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

[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.)

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

We've been over this a million times on this board, pinqy. You're a Keynesian trained government statistician. A big part of the data is open to interpretation/ambiguity. You will always spin the stats toward YOUR bias.

The data is all over this board in thread after thread. I don't intend to keep going down that same road.

Americans can figure out how messed up the economy is without looking at government stats.

You know the quote: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[EconChick]

Even Loner Loser admitted most economists are liberals.

Enough said.

 

[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...

I just explained in my last post.

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

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

 

[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.

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

You know damn well why it's 3.6 there....thanks for confirming you're just a liberal hack.


See people.....these are the people doing your government statistics.....

 

[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.

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

 

[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...

I just explained in my last post.

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

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

the pols show what is the standard now. You have 2 years to fix this shit or your out. The american public has zero patience anymore with government. Left, right, doesn't matter. Your 350 million isnt even a real number we can use for anything.

 

[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

We've been over this a million times on this board, pinqy. You're a Keynesian trained government statistician. A big part of the data is open to interpretation/ambiguity. You will always spin the stats toward YOUR bias.

What "interpretation" are you claiming I made in my post? I cited straight numbers. And no, my training was a broad mix.

The data is all over this board in thread after thread. I don't intend to keep going down that same road.

You do that a lot. You refuse to defend your claims by falsely claiming you already proved it in other threads. In reality all you do is just make unsupported claims in thread after thread and just say you proved your point.

Americans can figure out how messed up the economy is without looking at government stats.

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?

 

[EconChick]

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.

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

the pols show what is the standard now. You have 2 years to fix this shit or your out. The american public has zero patience anymore with government. Left, right, doesn't matter. Your 350 million isnt even a real number we can use for anything.

Dude, I'm not in power...... and I'm for limited government. Don't talk to me about fixing shit. Politicians can't fix the messes. I want as few politicians as possible. I want term limits and a balanced budget.

The best we can hope for is limiting their powers as much as possible.

But back to the fucking topic, Republicans drive me nuts too but the big spending libs are much, much worse when it comes to the economy.

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

 

[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.

Americans can figure out how messed up the economy is without looking at government stats.

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?



.

Did you seriously ask that question??????????????

You're kidding me.

Anyone with their ear to the ground can figure it out. Americans don't depend on stats to figure these things out...regardless of which party it is spewing them....unless the stats match what they're seeing and experiencing

 

[pinqy]

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.

Americans can figure out how messed up the economy is without looking at government stats.

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?



.

Did you seriously ask that question??????????????

You're kidding me.

Anyone with their ear to the ground can figure it out. Americans don't depend on stats to figure these things out...regardless of which party it is spewing them....unless the stats match what they're seeing and experiencing

So your non-answer is "they just can,"
Here in my area, the economy is just fine. I look around, and there's plenty of new construction, commercial and residential, plenty of jobs for good wages.I don't know anyone who is unemployed.
And that tells me absolutely nothing about anywhere else in the country. Just looking around you tells you nothing.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

the pols show what is the standard now. You have 2 years to fix this shit or your out. The american public has zero patience anymore with government. Left, right, doesn't matter. Your 350 million isnt even a real number we can use for anything.

Dude, I'm not in power...... and I'm for limited government. Don't talk to me about fixing shit. Politicians can't fix the messes. I want as few politicians as possible. I want term limits and a balanced budget.

The best we can hope for is limiting their powers as much as possible.

But back to the fucking topic, Republicans drive me nuts too but the big spending libs are much, much worse when it comes to the economy.

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

government was out of the way during the banking crash...Thats why we got the banking crash. Smaller and limited government isnt the answer

waits for it .

 

[pinqy]

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.

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

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what I've been telling Pinqy is the problem with all the BIG SPENDING, almost Socialist leaning Keynesian assumptions.

All you dummies keep asking how Keynesian policies seep into stats, and here's a perfect example.


We hard working Americans know it's 40.

Socialist Europe thinks it's 35, or lower.

I'm not talking about how nice it would be for all us hard working people to only have to work 10 hours a week......I'm talking about reality.

The reason the line for full time vs part time was set at 35 hours/week (in 1947) was BECAUSE 40 hours is the standard work week. With 40 hours being standard, some full timers will work more, and some less. Saying that 39 hours/week is part time goes against reality and common sense. So a slight buffer of 5 hours was used. 34 hours and below we can confidently label as part time while we couldn't honestly do that with 39 hours. It is descriptive, not normative, that 35 hours was selected to fully capture a standard 40 hour week.

There was talk in 1978/79 of lowering the limit due to more variable work schedules, but that was rejected and a 40 hour work week was kept as the standard.

Oh, as for Europe, except for Iceland, Norway, and Denmark (if memory serves) there is no set division between full and part time...it's self description on the part of the respondent.

 

[EconChick]

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?



.

Did you seriously ask that question??????????????

You're kidding me.

Anyone with their ear to the ground can figure it out. Americans don't depend on stats to figure these things out...regardless of which party it is spewing them....unless the stats match what they're seeing and experiencing

So your non-answer is "they just can,"
Here in my area, the economy is just fine. I look around, and there's plenty of new construction, commercial and residential, plenty of jobs for good wages.I don't know anyone who is unemployed.
And that tells me absolutely nothing about anywhere else in the country. Just looking around you tells you nothing.

You don't watch the news? You don't read the news?

Ear to the ground means the entire country....hello.

Your stats are faulty. The methodology put in place before you got there is faulty.

Most of all, the way stats are reported is faulty.

They don't make sense to the average American....that's why less and less people believe them. That's why Obama is way down in the 30s in polls on the economy!!!!

 

[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.

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

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what I've been telling Pinqy is the problem with all the BIG SPENDING, almost Socialist leaning Keynesian assumptions.

All you dummies keep asking how Keynesian policies seep into stats, and here's a perfect example.


We hard working Americans know it's 40.

Socialist Europe thinks it's 35, or lower.

I'm not talking about how nice it would be for all us hard working people to only have to work 10 hours a week......I'm talking about reality.

The reason the line for full time vs part time was set at 35 hours/week (in 1947) was BECAUSE 40 hours is the standard work week. With 40 hours being standard, some full timers will work more, and some less. Saying that 39 hours/week is part time goes against reality and common sense. So a slight buffer of 5 hours was used. 34 hours and below we can confidently label as part time while we couldn't honestly do that with 39 hours. It is descriptive, not normative, that 35 hours was selected to fully capture a standard 40 hour week.

There was talk in 1978/79 of lowering the limit due to more variable work schedules, but that was rejected and a 40 hour work week was kept as the standard.

Oh, as for Europe, except for Iceland, Norway, and Denmark (if memory serves) there is no set division between full and part time...it's self description on the part of the respondent.

You keep proving why the stats are screwed up.

 

[EconChick]

I just explained in my last post.

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

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

the pols show what is the standard now. You have 2 years to fix this shit or your out. The american public has zero patience anymore with government. Left, right, doesn't matter. Your 350 million isnt even a real number we can use for anything.

Dude, I'm not in power...... and I'm for limited government. Don't talk to me about fixing shit. Politicians can't fix the messes. I want as few politicians as possible. I want term limits and a balanced budget.

The best we can hope for is limiting their powers as much as possible.

But back to the fucking topic, Republicans drive me nuts too but the big spending libs are much, much worse when it comes to the economy.

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

government was out of the way during the banking crash...Thats why we got the banking crash. Smaller and limited government isnt the answer

waits for it .

There are certain areas where there needs to be regulations. You don't see me saying get rid of ALLLLLL regulation.

You get rid of the 75-90% (depending on locale, etc.) that dampens the economy.

As for banking.....there needs to be some regulation but Dodd-Frank went too far the other way....they've stifled a lot of small banks. The bigggg banks made out under DoddFrank, but not smaller ones.

 

[pinqy]

How? How can they know what the average situation is for the entire country?



.

Did you seriously ask that question??????????????

You're kidding me.

Anyone with their ear to the ground can figure it out. Americans don't depend on stats to figure these things out...regardless of which party it is spewing them....unless the stats match what they're seeing and experiencing

So your non-answer is "they just can,"
Here in my area, the economy is just fine. I look around, and there's plenty of new construction, commercial and residential, plenty of jobs for good wages.I don't know anyone who is unemployed.
And that tells me absolutely nothing about anywhere else in the country. Just looking around you tells you nothing.

You don't watch the news? You don't read the news?

Ear to the ground means the entire country....hello.

I'm sorry, are you claiming now that the news media is completely unbiased and gives an accurate picture of the economic situation? Really?

Your stats are faulty. The methodology put in place before you got there is faulty.

So you keep saying, and keep failing to demonstrate. Of course they're not perfect, nothing is, but they're certainly more accurate than casual observations based on news stories.

