Just how big is the labor pool???

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Neubarth, Sep 27, 2009.

  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
    As I have pointed out on this board and previous ones, the US government is not to be trusted when reporting on employment, unemployment or the size of the labor pool.

    It does not take a genius to look at the manipulation of data like the US government does to know that it is totally bogus. Consider that Unemployment Insurance claims are a set number of new people who file each week. The US government takes those set numbers of newly unemployed people who have filed and manipulates the numbers all around and then makes statements that are outrageous about trends in employment and unemployment and jobs lost and so on. It is all crap from the government as you can see if you look at the raw data and then read the official reports from the DOL .
    The Labor Pool is another convoluted mound of crap from the DOL. All somebody has to do is point you towards the manipulation and you can see through all the lies.

    Let's just pick a point in time and take the number for the labor pool. We are coming up on October, so we will pick that and go back about six years or so. In October of 2003 the Labor Pool was listed by the DOL as 146,716,000. On an average month, about 150,000 people join the labor pool in excess of those who die or retire or..., so in six years (72 months) the Labor Pool should have grown by 10,800,000. If you add the numbers you will find that based upon the current size of the labor pool the DOL lost about five million people in six years. Where did they go? Your guess is as good as mine. The government numbers never add up. Never have and never will.

    The DOL would have you believe that they decided that the lazy laggards really did not want to work after all, and are thus no longer counted. Really? Half of the people who started out looking for work????????? If you want to run the numbers for 12 years you will clearly see how stupid the current numbers for our "labor pool" really are. And to think, they have been duping the American public for the past half century!!!!!

    You can not trust our government on this issue.
     
  2. foggedinn
    Offline

    foggedinn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +107
    Given the truth of what our situation is, people would much rather hear the pretty lies; all the while screaming at the top of their voices "tell us the truth".

    We've lived within a web of lies for so long that if anyone were to tell the truth, he wouldn't be believed.

    Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics".
     
  3. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,052
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    I have no idea what Neubarth is talking about. In October 2003, the Labor Force (seasonally adjusted) was indeed 146,716,000, but in August 2009 it was 154,577,000 which is not a loss of 5 million, but an increase of 7,861,000. (the average increase in the labor force since Oct 03 has been approx 112,000/month). My only guess is that Neubarth made up the 150,000/month increase as a not-too-bad guess (until the last year or so, the 150,000 was probably a better number). But where on earth he got the 5 million decline, I have no idea. The database to find the numbers is at Bureau of Labor Statistics
     
  4. 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
    1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
     
  5. 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
    Labor Force Growth and Long-Term Trends | Credit & Financial Management Review | Find Articles at BNET

    U.S. labor force had 1.59% annual growth rate from 1947 to 2007.

    If we take the estimated labor force number to be 150 Million, 1.59% of that would be 2,385,000 a year. multiply that times six years, and you get 14,310,000......


    Anal Ignoramus, my estimate was very conservative for the lost number of people from the workforce. As you can see, they have lost a lot more than my conservative estimate. You only make a total fool of yourself when you go up against me on this issue. Come join the Light Side of the Force. The Dark Side that you have been on is doomed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2009
  6. xotoxi
    Offline

    xotoxi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30,322
    Thanks Received:
    5,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,110
    Location:
    your mother
    Ratings:
    +5,492
    About yay big...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,052
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    True. Although the numbers I'm looking at from BLS run 1949-2007, but it's still 1.59%.

    But why on earth would you do that? There's not a statistician or mathemetician on the planet who would think that would in any way be an accurate predictor. While the average LF growth was 1.59%, the annual growth varied between -0.3% to 3.3%, and add in the fact that 1.59% of 60,621,000 (1948 Labor Force) and 1.59% of 153,124,000 (2007) are vastly different. Trying to claim that an annual average growth for a 60 year period should hold true for any particular 6 year period is lunacy. It makes no sense at all to make that kind of assumption, let alone insist that any other anwer must be a lie. And even you now have a 3.5 million person difference between the 10,800,000 you first claimed should be the 6 year growth, and the 14,310,000 you now claim.

