Unemploy Rate A Reflection of P A R T Time Jobs & Discouraged Leaving The Work Force

[Moonglow]

Ummmm, part time work is exactly why this hasn't been a good recovery.

Ah yes, play obstruction with the govt, barely allow it to function, refuse to even pass an appointment of the Surgeon General..
Brake the system, then ***** about it....You are the perfect magpie of failure in general support the best interests at hand...

 

[EconChick]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

The significance of your chart, if it has any significance, is that it appears that the major shift was put in place in the latter part of the disastrous Bush presidency,

but early on in the Obama years we see a slow but steady recovery.

Sure if you want to add obama and the democratic controlled congress you can go with that. part time work hasn't been the same since obama and the democrats took control in 2007

 

[Faun]

Seems to be a lot more part time work than full time work

The significance of your chart, if it has any significance, is that it appears that the major shift was put in place in the latter part of the disastrous Bush presidency,

but early on in the Obama years we see a slow but steady recovery.

Sure if you want to add obama and the democratic controlled congress you can go with that. part time work hasn't been the same since obama and the democrats took control in 2007

From the chart you posted ...

part time as a % of total employed:
01/2001: 17.0%
12/2006: 17.3%
01/2009: 18.6%
10/2009: 19.8%
09/2014: 18.7%

part time under Bush/Republicans increased 0.3 points. Part time under Bush increased 1.6 points. Part time under Obama has increased 0.1 point.

And speaking to EconoWhore's idiotic point, part time since the U3 rate began to decline has decreased 1.1 point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

A person who claims to be as smart as Paul Krugman can't read a BLS report?

Are you serious? That is profoundly telling:

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Now look at the last 4 lines of data in that link and tell me the difference between the number of parttime jobs for

1. economic reasons vs. 2. non-economic reasons.

then tell us what number you get for the latest month.

see if you can get it right.

 

[EconChick]

How many times does it have to be explained to you libtards there are problems with government stats and government statisticians.

Talk to the hand. The American people know the facts. They know he hasn't produced many quality jobs.

 

[EconChick]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

A person who claims to be as smart as Paul Krugman can't read a BLS report?

Are you serious? That is profoundly telling:

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Now look at the last 4 lines of data in that link and tell me the difference between the number of parttime jobs for

1. economic reasons vs. 2. non-economic reasons.

then tell us what number you get for the latest month.

see if you can get it right.

Of course you would believe anything you read.

LMAO

 

[NYcarbineer]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

A person who claims to be as smart as Paul Krugman can't read a BLS report?

Are you serious? That is profoundly telling:

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Now look at the last 4 lines of data in that link and tell me the difference between the number of parttime jobs for

1. economic reasons vs. 2. non-economic reasons.

then tell us what number you get for the latest month.

see if you can get it right.

Of course you would believe anything you read.

LMAO

Then post your source of the claim that most parttime jobs are for economic reasons, contrary to the BLS numbers,

and make the case that your numbers are more reliable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many times does it have to be explained to you libtards there are problems with government stats and government statisticians.

Talk to the hand. The American people know the facts. They know he hasn't produced many quality jobs.

Provide what you believe are the accurate statistics, provide their source, and then make an argument as to why they are more reliable.

Simple enough, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

A person who claims to be as smart as Paul Krugman can't read a BLS report?

Are you serious? That is profoundly telling:

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Now look at the last 4 lines of data in that link and tell me the difference between the number of parttime jobs for

1. economic reasons vs. 2. non-economic reasons.

then tell us what number you get for the latest month.

see if you can get it right.

Of course you would believe anything you read.

LMAO

Post your source of different statistics.

 

[Faun]

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

A person who claims to be as smart as Paul Krugman can't read a BLS report?

Are you serious? That is profoundly telling:

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Now look at the last 4 lines of data in that link and tell me the difference between the number of parttime jobs for

1. economic reasons vs. 2. non-economic reasons.

then tell us what number you get for the latest month.

see if you can get it right.

