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

[pinqy]

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

First, there's no "available work force" number. I assume you just mean the Population (the adult civilian non institutional populaton)

Second, try this. List all the reasons someone would stop working and not look for a new job AND all the reasons someone who was looking for work would stop.

You're ignoring altogether that an increase in Not in the Labor Force can come from Employed, or Unemployed, or New entrants to the Population (someone turning 16 and not looking for work is a +1 to Not in the Labor Force).

Pingy you have no idea how the UE number works

I do this professionally. I meet with the BLS experts, Census experts, and economists and statisticians from many different countries on a regular basis. I've forgotten more about this stuff than you'll ever know.

There is a huge number of people who are no longer being counted in the available work force number, this is why UE has fell and job creation numbers went up

First, get your terms straight and use the proper terms used instead of making up your own. It's confusing.
There's the Adult Civilian Non Institutional Population, usually just called "Population." 16 years and older not in prison or other institution or the military.

Labor Force: Employed + Unemployed (possibly what you mean by "available workforce" but since there's no "unavailable workforce" what you actually mean is confusing.

Employed: Worked during the reference week.

Unemployed: Did not work during the reference week, actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, could have accepted a job if offered.

Not in the Labor Force: everyone else in the population...those who don't want a job, those who can't take a job, and those who aren't trying to get a job.

The UE rate is calculated by takin those "working" divided by those available, the difference from 100% is the UE rate.[/qutoe] No, it's not. It's Unemployed divided by the Labor Force. Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed).

Those who are in the "Not in work force" are not counted

Why would they be? The purpose of the UE rate is to see how much available labor is not being used. People Not in the Labor Force are not available for work.

Do your DD on it, but there are many reasons as to why one would enter the "not in work force number" many are legitimate such as retiring, dis ability, etc...
The problem today is that number has exploded while the "in work force number" is falling, but not at the same pace

And as I pointed out, some of that was do to an undercount that the Census corrected. Otherwise, it's just how it is...a lower percent of the population is trying to work, that's why the Labor Force % is lower. MOST of the people Not in the Labor Force don't want to work. Only a small percent is due to discouragement.

There is so many people who have fell off of the radar due to being UE for so long.

How do you figure? There's no time limit or "falling off the radar." Since it's not an actual count, how could anyone fall off the radar?

Tell you what....you don't like how the UE rate is calculated, give your suggestion. Define all your terms precisely and give your formulas.

 

[pinqy]

I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

He's not making that claim.

 

[Trajan]

ADP report: Private sector adds 119,000 jobs in April - May. 2, 2012

So......nutters..........what data do you think real Americans will focus on?

You guys suck dick.

ADP can be off by a bit, thats really low.... we'll see tomorrow.

IF the number is anywhere below 200K we are right back to last summer, again.



Oh, and from the theatre of the absurd; the rate mayactually go down too

....

 

[Trajan]

I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

He's not making that claim.

ok, so what claim is he making? example- that a retiree that has filed and is collecting SSI at oh, age 69 is a labor force participant there fore counted in the LFPR? OR NOT?

 

[Trajan]

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

you're such a mess dude....really. go away somewhere, a drip, a padded room, have a ' lie down' as they say in merry ole....

 

[pinqy]

I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

He's not making that claim.

ok, so what claim is he making? example- that a retiree that has filed and is collecting SSI at oh, age 69 is a labor force participant there fore counted in the LFPR? OR NOT?

Some are, some aren't. Actually, the LFPR for 65+ has increased the last few years. BUT the % of the population 65+ has increased and a large number are NOT in the labor force. So the increased number of retirees (whether they retire at 65, 75, or 95 is irrelevant) means more retirees as a percent of the population and therefore a negative effct on the LFPR.

When I have time, I'll look at the numbers.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

I praise BHO visiting the troops no matter the politics
Job report according to ADP is no existent for April
News Headlines
If this continues BHO loses in a land slide. I have down 31-19 right now

did you accept the given up looking people numbers under Bush?

I know you want us to fail so you can gain poltical points but the American people are not with you on that one

 

[Truthmatters]

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

you're such a mess dude....really. go away somewhere, a drip, a padded room, have a ' lie down' as they say in merry ole....

Do you deny the boomers are begining to retire?

 

[JRK]

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.

You're mischaracterizing the Not in the Labor Force, want a job now number. It is NOT just people who have "given up."
And while Not in the Labor Force increased 1.6 million, Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now only went up 360,000
Here's how it actually works:
In the survey people are asked if they worked in the previous week. If yes, they are employed.

