As More Americans Stop Looking For Work, Non-Participation Rate Rises, Unemployment Rate Drops

[theDoctorisIn]

Can someone explain to me how somebody just leave the workforce? Because I'd like to leave the workforce except I have a bunch of ******* bills to pay.

I left the workforce for 2 years. It was easy - I just stopped looking for jobs.

Do you live under a bridge ? How do you suppprt yourself .

I lived off savings.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We used to get a pretty accurate percentage of out of work people by dividing the number of people who aren't drawing a paycheck anymore by the number of people who used to draw a paycheck.

Who is "we?" The U.S. has never calculated the unemployment rate that way. It has always been the number of people not working who are available and looking (unemployed) divided by the labor force (employed plus unemployed). Almost every country does it that way.

Oh, and every final number about unemployment is "seasonally adjusted", whatever the **** that means.

It means that since there are regular, predictable changes in the labor force..employment always goes up in October, and always goes down in January. So if employment goes up in October, but by less than usual, then it's seasonally adjusted to show a loss.

[Quotes]Since Obumblefuk came along he throws out a figure and the sheeple take it for gospel and don't bother to verify his numbers.

The President has nothing to do with the data.

Ummm. That wasn't my quote .

That was my quote and I don't mean the Prez personally but his numbers crunchers

They're not "his" number crunchers, they're the same people who have been keeping track of this sort of thing for 50 years, and using the same methodology since 1994. Those are the numbers, using the same system they've been using.

It wasn't until Obama became President that any right-wingers took issue with the way the unemployment rate was calculated.

 

[Hossfly]

We used to get a pretty accurate percentage of out of work people by dividing the number of people who aren't drawing a paycheck anymore by the number of people who used to draw a paycheck.

Who is "we?" The U.S. has never calculated the unemployment rate that way. It has always been the number of people not working who are available and looking (unemployed) divided by the labor force (employed plus unemployed). Almost every country does it that way.

Oh, and every final number about unemployment is "seasonally adjusted", whatever the **** that means.

It means that since there are regular, predictable changes in the labor force..employment always goes up in October, and always goes down in January. So if employment goes up in October, but by less than usual, then it's seasonally adjusted to show a loss.

[Quotes]Since Obumblefuk came along he throws out a figure and the sheeple take it for gospel and don't bother to verify his numbers.

The President has nothing to do with the data.

Ummm. That wasn't my quote .

That was my quote and I don't mean the Prez personally but his numbers crunchers

They're not "his" number crunchers, they're the same people who have been keeping track of this sort of thing for 50 years, and using the same methodology since 1994. Those are the numbers, using the same system they've been using.

It wasn't until Obama became President that any right-wingers took issue with the way the unemployment rate was calculated.

I'm sure the people out of work will be relieved to know that. However as for me'

​

 

[rdean]

In a PERFECT display of how Obama's 'great' Unemployment Rate is BULLSHIT, this article perfectly blows a hole in his fake numbers...

"More Americans are kissing the workforce goodbye – not because they’re financially secure but because they can’t find a job. A record 95 million people are sitting on the sidelines opting not to work. As a result, the labor participation rate is stuck at 62.7%, a 40-year low."

Earlier this morning some liberal dumbass tried to explain that the number of Americans no longer in the workforce should not be counted towards the Unemployment Rate because all those 95 million Americans out of the work force were all OLD RETIRED PEOPLE!



As this article shows, that's a bunch of liberal crap being spewed to justify Barry's fake unemployment numbers.

95 million Americas out of the work force, about 1/3rd unemployed but who have given up looking

And every time an Amercian gives up looking Barry celebrates because the 'Non-Participation Rate' rises and the 'Unemployent rate' dips!



Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the Workforce

America has 5.8 million job openings, matches all-time high

You gotta have skills, education, experience. Republicans want high paying jobs that require no skills or education. It's not going to happen. Of course they give up. They are tired of hearing "You aren't qualified". Trump promised a fantasy. They are so fu...d.

 

[oldsoul]

In a PERFECT display of how Obama's 'great' Unemployment Rate is BULLSHIT, this article perfectly blows a hole in his fake numbers...

"More Americans are kissing the workforce goodbye – not because they’re financially secure but because they can’t find a job. A record 95 million people are sitting on the sidelines opting not to work. As a result, the labor participation rate is stuck at 62.7%, a 40-year low."

Earlier this morning some liberal dumbass tried to explain that the number of Americans no longer in the workforce should not be counted towards the Unemployment Rate because all those 95 million Americans out of the work force were all OLD RETIRED PEOPLE!



As this article shows, that's a bunch of liberal crap being spewed to justify Barry's fake unemployment numbers.

95 million Americas out of the work force, about 1/3rd unemployed but who have given up looking

And every time an Amercian gives up looking Barry celebrates because the 'Non-Participation Rate' rises and the 'Unemployent rate' dips!



Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the Workforce

America has 5.8 million job openings, matches all-time high

You gotta have skills, education, experience. Republicans want high paying jobs that require no skills or education. It's not going to happen. Of course they give up. They are tired of hearing "You aren't qualified". Trump promised a fantasy. They are so fu...d.

