Unemployment rate to 8.8%

[Immanuel]

What do you mean it has never been asked They get the unemployment percentage numbers from the number of people on unemployment.

No, they don't, and never have. It's a household survey.

Pingy is right on this one, Bigreb. He and I have had this discussion before.

Immie

PS Pingy forgive me if I have misread your gender.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What do you mean it has never been asked They get the unemployment percentage numbers from the number of people on unemployment.

No, they don't, and never have. It's a household survey.

Who does the survey?

 

[boedicca]

THE ONLY REASON WHY UNEMPLOYMENT HAS FALLEN IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER BEING COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING FOR WORK.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or your simply wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know any better.

Well, she's right, but inaccurate. It IS true that people not looking for work are not counted as unemployed. She's wrong that that's the ONLY reason it's gone down. The Labor Force has gone up the last 2 months, so people are not dropping out of the labor force.

The reason unemployment percentage is going down is because those people have run out of benifits.

Benefits has never had anything to do with the unemployment rate. It's not even asked.

Labor force participation has decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% in the past year.

That's why unemployment has decreased.

Period. End of story.

 

[boedicca]

When people report they are no longer looking for work they get the boot from the laborforce.

Well, yeah. Duh. Why should people not participating in the labor market be considered part of the labor market? What exactly do we learn about the labor market from people not participating in it?

The only reason they are counted as not participating is because the government made up a definition that excludes long term unemployed people who are discouraged due to lack of jobs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

According to this the numbers could be higher than the op stated.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

 

[boedicca]

Well, she's right, but inaccurate. It IS true that people not looking for work are not counted as unemployed. She's wrong that that's the ONLY reason it's gone down. The Labor Force has gone up the last 2 months, so people are not dropping out of the labor force.



Benefits has never had anything to do with the unemployment rate. It's not even asked.

gone up?labor force as in participation or ? what do you mean exactly, because its still stuck at a 25 year low, 64.2%.

The Labor Force level has gone up. Jan it was 153,186,000, and March was 153,406,000, and increase of 220,000. And all of that is an increase in Employment (Unemployment level has gone down). Which means people are not dropping out. That the rate is staying the same just means it's not outpacing population growth (which was 296,000). Fine, it doesn't need to. The last time the LF participation rate was 64.2, that was a 35 year high. The LF participation rate is not a direct measure of the labor market.

The whole "if the LF participation rate was the same as year X"...is horsecrap. It's assuming the entire amount of the difference is people who would be unemployed. But if we go the opposite direction and use the LF participation rate of the 50's or 60's, and use the same math, that would mean the UE rate would be about 2%.

Wrong. The labor force increases due to population growth, but with a lower participation rate, 1.7M less people are in the labor force than would have been if the participation rate had not decreased.

It's not a good thing to have a declining participation rate.

 

[boedicca]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or your simply wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know any better.

I read the unemployment reports, .

Then you are simply wrong and misinformed. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance.

You are an economic illiterate. I don't expect you to understand what a decline in the labor force participation rate means. My posts are to counteract the ignorance you spew so that you do not influence others to adopt your misguided views.

 

[8537]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or your simply wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know any better.

Well, she's right, but inaccurate. It IS true that people not looking for work are not counted as unemployed. She's wrong that that's the ONLY reason it's gone down. The Labor Force has gone up the last 2 months, so people are not dropping out of the labor force.

The reason unemployment percentage is going down is because those people have run out of benifits.

Benefits has never had anything to do with the unemployment rate. It's not even asked.

Labor force participation has decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% in the past year.

That's why unemployment has decreased.

Period. End of story.

The unemployment rate has decreased by 1 point.

The LFPR has decreased by .7%.

I'll let you do the math...

 

[8537]

I read the unemployment reports, .

Then you are simply wrong and misinformed. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance.

You are an economic illiterate.

So, as an economic literate, please explain why the number of people claiming unemployment is directly related to the unemployment rate via the calculation.

Oh wait, it's not? Really?

Oh wait--- i"m the illiterate one here. You are the "Educated one". a fucking idiot, but educated

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or your simply wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know any better.

Well, she's right, but inaccurate. It IS true that people not looking for work are not counted as unemployed. She's wrong that that's the ONLY reason it's gone down. The Labor Force has gone up the last 2 months, so people are not dropping out of the labor force.

The reason unemployment percentage is going down is because those people have run out of benifits.

Benefits has never had anything to do with the unemployment rate. It's not even asked.

Labor force participation has decreased from 64.9% to 64.2% in the past year.

That's why unemployment has decreased.

Period. End of story.

Thats fine if thats their argument. That means even more people are unemployed, using their weak ass argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

42.9 million people collected food stamps last month
up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago

Food Stamp Rolls Continue to Rise - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Trajan]

Then you are simply wrong and misinformed. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance.

You are an economic illiterate.

So, as an economic literate, please explain why the number of people claiming unemployment is directly related to the unemployment rate via the calculation.

