Jobless rate is worse than you think

[AmazonTania]

Why don't you add the total net profit for the Forbes 500 2002-2013 and get back with me.

I do understand the total net profits these corporations are gaining. These net profits would be much lower if these corporate actually repatriated their earnings back on American soil.

Then why are you doubting my >100T claim?

Show me where I have doubted the amount. I really don't care about the amount Corporations are making. I only know that most of these profits are paper profits which have yet to become realised.

 

[Papageorgio]

According to this article... if job growth stays the same, it will still take us 6 years to get back to a healthy job market. Not good.

*****************************************************************


Editor's note: Heidi Shierholz is a labor market economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. She is a co-author of "The State of Working America."

(CNN) -- On Labor Day, we celebrate the American worker. And more than four years since the Great Recession ended in June 2009, the unemployment rate is 7.4%, a big improvement from the high of 10% in the fall of 2009. Unfortunately, the rate is hugely misleading: Most of that improvement was for all the wrong reasons.

Remember, jobless workers are not counted as being part of the labor force unless they are actively looking for work, and the decline in the unemployment rate since its peak has mostly been the result of workers dropping out of -- or not entering -- the labor force.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, if the labor market were healthy, the labor force would number about 159.2 million. But the actual labor force numbers just 155.8 million. That means about 3.4 million "missing workers" are out there -- jobless people who would be in the labor force if job opportunities were strong.

Given the weak labor market, they're not actively looking for work and so aren't counted. If those missing workers were actively looking, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

We need 8.3 million jobs to get back to the prerecession unemployment rate, considering the 2 million jobs we are still down from the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 plus the 6.3 million jobs we should have added since just to keep up with normal growth in the potential labor force.

Opinion: Jobless rate is worse than you think - CNN.com

And yet corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion in cash. Maybe we should cut taxes for business.....

Weren't you the idiots that bitched and moan that companies overextending their credit, they had no cash reserves and caused the collapse of the economy.

Make up your minds.

 

[AmazonTania]

I didn't. I was responding do a comment on the morality of offshore bank accounts. I, along with millions of other Americans, find them immoral because the holders of the accounts are not carrying their share of the burden. America costs money. They should pay everything they owe.

The burden of what? America is merely a territory made up of 315 Million Citizens. It doesn't cost money to run. The country is not going to disappear simply because people decide to leave, or if people decide to participate in a different economy all together.

Let's put it this way. America is a community. We expect every member of the community to work toward common goals and to share the effort of bringing well-being to everyone. Anyone who doesn't do that is betraying us.

So if we don't go along with whatever you want, we are betraying you? We don't want to go along with your plans. We don't have common goals. We have our own separate interests and we each have our own trade offs and opportunity cost on how to obtain them.

Our goals are more important.

 

[OnePercenter]

I do understand the total net profits these corporations are gaining. These net profits would be much lower if these corporate actually repatriated their earnings back on American soil.

Then why are you doubting my >100T claim?

Show me where I have doubted the amount. I really don't care about the amount Corporations are making. I only know that most of these profits are paper profits which have yet to become realised.

Post 65.

As a 'wannabe', you should care about how much corporation profits.

Net profits are cash.

 

[OnePercenter]

According to this article... if job growth stays the same, it will still take us 6 years to get back to a healthy job market. Not good.

*****************************************************************


Editor's note: Heidi Shierholz is a labor market economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. She is a co-author of "The State of Working America."

(CNN) -- On Labor Day, we celebrate the American worker. And more than four years since the Great Recession ended in June 2009, the unemployment rate is 7.4%, a big improvement from the high of 10% in the fall of 2009. Unfortunately, the rate is hugely misleading: Most of that improvement was for all the wrong reasons.

Remember, jobless workers are not counted as being part of the labor force unless they are actively looking for work, and the decline in the unemployment rate since its peak has mostly been the result of workers dropping out of -- or not entering -- the labor force.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, if the labor market were healthy, the labor force would number about 159.2 million. But the actual labor force numbers just 155.8 million. That means about 3.4 million "missing workers" are out there -- jobless people who would be in the labor force if job opportunities were strong.

