Biggest jobs drop in nearly 4 years

[itfitzme]

About 12.5 million people are still unemployed and a record 88.4 million people are considered "not in the labor force," according to the BLS,But the decline was mainly due to 342,000 people leaving the labor force, meaning the BLS had stopped counting them as unemployed. The number of employed people in the nation actually fell by 169,000.
Wake -up ....

YUP!

But how much of that drop in emp-pop ratio is labor market factors and how much is demographic change?

Some of the drop in emp-pop and Labor Force participation is due to more retirees, more students, and more stay-home spouses. It's very difficult to isolate and specify how much is due to what, but demographics clearly play a role. And note that the decline started well before the most recent recession:

The way I approached the structural issue is by considering how each age group are represented in employment by comparison to their percentage of the poplulation. Simply, all other things being equal, each should be represented in employment identically to their representation in the population. If age group X represents X% of the population, all other things being equal, they should be X% of employment. Obviously, all things are not equal, so we expect the percentage distributions to be differrent between the age groups. The real question is if the percentage distributions have changed over time. If the age group changes it's proportion of population, it's percentage of employment should change equally. If it was 5% of the population, and represents 10% of the workforce, if the percentage increases to 10%, then it should represent 20% of the workforce. Growth in population should be reflected as the same growth in the work force.

So, I have a representation factor which is the employment percentage divided by the population percentage. All things being equal, this would be equal to one. Of course, all things are not equal, for instance, the 16-19 year age group is obviously a bit underrepresented as many of them are in school. Whatever their percentage is, it should remain stable.

This is how it looks over the years.

This only represents the structural change. There has been a structural change to how each age group is represented in employment. The over 55 groups have increased in proportion while the under 25 age groups have decreased in proportion.

It basically appears that the aging population has displaced the younger population.

So there is a structural change. What else did you have in mind?

It says nothing about whether the full proportional increase or decrease in the age group's population has been fully taken up or lost in its representation in employment, unemployment, or the NILF.

There is an old joke about two college buddies, both studying economics. Bob switched his major to physics. His buddy quips, "Well, then the average IQ for both the economics department and the physics department have gone up!"

The point is that just because one thing goes up doesn't mean the other must go down. It is very possible for there to be a proportional increase across employment, unemployment and NILF at the same time.

That changes in proportions really confound things.

 

[itfitzme]

YUP!

But how much of that drop in emp-pop ratio is labor market factors and how much is demographic change? Some of the drop in emp-pop and Labor Force participation is due to more retirees...

Ah yes, the old blame the babyboomer ploy --the oldest trick in the world. Works every time.

We hear it a lot from leftists thinking they can explain away the suffering of millions by spouting big words. It won't wash because we now live in the info age and everyone can google. Any google key words "generation unemployment" pops up articles pointing out--

--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. If retiring babyboomers were the ones leaving the workforce then we'd be seeing average ages drop among the employed. What does make sense is hiring's off because of Obama's war on hiring, his expressed policy of vengeance against employers. It's a policy that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

You should get a graph that starts in January of '09. Then it would actually fit with your idiotic "war on hiring" idea.

 

[itfitzme]

,...because the total population is employed+unemployed+not in labor force, this alone means they have to be addressed seperately. The basic question is, if the over 55 has grown, then why hasn't their percentage of the employment rolls grown as much as their percentage of the civilian population? Or has it?.

Next I''m expecting you to ask me if I have a couple tens for a five dollar bill you need to break.

Focus.

The American people are suffering more we see with the 8% uneployment rate becuase millions have been ignored out of the labor force:
The tragedy that can not be dismissed as "older workers retiring" because we now know that it's not the old people quitting but rather the young not being hired.

The tragedy is that you think the only job losers were under the age of 25.

I take it you have a hard time with percentages and fractions.

Do you think that 1/3rd is bigger then 1/2? It's a common math issue, in like 3rd grade.

 

[edthecynic]

But how much of that drop in emp-pop ratio is labor market factors and how much is demographic change? Some of the drop in emp-pop and Labor Force participation is due to more retirees...

Ah yes, the old blame the babyboomer ploy --the oldest trick in the world. Works every time.

We hear it a lot from leftists thinking they can explain away the suffering of millions by spouting big words. It won't wash because we now live in the info age and everyone can google. Any google key words "generation unemployment" pops up articles pointing out--

--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. If retiring babyboomers were the ones leaving the workforce then we'd be seeing average ages drop among the employed. What does make sense is hiring's off because of Obama's war on hiring, his expressed policy of vengeance against employers. It's a policy that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The population continues to grow. And, the population over 55 also continues to grow. Now, clearly, the under 25 crowd represent a large decline in the employment rolls and a large increase in the NILF. Since the labor force peaked, there has been a structural change such that the under 25 crowd has become less represented in the labor force while the over 55 crowd has become more represented.

