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

[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.

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

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

 

[itfitzme]

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%

Which one? down 209 thou since the last. Up 420 since Jan, the month before. Up 1 million since the last April. Where is the two million? Why not just go with down 411 thou since March?

Date UnempRateNSA CLFNSA UnempNSA
4/1/2012 8% 153905 11910
3/1/2012 8% 154316 12904
2/1/2012 9% 154114 13430
1/1/2012 9% 153485 13541
12/1/2011 8% 153373 12692
11/1/2011 8% 153683 12613
10/1/2011 9% 154088 13102
9/1/2011 9% 154022 13520
8/1/2011 9% 154344 14008
7/1/2011 9% 154812 14428
6/1/2011 9% 154538 14409
5/1/2011 9% 153449 13421
4/1/2011 9% 152898 13237

 

[starcraftzzz]

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

If you dont like being called a retard then stop beingh one

 

[JRK]

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%

Which one? down 209 thou since the last. Up 420 since Jan, the month before. Up 1 million since the last April. Where is the two million? Why not just go with down 411 thou since March?

Date UnempRateNSA CLFNSA UnempNSA
4/1/2012 8% 153905 11910
3/1/2012 8% 154316 12904
2/1/2012 9% 154114 13430
1/1/2012 9% 153485 13541
12/1/2011 8% 153373 12692
11/1/2011 8% 153683 12613
10/1/2011 9% 154088 13102
9/1/2011 9% 154022 13520
8/1/2011 9% 154344 14008
7/1/2011 9% 154812 14428
6/1/2011 9% 154538 14409
5/1/2011 9% 153449 13421
4/1/2011 9% 152898 13237

Not following
The not in 12 months ago was 85,726
current is 88 419

labor force = 154,365
12 months ago = 153,420
(Millions all)

for every 1 entering your having about 3 leave
we maybe saying the same, but last month the labor force went from 154707 to 154365
thats why it went to 8.1
even CBS notes this when it went from 9 to 8.6

The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October.
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
There are so many people leaving the workforce BLS does not know what to do with them (I hope this is the case)
We also did away with the 99 week UE beneift

 

[saveliberty]

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

If you dont like being called a retard then stop beingh one

Physican, heal thyself.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

I called you a liar because you lied about no jobs being created since the UE rate was 9% in April 2011 when there were 2.237 million jobs created during the period from April 2011 to the present. And that 2.237 million came from your own link, so that makes you a premeditated liar and not a stupid liar. You can rationalize all you want on how your lie isn't a lie because you have redefined what a new job is, but you are still a liar by 2.237 million new jobs.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

If your going to look at things simply, why get complicated about it?

Mine is even simpler, to create jobs we have to employ more people.

Since March, we had 583,000 added.

Seems to me your skipping simple, getting only so complicated as to prove your a-priori position, then claiming simplicity.

Sounds like lying to me, if we are to see things simplistically. Your either lying about adding jobs are lying about being simple.

Date............EmpRatioNSA......UnempRateNSA......EmpLevelNSA......AddedJobs
4/1/2012......58.49%..................7.74%..................141995..................583
3/1/2012......58.29%..................8.36%..................141412..................728
2/1/2012......58.03%..................8.71%..................140684..................740
1/1/2012......57.76%..................8.82%..................139944..................-737
12/1/2011....58.47%..................8.28%..................140681..................-389
11/1/2011....58.67%..................8.21%..................141070....................83
10/1/2011....58.68%..................8.50%..................140987..................485
9/1/2011......58.53%..................8.78%..................140502..................167
8/1/2011......58.50%..................9.08%..................140335...................-49
7/1/2011......58.57%..................9.32%..................140384..................255
6/1/2011......58.51%..................9.32%..................140129..................101
5/1/2011......58.51%..................8.75%..................140028..................367
4/1/2011......58.40%..................8.66%..................139661

Again, I don't think going from 58.4% to 58.49% employment ratio is anything to get all excited about. And that 8.66% to 7.74% unemp rate is "squirrely". But as we are being all simple about it, there isn't much else to say.