Given the weak labor market, they're not actively looking for work and so aren't counted. If those missing workers were actively looking, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

We need 8.3 million jobs to get back to the prerecession unemployment rate, considering the 2 million jobs we are still down from the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 plus the 6.3 million jobs we should have added since just to keep up with normal growth in the potential labor force.

Opinion: Jobless rate is worse than you think - CNN.com

And yet corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion in cash. Maybe we should cut taxes for business.....

Weren't you the idiots that bitched and moan that companies overextending their credit, they had no cash reserves and caused the collapse of the economy.

Make up your minds.

No. I had a problem with BushCo that let them.

 

[AmazonTania]

Then why are you doubting my >100T claim?

Show me where I have doubted the amount. I really don't care about the amount Corporations are making. I only know that most of these profits are paper profits which have yet to become realised.

Post 65.

As a 'wannabe', you should care about how much corporation profits.

Why? Unless I'm a shareholder of a company, or something happens to another company within the same industry, I generally don't care how much corporations are making...

Net profits are cash.

Yes. Yes, they are, but not until your positions are closed. If corporations are making investments into other ventures such as buying out smaller business or investing into other corporations, these unrealised gains can turn into unrealised losses simply by cashing their positions in. Until then, all these corporations have are the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization.

 

[OnePercenter]

Show me where I have doubted the amount. I really don't care about the amount Corporations are making. I only know that most of these profits are paper profits which have yet to become realised.

Post 65.

As a 'wannabe', you should care about how much corporation profits.

Why? Unless I'm a shareholder of a company, or something happens to another company within the same industry, I generally don't care how much corporations are making...

Net profits are cash.

Yes. Yes, they are, but not until your positions are closed. If corporations are making investments into other ventures such as buying out smaller business or investing into other corporations, these unrealised gains can turn into unrealised losses simply by cashing their positions in. Until then, all these corporations have are the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization.

What EVERY major company does is reflective either directly or indirectly of all industry.

Net is still net no matter how much you over think their order.

 

[Moonglow]

everything is bad to a republican when there is a democratic president, why even in my blue blood republiclan county the GOP representative said things are better and Missouri has had such a windfall of revenue they want to have a tax break for the entire state and the businesses, I'd prefer a stimulus check myself.

 

[AmazonTania]

Post 65.

As a 'wannabe', you should care about how much corporation profits.

Why? Unless I'm a shareholder of a company, or something happens to another company within the same industry, I generally don't care how much corporations are making...

Net profits are cash.

Yes. Yes, they are, but not until your positions are closed. If corporations are making investments into other ventures such as buying out smaller business or investing into other corporations, these unrealised gains can turn into unrealised losses simply by cashing their positions in. Until then, all these corporations have are the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization.

What EVERY major company does is reflective either directly or indirectly of all industry.

This is true to an extent, but as a shareholder I am not going to relate the PE's my company in the technology industry to others in the Energies or Health Industry. It rarely works that way.

Net is still net no matter how much you over think their order.

Never claimed otherwise. Just pointing out that it's not that simple. We have plenty of corporate profits, as well as company liabilities.

 

[Rshermr]

The 1.2 increase in workers who only want to work part-time is due mainly to the aging Boomers cutting back their hours as they reach retirement age.

False. The number of part-time workers over the age of 55 has decreased near 300,000 from last year. Not increased...

Employed and unemployed full- and part-time workers by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

A-18. Employed and unemployed full- and part-time workers by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

And you are completely confused and your OWN link exposes your mistake!!!
Part-time for economic reasons is broken down into two subgroups in your link:

Part time for economic reasons(3)

Slack work or business conditions
Could only find part-time work
​

The "Slack work or business conditions" group would be the only workers who potentially had their hours cut because of Obamacare, and only a part of that subgroup, business conditions, though I used the entire group to show that the number of workers who had their hours reduced since Obamacare was signed into law at the end of March 2010 has gone DOWN by 1.12 million workers. If Obamacare was shifting more workers to part-time the number would have gone up, not DOWN!!!

There was no mistake. I presented it to show you exactly what I am talking about. From July 2012 - 2013, Slack work or business conditions decreased from 5,319 Million to 5,177 Million. That's a 142,000 decrease in a year; however the people who could only find part-time work increased from 2,568 Million to 2,665, which is nearly a 100,00 increase in this category.


