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

[bigrebnc1775]

BULLSHIT!!!
I said that 100,000 Boomers retire each month and their jobs are filled removing 100,000 from the unemployed rolls without creating a single NEW job and that 100,000 should be added to the new jobs created total to get the accurate number of people who have become employed each month. Everything else you CON$ say is just your Straw Man because you can't contradict the facts. Obviously that 100,000 figure is very conservative!!!

I'm sure you can show a source to support your opinion and not the source you have been using that shows who receiving benefits because there are a lot of people who are working that are receiving SS MY 80 YEAR OLD FATHER IS ONE OF THEM.

My Uncle is one
come to think of it i know quite a few people who are in the work force and getting SS, so my 61 million number has people working in it

Yep I know many people who should be retired getting SS and are still working 40 hours a week.

 

[edthecynic]

He does not know, there is only 38 million over 65 retired (getting SS any-way)
The "not in" number is 88 million
Has he been trying claim the not-in number was all about baby boomers?
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012

BULLSHIT!!!
I said that 100,000 Boomers retire each month and their jobs are filled removing 100,000 from the unemployed rolls without creating a single NEW job and that 100,000 should be added to the new jobs created total to get the accurate number of people who have become employed each month. Everything else you CON$ say is just your Straw Man because you can't contradict the facts. Obviously that 100,000 figure is very conservative!!!

Dude your the one saying things
That other man has asked you for pages to back your baby boom claim up
u keep on and on with spun out spin that has nothing to do with his question, So I went an looked

There is no data, the data I found I copied and explained

You need to chill out, stop trying to con people who have been around

The info was already posted. The AARP study below said that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. At 10,000 Boomers a day turning 65 that's 5,400 Boomers retiring every day, and over 150,000 retiring every month. Not every retiree's job will be filled by a replacement worker which is why I used the very conservative number of 100,000 retiree jobs filled every month without creating a single NEW job.

[PDF]
Approaching 65: A Survey of Baby Boomers Turning 65 Years Old
http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
..., this survey of boomers approaching 65 indicates that over half (54%) are already retired.

 

[Annie]

I'm sure you can show a source to support your opinion and not the source you have been using that shows who receiving benefits because there are a lot of people who are working that are receiving SS MY 80 YEAR OLD FATHER IS ONE OF THEM.

My Uncle is one
come to think of it i know quite a few people who are in the work force and getting SS, so my 61 million number has people working in it

Yep I know many people who should be retired getting SS and are still working 40 hours a week.

This post sums it up! Those that thought they'd be retired 10 years ago, can't. Yet, they've lost their jobs and are short. They'll be working until they're 80. Damn, those baby boomers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My Uncle is one
come to think of it i know quite a few people who are in the work force and getting SS, so my 61 million number has people working in it

Yep I know many people who should be retired getting SS and are still working 40 hours a week.

This post sums it up! Those that thought they'd be retired 10 years ago, can't. Yet, they've lost their jobs and are short. They'll be working until they're 80. Damn, those baby boomers.

My mother was almost at retirement age when the textile mill she was working at shut down thanks to clintons NAFTA. She went on unemployment found a job at Kmart hit retirement age and went to work for the school system. Been doing that for 10 years. I don't think my parents will ever retire.

 

[edthecynic]

He does not know, there is only 38 million over 65 retired (getting SS any-way)
The "not in" number is 88 million
Has he been trying claim the not-in number was all about baby boomers?
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012

He's been saying 10,000 a month will retire, and yes I think that's exactly what his claim is

The US population grows by 352,000 a month. 10,000 retiring boomers a month is absolutely no excuse for plummeting employment.

I'm getting sick and tired of you CON$ changing what I said so you can have a Straw Man to attack!!!
I said 100,000 (that's one hundred thousand) Boomer retiree job get filled by replacement workers every month without ever creating a single NEW job. There are over 150,000 Boomers retiring every month but not all retiree jobs are filled with a replacement worker which is why I used the very conservative 100,000 estimate.
Get IT?

 

[edthecynic]

My Uncle is one
come to think of it i know quite a few people who are in the work force and getting SS, so my 61 million number has people working in it

Yep I know many people who should be retired getting SS and are still working 40 hours a week.