This, though, doesn't preclude both becoming more represented in the NILF. I haven't done this side of it yet but the idea is simple. If an age group increases by, say 10%, 5% can go to the labor force with the other 5% going to the NILF. As a result, that age group would increase both in terms of their proportion of the employed and their proportion of the not in the labor force. The same would go for employment.

Due to the fact that the proportion of total population is growing, not so simple as that if one goes up the other must go down.

What I have been able to determine is that, since about 2001, the under 25 crowd has become substantially less represented in the labor force and employment then they were. And, the over 55 crowd has become more represented. This is clearly so.

Still, if the under 25 crowd drops more then the over 55 crowd, even though the over 55 crowd has fallen, the average age for employed would increase.

Because the poplulation is constantly growing and the age group distribution is has changed as well, unemployment and not in the labor force have to be addressed seperately. In fact, because the total population is employed+unemployed+not in labor force, this alone means they have to be addressed seperately.

The basic question is, if the over 55 has grown, then why hasn't their percentage of the employment rolls grown as much as their percentage of the civilian population? Or has it?

 

[itfitzme]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The population continues to grow. And, the population over 55 also continues to grow. Now, clearly, the under 25 crowd represent a large decline in the employment rolls and a large increase in the NILF. Since the labor force peaked, there has been a structural change such that the under 25 crowd has become less represented in the labor force while the over 55 crowd has become more represented.

This, though, doesn't preclude both becoming more represented in the NILF. I haven't done this side of it yet but the idea is simple. If an age group increases by, say 10%, 5% can go to the labor force with the other 5% going to the NILF. As a result, that age group would increase both in terms of their proportion of the employed and their proportion of the not in the labor force. The same would go for employment.

Due to the fact that the proportion of total population is growing, not so simple as that if one goes up the other must go down.

What I have been able to determine is that, since about 2001, the under 25 crowd has become substantially less represented in the labor force and employment then they were. And, the over 55 crowd has become more represented. This is clearly so.

Still, if the under 25 crowd drops more then the over 55 crowd, even though the over 55 crowd has fallen, the average age for employed would increase.

Because the poplulation is constantly growing and the age group distribution is has changed as well, unemployment and not in the labor force have to be addressed seperately. In fact, because the total population is employed+unemployed+not in labor force, this alone means they have to be addressed seperately.

The basic question is, if the over 55 has grown, then why hasn't their percentage of the employment rolls grown as much as their percentage of the civilian population? Or has it?

Notice how the trough, the lower bend point, keeps moving in time. That's he baby boom bump moving. Every five years, they are five years older and that age group is a larger percentage of the population. All other things being equal, we would expect them to increase in proportion in all labor groups, employment, unemployment, and NILF.

Can you get %NILF/%Pop out of economagic? That is those only way, that I see, which will tell us if they have become more represented than their population proportion would suggest.

Hey, you know what is interesting. Notice how the 55-59 age group is the only one that shows a clear decline due to the recession.

 

[expat_panama]

...you think the only job losers were under the age of 25...

Not sure who you're talking too, but if and when he comes back here you can show him the graph you left from my post--

--showing the 4% drop in 25-54 employment.

 

[expat_panama]

...get a graph that starts in January of '09. Then it would actually fit with your idiotic "war on hiring" idea.

Hey guy, we're not talking fun and games here, you can play your politics anyway you want but with hiring people we're talking real money. I laid off have my full time workforce in late '08 because like most people I knew full well that any wealth I created would suddenly become "the" wealth that Obama planned to spread around as he saw fit.

Seriously. Like, did by any chance you keep any of your employees after the '08 election?

 

[itfitzme]

So here is the age group representation factor for the NILF. It is the age groups % of the NILF divided by the age groups % of the total civilian non-institutionalized population.

All other things being equal, if the age group is X% of the population, then it would be X% of the NILF. Of course, all other things are not equal. The 16-19 age group tends to be in school, with a smaller percentage working and a larger percentage not working. In terms of this %NILF/%POP, they should be greater then one. And they are. Older age groups also should be more represented in the NILF, with %NILF/%POP being larger then one. And they are.

What does it mean that 60-64%RepFactor is much greater then 16-19%RepFactor? It means that, compared to their proportions of the population, 60-64 group is far more represented in the NILF then is 16-19 group.

What does it mean that the 16-19RepFactor has fallen while the 60-64RepFactor has risen, over the years? It means that the 16-19 age group is increasing in terms of their relative proportion while the 60-64 age group has fallen in terms of their relative proportion.