The number has gone down because they've simply moved out of one particular statistical category to another. In order for the 'Slack work or business conditions' category to truly be decreasing, workers would need to see an increase in hours. Hours have barely budged in the last three years.

If you don't understand the data, all you have to do is just say so.

Talk about not understanding data!!! You've gotten nothing right.

From your OWN links, there were 6,940,000 pert-time workers over 55 in 2012. In 2013 there were 7,000,000. The way you read data that 60k gain is a 300k loss.

The rest of your crap is wrong because Obamacare was signed into law the end of March 2010, not July 2012. Furthermore people who could only find part-time work have nothing to do with workers who had their hours cut due to Obamacare.

How can you pompous know-it-alls always be so wrong????

that's Just Tania. She can prove anything she wants with her graphs. She absolutely knows that she is posting bs. But it is the old con methodology. Post a large number of "findiogs", lie about them, and see what happens. It just takes her a couple minutes. But it will, as she knows, take you a long time to disprove her statements. Then, when you do, she simply posts more of her graphs, lies about them, and so on. It becomes repeat and repeat and repeat.

Tania is a clown. No need to pay her any attention. I have done so too much. Hell, at one point, we were discussing whether gasoline production was manufacturing. She said it was not. Period. Although it obviously is, and I proved so with several links. So, during that conversation, back and forth, she explained to me that production of gas is such a simple process that it is refined on oil tankers. And she did so with full attitude. Like, well, you know what she attempts. That she is right and you are obviously wrong. And so, as an expert in the gas production process, Tania actually had the guts to push an obvious complete lie.

Now, not understanding how gas is produced is fair. But saying you do understand and suggesting with authority that it is done in an oil tanker is problematical. Because it shows that the person making that statement is not just wrong, but lying. So, at what point would you want to ever believe that person again without independent proof.

At any rate, too bad. She is a waste of time. But what you posted is exactly what I get from sources like independent labor economists, and the cbo. So, people can believe whom they want.

 

[Papageorgio]

And yet corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion in cash. Maybe we should cut taxes for business.....

Weren't you the idiots that bitched and moan that companies overextending their credit, they had no cash reserves and caused the collapse of the economy.

Make up your minds.

No. I had a problem with BushCo that let them.

Yeah, they made a choice and over extended, you bitched, Obama made banks tighten up and so instead of expanding, the contract, they become cautious, and Obama is letting them store cash and you bitch. So basically, no matter what, you bitch.

 

[edthecynic]

Talk about not understanding data!!! You've gotten nothing right.

From your OWN links, there were 6,940,000 pert-time workers over 55 in 2012. In 2013 there were 7,000,000. The way you read data that 60k gain is a 300k loss.

Before you confuse yourself, again, look back at what you said:

The 1.2 increase in workers who only want to work part-time is due mainly to the aging Boomers cutting back their hours as they reach retirement age.

I am referring to the employees who are working part-time for noneconomic reasons, or the, 'workers who want to work part time' category, as you refer it as.

You have claimed that there is 1.2 Million increase in 'only want to work part-time is due mainly to the aging Boomers cutting back their hours as they reach retirement age.' Clearly, this is false. The amount of workers, over the age of 55, and part-time for noneconomic reasons have decreased by 300,000. Which means they are not cutting back their hours, as you have claimed.

Try and pay attention.



2012 is the benchmark you need, unless you think changes in the fundamentals happens overnight.

Furthermore people who could only find part-time work have nothing to do with workers who had their hours cut due to Obamacare.

Exactly. The outflows in the Slack work or business conditions category matches up with the inflows in other statistical categories. I've already explained this to you, using math.

How can you pompous know-it-alls always be so wrong????

Just because you can't understand the data doesn't mean it's wrong.

You may be referring to part-time workers for noneconomic reasons, but here is what you actually said:

False. The number of part-time workers over the age of 55 has decreased near 300,000 from last year. Not increased...

all the while calling ME confused!

And again, YOU came up with the 1.2 million figure, I merely repeated YOUR figure that you now attacked as wrong, all the while telling ME to "pay attention."

