April Jobs report looks dismal, March numbers to be revised????

[pinqy]

I addressed this many times the faux unemployment rate is bullshit. It essential calculates the longtime unemployed (the people in the MOST TROUBLE) who "stop looking" as employed.

1. Length of unemployment doesn't matter. One week, 5 years, makes no difference at all.

2. People who stop looking and are not employed are classified as Not in the Labor Force and are in no way part of the Unemployment rate calculation.

I have plenty of technical documentation to back that up. You have nothing to back up your claim except false assertions.
You can choose the tech documents yourself from Technical Documentation (CPS)

Of course, you can always show your math, which you refuse to do.

 

[pinqy]

If any one thinks that the not in number does not effect the UE rate is in denial

Show me the math on how Not in the Labor Force is part of the equation Unemployed/Labor Force.

A 2nd grader could tell you the answer.

There has been over 1 million people added to that list from Nov through Jan (2011-2012)

HOW were they added? What was the exact process you're claiming? Are you asserting that some economist in DC physically moved a name on a database from one column to another because she felt like it? What EXACTLY are you claiming was done for there to be "1 million people added to that list?"

If those 1+ million got added to the UE number BHO approval rating would be 40% or lower becuse the UE rate would be well over 9%

Sure. But WHY should they be part of the UE number?

THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT WORKING
there is only 6.3 million out of the 88 million even looking for for work

You're very confused. In the week of April 8-14, there were 242,784,000 people in the Adult Civilian Non-institutional Population.
141,865,000 worked that week (or were temporarily absent: vacation, illness, etc)
100,919,000 did not work that week and had no work to return to.
Of that 100 million, 12,500,000 had looked for work sometime since March 18th and could have taken a job if offered one during the week of April 8-14.
6,366,000 said they wanted to work, but they hadn't done anything to find a job since before March 18th OR couldn't have taken a job the week of April 8-14.
82,503,000 said they didn't want a job.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I addressed this many times the faux unemployment rate is bullshit. It essential calculates the longtime unemployed (the people in the MOST TROUBLE) who "stop looking" as employed.

1. Length of unemployment doesn't matter. One week, 5 years, makes no difference at all.

2. People who stop looking and are not employed are classified as Not in the Labor Force and are in no way part of the Unemployment rate calculation.

I have plenty of technical documentation to back that up. You have nothing to back up your claim except false assertions.
You can choose the tech documents yourself from Technical Documentation (CPS)

Of course, you can always show your math, which you refuse to do.

When people drop from the labor force are not considered unemployed,

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I addressed this many times the faux unemployment rate is bullshit. It essential calculates the longtime unemployed (the people in the MOST TROUBLE) who "stop looking" as employed.

1. Length of unemployment doesn't matter. One week, 5 years, makes no difference at all.

2. People who stop looking and are not employed are classified as Not in the Labor Force and are in no way part of the Unemployment rate calculation.

I have plenty of technical documentation to back that up. You have nothing to back up your claim except false assertions.
You can choose the tech documents yourself from Technical Documentation (CPS)

Of course, you can always show your math, which you refuse to do.

My emphasis...you are kidding right?
Let's make it simple...
Take 20 people:
17 are working 3 are not working, but looking - rate is 15%.
1 gets a job...rate is now 10%.
Months go by...1 gives up and is no longer working. According to you he no longer affects the rate. Really?
Before 18 out of 20 were working...10%
Now 18 out of 19 are working because one gave up...rate is now 6.3%...yayyy!

 

[Neotrotsky]

I addressed this many times the faux unemployment rate is bullshit. It essential calculates the longtime unemployed (the people in the MOST TROUBLE) who "stop looking" as employed.

1. Length of unemployment doesn't matter. One week, 5 years, makes no difference at all.

2. People who stop looking and are not employed are classified as Not in the Labor Force and are in no way part of the Unemployment rate calculation.