This post sums it up! Those that thought they'd be retired 10 years ago, can't. Yet, they've lost their jobs and are short. They'll be working until they're 80. Damn, those baby boomers.

Yeah, and I know people who have retired and don't collect SS and do no work or do strictly volunteer work, so it evens out.

The fact remains that the AARP study I cited shows that 54% of Boomers have already retired by age 65.

 

[FireFly]

Yep I know many people who should be retired getting SS and are still working 40 hours a week.

This post sums it up! Those that thought they'd be retired 10 years ago, can't. Yet, they've lost their jobs and are short. They'll be working until they're 80. Damn, those baby boomers.

My mother was almost at retirement age when the textile mill she was working at shut down thanks to clintons NAFTA. She went on unemployment found a job at Kmart hit retirement age and went to work for the school system. Been doing that for 10 years. I don't think my parents will ever retire.

Yup! - My parents are 75 & still working hard every day. They would have to sell everything for a good price to retire & they can't fetch a good price for anything in this economy.

 

[Conservative]

denying cold hard demonstratable facts is just plain stupid

yeah, like you denying the cold hard facts that the GDP isnt where it should be?

 

[Annie]

Yep I know many people who should be retired getting SS and are still working 40 hours a week.

This post sums it up! Those that thought they'd be retired 10 years ago, can't. Yet, they've lost their jobs and are short. They'll be working until they're 80. Damn, those baby boomers.

Yeah, and I know people who have retired and don't collect SS and do no work or do strictly volunteer work, so it evens out.

The fact remains that the AARP study I cited shows that 54% of Boomers have already retired by age 65.

BS. It doesn't 'even out.' Only you that have it comfy think so.

 

[itfitzme]

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." - Barack Obama"

It's pretty bad when you have to lie to make a point.

Does it occur to you that if you have to lie to prove a point, then you are wrong?

It was written by John Gross of Quebec, as a parody of John McCain who would say, "My friends..."

Not very bright, FireFly. Pretty much let's me know that you have no credibility. You will believe anything.

But let's not forget this famous quote,

"Hey, you want to buy some kiddy porn?" - FireFly

Really, I don't appreciate being PMed. I don't want to see your child pornography.

--------------------------------
Here is what Mark Steyn says, the original source of the parody.

Obama, Political Viagra - Mark Steyn - National Review Online

"A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine John Gross of Quebec sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.

I thought this was so cute, I posted it on "The Corner." Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Senator Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting emails from reporters from Florida to Oregon asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator in fact uttered these words. And I'd patiently write back and explain that they're John Gross's words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public."

PolitiFact | A made-up quote goes global

"Obama never made the remark. It originated in a Jan. 28, 2008, blog post on The Corner, a blog at National Review Online. The poster was Mark Steyn, the Canadian columnist, author and conservative commentator, who was passing along a made-up, tongue-in-cheek stump speech crafted by a "correspondent of mine." Steyn, whose work appears in many newspapers and is a frequent guest on conservative radio and TV, has his own Web site.

Said Victoria Ayrsmith, an assistant editor at SteynOnline.com: "The alleged quote is, in fact, a letter from one of Mark's readers, who devised a parodic all-purpose stump speech written in the aftermath of Iowa and New Hampshire when Senators McCain and Clinton were claiming to be 'agents of change.' There is no mention of Barack Obama anywhere in the item at all."

Quoth Obama?

"The irony is, Obama said no such thing.

It's a spoof, originally posted on Mark Steyn's blog on NationalReview.com. What's more, Obama wasn't even its intended target -- John McCain was.

To quote Mr. Steyn's January 28, 2008 posting:

Three weeks ago, after New Hampshire, when Hill and McCain and the gang were all bragging about being "agents of change," a (non-U.S.) correspondent of mine emailed me his all-purpose stump speech for this primary season: "

Obama "idiot quote"-Fiction!

"The Truth:
We have not found any occasion when Barack Obama has said or written this exact quote.

The eRumor began circulating in June, 2008 during Obama's bid for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

The thrust of Obama's campaign has been "change" in Washington D.C. so whoever created this hoax quotation thought it would be cute if he both described the nation as the best and, at the same time, said let's change it."

FactCheck.org : Obama Quote Rumors

"Q: Did Obama urge supporters to help him change "the greatest nation in the history of the world"?