Most of all, the way stats are reported is faulty.

But didn't you just say that people got more accurate information by their "ears to the ground" from watching the reporting you now claim is faulty?

They don't make sense to the average American.

They're not really aimed at the average American. They're aimed at people who actually use the statistics to make judgements.

 

[pinqy]

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.

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

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what I've been telling Pinqy is the problem with all the BIG SPENDING, almost Socialist leaning Keynesian assumptions.

All you dummies keep asking how Keynesian policies seep into stats, and here's a perfect example.


We hard working Americans know it's 40.

Socialist Europe thinks it's 35, or lower.

I'm not talking about how nice it would be for all us hard working people to only have to work 10 hours a week......I'm talking about reality.

The reason the line for full time vs part time was set at 35 hours/week (in 1947) was BECAUSE 40 hours is the standard work week. With 40 hours being standard, some full timers will work more, and some less. Saying that 39 hours/week is part time goes against reality and common sense. So a slight buffer of 5 hours was used. 34 hours and below we can confidently label as part time while we couldn't honestly do that with 39 hours. It is descriptive, not normative, that 35 hours was selected to fully capture a standard 40 hour week.

There was talk in 1978/79 of lowering the limit due to more variable work schedules, but that was rejected and a 40 hour work week was kept as the standard.

Oh, as for Europe, except for Iceland, Norway, and Denmark (if memory serves) there is no set division between full and part time...it's self description on the part of the respondent.

You keep proving why the stats are screwed up.

And you keep making broad assertions without details or analysis.

 

[Plasmaball]

im in the heartland....your 350 million is irrelevant.

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

the pols show what is the standard now. You have 2 years to fix this shit or your out. The american public has zero patience anymore with government. Left, right, doesn't matter. Your 350 million isnt even a real number we can use for anything.

Dude, I'm not in power...... and I'm for limited government. Don't talk to me about fixing shit. Politicians can't fix the messes. I want as few politicians as possible. I want term limits and a balanced budget.

The best we can hope for is limiting their powers as much as possible.

But back to the fucking topic, Republicans drive me nuts too but the big spending libs are much, much worse when it comes to the economy.

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

government was out of the way during the banking crash...Thats why we got the banking crash. Smaller and limited government isnt the answer

waits for it .

There are certain areas where there needs to be regulations. You don't see me saying get rid of ALLLLLL regulation.

You get rid of the 75-90% (depending on locale, etc.) that dampens the economy.

As for banking.....there needs to be some regulation but Dodd-Frank went too far the other way....they've stifled a lot of small banks. The bigggg banks made out under DoddFrank, but not smaller ones.

you said:

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

that doesnt imply anything about regulations at all.

Dodd-frank is a worthless piece of paper and nothing more.

 

[EconChick]

The more you type, the more irrelevant your comments are. Polls show you're comments are WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off.

the pols show what is the standard now. You have 2 years to fix this shit or your out. The american public has zero patience anymore with government. Left, right, doesn't matter. Your 350 million isnt even a real number we can use for anything.

Dude, I'm not in power...... and I'm for limited government. Don't talk to me about fixing shit. Politicians can't fix the messes. I want as few politicians as possible. I want term limits and a balanced budget.

The best we can hope for is limiting their powers as much as possible.

But back to the fucking topic, Republicans drive me nuts too but the big spending libs are much, much worse when it comes to the economy.

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

government was out of the way during the banking crash...Thats why we got the banking crash. Smaller and limited government isnt the answer

waits for it .

There are certain areas where there needs to be regulations. You don't see me saying get rid of ALLLLLL regulation.

You get rid of the 75-90% (depending on locale, etc.) that dampens the economy.

As for banking.....there needs to be some regulation but Dodd-Frank went too far the other way....they've stifled a lot of small banks. The bigggg banks made out under DoddFrank, but not smaller ones.

you said:

What I want is a government that gets as much out of people's business as possible. THAT's what will help the economy.

that doesnt imply anything about regulations at all.

Dodd-frank is a worthless piece of paper and nothing more.

Sure it does. Crushing regulations are one of the many things in people's way.

But I agree with you on D-F. Just that the unintended consequences have done more damage than good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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


Wrong

Refer to Table A in the link.

Discouraged workers Sep 2013 - 852,000

Discouraged workers Sep 2014 - 698,000

...the number has fallen.

Employment Situation News Release