Is the economy getting better?

[The Rabbi]

Pinqy, we are not playing charades. The economy is now in better shape than the day before Bush left office, when it was on its way down down down, but the economy remains fragile and can still fail.

It depends. "The Economy" is a complex matter and it's not always as simple as "better" or "worse." And while the Labor Market is generally better than when Obama took office, and clearly better than the worst, it's not as healthy as the pre-recession Labor Market.

The decline in the Labor Force Participation rate is a difficulty, and it's hard to pin down the significance. It's been declining since 2000.

Why do you think the labor market is better? The improvement in the UE rate is almost entirely due to fewer people looking for work. If we had the same workforce participation rate theUE rate would probably be over 10%.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pinqy, we are not playing charades. The economy is now in better shape than the day before Bush left office, when it was on its way down down down, but the economy remains fragile and can still fail.

It depends. "The Economy" is a complex matter and it's not always as simple as "better" or "worse." And while the Labor Market is generally better than when Obama took office, and clearly better than the worst, it's not as healthy as the pre-recession Labor Market.

The decline in the Labor Force Participation rate is a difficulty, and it's hard to pin down the significance. It's been declining since 2000.

Why do you think the labor market is better? The improvement in the UE rate is almost entirely due to fewer people looking for work. If we had the same workforce participation rate theUE rate would probably be over 10%.

A 1% more, maybe. But not 2.4%. You can't make the numbers works for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

It depends. "The Economy" is a complex matter and it's not always as simple as "better" or "worse." And while the Labor Market is generally better than when Obama took office, and clearly better than the worst, it's not as healthy as the pre-recession Labor Market.

The decline in the Labor Force Participation rate is a difficulty, and it's hard to pin down the significance. It's been declining since 2000.

Why do you think the labor market is better? The improvement in the UE rate is almost entirely due to fewer people looking for work. If we had the same workforce participation rate theUE rate would probably be over 10%.

A 1% more, maybe. But not 2.4%. You can't make the numbers works for that.

Post proof or STFU.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was your affirmation, so STFU if you can't offer the numbers.

 

[DGS49]

Bottom line: The economy has to create 119000 jobs per month to provide for new people entering the workforce. Since Barry took office, the economy has produced about 6 million jobs, which is nowhere near enough. It merely indicates that the economy is no worse.

But the real picture unfolds when you look at the history of recessions since 1900. Every time there is a recession it is followed by a period of job growth that MORE THAN COMPENSATES for those coming into the work force. The graph goes down, then it goes up. Not so this time. The graph went down, then it came back to equilibrium, but the super-jobs creation mode that has followed all previous recessions has not happened. Furthermore, the public sector is super-bloated with more government employees (and military) than we need - by many hundreds of thousands if not millions, and these bloat is being paid for with borrowed money. If our Leaders ever decide to spend our money rationally, the unemployment rate will skyrocket to 15% and beyond.

It would be irrational and unwarranted to lay this disaster at the foot of any one politician. It is the product of decades of disastrous policy-making that is based on nothing more than the perpetuation of a bad status quo.

And as pointed out recently by David Stockman, we are on the verge of a stock market bubble-bursting that will make the DotCom and the Housing Bubbles look like spilt milk.

In short, we are all fucked.

 

[pinqy]

Pinqy, we are not playing charades. The economy is now in better shape than the day before Bush left office, when it was on its way down down down, but the economy remains fragile and can still fail.

It depends. "The Economy" is a complex matter and it's not always as simple as "better" or "worse." And while the Labor Market is generally better than when Obama took office, and clearly better than the worst, it's not as healthy as the pre-recession Labor Market.

The decline in the Labor Force Participation rate is a difficulty, and it's hard to pin down the significance. It's been declining since 2000.

Why do you think the labor market is better? The improvement in the UE rate is almost entirely due to fewer people looking for work.

Ummm yeah, that's the definition of the UE rate...the percent of the labor force looking for work.

If we had the same workforce participation rate the UE rate would probably be over 10%.

Well, yeah...if there were more people looking for work then the UE rate would be higher.

Let's look at the Feb-March drop:
Population: +167,000

Labor Force: -496,000

Employed: -206,000
Unemployed: -290,000​

Not in the Labor Force: +663,000

Not in the Labor Force does not want a job: +762,000
Not in the Labor Force wants a job: -99,000​

So why would you want to classify those who do not want a job as unemployed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree the situation could become disastrous because both parties mismanaged their roles for partisan purposes not for the welfare of all of us.