A: No. Obama never said what’s being attributed to him in a number of chain e-mail messages. The line was meant as a joke about John McCain, Hillary Clinton and politicians in general."

snopes.com: Greatest Nation

"False"

 

[LoneLaugher]

Am I mistaken.......or are some of you dummies applauding the fact that your elderly parents have been so screwed by nutter economic policies that they have to keep working well beyond their anticipated retirement age?

Forget applauding.....are you accepting of that fact?

Assholes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He's been saying 10,000 a month will retire, and yes I think that's exactly what his claim is

The US population grows by 352,000 a month. 10,000 retiring boomers a month is absolutely no excuse for plummeting employment.

I'm getting sick and tired of you CON$ changing what I said so you can have a Straw Man to attack!!!
I said 100,000 (that's one hundred thousand) Boomer retiree job get filled by replacement workers every month without ever creating a single NEW job. There are over 150,000 Boomers retiring every month but not all retiree jobs are filled with a replacement worker which is why I used the very conservative 100,000 estimate.
Get IT?

Even better where is your source to support that 100,000 baby boomers are retiring each month?
You had a chance with 10,000 but ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND BABY BOOMERS RETIRING A MONTH. Prove it.

 

[itfitzme]

At some point, in trying to read the thread, I just got lost in "If you take out these...", "but you can't take these out...." Yikes! Good job on some one's part, trying to keep it objective and just the numbers.

I got a sense that it had to do with the labor force. And the question being if the unemployment numbers are lower because people are dropping out of the labor force.

The straight up levels don't really mean much, not when the total population keeps increasing. So we have to do ratios.

The fact that unemployment, employment, and labor force ratios are based on an increasing population bothered me. There is this changing denominator and we don't visualize ratios with a changing denominator very well.

I was going to go with Emp/(Emp+Unemp) but that doesn't help because unemployment going down just shifts people to employment with no net change in labor force. And it doesn't give a sense of the issue that population is increasing so the real issue is if everything else is increasing proportionally or not.

So here is the labor force level.

So what's the problem? It looks like it has all the seasonality that we expect, and that seasonality is consistent over the years. The seasonal variation is huge, by comparison to the trend. But that is usually why seasonal adjustment is done, to try and see the trend beneath the variance.

Looks like it's been going up, not down, in the recent months.

I just don't see the "retirees" or "people dropping out", not since the beginning of 2011 anyways.

I get what some want it to be, that people are dropping out relatively faster than they should be and people aren't joining as fast as they should. And as such, the labor force is falling.

But, you know what, "should be" is always generally not even reality. Reality is what is, not what didn't happen.

The other thing is that, in fact, it isn't even that nefarious. In fact, the labor force to population falling is a natural outcome of the fact that the underlying population is increasing.

I'm still looking for a good single number that captures it all. The problems with all of the measures is that the population is growing underneath everything. If the labor force was perfectly flat, with no additions and no drop outs, then LF to CPOP ratio would decline simply because population is coming up underneath. For labor force to CPOP ratio to remain steady, LF level must increase.

That's why I prefer a ratio of whatever to civilian population. I'd rather use total population but the estimates just aren't as precise as civilian non-institutionalized population.

So here we have employment to CPOP.

It has been fairly flat since 2010. Yeah, it has this ever so slight downward trend from 2010 to 2011, then an ever slight upward trend from 2011 to 2012. The seasonal variance is huge compared to the trend. And it is pretty big by comparison.

At the very least, it says that jobs are keeping up with population growth. And there is no "dropping out" or "retiring" from the CPOP.

Here is the really odd effect. So employment to CPOP is steady because employment, as a percentage of CPOP is increasing at much as CPOP. CPOP increases by x%, employment increases by x%, and the ratio remains constant.

Now, unemployment as a percentage of CPOP has been decreasing. That's the difference between the green line and the blue line. That's the difference between the LF/CPOP and EMP/CPOP. The only way that can happen, if employment is keeping up with population and unemployment is declining, is for LF/CPOP to decline.

What's that mean? It means that LF/CPOP is declining because CPOP is coming up underneath it.