There is a seasonality in the employment that is apparent in the representation factor. Interestingly, the 16-24 age group falls during the summer months while the other groups rise during summer months. What does this mean? It seems to indicate that the 16-24 age group leaves employment during the winter months while the older age groups pick up employment during this time. When the summer months return, the older age groups haven't relinquished their postion, perhaps in part because they are becoming a larger group, and the 16-24 age group finds it increasingly more difficult to find a position again.

Something changed, starting in about 2000, when the labor force participation rate maxed out. It appears that, since about 2000, the labor force had picked up all available adult workers. At that point, for whatever reason as the labor force began to decline, the aging population held on to their positions while the younger population found no job to return to after they had left the employment rolls in the previous season. This process began as early as 2000.

We are missing an explanation as to why the LFrate didn't just hold at maximum, why it declined starting in about 2000, perhaps earlier.

 

[Douger]

So I was right ?

 

[KissMy]

The bottom line is the boomer's are not the main reason for the low employment ratio. There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now. Government failed & is hindering business ability to re-hire of our citizens.

 

[itfitzme]

The bottom line is the boomer's are not the main reason for the low employment ratio. There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now. Government failed & is hindering business ability to re-hire of our citizens.

If so, it would have started in 2001 or earlier.

There wasn't a sharp rebound in employment on the 2001 recession. So, it is not true that "There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now".

The trend, of 16-25 year olds becoming less represented in the employment with 55 and over becoming more represented began in 2001 or earlier.

The employment to population ratio, and the labor force participation rate, began to fall in 2000.

The housing boom simply gave this trend a reprieve. When the housing bubble burst, it returned to its previous trend.

Since the employment to population ratio fell precipitously on the recession, it has been fairly constant. In other words, since 2010, the employment to population ratio finally stopped falling. As such, the employment level has continued to increase at the rate of population growth.

And the GDP growth has returned to pre-recession levels.

Something changed in 2000 when the labor force participation rate reached its maximum. A lot of things changes in 2000.

 

[itfitzme]

...get a graph that starts in January of '09. Then it would actually fit with your idiotic "war on hiring" idea.

Hey guy, we're not talking fun and games here, you can play your politics anyway you want but with hiring people we're talking real money. I laid off have my full time workforce in late '08 because like most people I knew full well that any wealth I created would suddenly become "the" wealth that Obama planned to spread around as he saw fit.

Seriously. Like, did by any chance you keep any of your employees after the '08 election?

It is funny how political hacks claim everyone else in political. It is funny how the most biased posters continuously claim everyone else is biased. Drug addicts are convinced everyone else is doing drugs. Child abusers believe everyone beats their children. It is called projection.

And it couldn't possibly be that cause comes before effect.

I get it. Demand began to drop of in November of '07. In December of '07, the recession started. In late '08, you finally decided to lay of employees. Obama took office in Jan '09.

But it couldn't possibly be that cause comes before the effect, that it was the recession that caused you to have to lay of employees. No, it was a future event, a new president and what he might do that caused you lay off employees. Absolutely, it was a future possible event, not a real past event that caused you to act.

Rather, it sounds to me like you were waiting for an excuse. Once the election was done, you could then relinquish yourself of responsibility for what the recession and collapse in demand forced you to do. You could blame someone else.

 

[KissMy]

The bottom line is the boomer's are not the main reason for the low employment ratio. There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now. Government failed & is hindering business ability to re-hire of our citizens.

If so, it would have started in 2001 or earlier.

There wasn't a sharp rebound in employment on the 2001 recession. So, it is not true that "There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now".

The trend, of 16-25 year olds becoming less represented in the employment with 55 and over becoming more represented began in 2001 or earlier.

The employment to population ratio, and the labor force participation rate, began to fall in 2000.

The housing boom simply gave this trend a reprieve. When the housing bubble burst, it returned to its previous trend.

Since the employment to population ratio fell precipitously on the recession, it has been fairly constant. In other words, since 2010, the employment to population ratio finally stopped falling. As such, the employment level has continued to increase at the rate of population growth.

And the GDP growth has returned to pre-recession levels.

Something changed in 2000 when the labor force participation rate reached its maximum. A lot of things changes in 2000.

9/11 may have been the cause of the delayed rebound from the 2000 recession. The 1961 recession had the only other delayed recovery since the "Great Depression" because of John F. Kennedy's New Frontier/Great Society.

 

[pinqy]

The bottom line is the boomer's are not the main reason for the low employment ratio. There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now. Government failed & is hindering business ability to re-hire of our citizens.

