US lost 304,000 'jobs' over last two months (Household Survey)

[depotoo]

Wow, quite a few people have retired the last couple of months, age 65 and over. Who’d uh thunk it?!?
Lol

 

[McRocket]

Hello...Earth to ignoramus?
The ENTIRE CHART AND ALL THE HEADLINE DATA from the BLS IS SEASONALLY ADJUSTED.

The unemployment rate AND the jobs numbers in the headlines are ALL Seasonally Adjusted.

DUH.

See this headline number?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/nonfarm-payrolls-april-2019.html

It's from this chart which is - you guessed it - Seasonally Adjusted.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

Learn to do math.

My gosh the level of ignorance, and sheer stupidity, on display here from someone who claims to be sentient, is amazing.

I don't think they have the capability to understand what is being presented.

It has the attention span of a goldfish with a shiny object.

And you have not a fucking clue what terms even mean.

You are making a complete fool of yourself in this thread...and you have no idea.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

Here, try to answer this question: If the Civilian Labor Force declines by 714K, how much of a decline should we expect to see in the number of Employed people when the Labor Force Participation rate is basically flat?

No way to know, ignoramus.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING directly to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?


(the answer is 'yes' btw)

 

[boedicca]

Learn to do math.

My gosh the level of ignorance, and sheer stupidity, on display here from someone who claims to be sentient, is amazing.

I don't think they have the capability to understand what is being presented.

It has the attention span of a goldfish with a shiny object.

And you have not a fucking clue what terms even mean.

You are making a complete fool of yourself in this thread...and you have no idea.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

Here, try to answer this question: If the Civilian Labor Force declines by 714K, how much of a decline should we expect to see in the number of Employed people when the Labor Force Participation rate is basically flat?

None idiot.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

 

[Oddball]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

The maths iz hard!

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 262081
View attachment 262084

Wow, quite a few people have retired the last couple of months, age 65 and over. Who’d uh thunk it?!?
Lol

Hey, I can work part time if I like..

 

[McRocket]

My gosh the level of ignorance, and sheer stupidity, on display here from someone who claims to be sentient, is amazing.

I don't think they have the capability to understand what is being presented.

It has the attention span of a goldfish with a shiny object.

And you have not a fucking clue what terms even mean.

You are making a complete fool of yourself in this thread...and you have no idea.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

Here, try to answer this question: If the Civilian Labor Force declines by 714K, how much of a decline should we expect to see in the number of Employed people when the Labor Force Participation rate is basically flat?

None idiot.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


MY guess is you will duck answering it again because if you do (accurately) your whole RIDICULOUS argument falls completely apart.

Man...(most) Trumpbots seem SOOOO STUPID.

 

[boedicca]

It has the attention span of a goldfish with a shiny object.

And you have not a fucking clue what terms even mean.

You are making a complete fool of yourself in this thread...and you have no idea.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

Here, try to answer this question: If the Civilian Labor Force declines by 714K, how much of a decline should we expect to see in the number of Employed people when the Labor Force Participation rate is basically flat?

None idiot.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

 

[McRocket]

And you have not a fucking clue what terms even mean.

You are making a complete fool of yourself in this thread...and you have no idea.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

Here, try to answer this question: If the Civilian Labor Force declines by 714K, how much of a decline should we expect to see in the number of Employed people when the Labor Force Participation rate is basically flat?

None idiot.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

 

[boedicca]

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

Here, try to answer this question: If the Civilian Labor Force declines by 714K, how much of a decline should we expect to see in the number of Employed people when the Labor Force Participation rate is basically flat?

None idiot.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

 

[McRocket]

None idiot.

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) and the LFPR have NOTHING to do with the numbers of employed...you uneducated hick.

You could have the CLF number drop by 714K and there could be ZERO effect on the number of employed.

'Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.'
Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

 

[boedicca]

I see that you clearly do not understand the different elements of the data set. But thanks for playing!

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

 

[McRocket]

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

Sorry...made a boo boo there. Got it right here.

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

 

[McRocket]

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

And why did you type that the 304K jobs lost is 'only' Seasonally Adjusted when ALL major BLS headline data releases are Seasonally Adjusted...including the unemployment rate and the Establishment Survey job gains?


It's pretty obvious you had no idea that the U-3 and Establishment Survey jobs number released every month are Seasonally Adjusted numbers.

 

[boedicca]

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

And why did you type that the 304K jobs lost is 'only' Seasonally Adjusted when ALL major BLS headline data releases are Seasonally Adjusted...including the unemployment rate and the Establishment Survey job gains?