Yet it's the Dems who are always "for the working man." AKA Unions. Who are chock full of both skilled and UNSKILLED people. Yea, it's the Reps that want high paying jobs that require no skills or education, that's why they are pushing for a $15/hr minimum wage. Right? Oops, it the Dems calling for the hike. My bad, almost fell for your lie.

 

[easyt65]

Yet it's the Dems who are always "for the working man."

Yes, that is why Bernie Sanders said he was ashamed of the DNC because they abandoned the working man and why the working man abandoned Hillary at the voting booth. Great point.

 

[Hossfly]

In a PERFECT display of how Obama's 'great' Unemployment Rate is BULLSHIT, this article perfectly blows a hole in his fake numbers...

"More Americans are kissing the workforce goodbye – not because they’re financially secure but because they can’t find a job. A record 95 million people are sitting on the sidelines opting not to work. As a result, the labor participation rate is stuck at 62.7%, a 40-year low."

Earlier this morning some liberal dumbass tried to explain that the number of Americans no longer in the workforce should not be counted towards the Unemployment Rate because all those 95 million Americans out of the work force were all OLD RETIRED PEOPLE!



As this article shows, that's a bunch of liberal crap being spewed to justify Barry's fake unemployment numbers.

95 million Americas out of the work force, about 1/3rd unemployed but who have given up looking

And every time an Amercian gives up looking Barry celebrates because the 'Non-Participation Rate' rises and the 'Unemployent rate' dips!



Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the Workforce

America has 5.8 million job openings, matches all-time high

You gotta have skills, education, experience. Republicans want high paying jobs that require no skills or education. It's not going to happen. Of course they give up. They are tired of hearing "You aren't qualified". Trump promised a fantasy. They are so fu...d.

Yet it's the Dems who are always "for the working man." AKA Unions. Who are chock full of both skilled and UNSKILLED people. Yea, it's the Reps that want high paying jobs that require no skills or education, that's why they are pushing for a $15/hr minimum wage. Right? Oops, it the Dems calling for the hike. My bad, almost fell for your lie.

This past election I heard there were way more votes for Trump by union members than for Clinton. Used to be union workers would normally be counted on to vote a straight Democrat ticket. I think those days are history.

 

[oldsoul]

In a PERFECT display of how Obama's 'great' Unemployment Rate is BULLSHIT, this article perfectly blows a hole in his fake numbers...

"More Americans are kissing the workforce goodbye – not because they’re financially secure but because they can’t find a job. A record 95 million people are sitting on the sidelines opting not to work. As a result, the labor participation rate is stuck at 62.7%, a 40-year low."

Earlier this morning some liberal dumbass tried to explain that the number of Americans no longer in the workforce should not be counted towards the Unemployment Rate because all those 95 million Americans out of the work force were all OLD RETIRED PEOPLE!



As this article shows, that's a bunch of liberal crap being spewed to justify Barry's fake unemployment numbers.

95 million Americas out of the work force, about 1/3rd unemployed but who have given up looking

And every time an Amercian gives up looking Barry celebrates because the 'Non-Participation Rate' rises and the 'Unemployent rate' dips!



Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the Workforce

America has 5.8 million job openings, matches all-time high

You gotta have skills, education, experience. Republicans want high paying jobs that require no skills or education. It's not going to happen. Of course they give up. They are tired of hearing "You aren't qualified". Trump promised a fantasy. They are so fu...d.

Yet it's the Dems who are always "for the working man." AKA Unions. Who are chock full of both skilled and UNSKILLED people. Yea, it's the Reps that want high paying jobs that require no skills or education, that's why they are pushing for a $15/hr minimum wage. Right? Oops, it the Dems calling for the hike. My bad, almost fell for your lie.

This past election I heard there were way more votes for Trump by union members than for Clinton. Used to be union workers would normally be counted on to vote a straight Democrat ticket. I think those days are history.

Yes, I agree, that union people do seem to be waking up to the reality that they do not have to vote with their union bosses, and can actually think, and choose, for themselves. It is a wonderful thing to see, and is "Today's ray of hope." (to use the phrase of a "local" talk show program)

 

[my2¢]

I haven't looked for a job in 35 years.

 

[pinqy]

[The only thing misleading is Obama's fake unemployment #s because he doesn't count the unemployed who have stopped looking for work.

By definition, if you're not looking for work, you are not unemployed. Why do you think people not trying to work should be classified the same as those trying?

 

[pinqy]

I don't give a rats ass about this New Math way of figuring the unemployment rate. The U-6,UE and other U's weren't around when I was working since I was 12. We used to get a pretty accurate percentage of out of work people by dividing the number of people who aren't drawing a paycheck anymore by the number of people who used to draw a paycheck. Even the dumbest ass in the world would agree to that. Oh, and every final number about unemployment is "seasonally adjusted", whatever the **** that means. Since Obumblefuk came along he throws out a figure and the sheeple take it for gospel and don't bother to verify his numbers.