Notice the diverge. You've had a 877,00 decrease in workers who are only Part-Time for economic reasons, but you've had a 1.2 Million increase in the workers who simply Part-Time for Noneconomic reasons. The Labour market has come to terms with their economic fate. Part-Timers are the only workers employers are looking for. 77% of all the jobs created for this year were part-time jobs.

So now we are back to the fact that the number of workers who have had their hours cut back for "slack work" ( not related to Obamacare) or "business conditions" ( possibly related to Obamacare) has gone DOWN by 1.12 million SINCE OBAMACARE WAS SIGNED INTO LAW.

 

[Joe Steel]

Let's put it this way. America is a community. We expect every member of the community to work toward common goals and to share the effort of bringing well-being to everyone. Anyone who doesn't do that is betraying us.

So if we don't go along with whatever you want, we are betraying you? We don't want to go along with your plans. We don't have common goals. We have our own separate interests and we each have our own trade offs and opportunity cost on how to obtain them.

Our goals are more important.

Now you're arguing against human nature. Humans are herd animals. From the beginning of time, we've chosen to live with others of our own kind. We start with families and move to towns and cities and then to national communities. Our nature demands and expects loyalty and support from every member of the community because solidarity is our defense against danger. When we see someone putting himself above the interests of the community, we are suspicious to say the least. Often that suspicion leads to being judgmental. It leads us to think of the rebel as being immoral.

 

[AmazonTania]

Let's put it this way. America is a community. We expect every member of the community to work toward common goals and to share the effort of bringing well-being to everyone. Anyone who doesn't do that is betraying us.

So if we don't go along with whatever you want, we are betraying you? We don't want to go along with your plans. We don't have common goals. We have our own separate interests and we each have our own trade offs and opportunity cost on how to obtain them.

Our goals are more important.

Now you're arguing against human nature. Humans are herd animals. From the beginning of time, we've chosen to live with others of our own kind. We start with families and move to towns and cities and then to national communities. Our nature demands and expects loyalty and support from every member of the community because solidarity is our defense against danger. When we see someone putting himself above the interests of the community, we are suspicious to say the least. Often that suspicion leads to being judgmental. It leads us to think of the rebel as being immoral.

We don't live with each other and we are not a family. I have my own property and you have yours. I have my own goals and you have yours. I have my own interest and you have yours. I have my own needs and you have yours. I have my own decisions. No one is in any position to tell me what I should be doing with my own resources.

 

[AmazonTania]

[You may be referring to part-time workers for noneconomic reasons, but here is what you actually said:

False. The number of part-time workers over the age of 55 has decreased near 300,000 from last year. Not increased...

all the while calling ME confused!

I was under the impression that we both knew which type of workers we were talking about. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm generally only very specific when I'm dealing with those who do not catch on quickly.

And again, YOU came up with the 1.2 million figure, I merely repeated YOUR figure that you now attacked as wrong, all the while telling ME to "pay attention."

The 1.2 Million figure deals with your initial point. You claimed that this figure has increased because you have more retirees reducing their hours as they are reaching retirement age. This is false. You have less workers 55 and over who are part-time due to noneconomic reason than you did since 2012. 299,000 less workers in this category to be exact.

So now we are back to the fact that the number of workers who have had their hours cut back for "slack work" ( not related to Obamacare) or "business conditions" ( possibly related to Obamacare) has gone DOWN by 1.12 million SINCE OBAMACARE WAS SIGNED INTO LAW.

That's nice, but there are many other factors which are related to Obamacare which have increased. The number has gone down because they've simply moved out of one particular statistical category to another. You seem to love ignoring this point. You also love ignoring the fact that average weekly employee hours are stagnant.

 

[edthecynic]

You may be referring to part-time workers for noneconomic reasons, but here is what you actually said:

False. The number of part-time workers over the age of 55 has decreased near 300,000 from last year. Not increased...

all the while calling ME confused!

I was under the impression that we both knew which type of workers we were talking about. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm generally only very specific when I'm dealing with those who do not catch on quickly.

I love it, it's my fault you are too stupid to know what you actually say!
Priceless.

