Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate Versus Unemployment Rate

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Neubarth, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate Versus Unemployment Rate

    The Government is out with their Mythical, Magical, Mysterious (Be Happy) Unemployment Rate Numbers again this morning. BOLSHOI!!!!

    Participation Rate for December 2010 was 64.3%
    Of course, if you look back a few years you will see:
    In 1998 the Participation Rate was 67.1%
    In 2008 the Participation Rate was 66% (After the current Depression already started.)

    Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity
    Employment Situation Summary

    What this tells you is that the Government wants you to believe that millions have dropped out of the Labor Force even though the population keeps growing. How gullible are you? They have not dropped out. There is just no work for them and they are on food stamps and welfare or SS.

    The fact remains the Unemployment Rate is established by the government based upon surveys that they supposedly conduct, but nobody has ever been party to. (I have never met one person who has been interviewed for this mythical survey.) Their data from these imaginary surveys are total crap. As far as I am concerned, they just make the numbers up.

    The Department of Labor also calculates their participation rate with considerable bias. If you work a few hours a day you are employed. In fact, if you work three part time jobs, working just a few hours a day on each, you are counted as three people who are employed. (Total Bullshit, but the government makes up the rules, so the numbers are never as bad as they might be.) With illegals working numerous part time jobs in our country, they pad the employment numbers as well. Many have SS numbers, even though they are not legal citizens of this country, further skewing the labor force numbers and the employment numbers. Our entire system is a hodge podge of crap.
     
  2. waltky
    Online

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,901
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,888
    Still got a way to go even if it is the 'new normal'...
    :confused:
    The 'new normal' unemployment rate: 6.7%
    February 14, 2011 -- Economists used to say an unemployment rate around 5% was normal, but the recession may have changed all that. The new norm may now be more like 6.7%, according to a paper released by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Monday.
     
  3. pinqy
    Offline

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,054
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Bolshoi means "big." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

    And how is that not dropping out? BLS isn't saying it's by choice or lack of desire, just that the percentage of people working or trying to work is lower now. Of course it is. First to go would be the students and housewives and retirees who didn't really need a job, but working for a little extra money. They get forced out in a tight economy. And then there are secondary problems....transportation, child care, elderly care, illness. All those of course become worse during a bad economy. And fewer people who used to work try to re-enter...students wait longer and don't take part time jobs or go on for their masters because of the economy. And then of course, the people who give up. So yes, all these people are now out of the labor force: not working and not looking for work. That's the definition of Not in the Labor Force, I'm really not sure what your issue with it is. Surely you're not claiming these people are really looking for work when they say they're not?


    Then your comparison with the LF participation rate makes no sense, since it's from the same survey.

    One hour in the reference week for pay or 15 hours or more without pay in a family business. That's necessary from a statistical viewpoint and does distort reality a bit. But there has to be an absolute bright line. But it absolutely can be misleading. Many years ago I was in discussions with the Mexican government and they pointed out that because most of the country didn't have Unemployment Insurance, people without jobs would have to go out and do something, anything, perhaps a different job every day, perhaps selling stuff on the street, etc..no "real job," but it counted as Employed, even though it was a gross distortion of the reality.

    But the problem is that there's not much way around it. You have to set the bright line of any work at all, and then work out the details of hours and part time v full time etc.

    Sort of. The non-farm payroll survey, which gives the official employment numbers, does work that way. They just ask Employers how many people they have, so someone who has multiple jobs will show up for each job they have. BUT the Household survey, which is what's used to calculate the Unemployment rate, counts people not jobs and everyone is only counted once no matter how many jobs s/he has.


    How is that "padding the numbers?" If they're working, they're employed. Being illegal doesn't mean they're not working.
     
  4. waltky
    Online

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,901
    Thanks Received:
    1,792
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,888
    Two opposing records set at the same time...
    [​IMG]
    Record Number Employed: 152,085,000; But Record 95,055,000 Not in Labor Force
    December 2, 2016 | In the first jobs report since the election, the Labor Department says a record number of people--152,085,000--were employed in November in the United States, but a record 95,055,000 Americans were not in the labor force--446,000 more than October. The employment growth pushed the unemployment rate down from 4.9 percent in October to 4.6 percent in November.
    See also:

    Americans Unemployed for 15 Weeks or More: 2.9 Million
    December 2, 2016 – Although the unemployment rate dropped slightly in November to 4.6% -- the lowest it has been since August 2007, nine years ago – the number of American workers unemployed for 15 weeks or more was 2,933,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
    Related:

    Real Unemployment: 9.3%
    December 2, 2016 – Although the “unemployment rate” in the United States for November is 4.6% -- a rate last reached 9 years ago in August 2007 – the “real unemployment” rate is much higher, more than double at 9.3% nationwide.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2016 at 3:51 AM
  5. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,621
    Thanks Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    of course if true Republicans would have dug up real numbers on Barry's economy and used them to defeat him and Hillary. Thats how competition works. Do you understand?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

welfare participants vs jobless rate