 

[Moonglow]

If you guys need work, I know of several jobs here.

 

[edthecynic]

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%

Which one? down 209 thou since the last. Up 420 since Jan, the month before. Up 1 million since the last April. Where is the two million? Why not just go with down 411 thou since March?

Date UnempRateNSA CLFNSA UnempNSA
4/1/2012 8% 153905 11910
3/1/2012 8% 154316 12904
2/1/2012 9% 154114 13430
1/1/2012 9% 153485 13541
12/1/2011 8% 153373 12692
11/1/2011 8% 153683 12613
10/1/2011 9% 154088 13102
9/1/2011 9% 154022 13520
8/1/2011 9% 154344 14008
7/1/2011 9% 154812 14428
6/1/2011 9% 154538 14409
5/1/2011 9% 153449 13421
4/1/2011 9% 152898 13237

Not following
The not in 12 months ago was 85,726
current is 88 419

labor force = 154,365
12 months ago = 153,420
(Millions all)

for every 1 entering your having about 3 leave
we maybe saying the same, but last month the labor force went from 154707 to 154365
thats why it went to 8.1
even CBS notes this when it went from 9 to 8.6

The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October.
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
There are so many people leaving the workforce BLS does not know what to do with them (I hope this is the case)
We also did away with the 99 week UE beneift

And as was pointed out to you nearly all of those who left the labor force didn't want a job. What you are saying is no one has the FREEDOM to retire, go to school, stay at home, etc., they must stay in the labor force so you can bitch about the high unemployment rate.

 

[JRK]

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

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

I called you a liar because you lied about no jobs being created since the UE rate was 9% in April 2011 when there were 2.237 million jobs created during the period from April 2011 to the present. And that 2.237 million came from your own link, so that makes you a premeditated liar and not a stupid liar. You can rationalize all you want on how your lie isn't a lie because you have redefined what a new job is, but you are still a liar by 2.237 million jobs.

What I said was until we begin to add more jobs than what is entering the work force, we are not creating 1 job
those million who lost there jobs from late 08-09 are still in number the same EXCEPT those leaving the work force

I made that clear in many threads, which with a Lib I expect the word liar to be thrown around, it has no meaning
Un like me, what ones opinion is I respect.
It is my opinion until we add more jobs than we add people we are not creating anything especially when we are losing close to 3 people for every one who enters
there is no lie there, it is my opinion
You will find in the adult world that using that word always will have consequences
ALWAYS

Your a left wing off the cliff lib, that does not make you a liar even though I have caught red handed manipulating info in the past in calling others a liar

Son, I can promise you in life be very careful who you do that to, there will come a day that you will pay for that. I put chronic liars on ignore
You think I am a liar, you know what to do. you keep calling me one I will put you on ignore
http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

 

[saveliberty]

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

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

If your going to look at things simply, why get complicated about it?

Mine is even simpler, to create jobs we have to employ more people.

Since March, we had 583,000 added.

Seems to me your skipping simple, getting only so complicated as to prove your a-priori position, then claiming simplicity.

Sounds like lying to me, if we are to see things simplistically. Your either lying about adding jobs are lying about being simple.

Date............EmpRatioNSA......UnempRateNSA......EmpLevelNSA......AddedJobs
4/1/2012......58.49%..................7.74%..................141995..................583
3/1/2012......58.29%..................8.36%..................141412..................728
2/1/2012......58.03%..................8.71%..................140684..................740
1/1/2012......57.76%..................8.82%..................139944..................-737
12/1/2011....58.47%..................8.28%..................140681..................-389
11/1/2011....58.67%..................8.21%..................141070....................83
10/1/2011....58.68%..................8.50%..................140987..................485
9/1/2011......58.53%..................8.78%..................140502..................167
8/1/2011......58.50%..................9.08%..................140335...................-49
7/1/2011......58.57%..................9.32%..................140384..................255
6/1/2011......58.51%..................9.32%..................140129..................101
5/1/2011......58.51%..................8.75%..................140028..................367
4/1/2011......58.40%..................8.66%..................139661

Again, I don't think going from 58.4% to 58.49% employment ratio is anything to get all excited about. And that 8.66% to 7.74% unemp rate is "squirrely". But as we are being all simple about it, there isn't much else to say.