I have plenty of technical documentation to back that up. You have nothing to back up your claim except false assertions.
You can choose the tech documents yourself from Technical Documentation (CPS)

Of course, you can always show your math, which you refuse to do.

My emphasis...you are kidding right?
Let's make it simple...
Take 20 people:
17 are working 3 are not working, but looking - rate is 15%.
1 gets a job...rate is now 10%.
Months go by...1 gives up and is no longer working. According to you he no longer affects the rate. Really?
Before 18 out of 20 were working...10%
Now 18 out of 19 are working because one gave up...rate is now 6.3%...yayyy!

CNBC- Why The Job Numbers Are So Bad or Weakest recovery since the Great Depression


when the MSM is now discussing it, it means they know it is even worse

Job creation in the private sector was slightly better at 130,000, but overall the report painted a picture of a jobs market that had gotten a boost from unseasonably warm winter weather but now has cooled.
​

The amount of discouraged workers swelled from 865,000 to 968,000, an increase of 12 percent. Those working part-time for economic reasons surged 181,000 to more than 7.8 million.

"In the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, more than four-fifths of the reduction in unemployment has been accomplished by a dropping adult labor force participation rate — essentially persuading adults they don't need a job, or the job they could find is not worth having," said University of Maryland economist Peter Morici.​

 

[KissMy]

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Yes I do. The real problem is the percent of our population that have jobs keeps on declining since Democrats took control in January 1, 2007. There has been no recovery in jobs. We only experience seasonal bumps along a flat line. Shall we call this Obamacrats new normal employment level? It truly sucks for the unemployed & their friends & family who are supporting them.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

pinqy must be googling like mad trying to figure out a way to make my simple description wrong.
Sad thing is...even a 12 year old understands that if you have two numbers...and one number stays the same and the second number changes - it changes the sum of those numbers.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Besides the real bastard is not the unemployment rate...which is of course serious, but the real problem is underemployment. Which is at an all time high.

 

[JRK]

If any one thinks that the not in number does not effect the UE rate is in denial

Show me the math on how Not in the Labor Force is part of the equation Unemployed/Labor Force.

A 2nd grader could tell you the answer.

There has been over 1 million people added to that list from Nov through Jan (2011-2012)

HOW were they added? What was the exact process you're claiming? Are you asserting that some economist in DC physically moved a name on a database from one column to another because she felt like it? What EXACTLY are you claiming was done for there to be "1 million people added to that list?"

If those 1+ million got added to the UE number BHO approval rating would be 40% or lower becuse the UE rate would be well over 9%

Sure. But WHY should they be part of the UE number?

THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT WORKING
there is only 6.3 million out of the 88 million even looking for for work

You're very confused. In the week of April 8-14, there were 242,784,000 people in the Adult Civilian Non-institutional Population.
141,865,000 worked that week (or were temporarily absent: vacation, illness, etc)
100,919,000 did not work that week and had no work to return to.
Of that 100 million, 12,500,000 had looked for work sometime since March 18th and could have taken a job if offered one during the week of April 8-14.
6,366,000 said they wanted to work, but they hadn't done anything to find a job since before March 18th OR couldn't have taken a job the week of April 8-14.
82,503,000 said they didn't want a job.

You have 0 understanding of how this works
even CBS gets it
The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October. It would be far preferable for the unemployment rate to drop because the economy is creating over 200,000 per month consistently, rather than due to would-be employees leaving the work force, either because they're retiring or they're simply too discouraged to keep looking for a job. If some of those people resume their job searches, we could see the unemployment rate tick up next month.
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
The not-in number include 60+ million who are on some kind of Govt subsidy, only about 39 million of those are retired, over 65 and getting some sort of SS/SSI
Aged 65 or older 39,605 37,539 900 1,165

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012

This number growing at a record pace is THE only reason the U-3 level is at 8.1 and not 11.1%
In 1 year the all in number has grown 50% of the not in number,
explain that?
twice as many people retiring as entering?

