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

[JRK]

NO!
Again, the facts are available and the links have been posted many times, but since they do not support what you want it is simpler for you to just make the numbers up. The number of "ordinary unemployed" went down from 13,792,000 to 12,500,000 during the last 12 months, an average of 107.7k a month. As I pointed out in past posts, there is a conservative average of 100,000 jobs of retiring Boomers that get filled every month without creating a single new job.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

I made up zero, I used your number, I used the recognized variance for new entrants.
so you are saying I was off by a factor or roughly 2, not 56k but 107...ok..so that includes new entrants?

and, wait a minute didn't you say you were guessing at the retiree thiing and you never answered me as to how a job gets filled without employing someone there-by, taking the number down.. remember?

Again, you desperately try to double-speak your way out of your made up numbers. "My" numbers came from the BLS.

The number of employed increased by 2.237 million and the number of unemployed decreased by 1.292 million so no matter how you slice it there are a lot more than just 56k jobs per month being filled over and above the new workers entering the workforce and therefore the UE rate should go down no matter how many people are not in the labor force.

How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?
Your statement is not accurate by that very reason

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.

That was the same for April 2012

thats 600,000 there alone

that killed your 50,000 a month right away over the labor force as just in those 2 months we lost at least that many
added close to 3 million in the not-in

this is why the 58.4% labor force to employed is remained that for 12 months
we have been through this 100 times
give it a rest

 

[itfitzme]

My friend you have no room to talk as I recall you had an issue with a fox article I linked to and come to find out they were correct and you were not ( by calling them a liar)

Why is it the liberal worries about the character of those they dis agree with?
It has 0 place in a debate. facts never supporting crap? that is about a 3rd grade remark, and your smarter than that
or at least I thought you were

That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.

You called them a liar on that article
What does both times have to do with anything?
Dude I told you I will call you out every time all the time
you let this childish thing of calling people a liar, I will let it go

Not if they actually lie, dude. Then it's a statement of fact.

You really need to grow up and get over being a ten year old where you stomped your feet and called your sister a liar.

 

[edthecynic]

My friend you have no room to talk as I recall you had an issue with a fox article I linked to and come to find out they were correct and you were not ( by calling them a liar)

Why is it the liberal worries about the character of those they dis agree with?
It has 0 place in a debate. facts never supporting crap? that is about a 3rd grade remark, and your smarter than that
or at least I thought you were

That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.

FOX has a lot of nerve calling anyone a liar!!!

First of all, the government does count that rate, it's the U-4 rate currently at 8.7%.
And the number in Jan 2009 was 5.866 million and it is 6.041 million now. So in typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, 175 thousand got exaggerated into 600 thousand by the America-hating lying scum at FOX.
your exact words
you thought no-one would check your info

And those numbers I used are the unadjusted numbers FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said are the numbers that have not been cooked to favor Obama by the BLS. But FOX didn't use the uncooked unadjusted numbers, did they? They used the adjusted numbers because they didn't favor Obama as they had previously claimed.

So they were either lying when they used the unadjusted numbers or they were lying when they used the seasonally adjusted numbers, but they couldn't be correct both times. As you know by now I always expose CON$ervoFascist lies by showing them on both sides of every issue.

 

[JRK]

That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.

FOX has a lot of nerve calling anyone a liar!!!

First of all, the government does count that rate, it's the U-4 rate currently at 8.7%.
And the number in Jan 2009 was 5.866 million and it is 6.041 million now. So in typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, 175 thousand got exaggerated into 600 thousand by the America-hating lying scum at FOX.
your exact words
you thought no-one would check your info

And those numbers I used are the unadjusted numbers FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said are the numbers that have not been cooked to favor Obama by the BLS. But FOX didn't use the uncooked unadjusted numbers, did they? They used the adjusted numbers because they didn't favor Obama as they had previously claimed.

So they were either lying when they used the unadjusted numbers or they were lying when they used the seasonally adjusted numbers, but they couldn't be correct both times. As you know by now I always expose CON$ervoFascist lies by showing them on both sides of every issue.

You keep saying that and within the article you attacked I do not recall them using but one number
your the one who added the second one

 

[edthecynic]

My friend you have no room to talk as I recall you had an issue with a fox article I linked to and come to find out they were correct and you were not ( by calling them a liar)

Why is it the liberal worries about the character of those they dis agree with?
It has 0 place in a debate. facts never supporting crap? that is about a 3rd grade remark, and your smarter than that
or at least I thought you were

That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.

