Unemployment Rises to 6.2%

[Avorysuds]

Remember the month we had 80kish jobs created and yet the UE rate just happened to drop again? It's technically impossible, unless the system you use to measure is bullshit. That occured many times, so the ass hat who claims we have had 53 months of growth is moronic at best. There were months of 100k jobs created and 300k people giving up looking for work, that's a 200k negative and yet the UE rate still went down. The UE rate has to keep up with population growth, then it has to add extra people by the tens if not hundreds of thousands to equal a loweing of the UE rate... How many months did we not even break population growth??? Yet the UE rate magically goes down!

 

[pinqy]

What I mean is that people go so long without finding work that they give up... This is not a new concept to bring to the debate. Massive amounts of people "give up" and thus they are counted as "employed" because the unemployment number drops....... do to not measuring it in any way that reflects reality.

Huh? Why do you think they're counted as employed if they don't have a job???

So if 10 people are on UE, and 9 months later 10 people are still UE but 3 stop looking for work, the UE rate dropped by 30%... Yet 10 people are still not working.

You do realize that the definition of Unemployed has nothing to do with benefits?
And your math is off. Let's say there are 90 people working and 10 not working but looking for work. That's a labor force of 100 and a UE rate of 10%

If nothing else changes and three people stop looking, then they are classified as Not in the Labor Force. The Labor Force is now 97 people, and the UE rate is 7.2% The reason the 3 people stopped looking is irrelevant.

You are also only allowed to draw UE for so long, once that time is up, yer done... and get counted as "employed."

No, you're not. It doesn't matter if you're no longer drawing Unemployment Insurance or if you ever did or if you ever had a job. If you're not working but trying to get a job, then you're unemployed.

 

[Avorysuds]

What I mean is that people go so long without finding work that they give up... This is not a new concept to bring to the debate. Massive amounts of people "give up" and thus they are counted as "employed" because the unemployment number drops....... do to not measuring it in any way that reflects reality.

Huh? Why do you think they're counted as employed if they don't have a job???

So if 10 people are on UE, and 9 months later 10 people are still UE but 3 stop looking for work, the UE rate dropped by 30%... Yet 10 people are still not working.

You do realize that the definition of Unemployed has nothing to do with benefits?
And your math is off. Let's say there are 90 people working and 10 not working but looking for work. That's a labor force of 100 and a UE rate of 10%

If nothing else changes and three people stop looking, then they are classified as Not in the Labor Force. The Labor Force is now 97 people, and the UE rate is 7.2% The reason the 3 people stopped looking is irrelevant.

You are also only allowed to draw UE for so long, once that time is up, yer done... and get counted as "employed."

No, you're not. It doesn't matter if you're no longer drawing Unemployment Insurance or if you ever did or if you ever had a job. If you're not working but trying to get a job, then you're unemployed.

You're right I'm wrong. Less people are working yet the UE rate has gone down 4% under th great Obama. Bush by himself caused the housing bubble, the Republican congress and Clinton played no part, the Fed dumping hundreds of billiosn into bubble building played no part, and the Dem congress under Bush did everything in their power to stop Bush's evil policies... It was all Bush and Obama is great and wonderful.


And the Government just knows if your UE but looking for work... They have the NSA spying on people for that.

******* retarded.

 

[ogibillm]

you're right. our babies need jobs!

Wow, that was a dumb comment.

Yes, it is a dumb comment. The Civilian Population stat at the BLS is 248M - it excludes children, as anyone who ever bothers to read the reports would know.

you mean the civilian noninstitutional population?
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
the one where the population in June 2014 was 247,814,000 and in July 2014 was 245,756,000 for a DECREASE of 2,058,000? or did you mean the labor force, where the numbers did increase from June to July by 199k?

i mean anyone who could read the report (and subtract) would know that you posted some bullshit.

 

[EconChick]

I started out as a heavily Keynsian trained liberal.