If no, they are asked if they want to work, if they could have taken a job in the previous week if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks.

If yes to all three, they are Unemployed. If no to any of those three, they are Not in the Labor Force.

If they said they want a job, but either couldn't take one or didn't look, they are in the 6.3 million you mention. Note that this is hypothetical..."Do you want a job?" regardless of if they could actually work or ever looked or ever had a job. So certainly NOT all "given up."

If they want a job AND could have accepted work, AND looked in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks, they are "Marginally Attached." That number was 2.35 million in March.

In other words, most of the people saying they "want a job now" either couldn't take a job if handed to them or hadn't looked in over a year, which makes their claim a little dubious.
But even this 2.35 million arent' people who have "given up," but rather "stopped." There's a difference. Common reasons for no longer looking are Family issues, illness, injury, transportation problems, school. None of those are "given up," but are non labor market reasons for no longer looking.

If the specific reason for no longer looking is Discouragement (the belief that they wouldn't find work) then those people are "Discouraged Workers" and that was 865,000

So of the 6 million not in the labor force who want a job now, only 14% "gave up."

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

How is that artificial?

This is the numbers from the not in labor force
look at that jump from Nov 11 to Jan 2012
my god that 1,6 million people that are not in the available work force
Why is that? How can that be?

Because up until Dec 2011, the population figures used were based on the 2000 Census and adjusted each month based on estimates from the monthly household survey and adjusted again for the Jan figures based on Census recalculations. The Jan 2012 population data was based on the 2010 Census (and subsequent estimates) and the population was adjusted upwards by about 1.7 million. 1.5 million of that were for those Not in the Labor Force (over 65 and 16 to 24 age groups had been undercounted).

That's why the leap. But since that addition did not come from the Labor Force, it had no effect on the UE rate (despite zero hedge's claims). The Labor Force INCREASED from Dec to Jan.

I knew that, I just wanted you to put it in writing
That ever person fit in those categories
Look the number in the "not in work force" is a lie
The entire thing is a mess

Working
not working, but in the work force unless retired, disabled, under 18, going to school

The number that "not in the work force" is sky rocketing
the Fox link appears to have used numbers previously to Aprils number, that is sad when the April number is just as bad, and by using the not in work force number is far worse

My issue is how can one change so drastically and the other not?

It is a farce. You know as well as I do the number of UE is way over 14%. I have worked non stop from 1977 until 2003, had a brief time when work was hard to find and then until 2011, here I am again
This time I have many friends in the same boat, and not for the Pipe line from Canada I would have worked from 2010 through 2011 as the company I worked for added to one of the refineries that will receive that product in SE Texas

 

[JRK]

People the issue here is simple. We keep debating if a 8.4 UE rate is ok (closer to who knows reallt what, I think some of the polling data has it at 9%)
are you kidding me?
we went from the 80s until 2009 with a 5-7% UE rate with 90% of that in the 5s
We are debating of "in work force" and "not in" numbers than make 0 sense, there all over the place with one obvious conclusion, they never go to a place in which it would bring harm to the UE rate

We have close to 6 million fewer people working today than in 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt


2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

 

[pinqy]

I knew that, I just wanted you to put it in writing
That ever person fit in those categories

Every person (in the population) does fit in one of those categories.

Look the number in the "not in work force" is a lie

Why????? That you don't like the definition doesn't make it a "lie."

not working, but in the work force unless retired, disabled, under 18, going to school

Well, some retired people have post retirement jobs, many disabled work, many people under 18 work, and many students have part time jobs. Would you not include any of them as either employed or unemployed??? And you're including stay-home spouses and independently wealthy, and potheads living in their mother's basement in the work force. Why?

Try again....First define your population (BLS excludes under 16, military, prisoners, and the institutionalized).

Then define your Labor Force. Who's in it and why. What definition of Unemployed are you using or are you not using one at all?

Then who's not in the Labor Force and why.

Remember, all definitions must be exclusive. You can't have 2 people in identical circumstances and one is unemployed and the other not.

My issue is how can one change so drastically and the other not?

Because the population has increased, but a lower number of people joined the work force and a large number dropped out.

