rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 288,932
- 170,294
- 2,615
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Conservatives are composing their comments explaining how this is bad. Please be patient.Cue outrage over workforce participation rate
Employers added 173,000 jobs in a key report that could help the Federal Reserve decide whether to raise interest rates later this month.
The unemployment rate fell from 5.3% to 5.1%, lowest since March 2008.
Jobs
A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
Yup and 5.1 isn't the true figure. Oh and the Fed is getting ready to let inflation loose. Something they have been controlling since 2008. I'm looking forward to that as I'm sure most of America is. NOT
You are correct, but is it "dropping out" or "leaving?" Those not in the labor force, want a job now went down. Marginally attached went down . Discouraged workers went down. The drop in the labor force was people who don't want or need a job.A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
Where are you getting that number from?We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
He was not saying the number was wrong...He was saying that the drop in UE rate was causeed by a greater drop in the unemployed than a gain in employment, meaning the labor force shrunk.A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
Yup and 5.1 isn't the true figure. Oh and the Fed is getting ready to let inflation loose. Something they have been controlling since 2008. I'm looking forward to that as I'm sure most of America is. NOT
5.1% is the true U3 number used to measure employment
Of you want to talk U6 you can start with how that number has dropped by 6%
Sure hope you're right. UE sucks and there are plenty of people out there who have just stopped looking and are no longer counted.
Given the uneven (at best) growth in the economy for the last five years, it's very tough for me to believe that there are many people who don't want or need a job. And I'm an investment advisor, CFP/ChFC/CLU, and 250,000 is on the lower end of the estimates I've heard. I was at a Goldman Sachs conference a few years ago (right when QE was hitting) and the number they supposedly use is 325,000. That seems a little fat to me, but escape velocity has different definitions, I guess.You are correct, but is it "dropping out" or "leaving?" Those not in the labor force, want a job now went down. Marginally attached went down . Discouraged workers went down. The drop in the labor force was people who don't want or need a job.A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
Where are you getting that number from?We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
As of February 2015, the most recent month available, 45.7 million people are receiving food stamps, according to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
wow yea!! roaring economy!!
Pure bullshit!A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.
If the numbers are revised upward, great.Pure bullshit!A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
First of all there were UPWARD revisions for the previous 2 months, and secondly it takes only 111,853 jobs per month to maintain the previous 5.3% rate and keep up with population growth.
From the BLS report:
"The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from
+231,000 to +245,000, and the change for July was revised from +215,000 to
+245,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined
were 44,000 more than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job
gains have averaged 221,000 per month."
I can understand that, and when this stuff becomes political the bullshit starts flying.Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.
Yes, there are a lot of factors to consider. The mere fact that we haven't had another recession since 2008 is making some people nervous. But past performance is no guarantee, right?
So what we have now is similar, but different. Taking just one factor into consideration and trying to extrapolate it as a bellwether is no longer reliable IMO.
Where I work one division is laying off consultants wholesale while another is hiring at a rate I have never seen before. Is this just a redirection of priorities from the C level or is it in response to the broader economy?
So I have given up trying to read the tea leaves, smoke signals, entrails, bones, Tarot cards, etc and simply make sure that I can survive whatever damage the markets might throw at me. Everything else is just noise as far as I am concerned.
I can understand that, and when this stuff becomes political the bullshit starts flying.Sure, that's a big number - what, 65,000 per month, something like that. The problem is that this "recovery" has been incredibly uneven and we still haven't hit a strong growth pattern. Worse, there are some who feel that we're in the latter stages of the "recovery" and that would be pretty lousy news.Boomers are retiring. Have you factored that into your equation?A gain of just 173,000 jobs and a 0.2% drop in the unemployment rate are not congruent.
This effect is generally equated with more people dropping out of looking for jobs.
Anyone who follows this stuff knows that.
We need at LEAST 250,000 jobs for an extended period to achieve escape velocity.
.
There are all kinds of peripheral things to consider. Baby boomer retirements, increases in productivity, the global currency race to the bottom, on and on. But 173,000 this far into it? Yikes.
.
Yes, there are a lot of factors to consider. The mere fact that we haven't had another recession since 2008 is making some people nervous. But past performance is no guarantee, right?
So what we have now is similar, but different. Taking just one factor into consideration and trying to extrapolate it as a bellwether is no longer reliable IMO.
Where I work one division is laying off consultants wholesale while another is hiring at a rate I have never seen before. Is this just a redirection of priorities from the C level or is it in response to the broader economy?
So I have given up trying to read the tea leaves, smoke signals, entrails, bones, Tarot cards, etc and simply make sure that I can survive whatever damage the markets might throw at me. Everything else is just noise as far as I am concerned.
Unfortunately, I have to do some tea leaf reading, so my task is to keep my freaking blood pressure down.
The horrific mess of the Meltdown and the fundamentally changing economy, on a macro level, are at the foundation of this uncertainty.
.