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

[pinqy]

I guess it comes to a point of trust here
Lie may have been the wrong word. I deal in numbers and when numbers start stacking up in a place that there is reason one begins to start looking around

Sure, but look at it from a data collection viewpoint...Each month approx 60,000 households are surveyed (Census goes to many more, but of course there are refusals, empty houses, no longer residences etc). Each household represents anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand other households. There are dozens of variables for each individual in the survey: age, race, sex, veteran status, education, marital status, disability, etc, and then work or not work, full time or part time, self employed, industry, multiple jobs, unemployed, job search activities, duration of unemployment, reason for unemployment, former industry, why not looking, etc. Changing just one data point can have a serious and unpredicted effect on the aggreagate. And everything has to feed into state and metro area numbers later.

That should give you an idea of the huge amount of data and variable involved. Census has one week to collect all 60,000 households. The results are sent to Washington, DC. Analysts there have 9 work days after collection ends to compile everything, request followups and clarification, calculate the aggregate numbers and sort into tables, apply seasonal adjustment, aggregate and/or disaggregate, and write the news release which has to be prepared, edited, send to publications and then GPO, send to the Associate Commisioner and the Commissioner for final review. I think you can appreciate the difficulties and time crunch of that. The evening before Friday release, the report can be given to the President's Council of Economic Advisors, and that's it, by law. The President doesn't even know the numbers until release on 8:30 EST.

There is literally no time available to go back and change things. With all the tables and all the available data, it would be damned hard in any case to make changes because any one change you make effects a lot of other parts.

I have heard the changing demographic argument allot also.

That's part of it. Honestly I think it's exaggerated. I haven't done a detailed analysis, but while % of the population 65+ is growing, a larger % of the Labor Force is also 65+ So more people are hitting retirement age, but a lower percent are actually retiring.

I can use the "not in work force number" every day all day and no matter how any-one tries to justify the 1.6 million person spurt, they cannot explain why the other number was not effected the same

It's a statistical issue. The projections and estimates Census was using were off..undercounting teenagers and old people. Since a larger percent of teenagers and 65+ people than the 25-64 population are not in the labor force, it was the Not in the Labor Force category that was most effected. Here's the Jan 2012 news release that explains the changes. Basically 1.5 million people were added to the population because of changes in the estimates...(there had been an undercount and the undercount was corrected). 1.252 million of that happened to be Not in the Labor Force, 216,000 employed, and 42,000 unemployed. All that on top of the recorded changes from the survey from Dec to Jan.

 

[Truthmatters]

what years do the baby boom represent?

 

[Truthmatters]

Baby boom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

46 to 64

 

[Truthmatters]

2010 to 2028

 

[Truthmatters]

denying cold hard demonstratable facts is just plain stupid

 

[JRK]

denying cold hard demonstratable facts is just plain stupid

There are 88 million people in the "not in work force" number
Those are the facts
no matter how you change the demographic that number is huge and is much larger than the over 65 crowd

It amazes me that any-one would try to justify this economy as something we would want for 4 more years

 

[bigrebnc1775]

denying cold hard demonstratable facts is just plain stupid

Anyone using wiki as a lone source on a subject that's hard to support is very stupid.

 

[pinqy]

denying cold hard demonstratable facts is just plain stupid

There are 88 million people in the "not in work force" number
Those are the facts
no matter how you change the demographic that number is huge and is much larger than the over 65 crowd

Right, 65+(not disabled) is about a quarter of that. Add in the disabled all ages, high school an college students, stay home spouses etc. most of those not in the labor force don't want to work, and of the 6 million who say they do, most aren't available for work.

Remember, while high, as a percent of the pop it's lower than any time before 1984.

It amazes me that any-one would try to justify this economy as something we would want for 4 more years

I agre with you there. Things still stuck and only slowly improving. But it's not as bad as some try to claim.

 

[JRK]

I guess it comes to a point of trust here
Lie may have been the wrong word. I deal in numbers and when numbers start stacking up in a place that there is reason one begins to start looking around

Sure, but look at it from a data collection viewpoint...Each month approx 60,000 households are surveyed (Census goes to many more, but of course there are refusals, empty houses, no longer residences etc). Each household represents anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand other households. There are dozens of variables for each individual in the survey: age, race, sex, veteran status, education, marital status, disability, etc, and then work or not work, full time or part time, self employed, industry, multiple jobs, unemployed, job search activities, duration of unemployment, reason for unemployment, former industry, why not looking, etc. Changing just one data point can have a serious and unpredicted effect on the aggreagate. And everything has to feed into state and metro area numbers later.

