Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

[pinqy]

And now we run into problems when you assume that the difference should be considered unemployment. Ageing is not the only reason for a decline in the labor force/employment population ratio. If more younger people go to school or choose not to work while attending school, or if more families go to single earner to devote more time to children and/or save costs, then that's not a labor market problem, and it's misleading to view it as "shadow unemployment."

OK we have a problem defining a base line.

The actual problem is normative vs descriptive. I wouldn't define any baseline, because any baseline is purely arbitrary.

I argue that secular changes such as an increased desire for more education or to devote more time to family act over longer periods and don't explain the size of short term changes we observe. Had the job market not tanked, I think those secular changes would not have been observed at all.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't make those who chose to do so unemployed. The UE rate measures only the Labor market. We can, and should, also consider short term trends in labor market participation, and look at marginally attached for potential future participants, but it's not good analysis to try and say what things should be.

If there is a secular change in these areas we could adjust for it like the shifting age distribution.

Why? Then you're no longer looking at the actual labor market, but some hypothetical one. And not sure what you mean by "adjust for it like the shifting age distribution." Are you claiming a shifting age distribution is somehow adjusted for, or that it should be?

But going back to 1997--2007 there is no trend line for increasing educational participation nor for reductions in average work week.

There was a steady decline in labor force participation for ages 16-19 during that time.

Not saying it can't happen, just that the evidence doesn't seem to support an exogenous sociological change in the labor market.

Aging population and decking youth participation? There certainly is. But regardless, you can only measure what people are doing, not what they should be doing.

The CBO today released an analysis that as a side note mentioned that their base macro model pegged the number of jobs that should have been created C.P. to be a bit over 5 million. My calculations put the number at 5,160,000, which in statistical jargon is "close enough for government work".

Again, normative vs descriptive. Just because there "should be " more employed doesn't mean anything when measuring what the Labor Market is.

 

[oldfart]

And now we run into problems when you assume that the difference should be considered unemployment. Ageing is not the only reason for a decline in the labor force/employment population ratio. If more younger people go to school or choose not to work while attending school, or if more families go to single earner to devote more time to children and/or save costs, then that's not a labor market problem, and it's misleading to view it as "shadow unemployment."

OK we have a problem defining a base line.

The actual problem is normative vs descriptive. I wouldn't define any baseline, because any baseline is purely arbitrary.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't make those who chose to do so unemployed. The UE rate measures only the Labor market. We can, and should, also consider short term trends in labor market participation, and look at marginally attached for potential future participants, but it's not good analysis to try and say what things should be.

Why? Then you're no longer looking at the actual labor market, but some hypothetical one. And not sure what you mean by "adjust for it like the shifting age distribution." Are you claiming a shifting age distribution is somehow adjusted for, or that it should be?

There was a steady decline in labor force participation for ages 16-19 during that time.

Not saying it can't happen, just that the evidence doesn't seem to support an exogenous sociological change in the labor market.

Aging population and decking youth participation? There certainly is. But regardless, you can only measure what people are doing, not what they should be doing.

The CBO today released an analysis that as a side note mentioned that their base macro model pegged the number of jobs that should have been created C.P. to be a bit over 5 million. My calculations put the number at 5,160,000, which in statistical jargon is "close enough for government work".

Again, normative vs descriptive. Just because there "should be " more employed doesn't mean anything when measuring what the Labor Market is.

It seems to me that you are going out of your way to foster a disagreement when there is not much of one. I could try to restate my position, but I doubt that would make it any clearer. I'm just puzzled as to why you seem to be trying to promote exogenous variables as explaining what are straightforward labor force phenomena.

 

[Faun]

Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Change in Number of Unemployed
11,616,000 Jan 2009
10,351,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 1,265,000 less workers unemployed

Change in the Number of Employed
142,099,000 Jan 2009
144,586,000 Dec 2013
Difference = + 2,487,000 net jobs created

Change in Labor Force Participation Rate
65.5% Jan 2009
62.8% Dec 2013
Difference = 2.7% of the labor force stopped participating.

Total Not in Labor Force
49,455,000 Jan 2009
55,220,000 Dec 2013
Difference = 5,765,000 people dropped out of the labor force.

Jobs to Dropouts
Average net Jobs Created Per Year: 497,400
Average # of Labor Force Dropouts per Year: 1,153,000
Difference: For Every 1 net job created under Obama 2.32 people have given up looking for work.

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office. In real numbers, Obama can boast that 2,487,000 net jobs were created for Americans under his stewardship in 5 years (497,400 net jobs per year average). He can also boast that those eligible for work and able to work while not looking for work increased by 5,765,000 (A labor force participation drop out rate of 1,153,000 per year). In other words, for every net job created since January 2009, 2.32 people have given up looking for work. If we were to start on the month Obama took office, fair or not, and compared the employment situation to today, we are still worse off today in terms of employment than the day he took office.

Conclusion: Ceteris paribus (and they are not) Thus far, though we look to be catching up and the economy is growing, the economy has not grown enough in accordance with the increase in workforce population so as to maintain an employment rate that would be less than that of when Obama took office.

I hope I used ceteris paribus correctly

Your Thoughts?

Your position is retarded twofold. One, because it's based on the labor force participation rate -- Which is not an indicator of the health of the job market; and two, using the labor force participation rate ignores the fact that many of those who have dropped out of the labor force, chose to drop out.

 

[Faun]

Unemployment Worse Today than when Obama took Office

BLS Employment Situation January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
BLS Employment Situation December 2013: Employment Situation Summary

Change in Unemployment
7.6% Jan 2009
6.7% Dec 2013
Difference = 0.9%

Since Obama took office in 2009 the unemployment rate has dropped 0.9% and the labor force participation rate has dropped 2.7%. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same our current employment situation would be an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a total difference of -1.8% employment since Obama took office.

A perfect example of the complete dishonesty of the Right.

Aside from the fact that the LPR is affected by demographics, making it a lousy economic indicator, you dishonestly assume a nonexistent "constant LPR rate" for Obama but not for Bush's UE rate. The LPR has been declining since 2000, and during the Bush Regime it fell from 67.2% to 65.7%, so if the LPR stayed the same for Bush his 7.6% would have been 8.6%.

If you want to measure just how much of a worthless rightwing talking point the labor force participation rate is ... look no further back than 2009 when Obama became president. Despite the fact that the labor force participation rate rate dropped 2.2% under Bush, righties never once mentioned the labor force participation rate.

They also dishonestly try to show how the unemployment rate today is worse than when Obama became president ... but they start with the unemployment rate of 7.8% (except for the idiot of this OP who thought it was 7.6%) -- but they don't factor in the impact of the labor force participation rate during Bush's presidency, meaning the 7.8% unemployment rate Obama inherited from Bush would have been significantly higher than 7.8%, if one were to foolishly factor in the labor force participation rate into the unemployment rate.

At the end of the day, this all amounts to nothing but the rights' inability to want there to be any success under Obama, which is evident in how we witness month after month after month how they hunt for the bad news in the monthly employment updates and find any measure at all, no matter how meaningless (like the LFPR), that they can glom onto, just so they can attack the progress we've made since the Great Recession.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The economy will slide into Depression after the first year, and Biden will be blamed.