Unemployment Rate Falls To 8.1 Percent As People Give Up On Looking For Work

[edthecynic]

First of all, the 8.1% change in the UE rate was for APRIL, not June. June's UE rate was and still remains 8.2%. We'll see what happens with the July number, if it drops it'll be because more people quit looking.

just as I predicted, even after they have been shown that this bullshit about people giving up looking is a CON$ervoFascist lie, they just keep repeating it.

Over the last year the not in workforce increased by 1.8 million but the people who gave up looking DECREASED by 161,000.

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

 

[pinqy]

Sorry misleading would also be manipulated. You have to remember the people who do these reports are the high paid experts and should not be making misleading mistakes.

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information. I've always found it odd that people who have never studied and don't understand the concepts or the methodology behind the data accuse the data of being misleading.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

And you've emphasized my point.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information. I've always found it odd that people who have never studied and don't understand the concepts or the methodology behind the data accuse the data of being misleading.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

And you've emphasized my point.

So, your "points" come from right wing blog sites?

Good to know.

 

[Wiseacre]

First of all, the 8.1% change in the UE rate was for APRIL, not June. June's UE rate was and still remains 8.2%. We'll see what happens with the July number, if it drops it'll be because more people quit looking.

just as I predicted, even after they have been shown that this bullshit about people giving up looking is a CON$ervoFascist lie, they just keep repeating it.

Over the last year the not in workforce increased by 1.8 million but the people who gave up looking DECREASED by 161,000.

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

The discouraged numbers are only based on the last 4 weeks, I suspect the number of discouraged people under 4 weeks has gone down but the number discouraged longer than 4 weeks has gone way up. Maybe they got on disability, early retirement, who knows. You can call it whatever you want, the UE situation sucks.

 

[pinqy]

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

And you've emphasized my point.

So, your "points" come from right wing blog sites?

Good to know.

Go back and read my previous posts. He emphasized my point by demonstrating lack of understanding.

 

[pinqy]

First of all, the 8.1% change in the UE rate was for APRIL, not June. June's UE rate was and still remains 8.2%. We'll see what happens with the July number, if it drops it'll be because more people quit looking.

just as I predicted, even after they have been shown that this bullshit about people giving up looking is a CON$ervoFascist lie, they just keep repeating it.

Over the last year the not in workforce increased by 1.8 million but the people who gave up looking DECREASED by 161,000.

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

The discouraged numbers are only based on the last 4 weeks, I suspect the number of discouraged people under 4 weeks has gone down but the number discouraged longer than 4 weeks has gone way up.

Where on earth did you get that idea? First, you can't be discouraged less than 4 weeks....if you've looked for work in the last 4 weeks, you're not discouraged. Discouraged means willing and able to work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks, and gave up due to belief that you wouldn't be successful.

 

[Wiseacre]

just as I predicted, even after they have been shown that this bullshit about people giving up looking is a CON$ervoFascist lie, they just keep repeating it.

Over the last year the not in workforce increased by 1.8 million but the people who gave up looking DECREASED by 161,000.

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

The discouraged numbers are only based on the last 4 weeks, I suspect the number of discouraged people under 4 weeks has gone down but the number discouraged longer than 4 weeks has gone way up.

Where on earth did you get that idea? First, you can't be discouraged less than 4 weeks....if you've looked for work in the last 4 weeks, you're not discouraged. Discouraged means willing and able to work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks, and gave up due to belief that you wouldn't be successful.

I got the idea from the footnotes.

 

[edthecynic]

The discouraged numbers are only based on the last 4 weeks, I suspect the number of discouraged people under 4 weeks has gone down but the number discouraged longer than 4 weeks has gone way up.

Where on earth did you get that idea? First, you can't be discouraged less than 4 weeks....if you've looked for work in the last 4 weeks, you're not discouraged. Discouraged means willing and able to work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks, and gave up due to belief that you wouldn't be successful.

I got the idea from the footnotes.

Bullshit!

