For all those claiming we are fine.

[edthecynic]

Stupid fuck....the meaning of my story for your inferior mind is that lowering a % because of a bad thing (people dying, people quit looking for work) isn't something to brag about....carry on with your pathetic life.

Of course, since that is not the reason the UE % went down, you have made a fool of yourself but you are too stupid to know it!

 

[1776]

Yep....another shit eater steps up.

Stupid fuck....the meaning of my story for your inferior mind is that lowering a % because of a bad thing (people dying, people quit looking for work) isn't something to brag about....carry on with your pathetic life.

Of course, since that is not the reason the UE % went down, you have made a fool of yourself but you are too stupid to know it!

 

[edthecynic]

Ok ~ Wait ~ Let me get this straight....

Obama says we need to extend 99 weeks of unemployment benefits by
adding another 12 weeks while unemployment has dropped to 6.7%.
There were only 74,000 jobs added last month. Only in Obamaland does this add up!!
So much for the Recovery...Obama is already working hard on Liar Of The Year for 2014
All You Suck Butt Libs must be So Proud

A perfect example of just how little the know-it-alls know!!!!

The 99 week max ended in May 2012. The Dems are trying to extend the current 27 weeks by 13 weeks for a new max of 40 weeks.

 

[Papageorgio]

The number of people out of the labor force equals the disaster under Jimmy Carter....but we said Obama was Carter II long before he started fucking things up.

More people are employed. Fewer are unemployed. Good news is good news.

We have the lowest percentage in the work force since 1978, how are few unemployed?

 

[Esmeralda]

I understand trailer trash like you better than you understand yourself.

This place is your sanctuary away from your dead end, pathetic life.

You get to pretend to be smart, pretty, slim, funny, interesting, appealing and important here. All which you aren't in your trailer park life.

Too bad web cam isn't required here....

Stupid fuck....you're a joke here.

Is that right? I am glad you think so. Please continue to post at USMB.

Based on the way you are behaving, I would say this is a pretty good description of your own sorry self. How is this not your sanctuary away from your dead end, pathetic life? Yep, I think you are really just talking about yourself. Pathetic.

What are you doing here if you are so cool? Why are you pretending to be something you're not?

 

[occupied]

Yep....another shit eater steps up.

Stupid fuck....the meaning of my story for your inferior mind is that lowering a % because of a bad thing (people dying, people quit looking for work) isn't something to brag about....carry on with your pathetic life.

Of course, since that is not the reason the UE % went down, you have made a fool of yourself but you are too stupid to know it!

Politics aside, you are about as appealing as a giant billboard of Goatse, waving your diplomas around as if it makes you something other than just another assface here just to spread abuse. Tone down the bullshit, it does nothing to make your point.

 

[edthecynic]

I see the far left claims things are better because over 1/3 of the work force is now unemployed.

300,000 people drop off the rolls and that is why the unemployment is at 6.7% not because new people found jobs, but so many have not and are no longer counted. Typical far left math to claim that things are better.

Most that have found jobs need two part time jobs to try and make ends meat, yet that is somehow better to the far left.

Just goes to show what have been saying all along the far left needs the people to be the have nots so that the far left can maintain their political power. The far left is not for the common person unless they can be politically subjugated.

Another fool who has been had by GOP hate radio.

All those Boomers leaving the workforce opens their jobs to replacement workers from the ranks of the unemployed whose number declined by 490,000 last month. Only 155,000 left the ranks of the unemployed because they became discouraged and gave up looking. The rest found jobs.

 

[edthecynic]

More people are employed. Fewer are unemployed. Good news is good news.

We have the lowest percentage in the work force since 1978, how are few unemployed?

The low LPR is due entirely to Boomers retiring and not enough workers from the following Baby Bust Generation taking their place.

 

[Erand7899]

The number of people out of the labor force equals the disaster under Jimmy Carter....but we said Obama was Carter II long before he started fucking things up.

More people are employed. Fewer are unemployed. Good news is good news.

More people are not employed. Many have just given up looking for work. The size of our labor force is smaller today than when Obama took office, five years ago.

In addition, the jobs that are being created are low paying jobs and part time jobs.