Sure, we would like LF/CPOP to remained steady or increased. Sure, we would like EMP/CPOP to increase. And we would like both of these while UNEMP/CPOP is declining. But they aren't all happening simultaneously. The fact that LF/CPOP is declining doesn't mean all that much. It just means that CPOP is getting bigger underneath it. People aren't entering the labor force as fast as the CPOP is increasing. (Find those numbers). That's the facts jack. We know because LF is increasing, not falling.

It's like this, algebraically

LF/CPOP = Unemp/CPOP + Emp/CPOP

or

LF/CPOP = Unemp/CPOP + Constant

and

LF/CPOP has to go down if Unemp/CPOP is going down.

Or look at it this way,

LF/CPOP - Unemp/CPOP = Constant

If unemployment as a percentage of CPOP is decreasing, then LF as a percentage of CPOP must decrease for Emp as a percentage of CPOP to remain constant. Sure, it would be better if LF/CPOP was constant and Emp/CPOP was increasing. But it isn't.

The net result is

(Sorry, should have changed that graph title)

Yes, employment/LF is increasing. And it's not because people are dropping out of the labor force in droves. It's just that employment and the labor force are both really a percentage of the total population and the labor force just isn't increasing as much as we would like it to. Employment as a level is going up and the labor force as a level isn't going up as quickly as we would like. But they are both going up.

So if you go and look at LF/CPOP, you may think that you've found something. But you haven't. It's just an awkward situation where EMP/CPOP is constant, UNEMP/CPOP is falling, LF/CPOP must fall.

There is nothing nefarious about it. It is odd because numbers that are based on a changing denominator are simply not intuitive. We don't do "intuitive" with a changing denominator. Nothing in our day to day experience is based on ratios with a changing denominator. We don't deal with ratios of things that are growing.

It's not like we are use to the slices of a pie where the pie keeps getting bigger. But that is basically what it is, CPOP is the whole pie, LF is a big section of it, and EMP plus UNEMP divides up LF. And as the pie is expanding, EMP is getting bigger with the pie. UNEMP is getting smaller, and LF just isn't growing as quickly as the pie. It's still getting bigger, just not as fast. (You can check the actual numbers.)

It's just this odd situation where the changes are right on the edge of where the ratios aren't intuitive.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

At some point, in trying to read the thread, I just got lost in "If you take out these...", "but you can't take these out...." Yikes! Good job on some one's part, trying to keep it objective and just the numbers.

I got a sense that it had to do with the labor force. And the question being if the unemployment numbers are lower because people are dropping out of the labor force.

The straight up levels don't really mean much, not when the total population keeps increasing. So we have to do ratios.

The fact that unemployment, employment, and labor force ratios are based on an increasing population bothered me. There is this changing denominator and we don't visualize ratios with a changing denominator very well.

I was going to go with Emp/(Emp+Unemp) but that doesn't help because unemployment going down just shifts people to employment with no net change in labor force. And it doesn't give a sense of the issue that population is increasing so the real issue is if everything else is increasing proportionally or not.

So here is the labor force level.

So what's the problem? It looks like it has all the seasonality that we expect, and that seasonality is consistent over the years. The seasonal variation is huge, by comparison to the trend. But that is usually why seasonal adjustment is done, to try and see the trend beneath the variance.

Looks like it's been going up, not down, in the recent months.

I just don't see the "retirees" or "people dropping out", not since the beginning of 2011 anyways.

I get what some want it to be, that people are dropping out relatively faster than they should be and people aren't joining as fast as they should. And as such, the labor force is falling.

But, you know what, "should be" is always generally not even reality. Reality is what is, not what didn't happen.

The other thing is that, in fact, it isn't even that nefarious. In fact, the labor force to population falling is a natural outcome of the fact that the underlying population is increasing.

I'm still looking for a good single number that captures it all. The problems with all of the measures is that the population is growing underneath everything. If the labor force was perfectly flat, with no additions and no drop outs, then LF to CPOP ratio would decline simply because population is coming up underneath. For labor force to CPOP ratio to remain steady, LF level must increase.

That's why I prefer a ratio of whatever to civilian population. I'd rather use total population but the estimates just aren't as precise as civilian non-institutionalized population.

So here we have employment to CPOP.

It has been fairly flat since 2010. Yeah, it has this ever so slight downward trend from 2010 to 2011, then an ever slight upward trend from 2011 to 2012. The seasonal variance is huge compared to the trend. And it is pretty big by comparison.