If it was 1-1 ration what would that do to the job creation column then?
cut it in 1/2

The not in number has exploded and many people want to know why

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Farm jobs are not counted with the non farm jobs.

 

[pinqy]

I addressed this many times the faux unemployment rate is bullshit. It essential calculates the longtime unemployed (the people in the MOST TROUBLE) who "stop looking" as employed.

1. Length of unemployment doesn't matter. One week, 5 years, makes no difference at all.

2. People who stop looking and are not employed are classified as Not in the Labor Force and are in no way part of the Unemployment rate calculation.

I have plenty of technical documentation to back that up. You have nothing to back up your claim except false assertions.
You can choose the tech documents yourself from Technical Documentation (CPS)

Of course, you can always show your math, which you refuse to do.

My emphasis...you are kidding right?
Let's make it simple...
Take 20 people:
17 are working 3 are not working, but looking - rate is 15%.
1 gets a job...rate is now 10%.
Months go by...1 gives up and is no longer working. According to you he no longer affects the rate. Really?

That's not what I said. I said he would no longer be part of the rate. Not the same thing. Ghook was claiming he would "effectively" be considered employed, which you have shown is not true. ANY change affects the rate, be it from fewer people in the LF (for any reason) , more people in the LF, or just a change in employment and unemployment.

I did NOT say or imply that a change in status wouldn't change the rate, I said that when calculating the rate, people not in the labor force are not part of the calculation.

Before 18 out of 20 were working...10%
Now 18 out of 19 are working because one gave up...rate is now 6.3%...yayyy!

and when you're calculating 18/19 where in that equation is the person not looking? Nowhere. He's no longer part of the equation. Ghook was claiming he is counted as employed.

 

[JRK]

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Farm jobs are not counted with the non farm jobs.

Boy it has made a mess of the Stock market today I know that
The effort here is to get the UE rate below 8% before October/November
The problem here is simple
The Job growth is going slower than people leaving the work force, so in reality we are not creating any thing
The number added to the not-in list was over 500,000
some were retirees, some were not, mostly were not so there the reason the UE rate went from 8.2-8.1
Thats what ABC will report today, not why (well probably not) Your chart is a good one as well as your information
Thanks

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Farm jobs are not counted with the non farm jobs.

Boy it has made a mess of the Stock market today I know that
The effort here is to get the UE rate below 8% before October/November
The problem here is simple
The Job growth is going slower than people leaving the work force, so in reality we are not creating any thing
The number added to the not-in list was over 500,000
some were retirees, some were not, mostly were not so there the reason the UE rate went from 8.2-8.1
Thats what ABC will report today, not why (well probably not) Your chart is a good one as well as your information
Thanks

Force workers from the work force and you lower unemployment. Why not allow the keystone pipe line? Would it cause unemployment to go through the roof? Yes I think it would.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

1. Length of unemployment doesn't matter. One week, 5 years, makes no difference at all.

2. People who stop looking and are not employed are classified as Not in the Labor Force and are in no way part of the Unemployment rate calculation.

I have plenty of technical documentation to back that up. You have nothing to back up your claim except false assertions.
You can choose the tech documents yourself from Technical Documentation (CPS)

Of course, you can always show your math, which you refuse to do.

My emphasis...you are kidding right?
Let's make it simple...
Take 20 people:
17 are working 3 are not working, but looking - rate is 15%.
1 gets a job...rate is now 10%.
Months go by...1 gives up and is no longer working. According to you he no longer affects the rate. Really?

That's not what I said. I said he would no longer be part of the rate. Not the same thing. Ghook was claiming he would "effectively" be considered employed, which you have shown is not true. ANY change affects the rate, be it from fewer people in the LF (for any reason) , more people in the LF, or just a change in employment and unemployment.

I did NOT say or imply that a change in status wouldn't change the rate, I said that when calculating the rate, people not in the labor force are not part of the calculation.