I never started off adhering to any political ideology, it leads to people making stupid illogical grasping arguments that are based on different motivations than the motivation to draw a logical conclusion. You are a perfect example, a blind partisan hack who's worldview consists of the good guy conservatives and the bad guy liberals.

Yes, yes, that's what your small mind would think. I've only explained a ton of times I'm talking about the macro-economy genius.

Heh someone who thinks typing up some junior high algebra is showing her grasp of "complex math" calling another person slow is pretty funny.

And your economic credentials are what?

If you received an undergrad or grad degree in economics (like I did), the odds are you were indoctrinated by econ departments that were Keynsian.

That's because the overwhelming number of universities and colleges have departments that teach the Keynsian approach. About 95% are.'

Most of the millions and millions of graduates of those programs have no idea they were indoctrinated in just ONE economic theory. They were taught as if it was the gospel.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, consider yourself one of the "indoctrinated."

If you have NO economic credentials, Merc Boy, then maybe you need to STFU when you have an urge to talk about mine. Capeche?

And if you do have credentials, you need to state what they are.....while I lambast you for not even realizing you were taught theories that were biased to begin with.

 

[pinqy]

Remember the month we had 80kish jobs created and yet the UE rate just happened to drop again? It's technically impossible, unless the system you use to measure is bullshit.

The jobs numbers come from a survey of non-farm businesses (excludes agriculture, self-employed, and others) and is based on the pay-period that contains the 12th of the month.

The UE rate uses data from a household survey that covers total employment, which is used in the UE rate calculation. It's based on the week that contains the 12th of the month.

So...different concepts, different time frames. If I remember correctly, the household survey showed a much larger increase in employment and thus the UE rate went down. The household survey employment data is not as accurate as the establishment survey, and has a lot more variance.

The UE rate has to keep up with population growth,

Ummm, no it doesn't...that's the whole point of using a ratio. And the UE rate is not based on the population...it's Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed)

 

[EconChick]

Wow, that was a dumb comment.

Yes, it is a dumb comment. The Civilian Population stat at the BLS is 248M - it excludes children, as anyone who ever bothers to read the reports would know.

you mean the civilian noninstitutional population?
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
the one where the population in June 2014 was 247,814,000 and in July 2014 was 245,756,000 for a DECREASE of 2,058,000? or did you mean the labor force, where the numbers did increase from June to July by 199k?

i mean anyone who could read the report (and subtract) would know that you posted some bullshit.

You're the only one posting bullshit. All of what you post is.

 

[KissMy]

It's amazing how the corporate tax & regulation cuts shifted the tax burden to the workers. The effective tax rate on corporations is 12.6% while the effective payroll & income tax on workers is more than double that. So now we have corporate profits through the roof & massive job loss. It's time to reverse the regressive taxation that is subsidizing billionaire corporations.

 

[ogibillm]

Yes, it is a dumb comment. The Civilian Population stat at the BLS is 248M - it excludes children, as anyone who ever bothers to read the reports would know.

you mean the civilian noninstitutional population?
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
the one where the population in June 2014 was 247,814,000 and in July 2014 was 245,756,000 for a DECREASE of 2,058,000? or did you mean the labor force, where the numbers did increase from June to July by 199k?

i mean anyone who could read the report (and subtract) would know that you posted some bullshit.

You're the only one posting bullshit. All of what you post is.

you're so right. i mean it's not like i sourced my numbers or anything.

 

[rdean]

Did Bush ever see six straight months of 200,000+ jobs?

Obama has added more jobs in the last six months than Bush did in eight years

They are purposely ignoring the 390,000 that re-entered the work force looking for jobs.

 

[Erand7899]

under these circumstances it is good news.

No it's not. The slimey twisting of unemployment numbers is coming back to haunt you peeps.

well if you think adding 200k new jobs and an increase in averages wages is a bad thing i don't know what to tell you.

what color do you think the sky is?