You called them a liar on that article
What does both times have to do with anything?
Dude I told you I will call you out every time all the time
you let this childish thing of calling people a liar, I will let it go

The FOX article that used the adjusted numbers AFTER more than a year of FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber telling us that the seasonally adjusted numbers were cooked in Obama's favor and only the unadjusted numbers were accurate. You always leave out that part. By the unadjusted numbers the FOX article was lying.

 

[JRK]

That, as usual, is just your revisionist version of what really happened. I showed FOX claiming that the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers were cooked to favor Obama, and then FOX using the seasonally adjusted BLS numbers because they went against Obama. They could not be "correct" both times, except of course to someone equally dishonest.

FOX has a lot of nerve calling anyone a liar!!!

First of all, the government does count that rate, it's the U-4 rate currently at 8.7%.
And the number in Jan 2009 was 5.866 million and it is 6.041 million now. So in typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, 175 thousand got exaggerated into 600 thousand by the America-hating lying scum at FOX.
your exact words
you thought no-one would check your info

And those numbers I used are the unadjusted numbers FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said are the numbers that have not been cooked to favor Obama by the BLS. But FOX didn't use the uncooked unadjusted numbers, did they? They used the adjusted numbers because they didn't favor Obama as they had previously claimed.

So they were either lying when they used the unadjusted numbers or they were lying when they used the seasonally adjusted numbers, but they couldn't be correct both times. As you know by now I always expose CON$ervoFascist lies by showing them on both sides of every issue.

However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.
So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


Read more: Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data | Fox Business

Again what are you trying to say here
I see one 2012 number of 6.3 that you said was a lie
it is not
you created this fictional event that never made any sense to me and still does not
stop while your ahead

 

[edthecynic]

I made up zero, I used your number, I used the recognized variance for new entrants.
so you are saying I was off by a factor or roughly 2, not 56k but 107...ok..so that includes new entrants?

and, wait a minute didn't you say you were guessing at the retiree thiing and you never answered me as to how a job gets filled without employing someone there-by, taking the number down.. remember?

Again, you desperately try to double-speak your way out of your made up numbers. "My" numbers came from the BLS.

The number of employed increased by 2.237 million and the number of unemployed decreased by 1.292 million so no matter how you slice it there are a lot more than just 56k jobs per month being filled over and above the new workers entering the workforce and therefore the UE rate should go down no matter how many people are not in the labor force.

How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?
Your statement is not accurate by that very reason

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.

That was the same for April 2012

thats 600,000 there alone

that killed your 50,000 a month right away over the labor force as just in those 2 months we lost at least that many
added close to 3 million in the not-in

this is why the 58.4% labor force to employed is remained that for 12 months
we have been through this 100 times
give it a rest

Again, nobody who wanted a job was moved from the UE group to the NILF group. The number of NILF who wanted a job went DOWN from 6,482,000 to 6,328,000 for the year. That fact kills the CON$ervoFascist BS that people who wanted a job were moved to the NILF group to keep the UE rate down.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[edthecynic]

FOX has a lot of nerve calling anyone a liar!!!

First of all, the government does count that rate, it's the U-4 rate currently at 8.7%.
And the number in Jan 2009 was 5.866 million and it is 6.041 million now. So in typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, 175 thousand got exaggerated into 600 thousand by the America-hating lying scum at FOX.
your exact words
you thought no-one would check your info

And those numbers I used are the unadjusted numbers FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said are the numbers that have not been cooked to favor Obama by the BLS. But FOX didn't use the uncooked unadjusted numbers, did they? They used the adjusted numbers because they didn't favor Obama as they had previously claimed.

So they were either lying when they used the unadjusted numbers or they were lying when they used the seasonally adjusted numbers, but they couldn't be correct both times. As you know by now I always expose CON$ervoFascist lies by showing them on both sides of every issue.

However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.
So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


Read more: Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data | Fox Business

Again what are you trying to say here
I see one 2012 number of 6.3 that you said was a lie
it is not
you created this fictional event that never made any sense to me and still does not
stop while your ahead

Notice how after you posted a link that compared April 2011 to April 2012 to claim that no jobs were created when the UE rate went from 9% to 8.1% even though 2.237 million were created. And that same link showed that the number of people NILF who want a job went down, you have now shifted to 2009!!!
You fool no one by moving the goal posts.

 

[itfitzme]

How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?
Your statement is not accurate by that very reason

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.

That was the same for April 2012

thats 600,000 there alone

that killed your 50,000 a month right away over the labor force as just in those 2 months we lost at least that many
added close to 3 million in the not-in

this is why the 58.4% labor force to employed is remained that for 12 months
we have been through this 100 times
give it a rest

"How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?"

35 million.

pingy already gave you that report, try keeping up.