There are more needing to be employed. You act like certain parts of the equation stay static and it isn't correct.

 

[JRK]

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

If you dont like being called a retard then stop beingh one

Physican, heal thyself.

ignore him
everyone else does
he missed spelled being BTW
He has some serious issues that none of us had anything to do with

 

[edthecynic]

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

I called you a liar because you lied about no jobs being created since the UE rate was 9% in April 2011 when there were 2.237 million jobs created during the period from April 2011 to the present. And that 2.237 million came from your own link, so that makes you a premeditated liar and not a stupid liar. You can rationalize all you want on how your lie isn't a lie because you have redefined what a new job is, but you are still a liar by 2.237 million jobs.

What I said was until we begin to add more jobs than what is entering the work force, we are not creating 1 job
those million who lost there jobs from late 08-09 are still in number the same EXCEPT those leaving the work force

I made that clear in many threads, which with a Lib I expect the word liar to be thrown around, it has no meaning
Un like me, what ones opinion is I respect.
It is my opinion until we add more jobs than we add people we are not creating anything especially when we are losing close to 3 people for every one who enters
there is no lie there, it is my opinion
You will find in the adult world that using that word always will have consequences
ALWAYS

Your a left wing off the cliff lib, that does not make you a liar even though I have caught red handed manipulating info in the past in calling others a liar

Son, I can promise you in life be very careful who you do that to, there will come a day that you will pay for that. I put chronic liars on ignore
You think I am a liar, you know what to do. you keep calling me one I will put you on ignore
http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

You posted this link, Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age, and then lied claiming that there were NO jobs created from the time when UE was 9% and the E/POP ratio was 58.4% in April 2011 to the present when by your own link there were 2.237 million new jobs created during that period.

If you don't want to be called a liar after you tell such an obvious lis, stop lying. It's really that simple!

 

[itfitzme]

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%

Which one? down 209 thou since the last. Up 420 since Jan, the month before. Up 1 million since the last April. Where is the two million? Why not just go with down 411 thou since March?

Date UnempRateNSA CLFNSA UnempNSA
4/1/2012 8% 153905 11910
3/1/2012 8% 154316 12904
2/1/2012 9% 154114 13430
1/1/2012 9% 153485 13541
12/1/2011 8% 153373 12692
11/1/2011 8% 153683 12613
10/1/2011 9% 154088 13102
9/1/2011 9% 154022 13520
8/1/2011 9% 154344 14008
7/1/2011 9% 154812 14428
6/1/2011 9% 154538 14409
5/1/2011 9% 153449 13421
4/1/2011 9% 152898 13237

Not following
The not in 12 months ago was 85,726
current is 88 419

labor force = 154,365
12 months ago = 153,420
(Millions all)

for every 1 entering your having about 3 leave
we maybe saying the same, but last month the labor force went from 154707 to 154365
thats why it went to 8.1
even CBS notes this when it went from 9 to 8.6

The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October.
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
There are so many people leaving the workforce BLS does not know what to do with them (I hope this is the case)
We also did away with the 99 week UE beneift

Why are you using an article about November last year to talk about April this year?

Why are you using seasonally adjusted numbers to talk about real people?

Seasonally adjusted levels are not actual jobs or actual people. You cannot take a "not-real" number and say real people have left.

I try to stay simple about it, seasonally adjusted is an estimate of how much there would be if there was no seasonality.

what does the UE benefit have to do with the not in labor force?

(btw, 153,420 would be in thousands, but I know what you mean, the "153" part is in millions.)

 

[JRK]

Which one? down 209 thou since the last. Up 420 since Jan, the month before. Up 1 million since the last April. Where is the two million? Why not just go with down 411 thou since March?