Adding jobs, regardless of the number is always a good thing. Not adding enough jobs to cover the growth in the working population is not a good thing, and is strongly indictative of an economy that is still rocking along the bottom.

Six years after a recession, the economy should be robust and adding jobs at every level, but this one is not doing that. The key question is; why not?

The answer is easy. Keynesian economics is a flawed concept that only works in socialist fantasy. How many times does the world have to learn that lesson?

 

[boedicca]

It's amazing how the corporate tax & regulation cuts shifted the tax burden to the workers. The effective tax rate on corporations is 12.6% while the effective payroll & income tax on workers is more than double that. So now we have corporate profits through the roof & massive job loss. It's time to reverse the regressive taxation that is subsidizing billionaire corporations.

Ummmm...where do the workers get the money to pay their taxes?

A) From their employers. The employers bear the cost of the workers' taxes in the compensation they pay said workers.

 

[rdean]

It's amazing how the corporate tax & regulation cuts shifted the tax burden to the workers. The effective tax rate on corporations is 12.6% while the effective payroll & income tax on workers is more than double that. So now we have corporate profits through the roof & massive job loss. It's time to reverse the regressive taxation that is subsidizing billionaire corporations.

USMB Republicans call that a "good deal".

 

[pinqy]

You're right I'm wrong.

Well, this is true.

Less people are working yet the UE rate has gone down 4%

More people are working and fewer are unemployed.

Bush by himself caused the housing bubble, the Republican congress and Clinton played no part, the Fed dumping hundreds of billiosn into bubble building played no part, and the Dem congress under Bush did everything in their power to stop Bush's evil policies... It was all Bush and Obama is great and wonderful.

I find that interesting. Where have I ever said anything in praise of Obama? I voted for McCain and Romney. I don't get why people turn straightforward math into partisanship. The calculations don't change depending on who is President.

And the Government just knows if your UE but looking for work... .

Where have you been for the last 70 years that the Current Population Survey, run by the Census Bureau for BLS has been around? UI benefits alone wouldn't give you near the correct number...currently only about 1/3 of those classified as unemployed collect benefits.


So you had no knowledge of how the numbers were collected or calculated, but felt confident enough to comment on them. That's a bit delusional where you just make up stuff and proclaim it true.

 

[EconChick]

All you have to do is ask middle America. They'll set your delusions straight about your manipulation of economic data.

So by all means.....keep twisting those numbers till November. It's going to be so fun watching when the public tells you what THEY think of your numbers.

I'm not even sure what you're responding to here.

I'm looking at my post which was critical of GDP growth, critical of the housing recovery, and agreeing with the notion that the economy is not robust... and you are saying they are delusions and I'm am twisting numbers. Did I even post numbers to be considered twisted?

By saying I'm delusional I assume you are disagreeing and claiming GDP growth was strong, the economy was robust, and housing market is strong? I disagree, total GDP over first six months was only 1% that is weak especially for what some are calling an accelerating recover.

"anemic" is a truly inaccurate description of the economy, and is obviously a word loaded by a hack and shot at the administration for rank political purposes.

The stock market may adjust by 10% over the next month or so, but no more after the incredible growth in 2013.

As long as stocks continuing averaging about 6% annually in relationship to 2% for bonds, our economy is no danger.

We keep telling you that because of the distortion of the Obamanomics, the stock market is no indication of the health of the economy.

Basically he took trillions of dollars, through fiscal and monetary policies, and threw it at the stock market to artificially drive down bonds and drive up stocks.

That's not how the free market works.

And the funny thing is - you libs claim to be all about helping the poor - yet all you did was help the well heeled in the stock market. While hurting the real economy by blowing up the debt at that.

People on main street are hurting.

But by all means keep touting the big spending Keynsian econ policies.

 

[EconChick]

You're right I'm wrong.

Well, this is true.

Less people are working yet the UE rate has gone down 4%[/quote]
More people are working and fewer are unemployed.