Of course you would believe anything you read.

LMAO

Then post your source of the claim that most parttime jobs are for economic reasons, contrary to the BLS numbers,

and make the case that your numbers are more reliable.

Seriously?

 

[EconChick]

lr

As usual with statistics, you gotta ask questions.

You notice the chart suggests "full time" as 35 and over.

We all know 35 is not full time. In AMERICA, 40 is full time.

So we have a decoupling problem again. IOW, someone has mixed full time and part time jobs in that "FULL TIME" category.

That means a category that would be 40 hours or more is smaller.

The BLS uses 35 hours.


As BLS says:

Refers to persons who usually work part time for noneconomic reasons such as childcare problems, family or personal obligations, school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, and other reasons.

"Plus, the vast majority of parttime workers are parttime for non-economic reasons."

Bullshit. Not in Obama's economy. He's not producing high quality jobs.

A person who claims to be as smart as Paul Krugman can't read a BLS report?

Are you serious? That is profoundly telling:

Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

Now look at the last 4 lines of data in that link and tell me the difference between the number of parttime jobs for

1. economic reasons vs. 2. non-economic reasons.

then tell us what number you get for the latest month.

see if you can get it right.

Of course you would believe anything you read.

LMAO

Post your source of different statistics.

I've already done it in plenty threads. You dumbasses don't care about facts....so I'll just play with you for awhile and maybe bombard you with stats on Nov 2.



I've already proven how unreliable govt stats are....adnoseum. How many times you have to be told THAT over and over again?

 

[EconChick]

Bump

 

[EconChick]

Labor Participation Rate still the worst in decades.

 

[pinqy]

Labor Participation Rate still the worst in decades.

It was projected to drop anyway. The recession made it worse. I don't expect it will get near 2000 levels again the percent of the population that doesn't want a job has been going up.

 

[EconChick]

Labor Participation Rate still the worst in decades.

It was projected to drop anyway. The recession made it worse. I don't expect it will get near 2000 levels again the percent of the population that doesn't want a job has been going up.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, all those people dropping out of the Labor Force are doing it by choice. Yeahhhhhhhhhhh. roll eyes

(There have always been retirees choosing to leave ..but what's increasing are numbers dropping out for other reasons.)

 

[Plasmaball]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

THERE ARE 350,000,000 AMERICANS AND YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT 200,000 JOBS??

AFTER ALL THOSE TRILLIONS?

um...not all of those work, some are kids, Some are retired...

 

[EconChick]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

THERE ARE 350,000,000 AMERICANS AND YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT 200,000 JOBS??

AFTER ALL THOSE TRILLIONS?

um...not all of those work, some are kids, Some are retired...

I just explained in my last post.

Go out to the heartland of America.....they'll tell you how worthless government stats are.

 

[pinqy]

Labor Participation Rate still the worst in decades.

It was projected to drop anyway. The recession made it worse. I don't expect it will get near 2000 levels again the percent of the population that doesn't want a job has been going up.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, all those people dropping out of the Labor Force are doing it by choice. Yeahhhhhhhhhhh. roll eyes

(There have always been retirees choosing to leave ..but what's increasing are numbers dropping out for other reasons.)

Are you saying retirement is the only voluntary reason for leaving the Labor Force?
From
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work age and sex
Those not in the Labor Force have gone up 1,911,000 in the last year. Those who don't want a job have gone up 1,678,000.
Discouraged have gone down by 154,000

 

[pinqy]

200,000 jobs plus being added to the economy

THERE ARE 350,000,000 AMERICANS AND YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT 200,000 JOBS??

AFTER ALL THOSE TRILLIONS?

um...not all of those work, some are kids, Some are retired...

I just explained in my last post.

Go out to the heartland of America.....they'll tell you how worthless government stats are.

You're right. Nebraska, with its unemployment rate of 3.6% must think the national rate of 5.9% is nonsense.