Good news would be good news, if there was some good news.

 

[1776]

The projected job growth fell short by 120K jobs....yet liberals are dancing in the streets over the new part-time jobs and people no longer even looking for a job.

 

[itfitzme]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

There are six measures on unemployment, U-1, U-2, U-3, U-4, U-5, and U6. There is also a measure of the employment to population ratio and the labor force participation rate. Each one has their purpose and shortfall. U-3 has been the historically reported statistic because it is the one which provides the best comparison between different time periods and countries.

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics, at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a nice synopsis at Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

My first consideration is always the emratio.

It is the one that is most relevant across the decades. Regardless of changing social norms, it gets closer to measuring total labor utilization.

Because of the socioeconomic variations between decades, the unemployment rate, U-3 is only useful to compare short term changes.

U-3 counts people that self report that they want to work and are looking for work. There are many reasons why a person may report that they don't want work and are not looking for work. There are numerous reasons why a person may choose to not be part of the labor force. U-3 is simply a measure that is consistent with individuals status and reporting from decade to decade. It is not, though, as useful during major shifts in sociology of employment. Often, when a recession hits, individuals will "choose" other alternative uses of their time like going back to school. Individual "choice" is a fuzzy philosophical concept. It is the reason that alternative measures such as "discouraged workers" and "displaced workers" are included in different measures of unemployment.

 

[Erand7899]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

A lot of people decide to retire if they are laid off and are of age to retire. Given that we are now in era of the Baby Boomers retiring, that could account for a whole hell of a lot of folks who have quit looking for work because they are retiring. Given that retirement among the Baby Boomer generation is full swing now, there are going to be millions of folks leaving the workforce because they want to.

Your reasoning might have some validity, if those retirees took their job with them into retirement. When people retire from a job, that job is normally filled with another worker.

The simple fact that the total labor force is smaller today than when Obama took office, five years ago, means that jobs have either disappeared, or that employers are not replacing those workers until they see how the economic and regulatory future lays out.

 

[itfitzme]

So says the stupid fuck with its junior high education compared to my college degrees in business and economics.

The number of people out of the labor force equals the disaster under Jimmy Carter....but we said Obama was Carter II long before he started fucking things up.

Republicans love Obama, he's the best scapegoat for their horrible "hands off the free market" policies ever. I guess this means that they will never learn the error of their ways now.

Well, just goes to show us; You can lead a wrohe to Vassar but you can't make her think.

 

[edthecynic]

More people are employed. Fewer are unemployed. Good news is good news.

More people are not employed. Many have just given up looking for work. The size of our labor force is smaller today than when Obama took office, five years ago.

In addition, the jobs that are being created are low paying jobs and part time jobs.

Good news would be good news, if there was some good news.

None of that is true. The labor force was 154,210,000 when Obama took office and it is 154,937,000 now. There were 142,152,000 employed when Obama took office and 144,586,000 are employed now. There were 12,058,000 unemployed when Obama took office and there are 10,351,000 unemployed now.

 

[itfitzme]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

a measly 74,000 jobs created and the unemployment rate falls.....?

the "unemployment rate" that they dish out in the media is a total political LIE.....since they don't 'count' certain groups of people who stop working or looking for work....

this is the chart that tells the REAL story.....it shows the percentage of the population working has barely moved since Obama took office 5 years ago....

despite Obama's great speeches he hasn't done a fucking thing except to destroy the middle class even further...they are counting the many new part-time jobs created from former full-time jobs and of course jobs that pay much less than before...in fact about 60% of the new jobs created only pay about $13 or less...

What happened in 2000 and 2007?

 

[Rebelitarian]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

We aren't but we have only educated the part of the public that actually wants to wake up.

The rest of the people are just clueless about FEMA Camps, drones and the impending economic collapse ans martial law.

 

[edthecynic]

My first consideration is always the emratio.

It is the one that is most relevant across the decades. Regardless of changing social norms, it gets closer to measuring total labor utilization.

Because of the socioeconomic variations between decades, the unemployment rate, U-3 is only useful to compare short term changes.