The U1-U6 numbers have been part of the CPS since 1994.

The "new math" is open and available to the public, if you choose to remain in ignorance about it, that's on you - as for your "since Obama" nonsense - the CPS numbers don't come from the White House.

In pursuit of a degree in Economics, I had to pass a few math tests, Doc. I'm saying if 10 people out of a hundred lose their jobs, that's a 10% unemployment rate. If 5 of them use up their eligibility and quit looking for work then the UE is still 10%. Not the 5% that the Labor Department pushes. Oh, and that's "seasonally adjusted" too.

What do you mean by "lose their jobs"? Do you think someone who gets fired for stealing from their company should be counted as "unemployed"? How about someone who voluntarily quits their job? Are they unemployed?

What about someone who decides to go back to school full time after losing their job - are they unemployed, even if they're not looking for a job?

I took a 2-year vacation from work after a particularly successful year - was I unemployed then?

I'm speaking strictly about people who lose their jobs due to reduction of employees or jobs that move. People who steal or quit are not eligible for unemployment benefits, and if you take a hiatus from work then you're not counted either way. I left work for 2 years to finish school but I went under the GI Bill.

Unemployed has been defined since 1994 as
"All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed. Note that receipt of or eligibility for unemployment benefits are not a part of the definition. Note that "losing your job" is not a requirement.

What is your argument against the definition?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Who is "we?" The U.S. has never calculated the unemployment rate that way. It has always been the number of people not working who are available and looking (unemployed) divided by the labor force (employed plus unemployed). Almost every country does it that way.

It means that since there are regular, predictable changes in the labor force..employment always goes up in October, and always goes down in January. So if employment goes up in October, but by less than usual, then it's seasonally adjusted to show a loss.

[Quotes]Since Obumblefuk came along he throws out a figure and the sheeple take it for gospel and don't bother to verify his numbers.

The President has nothing to do with the data.

Ummm. That wasn't my quote .

That was my quote and I don't mean the Prez personally but his numbers crunchers

They're not "his" number crunchers, they're the same people who have been keeping track of this sort of thing for 50 years, and using the same methodology since 1994. Those are the numbers, using the same system they've been using.

It wasn't until Obama became President that any right-wingers took issue with the way the unemployment rate was calculated.

I'm sure the people out of work will be relieved to know that. However as for me'

​

GOP Readies Cuts to Federal Workforce Under Trump
Reductions part of long-sought civil service overhaul
- See more at: GOP Readies Cuts to Federal Workforce Under Trump

 

[easyt65]

By definition, if you're not looking for work, you are not unemployed. Why do you think people not trying to work should be classified the same as those trying?

They aren't looking because there aren't enough jobs capable of supporting families.

By your argument, if EVERYONE in the United States suddenly quit their jobs and did not look for any more jobs beginning tomorrow Obama would / could TECHNICALLY begin touting a legacy of reducing the Unemployment rate to 0% (ZERO PERCENT).

 

[pinqy]

By definition, if you're not looking for work, you are not unemployed. Why do you think people not trying to work should be classified the same as those trying?

They aren't looking because there aren't enough jobs capable of supporting families.

And your evidence of this is what? Let's look at the data: A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
These are the people not working and not looking for work: 95 million. 89,965,000 (94.2%) of them do not want to work. So they probably did not stop looking because there were not enough jobs.

So we have 5,524,000 people who say they want a job but aren't looking. 2,993,000 did not one single thing to find work in the last year. I would strongly question their commitment to work, then. My guess is that many are teenagers or stay home spouses who theoretically would want a job, but have no real reason to look for one.

Now we have 2,532,000 people who want a job, have looked for work in the last year, but are not considered unemployed because they didn't look in the last 4 weeks. Wait....599,000 say they couldn't have started a job in November if they had been offered one on a silver plate. So clearly your claim fails here too.

Down to 1,932,000 willing and able to work but quit looking. Why?
204,000 cite family reasons.
228,000 say they quit looking to go to school or attend training.
176,000 say they became sick or injured and couldn't look.
733,000 stopped looking for other personal reasons such as child-care and transportation problems but NOT because there were no jobs, but because they couldn't work or had personal responsibilities that took precedence.

And now we're down to 591,000 who quit looking because they believed there was "no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination." Now that's broader than your claim.

But even so....let's say someone did quit looking because (they believed) there were not enough jobs capable of supporting families. Let's say this person quit looking back in March. Let's even say their belief was true. Is it still true in November? How would they know?

By your argument, if EVERYONE in the United States suddenly quit their jobs and did not look for any more jobs beginning tomorrow Obama would / could TECHNICALLY begin touting a legacy of reducing the Unemployment rate to 0% (ZERO PERCENT).

The unemployment rate measures the amount of available labor not being used. If there are zero people available for work, then there is no available labor and no one could be hired. So would it be wrong to say the unemployment rate was zero?

Actually, let's do a subgroup. the unemployment rate for children age 0-10 in the U.S. is zero. There are some children working..in agriculture, family businesses, and in the entertainment field, but so few that for all intents and purposes the rate is zero.