That should give you an idea of the huge amount of data and variable involved. Census has one week to collect all 60,000 households. The results are sent to Washington, DC. Analysts there have 9 work days after collection ends to compile everything, request followups and clarification, calculate the aggregate numbers and sort into tables, apply seasonal adjustment, aggregate and/or disaggregate, and write the news release which has to be prepared, edited, send to publications and then GPO, send to the Associate Commisioner and the Commissioner for final review. I think you can appreciate the difficulties and time crunch of that. The evening before Friday release, the report can be given to the President's Council of Economic Advisors, and that's it, by law. The President doesn't even know the numbers until release on 8:30 EST.

There is literally no time available to go back and change things. With all the tables and all the available data, it would be damned hard in any case to make changes because any one change you make effects a lot of other parts.

That's part of it. Honestly I think it's exaggerated. I haven't done a detailed analysis, but while % of the population 65+ is growing, a larger % of the Labor Force is also 65+ So more people are hitting retirement age, but a lower percent are actually retiring.

I can use the "not in work force number" every day all day and no matter how any-one tries to justify the 1.6 million person spurt, they cannot explain why the other number was not effected the same

It's a statistical issue. The projections and estimates Census was using were off..undercounting teenagers and old people. Since a larger percent of teenagers and 65+ people than the 25-64 population are not in the labor force, it was the Not in the Labor Force category that was most effected. Here's the Jan 2012 news release that explains the changes. Basically 1.5 million people were added to the population because of changes in the estimates...(there had been an undercount and the undercount was corrected). 1.252 million of that happened to be Not in the Labor Force, 216,000 employed, and 42,000 unemployed. All that on top of the recorded changes from the survey from Dec to Jan.

That is a 17% UE rate
I really think that we are closer to that all in than the 8.4%

I assume the reason that do not count the under 25 is the college attendees
Like I said I did not pay this much attention until we went from 9 to 8.6 (again by memory) in 4 weeks


Well, Happy Holidays. They don't do Merry Christmas in the media. But we're back, it's done, they got the headline: "Unemployment, 8.6%!" Now, the truth of the matter is -- and Bloomberg News even points out that the only way -- it's a corrupt number. It is a corrupt number. Folks, the number of people who have quit looking for work in the last few weeks is 315,000. Those are the people have thrown up their hands after 99 weeks or more of being unemployed; and they've said, "I'm quitting. I'm not looking." So they're not counted. Therefore, the universe of jobs available in the country is down by 315,000. That is the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate is a meager 64%. It fell to 64% from 64.2%. So the 0.2% drop equals 315,000 people leaving the workforce.

That means there are 315,000 fewer jobs to have, so the universe of jobs has been steadily shrinking. What was the number of jobs created? It's 120,000 jobs. It's a 120, 126,000, whatever. That's in the ballpark. That number of jobs created can lower unemployment rate 0.4%, almost one half of a percent? Creating 120,000 new jobs can do that? That alone tells us how small the labor force participation rate is. That tells us how small the universe of available jobs in the country is, when creating 120,000 -- and we still have, don't forget, over 400,000 applications for unemployment compensation
reported yesterday. So just 120,000 new jobs can lower the unemployment rate almost a half a point. That's not possible without that 315,000 figure, the 315,000 people who have just walked away.
http://www.teaparty.org/article.php?id=1805

 

[pinqy]

That is a 17% UE rate

How on earth are you getting that?

I assume the reason that do not count the under 25 is the college attendees

Where'd you get the idea they're not counted? What I was saying was that when Census corrected the undercount, most of the people added were in the 16-24 and 65+ age groups....groups that traditionally have low labor force participation rates (53.1 and 18.6 respectively).


Do I even need to address the Rush quotations? An increase in the Not in the Labor Force and/or a decrease in the Labor Force (and they don't have to move in opposite directions) does NOT mean an increase in discouraged workers.

 

[JRK]

That is a 17% UE rate

How on earth are you getting that?

I assume the reason that do not count the under 25 is the college attendees

Where'd you get the idea they're not counted? What I was saying was that when Census corrected the undercount, most of the people added were in the 16-24 and 65+ age groups....groups that traditionally have low labor force participation rates (53.1 and 18.6 respectively).