    And why would accept the 1947-2007 growth as accurate numbers and the 2003-2007 numbers as manipulated, especially when you have an overlap. In your estimate you're including figures you claim are lies. That's an amazing contradiction. I'm starting to think you're just a clever troll, because there's no way anyone could be that bad at math.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  8. 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
    Oh Great Anal Ignoramus! You are a true pest. In spite of that I think I like you. You are at least consistently obnoxious. In 62 years of life, from the age of 3 on, I have seen government crap everywhere (not to say that other government are better) I looked .

    MY father, Chief of Dentistry for the South Pacific for the US Department of Health (1951 - 1956) was writing an exposee' (1954) on the horrific treatment that the Samoan Islanders had received for over half a century at the hands of the Imperialistic United States Government. The Samoan and Manuan and Swains Islanders were not given any viable semblance of medical care by the US Government even though we forcefully took those islands in 1898, allowing the two larger islands (Upolu and Savaii) to be taken by the Imperialistic German empire.

    When, after WWII we started to put in medical facilites, our effort was so underfunded by Washington as to be a joke for the world to see. Dad was writing up and documenting that horrendous farce when he had to travel back to the United States on personal business. He locked all the documentation paperwork and research for "American Samoa, America's Stepchild in the South Pacific" in a heat lamp protected (from moisture) lockable closet. Two weeks later, when he returned, the house had been burglarized. The lock on that closet door had been broken. The only things missing were all of the research and the typed documents for the book. Other items of value such as jewelry were not touched.

    An early lesson to me that the United States is self serving and is not above dishonesty to achieve any goal it desires to seek after. Right now, the government wants to delude the public into believing that everything is OK regardless of reality. If Big Brother says so, everything IS OK. Right?

    You are a shill for Big Brother just as much as the two FBI agents who flew all the way to the South Pacific to break into my father's house and steal his research were shills for Big Brother. It is a reality, but it is not always necessary.

    As you may note in the DOL numbers, all you have to do is put a footnote on the lower left of the chart and you can excuse any obfuscation by the Federal Government. Go look at that damned lie as I have posted above and then realize for the first time in your life that the US government can Not be trusted. I put my trust in God and my family. The US Government is not family.

    Oh, as regards the use of government statistics to disprove government statistics.......
    Dude, you have got to start somewhere. Once the statistics are proven to be unreliable, you can disregard further statistics that originate with the federal gov.

    That is the reason why I have posted at least ten times for your benefit that I will only believe the UI claims numbers as an indication of increasing unemployment. Is it accurate? Hell no, but it is more honest than the Fed numbers and that is freely allowing for the inefficiency of state paid bean counters who probably have never been accurate in their lives.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2009
  9. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,052
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    None of that has anything at all to do with your using a 60 year average and claiming that it is predictive of what should a occur and expecting a 6 year period should match it.

    First you have to show it's obfuscation. Unlike you, I've actually studied these things and understand the concepts and methodologies. Any estimation of the Labor Force has to be based on an estimation of the population. Every year census updates its population estimations, so LF estimations also have to be adjusted...otherwise, 2009 estimates would be based off of the 2000 census, which would make the numbers way off.

    Of course the government can't be trusted for many things...but that doesn't mean every single thing is wrong, bad or manipulated. I don't blindly trust anything, but you blindly dismiss everything. If the government said the sky was blue, you'd vehemently deny that that could be true because the governmtent lies.

    But you haven't proven any such thing. I mean come on, you were using an average including the years 2003-2007 to show that 2003-2009 was inaccurate. That's completely contradictory.
     
  10. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,148
    Thanks Received:
    6,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,995
    Who cares anyway? The Republicans complain that they want government out of the market and then complain when the government doesn't supply enough jobs. Go figure.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

how large is us labor pool