BLS Employment News Release: 119,000 fewer people working means lower unemployment?

[pinqy]

so the lpr drop you keep claiming (but cannot prove) is from only retirees above 65?


and, answer this question 3rd request in this thread alone-

so they are not counted in any of the data? they disappear from the unemployed ranks with no indicator, becasue they took a retirees job? that must be reflected somewhere, like lowering the number of unemployed....?

can I please see the links to that explanation and the numbers of those unemployed who have now become employed via a retiree position in the bls data

Again you create a Straw Man to argue against. I never said retirees were the ONLY reason for the drop in the LFP rate, I said they make up a significant portion of those who leave the workforce, as you well know. You also have family members leaving the workforce to take care of children, elderly, sick or disabled family members. You also have workers going back to school. You also have the aging workforce becoming disabled. But the largest number of workers leaving the workforce are the Boomers retiring.

Prove it , show me the numbers for the "significant numbers" you claim.

Disabled, why yes of course, all of a sudden, in the last 3 years jobs have become hugely more injurious to workers

and, answer this question 4th request in this thread alone-

so they are not counted in any of the data? they disappear from the unemployed ranks with no indicator, becasue they took a retirees job? that must be reflected somewhere, like lowering the number of unemployed....?

Your question is an easy one: someone retires, that's plus one to "not in the labor force" and minus one to employed. An unemployed person gets the open job makes it plus one to employed and minus one to unemployed.
Net changes: employed stays the same, unemployed goes down (so labor force goes down) and not in the labor force goes up.

Look here for the gross changes: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_flows_current.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again you create a Straw Man to argue against. I never said retirees were the ONLY reason for the drop in the LFP rate, I said they make up a significant portion of those who leave the workforce, as you well know. You also have family members leaving the workforce to take care of children, elderly, sick or disabled family members. You also have workers going back to school. You also have the aging workforce becoming disabled. But the largest number of workers leaving the workforce are the Boomers retiring.

Prove it , show me the numbers for the "significant numbers" you claim.

Disabled, why yes of course, all of a sudden, in the last 3 years jobs have become hugely more injurious to workers

and, answer this question 4th request in this thread alone-

so they are not counted in any of the data? they disappear from the unemployed ranks with no indicator, becasue they took a retirees job? that must be reflected somewhere, like lowering the number of unemployed....?

Your question is an easy one: someone retires, that's plus one to "not in the labor force" and minus one to employed. An unemployed person gets the open job makes it plus one to employed and minus one to unemployed.
Net changes: employed stays the same, unemployed goes down (so labor force goes down) and not in the labor force goes up.

Look here for the gross changes: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_flows_current.pdf

Someone retires? That does not explain the job lose numbers

Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak employment report dealing blow to Obama re-election hopes

Read more: Obama's DNC 2012 speech: Bleak unemployment numbers morning after Obama tells DNC 'our problems can be solved' | Mail Online

 

[pinqy]

Prove it , show me the numbers for the "significant numbers" you claim.

Disabled, why yes of course, all of a sudden, in the last 3 years jobs have become hugely more injurious to workers

and, answer this question 4th request in this thread alone-

so they are not counted in any of the data? they disappear from the unemployed ranks with no indicator, becasue they took a retirees job? that must be reflected somewhere, like lowering the number of unemployed....?

Your question is an easy one: someone retires, that's plus one to "not in the labor force" and minus one to employed. An unemployed person gets the open job makes it plus one to employed and minus one to unemployed.
Net changes: employed stays the same, unemployed goes down (so labor force goes down) and not in the labor force goes up.

Look here for the gross changes: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_flows_current.pdf

Someone retires? That does not explain the job lose numbers

By itself? Of course not. But it is a part...people leaving employment without becoming unemployed? Retirements, returning to school, personal reasons like looking after kids or parents etc, or just haven't started looking yet.

Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak employment report dealing blow to Obama re-election hopes

you can't compare the two directly... Total employment dropped because of losses in agriculture and self-employment. But yes, not a good report and should hurt Obama.

 

[mascale]

The Drag of State and Local Government employment on total jobs is still evident. California, further, has a giant chunk of the labor force, and among the highest of the unemployment rates. Mostly, everyone else is likely a lot better off.

Liberals are in charge, again, in California. Public Works Spending will be happening in California. The Ivy League was not too thrilled to do that in the "Stimulation" spending part of the Obama-Plan. The "Reagan-Trajectory" of the Bain Capital "Experience" was tried instead. Money was kept among the already prosperous. Instead of the Private Sector hoarding all of the money as usual, the Public Sector--state and local government--hoarded all the money instead.

Even Bill Clinton knows a thing or two about "arithmetic."

Stupid, pirating, zero-moral-compass types were still getting the money. People with no regard whatsover for their neighbors, municipalities, or states: Got a lot of the money instead, and mostly kept it.

The people who caused it all, got the money. The actual tax base only got sporadic little projects. Some of the tax breaks did go to the "Make Work Pay" Refundable Tax Credit.

Obama-Biden are actually in the relatively immune position, when compared with the Romney-Ryan, Business "Experience" position. Governor Jerry Brown is in the liberal "Experience" position, starting up with the "Shovel Ready Jobs" kind of spending on public works, for a tax base, instead.

The compare and contrast with the "Experience" kinds of agenda: Is already underway, within hours of the release of the 8.1% showing improvement in the unemployment rate: To lower rates.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Ann Romney of Strangelove Address Heard Again! "Suuuuuk--(no! No! Nein!)--Cess! Suuuk-cess! Suuuk-cess! And so the torchlight paraders chanted more of a mantra, closer to their leader. The polls, in recognition, actually started to swing to the other side, instead!)