While we can't really measure them (too subjective) there are many people that we call "loosely attached" to the Labor Force. These are people who don't necessarily "need" a job to live, but will take a job if the money is right. Example: When I was in high school, my father made enough to support the family on his own salary. But my mother wanted some extra money and to get out of the house, so she took a min wage full time job. My sister and I both had part time jobs. Well, my mother eventually got tired of the job and quit...going from employed to Not in the Labor Force. I went away to school and quit my job without wanting another one....going from employed to Not in the Labor Force. And there are plenty of others like that....Spouses and students and retirees wanting extra money. And then there are those who never stay employeed long, crash at friends' houses, never really wanting steady work.

When times get hard, all the above people drop out first and don't bother looking for work, because they don't need it.

You know as well as I do the number of UE is way over 14%.

I know no such thing. You'd have to be using some funky definition. Even if you add in everyone who says they want a job (regardless of whether they could take one or not and taking them at their word that they really want one), that would only raise the rate to 11.8% (math available on request).


I have worked non stop from 1977 until 2003, had a brief time when work was hard to find and then until 2011, here I am again
This time I have many friends in the same boat, and not for the Pipe line from Canada I would have worked from 2010 through 2011 as the company I worked for added to one of the refineries that will receive that product in SE Texas[/QUOTE]

 

[pinqy]

People the issue here is simple. We keep debating if a 8.4 UE rate is ok (closer to who knows reallt what, I think some of the polling data has it at 9%)
are you kidding me?
we went from the 80s until 2009 with a 5-7% UE rate with 90% of that in the 5s
We are debating of "in work force" and "not in" numbers than make 0 sense, there all over the place with one obvious conclusion, they never go to a place in which it would bring harm to the UE rate

We have close to 6 million fewer people working today than in 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt


2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

Let's do this...instead of the UE rate (which is % of the Labor Force) let's look at Unemployed as % of the population, and we'll split the Not in the Labor Force into "don't want job" and "do want job". Note that the "do want job" is made up of people who aren't available to work and/or aren't trying to work.

March 2008, Population: 232,995,000 with 62.3% Working, 3.4% Looking for Work, 1.9% not looking for work but say they wanted to, and 32.3% didn't want to work.

March 2012, Population 242,604,000 with 58.3% working, 5.3% Looking for Work, 2.5% not looking but say they wanted to, and 33.9% didn't want to work.

What about that is unreasonable? Not that you don't like it, but what specifically makes you think there's a "lie?" People reported what they reported.

 

[Oldstyle]

By cutting education and refusing to invest in American infrastructure and supporting companies that move jobs to China, Republican vow to keep unemployment very, very high. It's part of their "economic policy". So right wingers should quit bitching about what your leaders are doing. If you don't like their policies, vote them out of office. You can't support their policies and then complain about those same policies. Makes you look unstable.

Gee, Deanie...Barry got all that money for infrastructure investment in the stimulus and what did he do with it? Oh, that's right...his "shovel ready jobs" that turned out not to exist. As for supporting companies that export jobs to China? Barry's "Jobs Czar" Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric moved thousands of jobs to China.

Barack Obama hasn't done ANYTHING to create jobs in this country since taking office. His policies have consistently hurt job growth and continue to do so. There are currently 13 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed that suffer because Barry's progressive agenda didn't include job growth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

He's not making that claim.

Yes he is making that claim.

 

[edthecynic]

Popular wisdom has been that, as they hit retirement age, baby boomers will leave the workforce in large numbers. Now a news report says that many baby boomers may defer retirement because of poor finances and too much debt. If true, that may be good news for clinical laboratories and pathology groups across the United States.

Read more: Why Many Baby Boomers May Not Likely Retire When They Hit 65 | Dark Daily Why Many Baby Boomers May Not Likely Retire When They Hit 65 | Dark Daily

If you had read what I posted you would have seen that while over 3 million Boomers reach retirement age each year, only a million of them retire. Nowhere did I say that every Boomer that reaches retirement age retires immediately, that is just your Straw Man to distract from the fact that 100,000 Boomers a month actually do retire so 100,000 people leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retirees, without a single NEW job being created. So if 120,000 new jobs were created in a month, 220,000 workers move from the unemployed column to the employed column.

Blah blah blah numbers of baby boomers are retiring blah blah blah blah
that's what I read. I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

And I have posted it over and over and every time I post it you run away to another thread only to pretend it was never posted.

Here it is again. Do the math and you see that more than 1 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf
Table 2 page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012
Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers.

 

[pinqy]

I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

He's not making that claim.