We also have an underclass that crosses race and sex and age that refuses to become educated for the 21st century jobs.

We are going to carry those sucks on our backs until we figure out how to make use of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

It depends. "The Economy" is a complex matter and it's not always as simple as "better" or "worse." And while the Labor Market is generally better than when Obama took office, and clearly better than the worst, it's not as healthy as the pre-recession Labor Market.

The decline in the Labor Force Participation rate is a difficulty, and it's hard to pin down the significance. It's been declining since 2000.

Why do you think the labor market is better? The improvement in the UE rate is almost entirely due to fewer people looking for work.

Ummm yeah, that's the definition of the UE rate...the percent of the labor force looking for work.

If we had the same workforce participation rate the UE rate would probably be over 10%.

Well, yeah...if there were more people looking for work then the UE rate would be higher.

Let's look at the Feb-March drop:
Population: +167,000

Labor Force: -496,000

Employed: -206,000
Unemployed: -290,000​

Not in the Labor Force: +663,000

Not in the Labor Force does not want a job: +762,000
Not in the Labor Force wants a job: -99,000​

So why would you want to classify those who do not want a job as unemployed?

Because they remain in the potential pool of labor and when the labor market improves they will come back into it.
There are also plenty of people underemployed, who would choose full time work if they could get it.
So taken together the UE picture is actually much worse than the raw rate is signaling.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Anyone can find a number or two that supports their claim.
Thus, the hyperpartisan will always be able to argue that the other guys are ruining our economy.

Mine personal economy is better today than it was five years ago .... and 10 years ago .... and 20 years ago.

I think it has a lot more to do with me than whether our president has an R or a D beside his name.

 

[JakeStarkey]

nodoginnafight, I agree 100%. Those who play the game hard, are responsible for their own welfare, get and stay educated, and treat others as they wish to be treated, almost all will have succeeded.

My problem with my party is that we gave into the neo-cons and social traditionalists and reactionary wacks in return for power. That was a deal with the devil, and we are now in purgatory for it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

nodoginnafight, I agree 100%. Those who play the game hard, are responsible for their own welfare, get and stay educated, and treat others as they wish to be treated, almost all will have succeeded.

My problem with my party is that we gave into the neo-cons and social traditionalists and reactionary wacks in return for power. That was a deal with the devil, and we are now in purgatory for it.

Well, I think the Democrats are starting to over-reach a bit. The party that can seize the middle will win. The GOP might be a little behind right now, but I think they will have every opportunity to regain their footing.

I just hope that SOMEBODY who can be fiscally responsible will seize the middle and win.

I was a card-carrying Republican for 25 years. I didn't leave the GOP - the GOP left me. But I won't get sucked into partisan politics again. I'll be happy to vote for a candidate of any party, if they'll cut up the credit cards.

 

[pinqy]

Why do you think the labor market is better? The improvement in the UE rate is almost entirely due to fewer people looking for work.

Ummm yeah, that's the definition of the UE rate...the percent of the labor force looking for work.

If we had the same workforce participation rate the UE rate would probably be over 10%.

Well, yeah...if there were more people looking for work then the UE rate would be higher.

Let's look at the Feb-March drop:
Population: +167,000

Labor Force: -496,000

Employed: -206,000
Unemployed: -290,000​

Not in the Labor Force: +663,000

Not in the Labor Force does not want a job: +762,000
Not in the Labor Force wants a job: -99,000​

So why would you want to classify those who do not want a job as unemployed?

Because they remain in the potential pool of labor and when the labor market improves they will come back into it.

Maybe, maybe not. Remember we're talking about people who say that they do not want to work Maybe they'll change their minds, maybe they won't, but calling retirees, full time students, stay home spouses, independently wealthy etc 'unemployed" because someday, maybe, they might decide they want a job?

Now, there is a category called the Marginally Attached. These are people who say they do want to work. That they could start work if offered a job. That they have recently (last 12 months) looked for work, but are no longer looking (last 4 weeks). These are tracked as people who have a good chance of re-entering the Labor Force. The majority stopped looking for personal reasons such as family obligations, school, illness/injury etc but some say they stopped out of Discouragement: the belief that they would not be hired because there were no jobs, they'd face discrimination, they didn't have the rights skills/educaton etc.

