What a Great Economy

[longknife]

Jobs up. More people employed. So boasts the Bumbler-in-Chief!

But, here's the truth →

Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years
By Paul Bedard | JANUARY 21, 2014

Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

With videos & links @ Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[editec]

Jobs up. More people employed. So boasts the Bumbler-in-Chief!

Link?

 

[william the wie]

Jobs up. More people employed. So boasts the Bumbler-in-Chief!

Link?

It was on real clear markets.

 

[expat_panama]

Jobs up. More people employed. So boasts the Bumbler-in-Chief!

Link?

It was on real clear markets.

When we want to know what the president says it's always best to get the quote directly from what's up right now at Jobs | The White House

1. Businesses have created more than 7.2 million private sector jobs in the past 40 months. Learn more ...
2. After nearly collapsing, the U.S. auto industry has added nearly 250,000 jobs -- the fastest pace of job growth in more than a decade. Learn more ...
3. American manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs since January 2012, the strongest period of job growth since 1989. President Obama wants to boost that trend. Learn more ...
   

Sure it sounds nice, and we need to remember that the while the population grows many jobs are being eliminated:

 

[SteadyMercury]

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed

Yeah he's got a great method, my 75 year old mom who has been retired for 20 years and isn't looking for work should definitely be counted in the "true" unemployment numbers that we use to measure the health of the employment picture, as should my niece who is in college and only looks for work in the summer. Heck lets throw all the people who identify themselves as "homemaker" and have chosen to raise their children full time into the mix too, that is the only true barometer.

 

[william the wie]

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed

Yeah he's got a great method, my 75 year old mom who has been retired for 20 years and isn't looking for work should definitely be counted in the "true" unemployment numbers that we use to measure the health of the employment picture, as should my niece who is in college and only looks for work in the summer. Heck lets throw all the people who identify themselves as "homemaker" and have chosen to raise their children full time into the mix too, that is the only true barometer.

Not his methodology. I do not pretend to understand the Labor Force Fraction reduction arguments. However, if you quiz Expat and Toro on their LFF assumptions you will find that there is a fair amount of reasoned disagreement at the margins.

Because the stock Market is overdue for both a correction and a bear market this is just one of many analyses about when and how deep the downturn will be when the planned extraction of GDP inherent in ACA kicks in.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Not his methodology.

Sure it is. He's proposing to measure unemployment with ridiculous non-standard methodology, it is his. He didn't attribute it to anyone else, who's methodology do you think it is?

I do not pretend to understand the Labor Force Fraction reduction arguments. However, if you quiz Expat and Toro on their LFF assumptions you will find that there is a fair amount of reasoned disagreement at the margins.

Which of them believes a homemaker raising five children who has no plans to ever seek employment should be counted in any useful to measure employment health?

Because the stock Market is overdue for both a correction and a bear market this is just one of many analyses about when and how deep the downturn will be when the planned extraction of GDP inherent in ACA kicks in.

Nope, I useless measure has no place in any analysis.

 

[william the wie]

We must agree to disagree.

 

[jwoodie]

Forest/trees argument?

 

[Sarah G]

Jobs up. More people employed. So boasts the Bumbler-in-Chief!

But, here's the truth →

Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years
By Paul Bedard | JANUARY 21, 2014

Don't believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud.

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

With videos & links @ Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, 'misery index' worst in 40 years | WashingtonExaminer.com

You just said in another thread that the auto industry is thriving? Now, the economy is in the tank. Which is it, wingnut?

 

[william the wie]

Sarah, increasingly the link between employment and sales is negative.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Link?

It was on real clear markets.

When we want to know what the president says it's always best to get the quote directly from what's up right now at Jobs | The White House

1. Businesses have created more than 7.2 million private sector jobs in the past 40 months. Learn more ...
2. After nearly collapsing, the U.S. auto industry has added nearly 250,000 jobs -- the fastest pace of job growth in more than a decade. Learn more ...
3. American manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs since January 2012, the strongest period of job growth since 1989. President Obama wants to boost that trend. Learn more ...
   

Sure it sounds nice, and we need to remember that the while the population grows many jobs are being eliminated:

Ohhh...but...but... but expat the reason is baby boomers retiring...and...and...people not wanting to work...and...

 

[itfitzme]

This 37.2% is simply a ridiculous number. It is nothing but 100 minus the labor force participation rate and it has never been below 32.7%.

So, in fact, the "real" number, using David John Marotta's "calculations" is 4.5%.

It is the additional 4.5%, on top of the absolute minimum of 37.2%, of people that said they wouldn't take a job if someone knocked on their door and begged them to.

Here is the history of ADDITIONAL PEOPLE THAT SAID, "I DON'T WANT A JOB".

In 2000, for whatever their personal reasons were, the number of people that said, "I DON'T WANT A JOB" began to increase. Historically, it has been as high at 9%.

If you can figure out why 4.5% decided they DON'T WANT A JOB, then you've got something. But adding another 32.7% to that simply means that David John Marotta doesn't know what he is doing.

 

[expat_panama]

...many jobs are being eliminated:

Ohhh...but...but... but expat the reason is baby boomers retiring...and...and...people not wanting to work...and...

LOL! For a second I got mad thinking you were serious --you know there really are posters on these threads that talk that way and actually mean it!

 

[pinqy]

This 37.2% is simply a ridiculous number. It is nothing but 100 minus the labor force participation rate and it has never been below 32.7%.

