For all those claiming we are fine.

[edthecynic]

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....

Why should people who don't want to work, like retirees, stay at home spouses, students over 16, adults staying home to care for a sick or elderly family member, etc. be counted as part of the workforce?

The unemployment rate fell because 490,000 people left the ranks of the unemployed mostly because they found jobs! That is why UE is going down even though a small number of NEW jobs were created. You have been lied to when you were told the U-3 rate went down because people got discouraged and dropped out.

Take the current month, the unemployed declined by 490,000 but the discouraged increased by only 155,000 and the difference are the unemployed who filled jobs vacated by retirees. This is why people who say that new jobs have not kept up with population growth are full of it. More seniors are retiring than workers entering the labor force.

The BLS does not give the number of retirees, but they do give the number of discouraged workers, which was 155,000 for last month. We can calculate reasonably accurately the number of retirees because we know that 10,000 reach age 65 per day and only 18% stay in the workforce, up from 15% before the Boomers. So 82% of 300,000 Boomers reaching 65 = ~246,000 Boomers leaving the workforce every month on average. Since we can expect those jobs to be filled by other workers we would expect to see a decline in the number of unemployed to be about equal to the sum of retirees plus discouraged plus the 74,000 new jobs created which totals ~475,000. According to BLS the unemployed declined last month by 490,000.

But the Right has always known this and were using the predicted decline of the LPR after the 2004 election as justification for privatizing SS. As soon as a Republican is elected, the Right will stop saying the decline in LPR means a bad economy and will resume saying that a declining LPR is a reason for privatizing SS.
Mark my words!

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I believe that we had this argument before. If we are talking about the difference in unemployment from this year and last year, demographics have little effect. For instance, in the 1950's, it was typical for women to get married and stay at home. During the 70's that demographic trend changed. By the 90's, women pretty much expected to work. Comparing the unemployment rate between 1990 and 2000 gave some relevant picture of the workforce because there was little changing demographically. On the other hand, comparing 1960 to 2000 presents considerable difficulty because of the demographic changes. The same issue is the underlying problem that leads to complaints about the current meaning of U-3. With the huge change to the economy that occurred as a result of the recession, many people found that they could not obtain work. As a result, many changed their "choice" as to how to deal with it. Whatever their choice was, it was confounded by dealing with changes to the opportunities.

On the other hand, the employment to population ratio is a simple objective measure. Regardless of the individual choices driven by changing economic conditions, a 55% emratio in 1960 is exactly the same physical thing as a 55% emratio in 2010. Both represent the fact that 55% of the total population is working. Regardless of the demographic changes, the emratio is the emratio. The employment rate is dependent on individual choices driven by changing socioeconomic norms and demographics.

Never the less,

 

[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.

I believe that we had this argument before. If we are talking about the difference in unemployment from this year and last year, demographics have little effect. For instance, in the 1950's, it was typical for women to get married and stay at home. During the 70's that demographic trend changed. By the 90's, women pretty much expected to work. Comparing the unemployment rate between 1990 and 2000 gave some relevant picture of the workforce because there was little changing demographically. On the other hand, comparing 1960 to 2000 presents considerable difficulty because of the demographic changes. The same issue is the underlying problem that leads to complaints about the current meaning of U-3. With the huge change to the economy that occurred as a result of the recession, many people found that they could not obtain work. As a result, many changed their "choice" as to how to deal with it. Whatever their choice was, it was confounded by dealing with changes to the opportunities.

On the other hand, the employment to population ratio is a simple objective measure. Regardless of the individual choices driven by changing economic conditions, a 55% emratio in 1960 is exactly the same physical thing as a 55% emratio in 2010. Both represent the fact that 55% of the total population is working. Regardless of the demographic changes, the emratio is the emratio. The employment rate is dependent on individual choices driven by changing socioeconomic norms and demographics.

Never the less,

The link I posted compares mainly 2004 to 2014, and during this time period there is a dramatic change in demographics making the EMRATIO worthless. It also points out this demographic shift started in 2000.

 

[Londoner]

Agreed.

The employment number is much worse than 6.7 percent.

However, it cuts both ways - meaning: you have to be careful trusting the employment numbers on both sides.

Take Reagan's employment numbers. He increased government jobs by 3.1% whereas Obama has cut them by 2.1%. This difference alone almost covers the gap between them.

So let's try to do what Limbaugh and Hannity never do. Let's look at Reagan's non-military build up of the government workforce and see how effectively he padded his employment stats.

Reagan EXPANDED the Federal Workforce by 238,000
- Started: 2,875,000
- Ended: 3,113,000

So yes, I agree that all employment numbers are bogus because they don't factor in this kind of stuff. Which leads to another point. Once you start investigating the actual data of how different presidents pad their employment stats, you might not like what you find.

One day you may wake up and see that your own heroes lack the employment numbers you constantly ascribe to them.