Yes he is making that claim.

No, he's saying that as more people are 65 and over, there will be more retirees. This is true regardless of what age they are when they retire.

 

[JRK]

People the issue here is simple. We keep debating if a 8.4 UE rate is ok (closer to who knows reallt what, I think some of the polling data has it at 9%)
are you kidding me?
we went from the 80s until 2009 with a 5-7% UE rate with 90% of that in the 5s
We are debating of "in work force" and "not in" numbers than make 0 sense, there all over the place with one obvious conclusion, they never go to a place in which it would bring harm to the UE rate

We have close to 6 million fewer people working today than in 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt


2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

Let's do this...instead of the UE rate (which is % of the Labor Force) let's look at Unemployed as % of the population, and we'll split the Not in the Labor Force into "don't want job" and "do want job". Note that the "do want job" is made up of people who aren't available to work and/or aren't trying to work.

March 2008, Population: 232,995,000 with 62.3% Working, 3.4% Looking for Work, 1.9% not looking for work but say they wanted to, and 32.3% didn't want to work.

March 2012, Population 242,604,000 with 58.3% working, 5.3% Looking for Work, 2.5% not looking but say they wanted to, and 33.9% didn't want to work.

What about that is unreasonable? Not that you don't like it, but what specifically makes you think there's a "lie?" People reported what they reported.

I guess it comes to a point of trust here
Lie may have been the wrong word. I deal in numbers and when numbers start stacking up in a place that there is reason one begins to start looking around
I have heard the changing demographic argument allot also.

I do not know where you live, but this economy is a mess within 100s of miles of my home
When the UE rate goes from 9 to 8.6 (going off of memory here) in 4 weeks with a month no different in job growth than the last month made me start paying attention (I day trade stocks also) and the more I DD this stuff the more I realized what a mess it really is, its a political item no different than any other item that can be swung one way or the other because it involves people that have agendas

I can use the "not in work force number" every day all day and no matter how any-one tries to justify the 1.6 million person spurt, they cannot explain why the other number was not effected the same

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He's not making that claim.

Yes he is making that claim.

No, he's saying that as more people are 65 and over, there will be more retirees. This is true regardless of what age they are when they retire.

Here is what he's saying

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

Stop lying for him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you had read what I posted you would have seen that while over 3 million Boomers reach retirement age each year, only a million of them retire. Nowhere did I say that every Boomer that reaches retirement age retires immediately, that is just your Straw Man to distract from the fact that 100,000 Boomers a month actually do retire so 100,000 people leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retirees, without a single NEW job being created. So if 120,000 new jobs were created in a month, 220,000 workers move from the unemployed column to the employed column.

Blah blah blah numbers of baby boomers are retiring blah blah blah blah
that's what I read. I have asked you many times to post some information to support your claim that those baby boomers have chosen to retire at 65

And I have posted it over and over and every time I post it you run away to another thread only to pretend it was never posted.

Here it is again. Do the math and you see that more than 1 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf
Table 2 page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012
Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers.

Receiving benefits is not retiring. My father is 80 and is still working. People can get benefits and not be retired
So show me the actual number of people retiring not the numbers of people getting benefits.

 

[Trajan]

He's not making that claim.

ok, so what claim is he making? example- that a retiree that has filed and is collecting SSI at oh, age 69 is a labor force participant there fore counted in the LFPR? OR NOT?

Some are, some aren't. Actually, the LFPR for 65+ has increased the last few years. BUT the % of the population 65+ has increased and a large number are NOT in the labor force. So the increased number of retirees (whether they retire at 65, 75, or 95 is irrelevant) means more retirees as a percent of the population and therefore a negative effct on the LFPR.

When I have time, I'll look at the numbers.

Ok, fair enough, so you see my point then and what I am really asking or remarking upon?

we cannot claim that the # of discouraged workers ( who are dropped from the LPR) are all retirees, IF retirees are not included in the LF count, IF they are, then, the number is , well meaningless in a large and important context.

I realize that there is cyclical structural and secular issue(s) at work here, the key is what % of each is predominant/responsible.

At ( to be kind) 200K jobs a month, just 75K ( to be kind again I took the low new entrant #required of 125K) eating into the Labor pool of unemployed, the rates we are given are not related to reality and watching that number drop at the same time is, well, no wonder few trust the gov. anymore.

I'll be here... just please...I beg of you, be logical, be civil, that's all I ask.