You are so completely brainwashed that you will invent any rationalization that allows you to reject the truth and continue lying. There is nothing in the footnote that limits it to only 4 weeks. As pingy correctly pointed out you have to stop looking for work for at least 4 weeks to be considered out of the workforce for discouragement.

(2) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is nothing misleading or mistaken in the reports. Worthless lying CON$ervoFascist scum deliberately make up shit, like in the title of the OP "as people give up on looking for work" to deceive mindless morons like you. The BLS actually publishes the total of people who have "given up looking for work" And the lying scum you use as sources deliberately ignore those easily understandable reports, and just make up lies you want to hear. They know you will not bother to look at the reports on discouraged workers and when exposed to their existence, like now, you will simply ignor them so you can parrot the lies you like to believe.

There are less than 1 million people who have given up looking for work and the number is DOWN from last year. There were 982,000 in June 2011 and 821,000 in June 2012.

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

blather blather blather blather. I no longer read your lies blather blather blather blather......

Thank you for proving me right.

Prove you right? I stop arguing with your idiotic ass long ago. You can't even prove you're right how and why would I?

 

[pinqy]

The discouraged numbers are only based on the last 4 weeks, I suspect the number of discouraged people under 4 weeks has gone down but the number discouraged longer than 4 weeks has gone way up.

Where on earth did you get that idea? First, you can't be discouraged less than 4 weeks....if you've looked for work in the last 4 weeks, you're not discouraged. Discouraged means willing and able to work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks, and gave up due to belief that you wouldn't be successful.

I got the idea from the footnotes.

How? The footnotes don't say anything like that at all.

 

[pinqy]

Sorry misleading would also be manipulated. You have to remember the people who do these reports are the high paid experts and should not be making misleading mistakes.

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information. I've always found it odd that people who have never studied and don't understand the concepts or the methodology behind the data accuse the data of being misleading.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Tell you what....Instead of posting links, why don't you go through in your own words the "manipulation." We'll look at the last time the Labor Force dropped (April 2012) and go through the process:
In March, the reference week was March 11-17.
The Population was 242,604,000 with 142,034,000 people saying they worked that week (Employed),
12,673,000 saying they did not work, but could have taken a job that week and had looked for work sometime since February 19th (Unemployed), giving a Labor Force of 142,034,000 + 12,673,000 = 154,707,000
and 87,897,000 who said they did not work March 11-17 and had not looked since before Feb 19th, or could not have accepted a job March 11-17 (Not in the Labor Force).
Labor Force Participation was 154,707,000/242,604,000 = 63.8%
Unemployment rate was 12,673,000/154,707,000 = 8.2%

In April, the reference week was April 8-14.
Population rose to 242,784,000
The number of people saying they worked April 8-14 was 141,865,000
The number of people saying they didn't work that week but had looked for work since March 18th was 12,500,000
Labor Force was 141,865,000 + 12,500,000 = 154,365,000
The number of people saying they they didn't work that week and hadn't looked since before March 18th or couldn't have worked April 8-14 was 88,419,000
Labor Force Participation was 154,365,000/242,784,000 = 63.6%
UE rate was 12,500,000/154,365,000 = 8.1%

So what was the "manipulation?" The numbers were counted the way they're always counted. Nobody was "moved" except by their own responses. The LF participation rate wasn't "changed" by some act...it changed because its component variables changed.

But your link tries to make it appear that it was just changed by some external act.

Tell me how you support your link's claims.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information. I've always found it odd that people who have never studied and don't understand the concepts or the methodology behind the data accuse the data of being misleading.