Do I even need to address the Rush quotations? An increase in the Not in the Labor Force and/or a decrease in the Labor Force (and they don't have to move in opposite directions) does NOT mean an increase in discouraged workers.

1.252 million of that happened to be Not in the Labor Force, 216,000 employed, and 42,000 unemployed. All that on top of the recorded changes from the survey from Dec to Jan.
That is where I got the UE rate
The problem with Rushes comment is it is true
From CBS

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 It would be far preferable for the unemployment rate to drop because the economy is creating over 200,000 per month consistently, rather than due to would-be employees leaving the work force, either because they're retiring or they're simply too discouraged to keep looking for a job. If
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News

Also it should be noted that job growth of 278,000 (which now looks to be 118,000) is good news with a 5% UE rate
With a 8-9-10, what ever it really is, that is not really good news, much better than losing that many, but we are a long way from where we need to be

 

[edthecynic]

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

you're such a mess dude....really. go away somewhere, a drip, a padded room, have a ' lie down' as they say in merry ole....

I can always count on you to spew insults when you have no facts to debate with.
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

you're such a mess dude....really. go away somewhere, a drip, a padded room, have a ' lie down' as they say in merry ole....

just please...I beg of you, be logical, be civil, that's all I ask.

What a pompous hypocrite you are!!!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

ok, so what claim is he making? example- that a retiree that has filed and is collecting SSI at oh, age 69 is a labor force participant there fore counted in the LFPR? OR NOT?

Some are, some aren't. Actually, the LFPR for 65+ has increased the last few years. BUT the % of the population 65+ has increased and a large number are NOT in the labor force. So the increased number of retirees (whether they retire at 65, 75, or 95 is irrelevant) means more retirees as a percent of the population and therefore a negative effct on the LFPR.

When I have time, I'll look at the numbers.

Ok, fair enough, so you see my point then and what I am really asking or remarking upon?

we cannot claim that the # of discouraged workers ( who are dropped from the LPR) are all retirees, IF retirees are not included in the LF count, IF they are, then, the number is , well meaningless in a large and important context.

I realize that there is cyclical structural and secular issue(s) at work here, the key is what % of each is predominant/responsible.

At ( to be kind) 200K jobs a month, just 75K ( to be kind again I took the low new entrant #required of 125K) eating into the Labor pool of unemployed, the rates we are given are not related to reality and watching that number drop at the same time is, well, no wonder few trust the gov. anymore.

I'll be here... just please...I beg of you, be logical, be civil, that's all I ask.

You know we went through this on another thread and I took the time to explain to you that the retirees are figured into the LPR as part of the denominator and the LF is is the numerator. I even took the time to link to the BLS glossary for you, but you are still playing dumb claiming that retirees are part of the numerator.

The Labor Force is the numerator of the Labor Force Participation Rate, and retirees are PART of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population which is the denominator of the LPR.

Here is the link where I tried to correct your misinformation in spite of your repeated insults.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...s-120k-ue-rate-drops-to-8-2-march-2012-a.html

Some highlights:

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force

The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Browse various labor force characteristics. Data also are available by demographic characteristics. See also Not in the labor force.

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

BLS Glossary
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey) Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some are, some aren't. Actually, the LFPR for 65+ has increased the last few years. BUT the % of the population 65+ has increased and a large number are NOT in the labor force. So the increased number of retirees (whether they retire at 65, 75, or 95 is irrelevant) means more retirees as a percent of the population and therefore a negative effct on the LFPR.

When I have time, I'll look at the numbers.

Ok, fair enough, so you see my point then and what I am really asking or remarking upon?

we cannot claim that the # of discouraged workers ( who are dropped from the LPR) are all retirees, IF retirees are not included in the LF count, IF they are, then, the number is , well meaningless in a large and important context.

I realize that there is cyclical structural and secular issue(s) at work here, the key is what % of each is predominant/responsible.

At ( to be kind) 200K jobs a month, just 75K ( to be kind again I took the low new entrant #required of 125K) eating into the Labor pool of unemployed, the rates we are given are not related to reality and watching that number drop at the same time is, well, no wonder few trust the gov. anymore.

I'll be here... just please...I beg of you, be logical, be civil, that's all I ask.