At the very least, it says that jobs are keeping up with population growth. And there is no "dropping out" or "retiring" from the CPOP.

Here is the really odd effect. So employment to CPOP is steady because employment, as a percentage of CPOP is increasing at much as CPOP. CPOP increases by x%, employment increases by x%, and the ratio remains constant.

Now, unemployment as a percentage of CPOP has been decreasing. That's the difference between the green line and the blue line. That's the difference between the LF/CPOP and EMP/CPOP. The only way that can happen, if employment is keeping up with population and unemployment is declining, is for LF/CPOP to decline.

What's that mean? It means that LF/CPOP is declining because CPOP is coming up underneath it.

Sure, we would like LF/CPOP to remained steady or increased. Sure, we would like EMP/CPOP to increase. And we would like both of these while UNEMP/CPOP is declining. But they aren't all happening simultaneously. The fact that LF/CPOP is declining doesn't mean all that much. It just means that CPOP is getting bigger underneath it. People aren't entering the labor force as fast as the CPOP is increasing. (Find those numbers). That's the facts jack. We know because LF is increasing, not falling.

It's like this, algebraically

LF/CPOP = Unemp/CPOP + Emp/CPOP

or

LF/CPOP = Unemp/CPOP + Constant

and

LF/CPOP has to go down if Unemp/CPOP is going down.

Or look at it this way,

LF/CPOP - Unemp/CPOP = Constant

If unemployment as a percentage of CPOP is decreasing, then LF as a percentage of CPOP must decrease for Emp as a percentage of CPOP to remain constant. Sure, it would be better if LF/CPOP was constant and Emp/CPOP was increasing. But it isn't.

The net result is

(Sorry, should have changed that graph title)

Yes, employment/LF is increasing. And it's not because people are dropping out of the labor force in droves. It's just that employment and the labor force are both really a percentage of the total population and the labor force just isn't increasing as much as we would like it to. Employment as a level is going up and the labor force as a level isn't going up as quickly as we would like. But they are both going up.

So if you go and look at LF/CPOP, you may think that you've found something. But you haven't. It's just an awkward situation where EMP/CPOP is constant, UNEMP/CPOP is falling, LF/CPOP must fall.

There is nothing nefarious about it. It is odd because numbers that are based on a changing denominator are simply not intuitive. We don't do "intuitive" with a changing denominator. Nothing in our day to day experience is based on ratios with a changing denominator. We don't deal with ratios of things that are growing.

It's not like we are use to the slices of a pie where the pie keeps getting bigger. But that is basically what it is, CPOP is the whole pie, LF is a big section of it, and EMP plus UNEMP divides up LF. And as the pie is expanding, EMP is getting bigger with the pie. UNEMP is getting smaller, and LF just isn't growing as quickly as the pie. It's still getting bigger, just not as fast. (You can check the actual numbers.)

It's just this odd situation where the changes are right on the edge of where the ratios aren't intuitive.

You're using obama's labor department numbers. And we already know that if you are unemployed receiving unemployment benefits and your benefits are exhausted you are no longer considered unemployed by obama's labor department. Which gives us false numbers and anyone using they false numbers will not show the true numbers of unemployed Americans.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Scientific Explanation, meet Dumbassed Reply.

You two have nothing in common, but seem to have gotten yourselves into a conversation. They say opposites attract.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Scientific Explanation, meet Dumbassed Reply.

You two have nothing in common, but seem to have gotten yourselves into a conversation. They say opposites attract.

Yet here we have another dumb ass comment from the sill lone clown. Facts are hard for you too discuss.
Fact one when you have exhausted your unemployment benefits you are no longer considered unemployed. According to the obama labor department.

 

[pinqy]

And we already know that if you are unemployed receiving unemployment benefits and your benefits are exhausted you are no longer considered unemployed by obama's labor department.

You realize that no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it'll never be true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And we already know that if you are unemployed receiving unemployment benefits and your benefits are exhausted you are no longer considered unemployed by obama's labor department.

You realize that no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it'll never be true.

Show me where I am wrong? if there's a lie you're defending it. We've been through this before do I have to beat you down again?

 

[KissMy]

April BLS Jobs numbers just came out & jobs are slowing.

 

[Katzndogz]

The report is dismal. Since this regime lies to make things look better than they are, what are the real numbers?