 

[AmazonTania]

You may be referring to part-time workers for noneconomic reasons, but here is what you actually said:
all the while calling ME confused!

I was under the impression that we both knew which type of workers we were talking about. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm generally only very specific when I'm dealing with those who do not catch on quickly.

I love it, it's my fault you are too stupid to know what you actually say!
Priceless.

I never said it was your fault. I already said that I should have been more specific. Although, what I did was implied that you were keeping up with the conversation.

 

[edthecynic]

And again, YOU came up with the 1.2 million figure, I merely repeated YOUR figure that you now attacked as wrong, all the while telling ME to "pay attention."

The 1.2 Million figure deals with your initial point. You claimed that this figure has increased because you have more retirees reducing their hours as they are reaching retirement age. This is false. You have less workers 55 and over who are part-time due to noneconomic reason than you did since 2012. 299,000 less workers in this category to be exact.

Have you ever heard of the Straw Man Fallacy?

Retiring Boomers are 65 and over, not 55. The number of noneconomic part-time workers 65 and older is INCREASING every year and by larger amounts each year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Year Annual
2009 2,635,000
2010 2,658,000
2011 2,762,000
2012 3,025,000

 

[AmazonTania]

The 1.2 Million figure deals with your initial point. You claimed that this figure has increased because you have more retirees reducing their hours as they are reaching retirement age. This is false. You have less workers 55 and over who are part-time due to noneconomic reason than you did since 2012. 299,000 less workers in this category to be exact.

Have you ever heard of the Straw Man Fallacy?

I quoted your words. I don't see where the Strawman lies.

Retiring Boomers are 65 and over, not 55. The number of noneconomic part-time workers 65 and older is INCREASING every year and by larger amounts each year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Year Annual
2009 2,635,000
2010 2,658,000
2011 2,762,000
2012 3,025,000

First of all, when you are going to learn that posting a hyperlink to the BLS Database Portal is not going to display the information you are trying to convey. You have to extract the information.

Secondly, the statistical category 'Part-Time for Economic Reasons' is not listed as a status in the database search. So I can only conclude two things:

1. You don't understand the data you are trying to research

2. You're making things up.

Finally, the demographics of workers regarding Part-Time for noneconomic/economic reasons are found in the Household Survey. You are trying to look up these statistics in the Current Population Survey.

 

[edthecynic]

The 1.2 Million figure deals with your initial point. You claimed that this figure has increased because you have more retirees reducing their hours as they are reaching retirement age. This is false. You have less workers 55 and over who are part-time due to noneconomic reason than you did since 2012. 299,000 less workers in this category to be exact.

Have you ever heard of the Straw Man Fallacy?

I quoted your words. I don't see where the Strawman lies.

Retiring Boomers are 65 and over, not 55. The number of noneconomic part-time workers 65 and older is INCREASING every year and by larger amounts each year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Year Annual
2009 2,635,000
2010 2,658,000
2011 2,762,000
2012 3,025,000

First of all, when you are going to learn that posting a hyperlink to the BLS Database Portal is not going to display the information you are trying to convey. You have to extract the information.

Secondly, the statistical category 'Part-Time for Economic Reasons' is not listed as a status in the database search. So I can only conclude two things:

1. You don't understand the data you are trying to research

2. You're making things up.

Finally, the demographics of workers regarding Part-Time for noneconomic/economic reasons are found in the Household Survey. You are trying to look up these statistics in the Current Population Survey.

First of all, you have to link to the portal because after you enter the search data and go to the page with the completed search you get this if you post that link:

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Secondly, the numbers we were discussing were retiring Boomers working part-time for noneconomic reasons, which is listed as "Employed part-time (usually work less than 35 hours)" so it doesn't matter that part-time for economic reasons wasn't listed as far as our discussion goes. That is just a diversion from admitting you used the wrong data to claim that the number of Boomers working part-time for noneconomic reasons was declining when it is actually increasing as I rightly said.

As far as 1 & 2, you are projecting.

Finally, I would remind you that the numbers YOU linked to regarding part-time for noneconomic/economic came from the same Current Population Survey.

Here is YOUR link:

A-18. Employed and unemployed full- and part-time workers by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey