Not surprised about the drop in number of people on unemployment

[Caroljo]

True...most likely it's because people are being dropped from unemployment because of the length of time they've been on it...they're not counted anymore. Now they have to depend on food stamps and welfare to survive. Most people should realize this, things are no better!

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Oh, and you're wrong about people being dropped because of the length of time being unemployed. They're counted if they're actively seeking work.

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Why do you ask a question that has been answered already?
LESS THAN WAS EXPECTED ARE RETIRING, AND SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ARE RETURNING TO THE WORK FORCE.

Yes...I'm one that doesn't know if i will be able to afford to retire...3 yrs till i'm 62, i'm sure i'll have to work at least until 65. We have a woman at work that just turned 74 and she's still working. I don't want to have to do that!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If they're actually looking for work, they're considered unemployed by BLS. You didn't answer the question. How many boomers are retiring every day?

Your question was how many boomers retired, your question was answered. Nw do you have another question?

How many people are involved in this imaginary conspiracy of yours? How does BLS cook the books?

How many people are as dumb as you who think the obama labor department hasn't cooked the numbers?

 

[Dick Tuck]

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Oh, and you're wrong about people being dropped because of the length of time being unemployed. They're counted if they're actively seeking work.

How many boomers are retiring every day?

Why do you ask a question that has been answered already?
LESS THAN WAS EXPECTED ARE RETIRING, AND SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ARE RETURNING TO THE WORK FORCE.

Yes...I'm one that doesn't know if i will be able to afford to retire...3 yrs till i'm 62, i'm sure i'll have to work at least until 65. We have a woman at work that just turned 74 and she's still working. I don't want to have to do that!

Thanks to President Obama, our economy didn't collapse, and your 401K is about where it was before the Bush financial collapse took place. If you can't afford to retire when you wanted to, that's poor planning on your part.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Your question was how many boomers retired, your question was answered. Nw do you have another question?

How many people are involved in this imaginary conspiracy of yours? How does BLS cook the books?

How many people are as dumb as you who think the obama labor department hasn't cooked the numbers?

Just about everyone who realizes how many people would have to be involved in your tin foil conspiracy. I'd say most Americans accept that the BLS numbers are reasonable and sufficient and honestly calculated.

You're a fucking loon.

 

[Dick Tuck]

BLS hasn't changed it methods of calculating unemployment since Reagan was in office. You are making shit up, because you a tin foil loon and pathological liar.

Changes were made
Duration of unemployment in the CPS

But that changed nothing in the calculations. Before, when asking how long a person had been unemployed, the interviewer could not enter anything higher than 2 years. So 3 years, 4 years, etc were all entered as 2 years...basically "two or more years." Since 2011, the interviewer now records the exact number. This change would not affect the UE rate, nor would it affect the median duration of unemployment. The ONLY thing it changed was mean duration of unemployment, making it longer.

So the change affected nothing except mean duration of unemployment by making it longer. Not exactly cooking the books to make things look better.

Yep, all that does is provide more information and in no way changes the unemployment calculation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Changes were made
Duration of unemployment in the CPS

But that changed nothing in the calculations. Before, when asking how long a person had been unemployed, the interviewer could not enter anything higher than 2 years. So 3 years, 4 years, etc were all entered as 2 years...basically "two or more years." Since 2011, the interviewer now records the exact number. This change would not affect the UE rate, nor would it affect the median duration of unemployment. The ONLY thing it changed was mean duration of unemployment, making it longer.

So the change affected nothing except mean duration of unemployment by making it longer. Not exactly cooking the books to make things look better.

Yep, all that does is provide more information and in no way changes the unemployment calculation.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

 

[PredFan]

Now if someone could translate that to english for me I'd appreciate it.

 

[pinqy]

But that changed nothing in the calculations. Before, when asking how long a person had been unemployed, the interviewer could not enter anything higher than 2 years. So 3 years, 4 years, etc were all entered as 2 years...basically "two or more years." Since 2011, the interviewer now records the exact number. This change would not affect the UE rate, nor would it affect the median duration of unemployment. The ONLY thing it changed was mean duration of unemployment, making it longer.

So the change affected nothing except mean duration of unemployment by making it longer. Not exactly cooking the books to make things look better.

Yep, all that does is provide more information and in no way changes the unemployment calculation.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Let's browse through the claims:

As we will explore herein, a detailed look at the government's own data base shows that about 9 million people without jobs have been removed from the labor force simply by the government defining them as not being in the labor force anymore.

No, people are defined as being in or not in the labor force based on their responses in the Current Population Survey.

In an extraordinarily cynical act, the government is effectively saying that because the job situation has been so bad for many millions of unemployed people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens, they can no longer be considered to be potential participants in the work force at all.

ummmm only if they ARE no longer participants. There's no "potential" about it. The Labor Force is defined as Employed + Unemployed. If someone no longer meets the definition for either, then they are no longer participating in the labor market.

(The raw numbers without seasonal adjustment were that unemployed people rose from 12.7 million in December to 13.5 million in January, for a net of 800,000 people losing their jobs in the real world, with the cheery and widely reported 0.2% single month decline in unemployment existing only inside the adjustments within the models.)

You can't compare December to January, because for January, Census recalculates the population adjustments making the two months non comparable.

To understand how this obscure term not only relates to but actually determines the very hot topic of unemployment rates, let's take a quick look at a round number example of an economy, with 150 million adults, and say that of those adults, 100 million people want jobs. The other 50 million are not part of the labor force by either choice or circumstance: it could be they are stay-at-home moms, or in school full-time, or retired, or have physical or mental disabilities which prevent employment.

When we divide 100 million by 150 million, that is a workforce participation ratio of 66.7% (which is close to the US norm over the last 20 years). And when we calculate unemployment - we only look at the workforce, i.e. people who want jobs. If 92 million people have jobs, then our unemployment ratio is calculated by looking at the 8 million people who want jobs but don't have them, and dividing them into the labor force of 100 million people, which means that the unemployment rate is 8.0%. This is shown as the "Starting Economy" in the chart.

Wow! Mostly right. Except unemployed is "actively looking for work," not just "wants a job." But otherwise, good explanation.

But then he enters strange territory:

Now, let's assume that 2 million jobs are lost, meaning that now only 90 million people are employed. If there is no change in the workforce participation ratio, then it is pretty simple: 10 million jobless people out of 100 million people who want jobs, means the unemployment rate jumps up 2% to exactly match the 2 million jobs lost.

He's got it a little backwards. He's saying IF the Labor Force participation ratio doesn't change, then unemployment will go go up and the unemployment rate goes up. But it's the opposite. IF those 2 million all start looking for work, THEN Unemployment goes up (and the unemployment rate) AND the LF participation stays the same.

If the workforce participation ratio were to fall by 1%, however, then that would mean 1.5 million people would have left the workforce (keeping in mind the ratio is based on the total 150 million working age population, not the labor force). There are still only 90 million jobs, same as with our 10% unemployment rate above, but because "the workforce" has been reduced, we now subtract 90 million employed from 98.5 million in the workforce, and find there are only 8.5 million unemployed people. And when we divide those 8.5 million into our modified workforce of 98.5 million, unemployment has now risen to only 8.6%.

Again, he has the dependent and independent variables reversed. IF, 1.5 million of thos no longer working retired, went back to school, whatever, and .5 million started looking for work, then employment would be 90 million, unemployment would be 8.5 million, and that would CAUSE the Labor Force particpation rate to drop from 100/150 to 98.5/150 and the UE rate to go to 8.5/98.5=8.6%

He's talking like the participation rate can be changed and that makes a change in the number of unemployed. Wrong. The rate changes when the number of people in the labor force changes by a different percent than the population.

[qutoe]In other words, revising our workforce participation rate downwards by 1% made 1.5 million jobless people just plain disappear, and dropped the unemployment rate from 10.0% down to 8.6%.[/quote] But you can't revise the workforce particpation by itself. It's the changes in the Labor Force that make the rate change. You can't just move the participation rate and make people "dissappear."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep, all that does is provide more information and in no way changes the unemployment calculation.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Let's browse through the claims: No, people are defined as being in or not in the labor force based on their responses in the Current Population Survey.

ummmm only if they ARE no longer participants. There's no "potential" about it. The Labor Force is defined as Employed + Unemployed. If someone no longer meets the definition for either, then they are no longer participating in the labor market.


You can't compare December to January, because for January, Census recalculates the population adjustments making the two months non comparable.


Wow! Mostly right. Except unemployed is "actively looking for work," not just "wants a job." But otherwise, good explanation.

But then he enters strange territory:

Now, let's assume that 2 million jobs are lost, meaning that now only 90 million people are employed. If there is no change in the workforce participation ratio, then it is pretty simple: 10 million jobless people out of 100 million people who want jobs, means the unemployment rate jumps up 2% to exactly match the 2 million jobs lost.

He's got it a little backwards. He's saying IF the Labor Force participation ratio doesn't change, then unemployment will go go up and the unemployment rate goes up. But it's the opposite. IF those 2 million all start looking for work, THEN Unemployment goes up (and the unemployment rate) AND the LF participation stays the same.

If the workforce participation ratio were to fall by 1%, however, then that would mean 1.5 million people would have left the workforce (keeping in mind the ratio is based on the total 150 million working age population, not the labor force). There are still only 90 million jobs, same as with our 10% unemployment rate above, but because "the workforce" has been reduced, we now subtract 90 million employed from 98.5 million in the workforce, and find there are only 8.5 million unemployed people. And when we divide those 8.5 million into our modified workforce of 98.5 million, unemployment has now risen to only 8.6%.

Again, he has the dependent and independent variables reversed. IF, 1.5 million of thos no longer working retired, went back to school, whatever, and .5 million started looking for work, then employment would be 90 million, unemployment would be 8.5 million, and that would CAUSE the Labor Force particpation rate to drop from 100/150 to 98.5/150 and the UE rate to go to 8.5/98.5=8.6%

He's talking like the participation rate can be changed and that makes a change in the number of unemployed. Wrong. The rate changes when the number of people in the labor force changes by a different percent than the population.

[qutoe]In other words, revising our workforce participation rate downwards by 1% made 1.5 million jobless people just plain disappear, and dropped the unemployment rate from 10.0% down to 8.6%.

But you can't revise the workforce particpation by itself. It's the changes in the Labor Force that make the rate change. You can't just move the participation rate and make people "dissappear."

You're really fucked in the head, you do realize this. You cannot displace 22 million working Americans and the unemployment numbers drop without cooking the numbers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lowest labor participation rate in 30 years. But unemployment to 8.1%! That's the "improvement" you'll hear every day until November.

Weak Jobs Report Puts Ball in Fed's Court | The Weekly Standard

 

[pinqy]

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Let's browse through the claims: No, people are defined as being in or not in the labor force based on their responses in the Current Population Survey.

ummmm only if they ARE no longer participants. There's no "potential" about it. The Labor Force is defined as Employed + Unemployed. If someone no longer meets the definition for either, then they are no longer participating in the labor market.


You can't compare December to January, because for January, Census recalculates the population adjustments making the two months non comparable.


Wow! Mostly right. Except unemployed is "actively looking for work," not just "wants a job." But otherwise, good explanation.

But then he enters strange territory:

He's got it a little backwards. He's saying IF the Labor Force participation ratio doesn't change, then unemployment will go go up and the unemployment rate goes up. But it's the opposite. IF those 2 million all start looking for work, THEN Unemployment goes up (and the unemployment rate) AND the LF participation stays the same.

If the workforce participation ratio were to fall by 1%, however, then that would mean 1.5 million people would have left the workforce (keeping in mind the ratio is based on the total 150 million working age population, not the labor force). There are still only 90 million jobs, same as with our 10% unemployment rate above, but because "the workforce" has been reduced, we now subtract 90 million employed from 98.5 million in the workforce, and find there are only 8.5 million unemployed people. And when we divide those 8.5 million into our modified workforce of 98.5 million, unemployment has now risen to only 8.6%.

Again, he has the dependent and independent variables reversed. IF, 1.5 million of thos no longer working retired, went back to school, whatever, and .5 million started looking for work, then employment would be 90 million, unemployment would be 8.5 million, and that would CAUSE the Labor Force particpation rate to drop from 100/150 to 98.5/150 and the UE rate to go to 8.5/98.5=8.6%

He's talking like the participation rate can be changed and that makes a change in the number of unemployed. Wrong. The rate changes when the number of people in the labor force changes by a different percent than the population.

[qutoe]In other words, revising our workforce participation rate downwards by 1% made 1.5 million jobless people just plain disappear, and dropped the unemployment rate from 10.0% down to 8.6%.

But you can't revise the workforce particpation by itself. It's the changes in the Labor Force that make the rate change. You can't just move the participation rate and make people "dissappear."

You're really fucked in the head, you do realize this. You cannot displace 22 million working Americans and the unemployment numbers drop without cooking the numbers.[/QUOTE]

It's simple math. In July, there was a population of 243,354,000 (16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution) with 142,220,000 employed, 12,794,000 looking for work, and 88,340,000 neither working nor looking for work. So Labor Force is 142,220,000+12,794,000=155,013,000 and the Labor Force Participation is 155,013,000/243,354,000=63.7% and the UE rate is 12,794,000/155,013,000=8.3%

In August, Population went up to 243,566,000 Employment went down to 142,101,000, Unemployment went down to 12,544,000 and Not in the Labor Force went up to 88,921,000. So LF participation dropped to 63.5% because Labor Force went down and Population went up, and the UE rate went from 12,794,000/155,013,000 to 12,544,000/154,645,000=8.1%

Where's the cooking of books? That's all based on survey response.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's browse through the claims: No, people are defined as being in or not in the labor force based on their responses in the Current Population Survey.

ummmm only if they ARE no longer participants. There's no "potential" about it. The Labor Force is defined as Employed + Unemployed. If someone no longer meets the definition for either, then they are no longer participating in the labor market.


You can't compare December to January, because for January, Census recalculates the population adjustments making the two months non comparable.


Wow! Mostly right. Except unemployed is "actively looking for work," not just "wants a job." But otherwise, good explanation.

But then he enters strange territory:

He's got it a little backwards. He's saying IF the Labor Force participation ratio doesn't change, then unemployment will go go up and the unemployment rate goes up. But it's the opposite. IF those 2 million all start looking for work, THEN Unemployment goes up (and the unemployment rate) AND the LF participation stays the same.

Again, he has the dependent and independent variables reversed. IF, 1.5 million of thos no longer working retired, went back to school, whatever, and .5 million started looking for work, then employment would be 90 million, unemployment would be 8.5 million, and that would CAUSE the Labor Force particpation rate to drop from 100/150 to 98.5/150 and the UE rate to go to 8.5/98.5=8.6%

He's talking like the participation rate can be changed and that makes a change in the number of unemployed. Wrong. The rate changes when the number of people in the labor force changes by a different percent than the population.

[qutoe]In other words, revising our workforce participation rate downwards by 1% made 1.5 million jobless people just plain disappear, and dropped the unemployment rate from 10.0% down to 8.6%.

But you can't revise the workforce particpation by itself. It's the changes in the Labor Force that make the rate change. You can't just move the participation rate and make people "dissappear."

You're really fucked in the head, you do realize this. You cannot displace 22 million working Americans and the unemployment numbers drop without cooking the numbers.

It's simple math. In July, there was a population of 243,354,000 (16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution) with 142,220,000 employed, 12,794,000 looking for work, and 88,340,000 neither working nor looking for work. So Labor Force is 142,220,000+12,794,000=155,013,000 and the Labor Force Participation is 155,013,000/243,354,000=63.7% and the UE rate is 12,794,000/155,013,000=8.3%

In August, Population went up to 243,566,000 Employment went down to 142,101,000, Unemployment went down to 12,544,000 and Not in the Labor Force went up to 88,921,000. So LF participation dropped to 63.5% because Labor Force went down and Population went up, and the UE rate went from 12,794,000/155,013,000 to 12,544,000/154,645,000=8.1%

Where's the cooking of books? That's all based on survey response.

[/QUOTE]

You are totally fucked in the head it's just that simple, there is no way that 22 million working Americans be unemployed and the unemployment numbers drop. No matter how you try to justify it.

 

[Chris]

10,000 Americans a day are retiring.

There is going to be a labor shortage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

10,000 Americans a day are retiring.

There is going to be a labor shortage.

No they are not dumb ass

 

[pinqy]

You are totally fucked in the head it's just that simple, there is no way that 22 million working Americans be unemployed and the unemployment numbers drop. No matter how you try to justify it.

working Americans are employed, not unemployed. There are 12.5 million people trying unsuccessfully to find work, and there are another 6 million or so who say they want a job but aren't actually trying to get one (so not counted as unemployed).