Date UnempRateNSA CLFNSA UnempNSA
4/1/2012 8% 153905 11910
3/1/2012 8% 154316 12904
2/1/2012 9% 154114 13430
1/1/2012 9% 153485 13541
12/1/2011 8% 153373 12692
11/1/2011 8% 153683 12613
10/1/2011 9% 154088 13102
9/1/2011 9% 154022 13520
8/1/2011 9% 154344 14008
7/1/2011 9% 154812 14428
6/1/2011 9% 154538 14409
5/1/2011 9% 153449 13421
4/1/2011 9% 152898 13237

Not following
The not in 12 months ago was 85,726
current is 88 419

labor force = 154,365
12 months ago = 153,420
(Millions all)

for every 1 entering your having about 3 leave
we maybe saying the same, but last month the labor force went from 154707 to 154365
thats why it went to 8.1
even CBS notes this when it went from 9 to 8.6

The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October.
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
There are so many people leaving the workforce BLS does not know what to do with them (I hope this is the case)
We also did away with the 99 week UE beneift

And as was pointed out to you nearly all of those who left the labor force didn't want a job. What you are saying is no one has the FREEDOM to retire, go to school, stay at home, etc., they must stay in the labor force so you can bitch about the high unemployment rate.

you have your opinion
So should that be called a lie?
you keep trying to convince people that there are 3 people to every1 doing these things
Fine with me

And your proud of an UE rate that has more to do with people leaving than being hired by a whole bunch

 

[JRK]

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

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

If your going to look at things simply, why get complicated about it?

Mine is even simpler, to create jobs we have to employ more people.

Since March, we had 583,000 added.

Seems to me your skipping simple, getting only so complicated as to prove your a-priori position, then claiming simplicity.

Sounds like lying to me, if we are to see things simplistically. Your either lying about adding jobs are lying about being simple.

Date............EmpRatioNSA......UnempRateNSA......EmpLevelNSA......AddedJobs
4/1/2012......58.49%..................7.74%..................141995..................583
3/1/2012......58.29%..................8.36%..................141412..................728
2/1/2012......58.03%..................8.71%..................140684..................740
1/1/2012......57.76%..................8.82%..................139944..................-737
12/1/2011....58.47%..................8.28%..................140681..................-389
11/1/2011....58.67%..................8.21%..................141070....................83
10/1/2011....58.68%..................8.50%..................140987..................485
9/1/2011......58.53%..................8.78%..................140502..................167
8/1/2011......58.50%..................9.08%..................140335...................-49
7/1/2011......58.57%..................9.32%..................140384..................255
6/1/2011......58.51%..................9.32%..................140129..................101
5/1/2011......58.51%..................8.75%..................140028..................367
4/1/2011......58.40%..................8.66%..................139661

Again, I don't think going from 58.4% to 58.49% employment ratio is anything to get all excited about. And that 8.66% to 7.74% unemp rate is "squirrely". But as we are being all simple about it, there isn't much else to say.

great info
The reason it is falling is there is 3-1 leaving the work force (real close)
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[edthecynic]

Which one? down 209 thou since the last. Up 420 since Jan, the month before. Up 1 million since the last April. Where is the two million? Why not just go with down 411 thou since March?

Date UnempRateNSA CLFNSA UnempNSA
4/1/2012 8% 153905 11910
3/1/2012 8% 154316 12904
2/1/2012 9% 154114 13430
1/1/2012 9% 153485 13541
12/1/2011 8% 153373 12692
11/1/2011 8% 153683 12613
10/1/2011 9% 154088 13102
9/1/2011 9% 154022 13520
8/1/2011 9% 154344 14008
7/1/2011 9% 154812 14428
6/1/2011 9% 154538 14409
5/1/2011 9% 153449 13421
4/1/2011 9% 152898 13237

Not following
The not in 12 months ago was 85,726
current is 88 419

labor force = 154,365
12 months ago = 153,420
(Millions all)

for every 1 entering your having about 3 leave
we maybe saying the same, but last month the labor force went from 154707 to 154365
thats why it went to 8.1
even CBS notes this when it went from 9 to 8.6

The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October.
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
There are so many people leaving the workforce BLS does not know what to do with them (I hope this is the case)
We also did away with the 99 week UE beneift

Why are you using an article about November last year to talk about April this year?