The number of Marginally Attached dropped 262,000 and 82,000 of that was from the ranks of the Discouraged.

The alternative utilization rate that includes the Discouraged (the U4) went down from 8.3% to 8.1% and rate that includes all marginally attached (the U5) went down from 9.2% to 8.9%

 

[boedicca]

If we had the same workforce participation rate the UE rate would probably be over 10%.

Well, yeah...if there were more people looking for work then the UE rate would be higher.

Let's look at the Feb-March drop:
Population: +167,000

Labor Force: -496,000

Employed: -206,000
Unemployed: -290,000​

Not in the Labor Force: +663,000

Not in the Labor Force does not want a job: +762,000
Not in the Labor Force wants a job: -99,000​

So why would you want to classify those who do not want a job as unemployed?

Because you have no idea that they don't want a job. Somebody who has been out of work for so long that he's given up is not somebody who willingly decided not to work again.

 

[pinqy]

If we had the same workforce participation rate the UE rate would probably be over 10%.

Well, yeah...if there were more people looking for work then the UE rate would be higher.

Let's look at the Feb-March drop:
Population: +167,000

Labor Force: -496,000

Employed: -206,000
Unemployed: -290,000​

Not in the Labor Force: +663,000

Not in the Labor Force does not want a job: +762,000
Not in the Labor Force wants a job: -99,000​

So why would you want to classify those who do not want a job as unemployed?

Because you have no idea that they don't want a job.

Why not? The Exact Question asked is "Do / Does) (name/you) currently want a job, either full or part time?" The possible answers are
1 Yes or maybe, it depends
2 No
3 Has a job

So, how can you say we have no idea?????

Somebody who has been out of work for so long that he's given up is not somebody who willingly decided not to work again.

Sure, so they would say "Yes," "Maybe," or "It Depends."

And how do you the reason they decided not to work was because they'd been out of work so long? that's not published.
Basic CPS Questionnaire Labor Force Items

 

[JakeStarkey]

boedicca and pinqy have demonstrated they don't understand the problem, the criteria, or the numbers.

Heavens help us if either is a government bureaucrat.

 

[lynn63]

How do they know who is and who is not looking for work?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Through reactionary secret powers!

They also have xray vision to see your thoughts, too!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Briefly stated; the economy is definitely getting better. But not for me. And unless you are among the One Percent it's not getting better for you, either.

Basically, what is happening is precisely what was intended to happen when Ronald Reagan was positioned to commence disassembly of the New Deal, to undermine the union movement, and to disassemble the hard-won Middle Class.

It's taken them awhile to get it done, but they are doing it.

You do realize that Reagan was 25 years ago and since that we have had 12 years of democrats ruling? You do realize that the biggest hit on the American working man was Clinton's "free" trade agreements. The difference in what you say and what I say is that it was predicted that if Clinton did what he did there would be a great sucking sound of jobs fleeing the country and that prediction has proved correct. The thing about Reagan is that your kind of people made the same BS up back then. And what happened was the biggest peacetime expansion of the economy in history. Then something terrible happened in 2006 which eclipses even 9/11, the democrats won control and we have been sliding into the abyss ever since.

Reagan began "new economy" bogusness. Only a moron could possibly believe pumping up the economy by tripling the debt was a sustainable policy.

No question whatever that Clinton's open borders follow on Reagan's pardoning millions of illegals, plus NAFTA, as well as continuing ReagaNUT deregulation of finance were as important as the bobblehead's maniacal debt-fueled bogusness. Not many people understand that Clinton was more of a ReagaNUT than the bobblehead himself. Great catch pointing out Clinton was as guilty as any of them.

Still, had the warmongering little halfwit inheritor Junebug Bush been able to restrain himself from land wars in Asia, the crash might have been five or six more years out.

 

[pinqy]

How do they know who is and who is not looking for work?

They ask the labor force statistics come from a monthly survey conducted by the Census of approx 60,000 households.

The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses.

 

[pinqy]

boedicca and pinqy have demonstrated they don't understand the problem, the criteria, or the numbers.

Heavens help us if either is a government bureaucrat.

Oh, what are you claiming I'm getting wrong?