Just how big is the labor pool???

[Neubarth]

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.

 

[foggedinn]

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".

 

[pinqy]

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.

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

 

[Neubarth]

1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

[Neubarth]

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.

 

[xotoxi]

Just how big is the labor pool???

About yay big...

 

[pinqy]

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

True. Although the numbers I'm looking at from BLS run 1949-2007, but it's still 1.59%.

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......

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.

 

[Neubarth]

U.S. labor force had 1.59% annual growth rate from 1947 to 2007. True. Although the numbers I'm looking at from BLS run 1949-2007, but it's still 1.59%.......

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 .......

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.

 

[pinqy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[rdean]

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.

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.

 

[Neubarth]

[...]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.

The average was an approximation. Obviously, you are not as intelligent as I initially thought. So, we will have to improve the nickname to SuperAnalIgnoramusMaximux.



The fact remains that the government numbers have so semblance to reality. You may worship them as you please, but nobody in his right mind would ever accept any federal government statistic on this topic and most any other topic. The numbers are manipulated to suit the governmental interest.

 

[pinqy]

[The average was an approximation.

It doesn't matter...you were using the same set of data as both standard and to say it didn't meet the very standard it was part of. And you still haven't explained the twisted logic of how because one 6 year period (including a recession) didn't meet the average growth of the previous 60 years that that is signs of manipulation.

Obviously, you are not as intelligent as I initially thought. So, we will have to improve the nickname to SuperAnalIgnoramusMaximux.

you are supposed to refrain from personal attacks like that. It only results in hurt feelings. I'm 40 and do not get hurt, and usually try to make fun of personal attacks like you do all the time for your entertainment. It is very immature to give mocking nicknames. Please act more mature. I would expect something like that in Grade School, but not from a person who is supposed to be a mature adult. (I.E., Your behavior is Grossly Immature.)

The fact remains that the government numbers have so semblance to reality.

Present your alternate data, with methodology.

The numbers are manipulated to suit the governmental interest.

Feel free to give your evidence. Who exactly is doing the manipulation and how exactly are they doing it?

 

[Neubarth]

To you SuperAnalIgnoramusMaximus, your data is your god.

To me the data are clearly wrong and falsified. Actual unemployment according to my factual survey is 33 million. The government lies are laughable and you are amusing in your feigned maximum ignorance.

I will continue knowing that the data are false and you will continue making a fool of yourself.

Such is life. I have no desire to persuade you that your data is not your god. Only you can arrive at that conclusion, but you are so anal about numbers you probably never will. What is obvious to anybody who looks at all the holes in the data is not obvious to you. Hence you are a maximum ignoramus.

Hey, you have a pretty good new handle. Enjoy it while you can.

There is no personal attack implicit in your nickname. It is a factual description of your behavior on this board. Now if anal referred to excrement or an associated orifice, it would be name calling, but to point out that you are anal in your behavior is factual. Do you deny this?

I use the data of the government to expose the data of the government and you still deny the reality right before your very eyes. That is the most superanal behavior I have ever seen.

Go forth with joy and be led forth with peace.

 

[pinqy]

To you SuperAnalIgnoramusMaximus, your data is your god.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I'll be happy to discuss the shortcomings and difficulties of the Employment and Unemployment data as soon as you show an understanding of the concepts and methodology. As it is, I'm simply correcting your misinterpretations, misunderstandings and lies. How can I talk about the complex when you don't understand the simple?

To me the data are clearly wrong and falsified. Actual unemployment according to my factual survey is 33 million.

Present your definitions, methodology, and survey, then. That you refuse to do so is highly suspicious.

 

[Neubarth]

To you SuperAnalIgnoramusMaximus, your data is your god.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I'll be happy to discuss the shortcomings and difficulties of the Employment and Unemployment data as soon as you show an understanding of the concepts and methodology. As it is, I'm simply correcting your misinterpretations, misunderstandings and lies. How can I talk about the complex when you don't understand the simple?

To me the data are clearly wrong and falsified. Actual unemployment according to my factual survey is 33 million.

Present your definitions, methodology, and survey, then. That you refuse to do so is highly suspicious.

SuperAnalIgnoramusMaximus, I have explained it over and over again. All you have to do is go play pick up basketball games in the Big Cities all across America. Talk to the guys that you are playing hoops with and ask them about the real situation. That is a real scientific survey, done by a pro like me. The fact that you do not understand how professional my poll is shows your massive tendency to be totally anal, SuperAnal to be precise.

Consider the unscientific federal poll. They call people all across the nation. That is so totally flawed as to be laughable. That is beyond laughable, it is insanely stupid. You, of course, eat that sheet up and think it is factual. I won't even mention the fact that at all of the rallies that I have spoken to all across the nation than not one person has ever been called. Nobody knows of nobody who has ever been called. It just does not happen. When people are so destitute that they don't even have a phone, how does the government call them in their mythical call survey???

No, son, the only way to know what is happening all across America is to play basketball with the people who are out of work all across America. Then you will know what is happening.

 

[crates]

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.

That might've been all well and good in August of 2009, but looking at the report from August of 2012 it seems pretty clear that we're f**ked.

Our most recent report depicts the seasonally-adjusted civilian labor force rate at 154.6 million, suggesting that at total of 423,000 jobs have been created in this country in the last three years, despite the fact that population growth requires an additional one to two million jobs to be created annually just to keep up. (Source: bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm ; fetched September 7th 2012).

That's a deficit of as many as five million ADDITIONAL jobs or more since the economy "recovered" from the recession back in 2009, and it's not like things looked all that peachy back then, either. =P