Why are you using seasonally adjusted numbers to talk about real people?

Seasonally adjusted levels are not actual jobs or actual people. You cannot take a "not-real" number and say real people have left.

I try to stay simple about it, seasonally adjusted is an estimate of how much there would be if there was no seasonality.

what does the UE benefit have to do with the not in labor force?

(btw, 153,420 would be in thousands, but I know what you mean, the "153" part is in millions.)

CON$ use the seasonally adjusted numbers when they are higher than the unadjusted number, now the unadjusted UE rate is 7.7%. When the adjusted rate is lower they use the unadjusted rate and claim that the BLS is cooking the adjusted rate to make Obama look good.

CON$ have a lie for every occasion

 

[JRK]

If you guys need work, I know of several jobs here.

Moon glow I moved 1300 miles to get a GOOD job
Take away Texas
ND
SD
Oklahoma
La

then all of this debate is mute, especially Texas

ed by business and professional services, Texas nonfarm employers added 67,200 workers in January, more than doubling the 31,548 jobs created in December and the 33,302 added in November, according to revised figures released by the Texas Workforce Commission. Texas added 258,200 jobs in the past 12 months, according to the revised TWC figures.

hows that look for BHO?
Texas job creation doubled in January - SMU

 

[Moonglow]

I klve in SW Missouri

 

[itfitzme]

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

If your going to look at things simply, why get complicated about it?

Mine is even simpler, to create jobs we have to employ more people.

Since March, we had 583,000 added.

Seems to me your skipping simple, getting only so complicated as to prove your a-priori position, then claiming simplicity.

Sounds like lying to me, if we are to see things simplistically. Your either lying about adding jobs are lying about being simple.

Date............EmpRatioNSA......UnempRateNSA......EmpLevelNSA......AddedJobs
4/1/2012......58.49%..................7.74%..................141995..................583
3/1/2012......58.29%..................8.36%..................141412..................728
2/1/2012......58.03%..................8.71%..................140684..................740
1/1/2012......57.76%..................8.82%..................139944..................-737
12/1/2011....58.47%..................8.28%..................140681..................-389
11/1/2011....58.67%..................8.21%..................141070....................83
10/1/2011....58.68%..................8.50%..................140987..................485
9/1/2011......58.53%..................8.78%..................140502..................167
8/1/2011......58.50%..................9.08%..................140335...................-49
7/1/2011......58.57%..................9.32%..................140384..................255
6/1/2011......58.51%..................9.32%..................140129..................101
5/1/2011......58.51%..................8.75%..................140028..................367
4/1/2011......58.40%..................8.66%..................139661

Again, I don't think going from 58.4% to 58.49% employment ratio is anything to get all excited about. And that 8.66% to 7.74% unemp rate is "squirrely". But as we are being all simple about it, there isn't much else to say.

There are more needing to be employed. You act like certain parts of the equation stay static and it isn't correct.

Hardly.

Ed said he looks at things simply, so I looked at it simply.

The reason for using ratios, like unempoyment rate = Unemployment level / Labor Force and employment rate = employment level / civilian...population is because the population is not static.

If the employment ratio is flat, then jobs are being created at the same rate of the population.

And, if you go back through the thread, you will find that I don't look at anything as static.

The whole reason that the UE is squirrely is because things aren't static. And it raised the whole issue of why the LF and NILF has change. But that's not looking at it "simply".

And I agree that more need to be employed.

But that wasn't what Ed said. What he said was that 0 jobs were created. Then he changed it to "to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force". Then he switched to the NILF. All the while, claiming he sees things "simply".