U-3 counts people that self report that they want to work and are looking for work. There are many reasons why a person may report that they don't want work and are not looking for work. There are numerous reasons why a person may choose to not be part of the labor force. U-3 is simply a measure that is consistent with individuals status and reporting from decade to decade. It is not, though, as useful during major shifts in sociology of employment. Often, when a recession hits, individuals will "choose" other alternative uses of their time like going back to school. Individual "choice" is a fuzzy philosophical concept. It is the reason that alternative measures such as "discouraged workers" and "displaced workers" are included in different measures of unemployment.

Actually the EMRATIO is the worst indicator because it is the one most effected by demographics.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

A prime example of a demographic change affecting the labor force participation rate is the aging of the baby-boom generation. In 2000, baby boomers were aged 36 to 54 years and were in the group with the highest participation rates: the prime-aged group 25 to 54 years old. The participation rate for women in this group was 76.7 percent and for men was 91.6 percent, so that the overall participation rate of the group was 84.0 percent. The participation rate of the next-older age group, that 55 years and older, was 32.4 percent, so the difference between the two age groups was 52 percentage points. With the passage of every year after 2000, a segment of the baby-boomer population passes into the 55- years-and-older age group and thus moves from a group with a high participation rate in the labor force to an age category with a much lower participation rate, causing the overall participation rate to decrease.

The U.S. labor market is currently experiencing the negative demographic compositional effect just described, wherein the population moves from an age group with a higher participation rate to an age group with a lower participation rate. In contrast, a positive demographic compositional effect was experienced in the 1970s when baby boomers were increasingly joining the prime-aged workforce and causing an increase in the labor force participation rate.

Meanwhile, during the 2004–14 timeframe, the baby-bust population will be in the prime-aged work group, with very high participation rates. However, because the baby-bust cohorts are much smaller than those of the baby boomers, their numbers applied to their respective labor force participation rates will not be able to compensate for the large cohorts of baby boomers leaving the prime-aged group and moving into a group with much lower participation rates. The result is a decrease in the overall labor force participation rate and a slower rate of growth of the labor force.

 

[itfitzme]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

A lot of people decide to retire if they are laid off and are of age to retire. Given that we are now in era of the Baby Boomers retiring, that could account for a whole hell of a lot of folks who have quit looking for work because they are retiring. Given that retirement among the Baby Boomer generation is full swing now, there are going to be millions of folks leaving the workforce because they want to.

It doesn't, though. The larger age group that accounts for the increase in NILF is the 16 to 24 year age group. The over 55 age group retained jobs while the 16 to 24 age group found no jobs to be had.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

We aren't but we have only educated the part of the public that actually wants to wake up.

The rest of the people are just clueless about FEMA Camps, drones and the impending economic collapse ans martial law.

Is the government going to force eveeryone to learn martial arts?

 

[zeke]

Is unemployment really 6.7 percent?

So much for 6.7 percent.

A lot of people decide to retire if they are laid off and are of age to retire. Given that we are now in era of the Baby Boomers retiring, that could account for a whole hell of a lot of folks who have quit looking for work because they are retiring. Given that retirement among the Baby Boomer generation is full swing now, there are going to be millions of folks leaving the workforce because they want to.

Your reasoning might have some validity, if those retirees took their job with them into retirement. When people retire from a job, that job is normally filled with another worker.

The simple fact that the total labor force is smaller today than when Obama took office, five years ago, means that jobs have either disappeared, or that employers are not replacing those workers until they see how the economic and regulatory future lays out.

There are a couple of other options. Automation, self employment and the cash economy.

One takes jobs away, the other two have people working, they just don't show up in labor participation views. UE ran out, no W2 jobs available, oh no joe blow isn't looking for work.
Truth is, Joe just did a job for cash and made a couple grand. The 1099 worker or the Sch C worker doesn't show up labor studies either.

But they are working.

Hell most construction workers ALWAYS work for cash when they are drawing UE. Shame on them eh? Not supposed to. Could you live with a family on a UE check. I couldn't.

That'e why UE maintains jobs (not create) because by the time they get a check and some cash on the side, they have as much income as when they were working at a w2 regular job.