"The drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk:"

till sticking to an unqualified November article and applying it to the entire year and to April.

Where was there a 278,000 gain in employment? Those numbers need to be checked. The Emp and LF, NSA and Sa changes for Oct to Nov in 2011 were 83, -405, 317, and -120. Where did 278 thou come from? have you even checked the numbers from that article that you keep cut and pasting form, as if you said it?

"That was the same for April 2012"

Show it was so for April. It wasn't the same.

"thats 600,000 there alone"

now your just making shit up again. Taking November and adding it to April. What is up with that? What does adding November to April have to do with anything?

And your using seasonally adjusted numbers which aren't real people. They are "pretend that there is no seasonal adjustment".

We've been through this a dozen times and you keep making up numbers. I can't follow your "reasoning" if your making up numbers.

 

[edthecynic]

FOX has a lot of nerve calling anyone a liar!!!

First of all, the government does count that rate, it's the U-4 rate currently at 8.7%.
And the number in Jan 2009 was 5.866 million and it is 6.041 million now. So in typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, 175 thousand got exaggerated into 600 thousand by the America-hating lying scum at FOX.
your exact words
you thought no-one would check your info

And those numbers I used are the unadjusted numbers FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said are the numbers that have not been cooked to favor Obama by the BLS. But FOX didn't use the uncooked unadjusted numbers, did they? They used the adjusted numbers because they didn't favor Obama as they had previously claimed.

So they were either lying when they used the unadjusted numbers or they were lying when they used the seasonally adjusted numbers, but they couldn't be correct both times. As you know by now I always expose CON$ervoFascist lies by showing them on both sides of every issue.

However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.
So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


Read more: Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data | Fox Business

Again what are you trying to say here
I see one 2012 number of 6.3 that you said was a lie
it is not
you created this fictional event that never made any sense to me and still does not
stop while your ahead

The unadjusted number is 6.041 so according to everything FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said for the previous year the seasonally adjusted 6.3 number is a lie or FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber have been lying for the past year. One or the other is a Lie, I don't care which one YOU pick as the liar, but both can't be the truth.

 

[JRK]

And those numbers I used are the unadjusted numbers FOX and the CON$ervoFascist echo chamber said are the numbers that have not been cooked to favor Obama by the BLS. But FOX didn't use the uncooked unadjusted numbers, did they? They used the adjusted numbers because they didn't favor Obama as they had previously claimed.

So they were either lying when they used the unadjusted numbers or they were lying when they used the seasonally adjusted numbers, but they couldn't be correct both times. As you know by now I always expose CON$ervoFascist lies by showing them on both sides of every issue.

However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.
So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


Read more: Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data | Fox Business

Again what are you trying to say here
I see one 2012 number of 6.3 that you said was a lie
it is not
you created this fictional event that never made any sense to me and still does not
stop while your ahead

Notice how after you posted a link that compared April 2011 to April 2012 to claim that no jobs were created when the UE rate went from 9% to 8.1% even though 2.237 million were created. And that same link showed that the number of people NILF who want a job went down, you have now shifted to 2009!!!
You fool no one by moving the goal posts.

Do what?
lets try this again
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,
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
That is the first big drop on the UE rate
Last month we had about the same event except we only created about 115k as I recall
we lost well over 300,000 in the labor force from March

I have no idea what 09 has to do with anything except the article you stated fox was lying about. You know I know a little bit about the law
Does therm slander mean anything to you?
I would watch calling an article by fox to be un true unless you can prove it as such
slander may not be the right word, yea calling one a liar when there not
That is being slanderous

 

[edthecynic]

How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?
Your statement is not accurate by that very reason

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.

That was the same for April 2012

thats 600,000 there alone

that killed your 50,000 a month right away over the labor force as just in those 2 months we lost at least that many
added close to 3 million in the not-in

this is why the 58.4% labor force to employed is remained that for 12 months
we have been through this 100 times
give it a rest

"How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?"

35 million.

pingy already gave you that report, try keeping up.

And not a single one of them were people who wanted a job, try keeping up. The number of people in the NILF group who WANT a job has been going down for the last lear.

 

[JRK]

How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?
Your statement is not accurate by that very reason

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.

That was the same for April 2012

thats 600,000 there alone

that killed your 50,000 a month right away over the labor force as just in those 2 months we lost at least that many
added close to 3 million in the not-in

this is why the 58.4% labor force to employed is remained that for 12 months
we have been through this 100 times
give it a rest

"How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?"

35 million.

pingy already gave you that report, try keeping up.