Before 18 out of 20 were working...10%
Now 18 out of 19 are working because one gave up...rate is now 6.3%...yayyy!

and when you're calculating 18/19 where in that equation is the person not looking? Nowhere. He's no longer part of the equation. Ghook was claiming he is counted as employed.

His absence is a part of the equation.
He still exist.
The point is not that he is a part of the the unemployment equation...he is a part of population...therefore the effect gives a false positive.
But - of course you are correct in that he is not counted as employed.
Because if you took my simple equation...if he was counted then it would be 19 of 20 employed or 5%...not 6.4%.
Having said all of this - the unemployment % calculation that the government uses is a laughably erroneous method.

Secondly...I did misunderstand what you are saying...I apologize for the smartass post a couple after my first one.

 

[JRK]

When the Not in number rises twice as fast as the in number this means there are people leaving th work force
The precipitation rate fell by over 300k
we added 115k
The employed actually dropped
The not in number grew by 500k

I don not care how yo slice it
the real UE rate is well over 8.1%
Is this being done on purpose? who knows

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When the Not in number rises twice as fast as the in number this means there are people leaving th work force
The precipitation rate fell by over 300k
we added 115k
The employed actually dropped
The not in number grew by 500k

I don not care how yo slice it
the real UE rate is well over 8.1%
Is this being done on purpose? who knows

Let's be honest here who controls those numbers? It's election year. What do you think?

 

[JRK]

When the Not in number rises twice as fast as the in number this means there are people leaving th work force
The precipitation rate fell by over 300k
we added 115k
The employed actually dropped
The not in number grew by 500k

I don not care how yo slice it
the real UE rate is well over 8.1%
Is this being done on purpose? who knows

Let's be honest here who controls those numbers? It's election year. What do you think?

Well we have plenty of circumstantial, I will agree with that
It is on pace to get below 8
AP has all ready predicted before the deal today

It is pure political and with that what can any of us do? the problem for Obama is the numbers do not lie in the real world
If your working, you know more than one who is not

 

[itfitzme]

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Yes I do. The real problem is the percent of our population that have jobs keeps on declining since Democrats took control in January 1, 2007. There has been no recovery in jobs. We only experience seasonal bumps along a flat line. Shall we call this Obamacrats new normal employment level? It truly sucks for the unemployed & their friends & family who are supporting them.

I took the 16 to 19 out of employment and population, to see what "independent adult" employment looks like. Then, for the heck of it, I decided to see how it lined up seasonally.

There are two peaks for the 20 an over. Interesting.

BTW,

"Shall we call this Obamacrats new normal employment level?"

I thought the free market was suppose handle this stuff. Why are you blaming the government for what they aren't suppose to be doing anyways?

 

[itfitzme]

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Farm jobs are not counted with the non farm jobs.

What are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that farm jobs are not counted in the total employment numbers? That just stupid.

 

[itfitzme]

This is what the real US jobs situation looks like. Job creation has already peaked for the year a couple months back. We are headed for our 4th bounce along the bottom. Obama is officially the No-Recovery / No Jobs President unless you are a rich Wallstreet executive.

It is called seasonable variation. It happens every year. During the winter, fewer people are employed. During the winter, outdoor jobs are less in the dead cold of the snow through much of the country. Construction work falls off in the winter. Harvesting of crops fall off during the winter.

Do you know what seasonal means?

Yes I do. The real problem is the percent of our population that have jobs keeps on declining since Democrats took control in January 1, 2007. There has been no recovery in jobs. We only experience seasonal bumps along a flat line. Shall we call this Obamacrats new normal employment level? It truly sucks for the unemployed & their friends & family who are supporting them.

"The real problem is the percent of our population that have jobs keeps on declining "

Well, that's a load of crap, the graph above show that job growth has managed to just keep up with civilian non-institutionalized population growth. That means, it isn't declining.