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Tell you what....Instead of posting links, why don't you go through in your own words the "manipulation." We'll look at the last time the Labor Force dropped (April 2012) and go through the process:
In March, the reference week was March 11-17.
The Population was 242,604,000 with 142,034,000 people saying they worked that week (Employed),
12,673,000 saying they did not work, but could have taken a job that week and had looked for work sometime since February 19th (Unemployed), giving a Labor Force of 142,034,000 + 12,673,000 = 154,707,000
and 87,897,000 who said they did not work March 11-17 and had not looked since before Feb 19th, or could not have accepted a job March 11-17 (Not in the Labor Force).
Labor Force Participation was 154,707,000/242,604,000 = 63.8%
Unemployment rate was 12,673,000/154,707,000 = 8.2%

In April, the reference week was April 8-14.
Population rose to 242,784,000
The number of people saying they worked April 8-14 was 141,865,000
The number of people saying they didn't work that week but had looked for work since March 18th was 12,500,000
Labor Force was 141,865,000 + 12,500,000 = 154,365,000
The number of people saying they they didn't work that week and hadn't looked since before March 18th or couldn't have worked April 8-14 was 88,419,000
Labor Force Participation was 154,365,000/242,784,000 = 63.6%
UE rate was 12,500,000/154,365,000 = 8.1%

So what was the "manipulation?" The numbers were counted the way they're always counted. Nobody was "moved" except by their own responses. The LF participation rate wasn't "changed" by some act...it changed because its component variables changed.

But your link tries to make it appear that it was just changed by some external act.

Tell me how you support your link's claims.

I tell you what, I post the way I want to, hows that?

 

[pinqy]

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

Tell you what....Instead of posting links, why don't you go through in your own words the "manipulation." We'll look at the last time the Labor Force dropped (April 2012) and go through the process:
In March, the reference week was March 11-17.
The Population was 242,604,000 with 142,034,000 people saying they worked that week (Employed),
12,673,000 saying they did not work, but could have taken a job that week and had looked for work sometime since February 19th (Unemployed), giving a Labor Force of 142,034,000 + 12,673,000 = 154,707,000
and 87,897,000 who said they did not work March 11-17 and had not looked since before Feb 19th, or could not have accepted a job March 11-17 (Not in the Labor Force).
Labor Force Participation was 154,707,000/242,604,000 = 63.8%
Unemployment rate was 12,673,000/154,707,000 = 8.2%

In April, the reference week was April 8-14.
Population rose to 242,784,000
The number of people saying they worked April 8-14 was 141,865,000
The number of people saying they didn't work that week but had looked for work since March 18th was 12,500,000
Labor Force was 141,865,000 + 12,500,000 = 154,365,000
The number of people saying they they didn't work that week and hadn't looked since before March 18th or couldn't have worked April 8-14 was 88,419,000
Labor Force Participation was 154,365,000/242,784,000 = 63.6%
UE rate was 12,500,000/154,365,000 = 8.1%

So what was the "manipulation?" The numbers were counted the way they're always counted. Nobody was "moved" except by their own responses. The LF participation rate wasn't "changed" by some act...it changed because its component variables changed.

But your link tries to make it appear that it was just changed by some external act.

Tell me how you support your link's claims.

I tell you what, I post the way I want to, hows that?

You can post however you want to of course. But if you only link to someone else's argument and refuse to defend it or even explain it in your own words, it will appear to the reasonable person that you are incapable of doing so. If you want to give the appearance that you don't understand the issues and only support an argument because the conclusion agrees with what you want it too, that's your right.

I would never want to appear that ignorant myself, but if that's what you're comfortable with, knock yourself out.

 

[Widdekind]

Sorry misleading would also be manipulated. You have to remember the people who do these reports are the high paid experts and should not be making misleading mistakes.

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information...

for their Public pay, government accountants could easily clarify what their statistics imply. (Un-)employment rates are valuable statistics, directly reflecting the current ratio of demand to, to supply of, labor.

And also, millions of Americans not currently, actively, offering to "supply" their labor, are not counted in those rates. Yet, many Americans assume (understandably) that they do. The natural assumption ("'unemployment' means everybody not working, right?") is misleading, even when government accountants accurately calculate the statistics, without manipulating numbers ("massaging the data"). Clarifying meanings would be beneficial, and not unreasonable to request & require, from Public-paid accountants.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry misleading would also be manipulated. You have to remember the people who do these reports are the high paid experts and should not be making misleading mistakes.