Oh wait, it's not? Really?

Oh wait--- i"m the illiterate one here. You are the "Educated one". a fucking idiot, but educated

so the argument is not whether the lfpr is at a 25 year low or is it?

 

[8537]

You are an economic illiterate.

So, as an economic literate, please explain why the number of people claiming unemployment is directly related to the unemployment rate via the calculation.

Oh wait, it's not? Really?

Oh wait--- i"m the illiterate one here. You are the "Educated one". a fucking idiot, but educated

so the argument is not whether the lfpr is at a 25 year low or is it?

The "argument" is that the decline in the U3 is not only a factor of a change in the LFPR.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, as an economic literate, please explain why the number of people claiming unemployment is directly related to the unemployment rate via the calculation.

Oh wait, it's not? Really?

Oh wait--- i"m the illiterate one here. You are the "Educated one". a fucking idiot, but educated

so the argument is not whether the lfpr is at a 25 year low or is it?

The "argument" is that the decline in the U3 is not only a factor of a change in the LFPR.

Let's not forget we are at an all time high for food stamps recepants.

 

[pinqy]

No, they don't, and never have. It's a household survey.

Who does the survey?

Census Bureau. Around 60,000 addresses a month are surveyed. Households are in the survey 4 months, out for 8, and back in for 4. Rotation is staggered so that 3/4 of the sample is the same from one month to the next, and in the same month from one year to the next, half the sample will be the same.

 

[Zona]

yup, in 2 months we have added a net of....*scribble scribble*...*tap tap tap Kaching!!!*...130k jobs....yeaaa baby!!!!!!!!!

Damn it!

And I was hoping for the economy to fail

Try as the right may, the rate is still going down.

2012. I guarantee Obama will win.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who does the survey?

Census Bureau. Around 60,000 addresses a month are surveyed. Households are in the survey 4 months, out for 8, and back in for 4. Rotation is staggered so that 3/4 of the sample is the same from one month to the next, and in the same month from one year to the next, half the sample will be the same.

OH WOW something like a poll. And we all know how polls are done, and how much weight they carry. Around 60,000 addresses a month are surveyed out of how many addresses in America? As I sad using your argument and the orther source I used the true unemployment numbers will be higher than what the OP states.

 

[Truthseeker420]

When I remember the Democrats moaning about how miserable the Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush economy was when we were suffering the intense pains of 4.5% unemployment, this seems disingenuous. However, the fact it is finally under 9% for the first time in two years is a Very Good Thing, and a definite silver lining to the hurricane we are suffering under.

Even so......
This counts as whistling through the graveyard.

Bush benefited from the Cinton surplus economy plus war creates jobs and the fed kept lowering the interest rate to re-elect Bush and ballon the economy to make the rich richer.

Also i would like to mention at this time in the Reagan presidency unemployment was at 10.5%.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When I remember the Democrats moaning about how miserable the Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush economy was when we were suffering the intense pains of 4.5% unemployment, this seems disingenuous. However, the fact it is finally under 9% for the first time in two years is a Very Good Thing, and a definite silver lining to the hurricane we are suffering under.

Even so......
This counts as whistling through the graveyard.

Bush benefited from the Cinton surplus economy plus war creates jobs and the fed kept lowering the interest rate to re-elect Bush and ballon the economy to make the rich richer.

Also i would like to mention at this time in the Reagan presidency unemployment was at 10.5%.

There was no Clinton surplus.

 

[pinqy]

Wrong. The labor force increases due to population growth,

it doesn't have to. Let's say 10,000 kids turn 16, nobody dies or otherwise leaves the country. None of the kids is working or looking for a job. Population has gone up, labor force has not.

but with a lower participation rate, 1.7M less people are in the labor force than would have been if the participation rate had not decreased.

Ummm it's the people leaving or not joining the labor force that caused the participation rate to decrease.

I'm not really sure you're clear on the definitions here...
Population: All people 16 years and older not in prison, the military, or a mental institute

Labor Force: Employed (working) plus unemployed (not working but looking for work).

People not working or looking for work are Not in the Labor Force.

So the Labor Force Participation rate is the percentage of the (adult civilian non-institutional) population that is in the Labor Force.

Let's say there's a town with an adult population of 150 people, where 95 have jobs, 5 are trying to get jobs and the rest are retired, students, stay at home spouses etc. Pop is 150, Labor Force is 100, so LF participation rate is 66.7% (UE rate is 5%). 5 kids turn 16, none need a job, all are students, so none are working or looking for work. Population is now 155, Unemployment is still 5, Employment is still 95, UE rate is still 5%, but LF participation has now dropped to 64.5% NOBODY HAS LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in this scenario.

So, applying the same math the "if the LF participation rate hadn't changed", to this scenario, 88.7% of 155 is 103.. the difference is 3, add those to the unemployment level is 8, and 8/103 is 7.8% and we would reach the conclusion that the UE rate should "really be 7.8% because that's what it would be if the LF participation rate hadn't changed."

Horseshit.