(And we haven't even factored the government defense jobs Reagan added to the economy. If you analyzed his employment data with any degree of objectivity, you would see how the pros rig employment data. Having said that, I don't fault Reagan for his military Keynesianism. The defense jobs he added to Orange and San Diego counties created thriving economies. Through the addition of government jobs, Reagan put a massive population of consumers on Southern California main streets, which allowed small businesses to add jobs and retain profit margins. Reagan understood that government jobs could provide a massive stimulus to the economy. And Reagan's followers understand this too, which is why they filibustered Obama into cutting government jobs and thus removing consumers from the economy.)

 

[itfitzme]

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....

There is no "not counted as wanting a job because they decided to collect OASDI." There is no "not counted as wanting a job because they decided to go back to school."

It's utter nonsense.

People can collect OASDI or be in school and report that they want a job, are looking for a job, and would take if offered.

They count everyone even if they have been discouraged, have stopped looking for work, and would take a job if offered. There are six separate measures of unemployment, U-1 through U-6.

Pick whichever you like.

 

[Kosh]

And the far left talking points and propaganda to protect their messiah continues...

 

[zeke]

And the far left talking points and propaganda to protect their messiah continues...

In other words. Someone has made such a valid argument against the OP that it has left you with nothing more than your typical partisan bullshit.

Nice job.

 

[williepete]

U-6 Total unemployed: 13.1%
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

41+ million on food stamps.
SNAP/Food Stamp Participation « Food Research & Action Center

Labor Force Participation Rate: 62.8%. Worst since 1978.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Continuous quantitative easing since late 2008, a.k.a. monopoly money.

Couldn't be better. What could go wrong?

 

[Kosh]

And the far left talking points and propaganda to protect their messiah continues...

In other words. Someone has made such a valid argument against the OP that it has left you with nothing more than your typical partisan bullshit.

Nice job.

Says the far left Obama drone!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For all those claiming we are fine.

The fact is that the economy is improving; it would be improving a lot faster if it weren’t for republican obstructionism and foot-dragging.

And there are plenty of jobs available – the problem is these jobs require particular skills and experience most displaced workers lack. Indeed, the need isn’t really to ‘create’ jobs but to prepare Americans to be able to perform in the jobs that exist. In this regard Congressional republicans have failed the American worker considerably, again, as a consequence of their obstructionism and refusal to create and fund education and training programs for purely partisan reasons.

 

[Londoner]

And the far left talking points and propaganda to protect their messiah continues...

I'm not sure this makes any sense because Obama doesn't deserve anything close to messiah status from the Left.

1) By keeping the Patriot Act, he failed to unwind the Bush Surveillance State.

2) Be re-nominating Bernanke in 2009, he selected a far right Milton Friedman Loyalist to the most powerful economic position in our country.

3) Over 25% of his Stimulus was in tax cuts to the wealthy, rather than targeted demand-side stimulus to the folks left behind by the Reagan-era transition to our investment-friendly wage system (i.e., low wages & zero benefits coupled with shifting production to cheaper labor markets in Communist China).

I predict the Left will not institutionalize Obama as their official Messiah over FDR and Kennedy. This would be like replacing Goldwater and Reagan with Bush 41 & 43. It just won't happen.

 

[williepete]

The fact is that the economy is improving; it would be improving a lot faster if it weren’t for republican obstructionism and foot-dragging.

The blame game is as worn out as the race card. Blaming one third of the government against a two third majority hold on power doesn't pass the smell test. As has been said before, when your team is having a long losing streak, there comes a time to stop blaming the players and start blaming the coach.

We've had divided government in the past and it has worked. The only difference with times past is there was a President who knew how to lead, how to get the sides to work together. Obama has never felt he needed to lead. He has never for a moment been a leader. Division, chaos and a herculean narcissism is all he knows.

The Fed will have to taper QE sooner or later. The market will tank. When interests rates return to their historical norms of +5% we may not be able to service the debt Obama has racked up. The following debacle will be Obama's final report card and it's not too far in the future. You think Obama's administration of the country sucks now? Just wait. You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Fewer people are NOT employed MILLIONS have simply stopped looking.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Fewer people are NOT employed MILLIONS have simply stopped looking.

Wrong. Fewer people....as in less...a lower number....are unemployed. This is a fact. You cannot claim otherwise.

You nutters have been screaming that same thing every month for 46 months now. That is 46 months of private sector job growth. You know....the opposite of job loss.

If you fuckers used half of your negative, spiteful, bullshit energy and put it toward making your elected officials do their job, we'd be much further along in this RECOVERY.

Fuck. When are you going to start acting like the patriots that you claim to be?
You glass half-empty sourpuss assholes.

 

[Kosh]

And the far left talking points and propaganda to protect their messiah continues...

I'm not sure this makes any sense because Obama doesn't deserve anything close to messiah status from the Left.

1) By keeping the Patriot Act, he failed to unwind the Bush Surveillance State.

2) Be re-nominating Bernanke in 2009, he selected a far right Milton Friedman Loyalist to the most powerful economic position in our country.

3) Over 25% of his Stimulus was in tax cuts to the wealthy, rather than targeted demand-side stimulus to the folks left behind by the Reagan-era transition to our investment-friendly wage system (i.e., low wages & zero benefits coupled with shifting production to cheaper labor markets in Communist China).