Bush by himself caused the housing bubble, the Republican congress and Clinton played no part, the Fed dumping hundreds of billiosn into bubble building played no part, and the Dem congress under Bush did everything in their power to stop Bush's evil policies... It was all Bush and Obama is great and wonderful.

I find that interesting. Where have I ever said anything in praise of Obama? I voted for McCain and Romney. I don't get why people turn straightforward math into partisanship. The calculations don't change depending on who is President.

And the Government just knows if your UE but looking for work... .

Where have you been for the last 70 years that the Current Population Survey, run by the Census Bureau for BLS has been around? UI benefits alone wouldn't give you near the correct number...currently only about 1/3 of those classified as unemployed collect benefits.[/QUOTE]

You are SO far in the weeds that you can't stand back and make any kind of macro assessment.

If you could, you'd make one.

 

[Statistikhengst]

well... nobody. job growth. people re-entering the labor market.

who loses?

and yet you want to blame someone, and find it 'funny.'

seems like you thought this was bad news for someone

U.S. job growth slowed more than expected

-Geaux

53 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector.

Unprecedented in the U.S.

Thank you, Obama.

 

[KissMy]

It's amazing how the corporate tax & regulation cuts shifted the tax burden to the workers. The effective tax rate on corporations is 12.6% while the effective payroll & income tax on workers is more than double that. So now we have corporate profits through the roof & massive job loss. It's time to reverse the regressive taxation that is subsidizing billionaire corporations.

The employers bear the cost of the workers' taxes in the compensation they pay said workers.

Wrong Retard! - They fire the highly taxed expensive workers to increase profits. They do without them, replace them with machines or outsource jobs over seas where workers are taxed less & cheap.

 

[boedicca]

Did Bush ever see six straight months of 200,000+ jobs?

Obama has added more jobs in the last six months than Bush did in eight years

They are purposely ignoring the 390,000 that re-entered the work force looking for jobs.

More people LEFT the work force than re-entered, bub.

A year ago, the Labor Force Participation Rate was 63.4% - now it is 63.9%.

Over the past year:

- The labor force increased by 340K
- Those not participating in the labor force increased by 1.9M

1.6M more people DROPPED OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE than joined.

How HopeyChangey!


If you add the Unemployed to the Non-Participants, the comparison is 101.5M in July 2013 vs. 101.7M in July 2014.

The only jobs we are adding are barely keeping up with population grown and doing NOTHING to improve overall employment. You can spin spin spin that people dropping out is a good thing, but that is pure sophistry.

 

[Siete]

I'm not even sure what you're responding to here.

I'm looking at my post which was critical of GDP growth, critical of the housing recovery, and agreeing with the notion that the economy is not robust... and you are saying they are delusions and I'm am twisting numbers. Did I even post numbers to be considered twisted?

By saying I'm delusional I assume you are disagreeing and claiming GDP growth was strong, the economy was robust, and housing market is strong? I disagree, total GDP over first six months was only 1% that is weak especially for what some are calling an accelerating recover.

"anemic" is a truly inaccurate description of the economy, and is obviously a word loaded by a hack and shot at the administration for rank political purposes.

The stock market may adjust by 10% over the next month or so, but no more after the incredible growth in 2013.

As long as stocks continuing averaging about 6% annually in relationship to 2% for bonds, our economy is no danger.

We keep telling you that because of the distortion of the Obamanomics, the stock market is no indication of the health of the economy.

Basically he took trillions of dollars, through fiscal and monetary policies, and threw it at the stock market to artificially drive down bonds and drive up stocks.

That's not how the free market works.

And the funny thing is - you libs claim to be all about helping the poor - yet all you did was help the well heeled in the stock market. While hurting the real economy by blowing up the debt at that.

People on main street are hurting.

But by all means keep touting the big spending Keynsian econ policies.

and anyone with half a brain and a background in economics would know the POTUS doesn't control the MARKET.

on three ... 1-2-3 ... DUUUURRRRRRRR 1