You know we went through this on another thread and I took the time to explain to you that the retirees are figured into the LPR as part of the denominator and the LF is is the numerator. I even took the time to link to the BLS glossary for you, but you are still playing dumb claiming that retirees are part of the numerator.

The Labor Force is the numerator of the Labor Force Participation Rate, and retirees are PART of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population which is the denominator of the LPR.

Here is the link where I tried to correct your misinformation in spite of your repeated insults.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...s-120k-ue-rate-drops-to-8-2-march-2012-a.html

Some highlights:

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force

The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Browse various labor force characteristics. Data also are available by demographic characteristics. See also Not in the labor force.

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

BLS Glossary
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey) Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

OH Jesus fucking Christ, what you have done is shown who's getting benefits. You have yet to show how many baby boomers have retired at the age they are supposed too.

 

[JRK]

The one item I have found in this message board and as in life in 2012 is that people on the left and the right (far more on the left as i see it) take this stuff personal
UE numbers are just that, numbers
Deficit
Policies
All of that is just information. The hate the left had for GWB never made any sense to me. He was a blue dog Democrat in so many ways. His policies were so close to being in line with a center right Democrat it was scary
Hate is not the right word for it. From 2000 through the end of his presidency it never stopped. It was the reason the Dems won in a landslide during the 08 election cycle even though they had control of the senate before the wheels run off (Do not think that made a difference)

I know more than one person (including one of my sons) who really feel "used" and have been lied to

They remember when 5% UE was "under reported" and "not real" and they remember when a 200 billion dollar deficit for the year was the end, they remember when "the war is lost" speeches were being made on the senate floor by the majority leader, only to be 100% out 5 years later

It is sad to have the level of hate on both sides, but the left (just watch HBO for 2 days in a row) that included some very un godly attacks on S Palin, then to attack Rush for calling a woman a whore 1 day out of the 1000s he has been on the air, and never have I heard any one come to S. Palin s defense in the main stream media

 

[LoneLaugher]

Shit........quit yer whining.

 

[JRK]

Shit........quit yer whining.

Whining?
what have I been whining about? this is a discussion board, is it not?
Just trading information
I apologize you do not like it, that is just the way it is

 

[Trajan]

you're such a mess dude....really. go away somewhere, a drip, a padded room, have a ' lie down' as they say in merry ole....

just please...I beg of you, be logical, be civil, that's all I ask.

What a pompous hypocrite you are!!!!!!!

not at all, you burnt that bridge with me a long time ago, remember? you seem to expect folks to lay down for your errant stupid remarks on a personal level and never get fed up....

I have never had a discussion with Pinqy, see how that works?

 

[Trajan]

Some are, some aren't. Actually, the LFPR for 65+ has increased the last few years. BUT the % of the population 65+ has increased and a large number are NOT in the labor force. So the increased number of retirees (whether they retire at 65, 75, or 95 is irrelevant) means more retirees as a percent of the population and therefore a negative effct on the LFPR.

When I have time, I'll look at the numbers.

Ok, fair enough, so you see my point then and what I am really asking or remarking upon?

we cannot claim that the # of discouraged workers ( who are dropped from the LPR) are all retirees, IF retirees are not included in the LF count, IF they are, then, the number is , well meaningless in a large and important context.

I realize that there is cyclical structural and secular issue(s) at work here, the key is what % of each is predominant/responsible.

At ( to be kind) 200K jobs a month, just 75K ( to be kind again I took the low new entrant #required of 125K) eating into the Labor pool of unemployed, the rates we are given are not related to reality and watching that number drop at the same time is, well, no wonder few trust the gov. anymore.

I'll be here... just please...I beg of you, be logical, be civil, that's all I ask.

You know we went through this on another thread and I took the time to explain to you that the retirees are figured into the LPR as part of the denominator and the LF is is the numerator. I even took the time to link to the BLS glossary for you, but you are still playing dumb claiming that retirees are part of the numerator.

The Labor Force is the numerator of the Labor Force Participation Rate, and retirees are PART of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population which is the denominator of the LPR.

Here is the link where I tried to correct your misinformation in spite of your repeated insults.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...s-120k-ue-rate-drops-to-8-2-march-2012-a.html

Some highlights:

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force

The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Browse various labor force characteristics. Data also are available by demographic characteristics. See also Not in the labor force.

Not in the labor force

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

BLS Glossary
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey) Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

and you are just as vacant intellectually here as you were there. you bolded my comment then answered your own question , not mine.