Mostly true. Boomers are not the main reason for the drops in emp-pop ratio or in LF participation....however, they are a significant push. More interesting though, is that while 25-54 year olds were a much bigger push on the drop in the emp-pop ratio, most of the loss of employment in that group became unemployed. But the contribution to the drop in the Labor Force participation rate was the same for 25-54 year olds and for 65 and older...most of the drop from employment for 65+ was to Not in the Labor Force.

So while right now it's not the main factor, it's a factor that will continue regardless of labor market conditions as the dropping out is due to retirement or death, not the labor market.

 

[KissMy]

The bottom line is the boomer's are not the main reason for the low employment ratio. There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now. Government failed & is hindering business ability to re-hire of our citizens.

Mostly true. Boomers are not the main reason for the drops in emp-pop ratio or in LF participation....however, they are a significant push. More interesting though, is that while 25-54 year olds were a much bigger push on the drop in the emp-pop ratio, most of the loss of employment in that group became unemployed. But the contribution to the drop in the Labor Force participation rate was the same for 25-54 year olds and for 65 and older...most of the drop from employment for 65+ was to Not in the Labor Force.

So while right now it's not the main factor, it's a factor that will continue regardless of labor market conditions as the dropping out is due to retirement or death, not the labor market.

Dead people are not counted in population so they would actually help the emp-pop ratio or in LF participation. We have no V shape recovery this time like we usually have after a recession. This is very bad!

 

[pinqy]

The bottom line is the boomer's are not the main reason for the low employment ratio. There was always a sharp rebound in employment after recession until now. Government failed & is hindering business ability to re-hire of our citizens.

Mostly true. Boomers are not the main reason for the drops in emp-pop ratio or in LF participation....however, they are a significant push. More interesting though, is that while 25-54 year olds were a much bigger push on the drop in the emp-pop ratio, most of the loss of employment in that group became unemployed. But the contribution to the drop in the Labor Force participation rate was the same for 25-54 year olds and for 65 and older...most of the drop from employment for 65+ was to Not in the Labor Force.

So while right now it's not the main factor, it's a factor that will continue regardless of labor market conditions as the dropping out is due to retirement or death, not the labor market.

Dead people are not counted in population so they would actually help the emp-pop ratio or in LF participation.

Deaths from Not in the Labor Force would help the emp-pop and LF participation. Deaths from Employment would lower the emp-pop ratio and deaths from Employment or Unemployment would lower the LF participation The % change in the numerator would be greater than the % change in the denominator).

Example: For a population of 1,000 and 600 employed, the emp-pop ratio is 600/1,000 = 60%. If 10 employed people die (and there are no other changes), then population drops to 990, employment drops to 590 and the ratio drops to 590/990 = 59.6%

 

[expat_panama]

...we're not talking fun and games here, you can play your politics anyway you want but with hiring people we're talking real money. I laid off have my full time workforce in late '08 because like most people I knew full well that any wealth I created would suddenly become "the" wealth that Obama planned to spread around as he saw fit. Seriously. Like, did by any chance you keep any of your employees after the '08 election?

...December of '07, the recession started. In late '08, you finally decided to lay of employees. Obama took office in Jan '09...

Wait, we talking jobs here---

--or Obama's recovery?

 

[KissMy]

The jobs destruction stems from Democrat enviro-wackos who do stupid shit like turn off the water to the entire California Central Valley destroying over 100,000 jobs instantly. Those jobs left the country & food prices rose for everyone. Higher food prices feeds inflation reducing the amount of stimulus quantitative easing the Fed can do.

 

[itfitzme]

...we're not talking fun and games here, you can play your politics anyway you want but with hiring people we're talking real money. I laid off have my full time workforce in late '08 because like most people I knew full well that any wealth I created would suddenly become "the" wealth that Obama planned to spread around as he saw fit. Seriously. Like, did by any chance you keep any of your employees after the '08 election?

...December of '07, the recession started. In late '08, you finally decided to lay of employees. Obama took office in Jan '09...

Wait, we talking jobs here---

--or Obama's recovery?

Right, as soon as control of the house changed hands, the economy went into recession.

That is down right magical.

 

[expat_panama]

...December of '07, the recession started. In late '08, you finally decided to lay of employees. Obama took office in Jan '09...

Wait, we talking jobs here---

--or Obama's recovery?

Right, as soon as control of the house changed hands, the economy went into recession. That is down right magical.

It's not that hard for someone to see what they want to see here. Getting back to jobs we got the employment beginning its fall back in '06. How could anyone forget that 2006 was the year that six US ports were sold to Dubai!!!



--any you thought it was the housing bubble...