It's pretty obvious you had no idea that the U-3 and Establishment Survey jobs number released every month are Seasonally Adjusted numbers.

Here you go, numnuts - you are misapplying the use of seasonally adjusted data by focusing on a two month time frame. It is statistically bogus.

Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.

Over the course of a year, the size of the labor force, the levels of employment and unemployment, and other measures of labor market activity undergo fluctuations due to seasonal events including changes in weather, harvests, major holidays, and school schedules. Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year, their influence on statistical trends can be eliminated by seasonally adjusting the statistics from month to month. These seasonal adjustments make it easier to observe the cyclical, underlying trend, and other nonseasonal movements in the series.

As a general rule, the monthly employment and unemployment numbers reported in the news are seasonally adjusted data. Seasonally adjusted data are useful when comparing several months of data. Annual average estimates are calculated from the not seasonally adjusted data series.

What is seasonal adjustment?

 

[McRocket]

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

And why did you type that the 304K jobs lost is 'only' Seasonally Adjusted when ALL major BLS headline data releases are Seasonally Adjusted...including the unemployment rate and the Establishment Survey job gains?


It's pretty obvious you had no idea that the U-3 and Establishment Survey jobs number released every month are Seasonally Adjusted numbers.

Here you go, numnuts - you are misapplying the use of seasonally adjusted data by focusing on a two month time frame. It is statistically bogus.

Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.

Over the course of a year, the size of the labor force, the levels of employment and unemployment, and other measures of labor market activity undergo fluctuations due to seasonal events including changes in weather, harvests, major holidays, and school schedules. Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year, their influence on statistical trends can be eliminated by seasonally adjusting the statistics from month to month. These seasonal adjustments make it easier to observe the cyclical, underlying trend, and other nonseasonal movements in the series.

As a general rule, the monthly employment and unemployment numbers reported in the news are seasonally adjusted data. Seasonally adjusted data are useful when comparing several months of data. Annual average estimates are calculated from the not seasonally adjusted data series.

What is seasonal adjustment?

You still obviously have no idea what you are blathering about. You just copy and pasted what Seasonal Adjustments are...but did not answer my question.


I will make it easier for you,

are you saying that the unemployment rate and the monthly job numbers that the MSM headlines each month are 'statistically bogus' (because they are both Seasonally Adjusted')?

Yes or no, please?


And if they are not bogus...then neither are the stats I posted in the OP...because they are all Seasonally Adjusted.

 

[McRocket]

No...it's you who has NO idea what BLS terms even mean.

I will ask again:

Yes or No?

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

And you read but skipped over this:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

 

[boedicca]

I do not answer questions that are shouted.

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

And you read but skipped over this:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

Learn some math and get back to us.

 

[McRocket]

LOL...what a baby (and I was right).

Okay...here it is 'unshouted':

The Civilian Labor Force can theoretically decline with NO decrease in the number of employed?

Yes or No?


(I wonder what his next excuse not to answer it will be?)

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

And you read but skipped over this:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

Learn some math and get back to us.

Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.


I will ask you again:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, theoretically it can, which would increase the Labor Force Participation Rate. In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict. So, you are just spinning one number out of context to create a doom and gloom scenario which doesn't exist.

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

And you read but skipped over this:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

Learn some math and get back to us.

Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.


I will ask you again:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

Learn some math.

 

[McRocket]

No it is not. You are obviously making stuff up now. You are a Trumpbot who sees a stat that makes Trump look bad and you are desperately trying to spin it to make it look good.

You earlier posted this nonsense:

'1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+'

Which shows that you wrongly assumed that by multiplying the Civilian Labor Force decline by the LFPR that this would give you the decline in the total number of employed.
That is 100% false as the LFPR has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the number of employed - nothing.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

You'd be funny if you weren't so repetitive.

And you read but skipped over this:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

Learn some math and get back to us.

Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.


I will ask you again:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.

Learn some math.

Obviously you cannot answer the question without your entire argument falling apart. You are making a complete fool of yourself on this to anyone who knows what these statistics mean.


I will ask you again:

You said this bit of utter nonsense: 'In this case, the decline in jobs is far less than what the application of the Labor Force Participation rate would predict'.

And I am telling you that is 100% incorrect as the LFPR has nothing to do with predicting employment numbers.


Please show me where on the BLS website that it shows that the LFPR has anything whatsoever to do with predicting the number of employed?


I guarantee that you cannot.

And if you cannot - then that proves that your whole theory is utter nonsense.