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information...

for their Public pay, government accountants could easily clarify what their statistics imply. (Un-)employment rates are valuable statistics, directly reflecting the current ratio of demand to, to supply of, labor.

And also, millions of Americans not currently, actively, offering to "supply" their labor, are not counted in those rates. Yet, many Americans assume (understandably) that they do. The natural assumption ("'unemployment' means everybody not working, right?") is misleading, even when government accountants accurately calculate the statistics, without manipulating numbers ("massaging the data"). Clarifying meanings would be beneficial, and not unreasonable to request & require, from Public-paid accountants.

They seem to break it down pretty thoroughly including subgroups. Just because you are too lazy to look it up or too stupid to understand it does not make it misleading or manipulated.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[pinqy]

Sorry misleading would also be manipulated. You have to remember the people who do these reports are the high paid experts and should not be making misleading mistakes.

What mistakes are you claiming are being made? The surveys measure what they're supposed to measure. That people have a misconstrued idea of what they should be measuring has nothing to do with the people reporting the information...

for their Public pay, government accountants could easily clarify what their statistics imply. (Un-)employment rates are valuable statistics, directly reflecting the current ratio of demand to, to supply of, labor.

Economists, not accountants. The only accountants at BLS work in the Admin offices and have nothing to do with the data. And as for clarification...in the New Release you'll see a Technical Note and a FAQ that clarify everything. If more is needed, there's the Quick Guide to the Employment Situation with links to full documentation on everything. Not sure what more you think they should or could do.

And also, millions of Americans not currently, actively, offering to "supply" their labor, are not counted in those rates. Yet, many Americans assume (understandably) that they do. The natural assumption ("'unemployment' means everybody not working, right?") is misleading, even when government accountants accurately calculate the statistics, without manipulating numbers ("massaging the data"). Clarifying meanings would be beneficial, and not unreasonable to request & require, from Public-paid accountants.

Actually, just as many, probably more, think the official rate only includes people receiving Unemployment Insurance Benefits.
And all the meanings are clarified in the press release and on the individual websites for the programs, and in the FAQs for BLS.

 

[rdean]

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret. The history is easy to find with any search engine.

How that became "Obama's fault" is proof of a corrupt and dying party filled with liars. People who idolize the rich. And vote against their own self interests.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret. The history is easy to find with any search engine.

How that became "Obama's fault" is proof of a corrupt and dying party filled with liars. People who idolize the rich. And vote against their own self interests.

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret.

It's not a secret that even after they were bailed out and owned by the U.S. government GM built a new plant in Mexico and sent jobs their and too China. It's no secret that the government told Gibson guitiar to move their jobs to Madagascar That's just something you're going to have too face.

 

[ABikerSailor]

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret. The history is easy to find with any search engine.

How that became "Obama's fault" is proof of a corrupt and dying party filled with liars. People who idolize the rich. And vote against their own self interests.

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret.

It's not a secret that even after they were bailed out and owned by the U.S. government GM built a new plant in Mexico and sent jobs their and too China. It's no secret that the government told Gibson guitiar to move their jobs to Madagascar That's just something you're going to have too face.

We already know you're full of shit concerning GM.

Got a link for the Gibson guitar company being told to move their jobs by the government?

 

[rdean]

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret. The history is easy to find with any search engine.

How that became "Obama's fault" is proof of a corrupt and dying party filled with liars. People who idolize the rich. And vote against their own self interests.

From 2001 to 2008, Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce moved millions of jobs to China. It's not secret.

It's not a secret that even after they were bailed out and owned by the U.S. government GM built a new plant in Mexico and sent jobs their and too China. It's no secret that the government told Gibson guitiar to move their jobs to Madagascar That's just something you're going to have too face.

If you knew how to use a search engine, you would know GM made here are sold here. GM cars made in China are sold in China. Just like Toyota cars sold here are made here and VW cars made here are sold here.

Not sure that's a problem. The problem is trying to send US made cars to China. They put up such high tariffs. At least the profit comes here.

Companies like Bain make it in China and then sell it here.

How you see that as the "same" is weird. Really, really weird.