And not a single one of them were people who wanted a job, try keeping up. The number of people in the NILF group who WANT a job has been going down for the last lear.

what 100k?
and the not in has went up close to 3 million

what about the 340k that left the participation labor number
where did they go bud?
baby boomers?

 

[itfitzme]

The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs.

Well, that would be why there is U4, U5 and U6. I'm not sure I see your point.

So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.

Well, now you don't actually know how many workers dropped out of the labor force, now do you?

There is my point. We don't know unless we actually look at the flows.

 

[JRK]

The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs.

Well, that would be why there is U4, U5 and U6. I'm not sure I see your point.

So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.

Well, now you don't actually know how many workers dropped out of the labor force, now do you?

There is my point. We don't know unless we actually look at the flows.

according to CBS and BLS these are the numbers
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
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,

BLS has the April numbers at 300+ k lower than the March number
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[edthecynic]

However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.
So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


Read more: Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data | Fox Business

Again what are you trying to say here
I see one 2012 number of 6.3 that you said was a lie
it is not
you created this fictional event that never made any sense to me and still does not
stop while your ahead

Notice how after you posted a link that compared April 2011 to April 2012 to claim that no jobs were created when the UE rate went from 9% to 8.1% even though 2.237 million were created. And that same link showed that the number of people NILF who want a job went down, you have now shifted to 2009!!!
You fool no one by moving the goal posts.

Do what?
lets try this again
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,
November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News
That is the first big drop on the UE rate
Last month we had about the same event except we only created about 115k as I recall
we lost well over 300,000 in the labor force from March

I have no idea what 09 has to do with anything except the article you stated fox was lying about. You know I know a little bit about the law
Does therm slander mean anything to you?
I would watch calling an article by fox to be un true unless you can prove it as such
slander may not be the right word, yea calling one a liar when there not
That is being slanderous

Just because some people do not want the economy to improve does not mean that workers can't retire, go to school, get married and stay at home, and leave the labor force. Freedom means the freedom to leave the labor force!!!!

CON$ pretend to believe in freedom, but in practice they want to control every aspect of your life, including requiring you to work till you are too physically broken to work another day, and then to die. They pretend to support women staying home and taking care of the children, but if women with children want dignity then they better get to work. And staying in school after you turn 16 only leads to a Liberal brainwashing, so off to work with you.

CON$ are always on both sides of every issue depending on which way the wind blows at the moment.

People leave the labor force all the time, but people who want a job who are NILF has been going DOWN this past year. So these "would be employees" you are bitching about are not people who want a job, but who to CON$ should not be free to leave the workforce while a Democrat is president. Once a Republican becomes president and the NILF continues to rise, the CON$ will have no problem with it.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[edthecynic]

"How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?"

35 million.

pingy already gave you that report, try keeping up.

And not a single one of them were people who wanted a job, try keeping up. The number of people in the NILF group who WANT a job has been going down for the last lear.

what 100k?
and the not in has went up close to 3 million

what about the 340k that left the participation labor number
where did they go bud?
baby boomers?

Some are Boomers, some are children who just turned 16 and decided to stay in school, some are married people who stay at home to take care of their children or other family members, some are disabled, some leave the country, etc., there are lots of reasons people freely choose to leave the workforce.

As has been posted many times already, the NILF is broken down thusly:

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[itfitzme]

Again, the facts are available and the links have been posted many times, but since they do not support what you want it is simpler for you to just make the numbers up. The number of "ordinary unemployed" went down from 13,792,000 to 12,500,000 during the last 12 months, an average of 107.7k a month. As I pointed out in past posts, there is a conservative average of 100,000 jobs of retiring Boomers that get filled every month without creating a single new job.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

Could you switch to the unadjusted numbers? I see no reason to use the seasonally adjusted numbers when it is simply an estimate of what it would be if there was no seasonal variation. Yeah, if we are talking about averages, I suppose it works. But if we are going April to April, that takes care of the seasonal issue anyways, don't you think?

It gives an average of 111k per month, which is in line with your 107.7k

The number of people that moved from employment, directly to the NILF, was 3.7 million per month. The net flow, from employment to NILF, was 178 thousand.

And seeing that the majority of the increase in NILF was in the 16 to 24 group and the over 60 group, that 100k is do-able.


I ran these numbers for April to April

.............................April to April
...................Total.....AvgChgPerMonth.....%Chg
CPOPNSA:...........3638..........303............1.5%
CLFNSA:............1007 ..........84............0.7%
EmpLevelNSA:.......2334..........195............1.7%
UnempNSA:.........-1327.........-111..........-10.0%
NILFNSA:...........2631..........219............3.1%

.......................TotChg
EmpRatioNSA:............0.09%
UnempRateNSA:..........-0.92%

It is interesting to note that employment %chg just managed to exceed population. Unemployment percent change dropped considerably. Labor force didn't keep up very well, but the NILF categories suggest it is simply because people aren't joining, rather then because they dropped out. And NILF did increase, it seems for the combined reason of all that movement out of employment to NILF and just new non-workers never joining the LF.