I predict the Left will not institutionalize Obama as their official Messiah over FDR and Kennedy. This would be like replacing Goldwater and Reagan with Bush 41 & 43. It just won't happen.

Once again that would be far left and there is a difference.

The far left is willing to ignore all those things and thus promote Obama to messiah status.

 

[Kosh]

For all those claiming we are fine.

The fact is that the economy is improving; it would be improving a lot faster if it weren’t for republican obstructionism and foot-dragging.

And there are plenty of jobs available – the problem is these jobs require particular skills and experience most displaced workers lack. Indeed, the need isn’t really to ‘create’ jobs but to prepare Americans to be able to perform in the jobs that exist. In this regard Congressional republicans have failed the American worker considerably, again, as a consequence of their obstructionism and refusal to create and fund education and training programs for purely partisan reasons.

And more far left propaganda!

 

[Kosh]

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

Fewer people are NOT employed MILLIONS have simply stopped looking.

Wrong. Fewer people....as in less...a lower number....are unemployed. This is a fact. You cannot claim otherwise.

You nutters have been screaming that same thing every month for 46 months now. That is 46 months of private sector job growth. You know....the opposite of job loss.

If you fuckers used half of your negative, spiteful, bullshit energy and put it toward making your elected officials do their job, we'd be much further along in this RECOVERY.

Fuck. When are you going to start acting like the patriots that you claim to be?
You glass half-empty sourpuss assholes.

Even more far left Obama drone propaganda.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I believe that we had this argument before. If we are talking about the difference in unemployment from this year and last year, demographics have little effect. For instance, in the 1950's, it was typical for women to get married and stay at home. During the 70's that demographic trend changed. By the 90's, women pretty much expected to work. Comparing the unemployment rate between 1990 and 2000 gave some relevant picture of the workforce because there was little changing demographically. On the other hand, comparing 1960 to 2000 presents considerable difficulty because of the demographic changes. The same issue is the underlying problem that leads to complaints about the current meaning of U-3. With the huge change to the economy that occurred as a result of the recession, many people found that they could not obtain work. As a result, many changed their "choice" as to how to deal with it. Whatever their choice was, it was confounded by dealing with changes to the opportunities.

On the other hand, the employment to population ratio is a simple objective measure. Regardless of the individual choices driven by changing economic conditions, a 55% emratio in 1960 is exactly the same physical thing as a 55% emratio in 2010. Both represent the fact that 55% of the total population is working. Regardless of the demographic changes, the emratio is the emratio. The employment rate is dependent on individual choices driven by changing socioeconomic norms and demographics.

Never the less,

The link I posted compares mainly 2004 to 2014, and during this time period there is a dramatic change in demographics making the EMRATIO worthless. It also points out this demographic shift started in 2000.

I don't know why you keep making an argument out of it as if one were somehow superior to the other. There are six measures of unemployment, a measure of laber force participation, a measure of employment, and others that aren't coming to mind. If one was a catchall stat, there woould be just one. For my purposes, EmRatio gives me an measure that is independent of demographic changes over time. Regardless of whether people are choosing to work or not, making a "forced" choice, or whatever, EmRatio presents a consistent measure that is independent of social norms, subjective choice, and demographic changes. Regardless of everything else, a 48% EmRatio is more labor productivity than is a 43% EmRatio. In 2000, nearly every employable person was working. By the time the recession ended, it had fallen to near 1978 level. The change that occured in the structure of the economy iz obvious when the EmRatio is used while completely masked by the subjective nature underlying the unemoyment rate. The EmRatio isn't effected by demographic changes. It's not supposed to be. U-3 is affected by demographic changes, it is suppose to be. U-3 can remain absolutely flat while LFPR and EmRatio change. They are expected to.

I like EmRatio because it provides an an unobsrtructed view of the actual labor that is employed in producing all the output of the GDP. GDP pee capita and GDP per worker, one being stamdard of living and the other being efficiency, are proportional to EmRatio.

I don't know why you always want to argue about what is fundamentally a difference in what information is of interest. Yeah, unemployment, because it is based on "what people want" normalizes for demographics differences. EmRatio remains consistent regardless of demographics.

There's no disagreemet here except in terms of what imformation is being gleened from the data.

 

[itfitzme]

For all those claiming we are fine.

The fact is that the economy is improving; it would be improving a lot faster if it weren’t for republican obstructionism and foot-dragging.

And there are plenty of jobs available – the problem is these jobs require particular skills and experience most displaced workers lack. Indeed, the need isn’t really to ‘create’ jobs but to prepare Americans to be able to perform in the jobs that exist. In this regard Congressional republicans have failed the American worker considerably, again, as a consequence of their obstructionism and refusal to create and fund education and training programs for purely partisan reasons.

And more far left propaganda!

He is correct. He also presented considerable real information.

On the other hand, "And more far left propaganda!" is just meaningless, information lacking, emotional propogada bullshit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What’s also telling is that the OP felt the need to start a thread to ‘explain’ December’s unemployment rate for fear it might reflect positively on the president.