rate vs population...

It is better to sue the working labor force employed ratio because of the increasing number of people who are seniors

simply put there are no jobs being created

Only if you are so bad at math that 2-3million equals 0

 

[JRK]

zzz we do not talk to people who think the term retard is okay to use in any way, much less slanderous

 

[saveliberty]

The simple way to see the economy is flat to slowing is the Employed rate vs population
we have about the same % rate (by memory 54.4%)
simply put there are no jobs being created
Person enters the work force, either he/she gets a job or one from 08-09 collapse gets a job
There has been allot more people left the work force than entered it by 100% (twice as many) but the Employed rate has not changed

It was 58.4%
And in April 2011 there were 139,628,000 employed.
In April 2012 there were 141,865,000 employed.
That's an increase of 2,237,000 employed at the same 58.4% rate, that you say equals zero jobs created.

And the people who left the labor force mostly didn't want a job, like retirees, students, stay at home moms, etc., 2,785,000 in total. The number of people not in the labor force who WANT a job went DOWN during that same April 2011 to 2012 period from 6,482,000 to 6,328,000.

Something like 125,000 are added to the population each month, so that accounts for two-thirds of the difference.

 

[saveliberty]

May isn't looking good for the economy.