Just for the heck of it, if you haven't seen these, the flows that are available are (april to april)

Description.....................Flow.....NetFlow
LFFEtoUn.......................25139
LFFUnToE.......................28459........3320
More people left unemployment to be employed then the other way round

LFFEtoNILF.....................44737
LFFNILFtoE.....................42598.......-2139
More people left employment to be not in labor force then other way around

LFFUnToNILF....................35093
LFFNILFtoUn....................33349.......-1744
More people left not in labor force to be unemployed then the other way around

More people left employment to NILF then left unemployment to NILF
More people went directly to employment from NILF then went from unemployment to NILF

That is actually interesting, that the bigger flow is between NILF and employment.

EmpToMargOutlofw................366
MargInflowsToE.................1517........1151
1.5 million joined employment directly from outside CPOP. Partly replacing the 360 thousand that left.

UnToOtherMargOutflows............31
MargInflowsToUn.................280........249

NILFToOtherMargOutflows........2291
MargInflowsToNILF..............4526........2235
4.5 million joined NILF from outside CPOP.

It is interesting that the absolute movement in and out is a factor of 10 to 20 larger then the net. It says something about the level of "churning". The differences that we see in the net levels are just the 10%-20% excess between the in and out flows.

We should keep in mind that 25,139,000 flow from employed to unemployed is a lot of jobs ended, just as 28,459,000 unemp to empl and 42,598,000 from nilf to empl is alot more jobs created then just the net numbers suggest. All in all, I would tend to believe that the factor of 10-20% applied across the board pretty well.

If ADP comes up with "120,000 jobs created", that is a net. Gross is more like "~1.20 million created with another 1.19 lost".

(Now, those are made up supposition numbers. Is there a way to find out exactly what it really is?)

The think that the 7.7+ million companies, with 160+ million jobs at an average 3.8 year employee turnover and 16.7 employees per company is way bigger then we tend to realize. There is a lot more churning about then we realize and the numbers that we get, even the published website stats, are just an "executive summary". (2000 numbers)

If 170 million jobs have an average length of 3.8 years, how many jobs end every year?

Your 100k estimate is within the bounds of the actual net average excess of employment to NILF which comes in at 178k (2139/12 = 178). Really, who typically leaves employment to go directly to not employed? No, really, who? Summer help, students, pregnant women, married with children and spouse has job, retirees? There is a limit to what people do.

There is a some other data that shows that the major contributor to NILF is, in fact, retirees.

 

[itfitzme]

Freedom means the freedom to leave the labor force!!!!

And it's a free market.

CON$ pretend to believe in freedom, but in practice they want to control every aspect of your life

Don't forget reproductive rights.

They pretend to support women staying home and taking care of the children, but if women with children want dignity then they better get to work.

I haven't caught that one.

And staying in school after you turn 16 only leads to a Liberal brainwashing, so off to work with you.

There is some evidence to this regard. Someone puts it as; for conservatives, families create adults and for liberals, adults create families. Basically, the attempt at control causes a rift, results in high teen pregnancy which forces them out of post secondary education and into raising a family. Of course, not ready, they learn to be adults by being "force" into it. Liberals, on the other hand, teach reproductive responsibility which allows them to get a post secondary education and when they are adults, they decide to start a family. What is interesting is that, in modern business climate with fewer factory jobs, the post secondary education becomes a requirement. The result is that liberal have a higher overall life time earnings. That's what one sociologist suggest, anyways.

CON$ are always on both sides of every issue depending on which way the wind blows at the moment.

It sure seems that way.

I don't subscribe to in-group/out-group thinking, ascribing all the average characteristics to everyone in a group, but it is weird how it starts to look that way.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Yeah, not I notice that the BLS divides it up into three age groups, which fits with the graduating crowd and retiring crowd.

I also happen to know that the BLS has a lot more details then we know about. And it kind of suggests that they have a good reason for dividing things up that way.

 

[itfitzme]

"How many people that were removed from the UE rate went to the not in category?"

35 million.

pingy already gave you that report, try keeping up.

And not a single one of them were people who wanted a job, try keeping up. The number of people in the NILF group who WANT a job has been going down for the last lear.

what 100k?
and the not in has went up close to 3 million

what about the 340k that left the participation labor number
where did they go bud?
baby boomers?

What 340k?