So, in fact, the "real" number, using David John Marotta's "calculations" is 4.5%.

It is the additional 4.5%, on top of the absolute minimum of 37.2%, of people that said they wouldn't take a job if someone knocked on their door and begged them to.

Not quite. The thing is that the 37.2%, being the percent not in the Labor Force actually excludes all the actual unemployed…those not working but actively for work.

Those who don't want a job are part of the 37.2% and currently make up 34.7% of the population.

Using the seasonally adjusted numbers (except population, which is not seasonally adjusted) from Table A-1 we see the total adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+, not in military, prison, or an institution) is 246,745,000
Labor Force is 154,937,000 (62.8% of pop) and insists of 144,586,000 Employed (58.6% of pop) plus 10,351,000 Unemployed (4.2% of pop) Unemployed is defined as wanting to work, available to work, and actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks. Note that the official unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so it's 6.7%

The rest of the population is Not in the Labor Force…neither working nor looking for work…91,808,000. Of those, 6,111,000 say they want a job (but either aren't looking or couldn't take one if offered). That's 2.5% of the population. The rest of Not in the Labor Force don't want a job. 85,697,000 (34.7% of pop)

 

[itfitzme]

This 37.2% is simply a ridiculous number. It is nothing but 100 minus the labor force participation rate and it has never been below 32.7%.

So, in fact, the "real" number, using David John Marotta's "calculations" is 4.5%.

It is the additional 4.5%, on top of the absolute minimum of 37.2%, of people that said they wouldn't take a job if someone knocked on their door and begged them to.

Not quite. The thing is that the 37.2%, being the percent not in the Labor Force actually excludes all the actual unemployed…those not working but actively for work.

Those who don't want a job are part of the 37.2% and currently make up 34.7% of the population.

Using the seasonally adjusted numbers (except population, which is not seasonally adjusted) from Table A-1 we see the total adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+, not in military, prison, or an institution) is 246,745,000
Labor Force is 154,937,000 (62.8% of pop) and insists of 144,586,000 Employed (58.6% of pop) plus 10,351,000 Unemployed (4.2% of pop) Unemployed is defined as wanting to work, available to work, and actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks. Note that the official unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so it's 6.7%

The rest of the population is Not in the Labor Force…neither working nor looking for work…91,808,000. Of those, 6,111,000 say they want a job (but either aren't looking or couldn't take one if offered). That's 2.5% of the population. The rest of Not in the Labor Force don't want a job. 85,697,000 (34.7% of pop)

Yes, the 37.2% excludes people unemployed yet looking for work. It includes everyone that doesn't want work, not looking, not wanting, wouldn't take it if it was offered.

Marrota's number is exactly 100% - Labor Force Participation Rate.

By Marrota's concept, that number has never been less than 37.2% (in 2000).

So, what I am saying is that, even by Marrota's own concept, he completely muddles the calculation because he assuming that the labor force participation rate can ever be 100%.

It never has been 100%. The absolute highest the participation rate has ever been was in 2000. The only reasonable reference point for saying that the labor force participation rate could be higher is the absolute max it has ever been. That means the absolute lowest the "Marrota's calculation" can be expected to be is 32.7% which was achieved in 2000. The spread between the 2000 Labor Force Participation Rate and the current rate is 4.5%. We can do either 37.2-32.7 or (100-32.7)-(100-37.2) which is the 2000 LFPR minus the current LFPR.

I think the problem here (and you know that I consider you the BLS expert) is in my using the term "the "real" number". Quote aroung "real". The only REAL number is the one published by the BLS. Marotta's number isn't even right by Marotta's own bs methodology. At best, he should get 4.5% and it still is bs because those people don't want to work. They are not really unemployed. They are the percentage of the population that no longer wants a job on top of the year 2000 %. His method not only counts the wrong people, it ends up lower than the REAL unemployment rate. He has demonstrated the he has no business talking about unemployment because he clearly doesn't know what he is doing. He is assuming that everyone in the labor force would ever want a job all at once. He is assuming that the labor force participation rate could possibly get to 100%. It can't, it never will.

The REAL unemployment rate is 6.7%.

 

[pinqy]

This 37.2% is simply a ridiculous number. It is nothing but 100 minus the labor force participation rate and it has never been below 32.7%.

So, in fact, the "real" number, using David John Marotta's "calculations" is 4.5%.

It is the additional 4.5%, on top of the absolute minimum of 37.2%, of people that said they wouldn't take a job if someone knocked on their door and begged them to.

Not quite. The thing is that the 37.2%, being the percent not in the Labor Force actually excludes all the actual unemployed…those not working but actively for work.

Those who don't want a job are part of the 37.2% and currently make up 34.7% of the population.

Using the seasonally adjusted numbers (except population, which is not seasonally adjusted) from Table A-1 we see the total adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+, not in military, prison, or an institution) is 246,745,000
Labor Force is 154,937,000 (62.8% of pop) and insists of 144,586,000 Employed (58.6% of pop) plus 10,351,000 Unemployed (4.2% of pop) Unemployed is defined as wanting to work, available to work, and actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks. Note that the official unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so it's 6.7%

The rest of the population is Not in the Labor Force…neither working nor looking for work…91,808,000. Of those, 6,111,000 say they want a job (but either aren't looking or couldn't take one if offered). That's 2.5% of the population. The rest of Not in the Labor Force don't want a job. 85,697,000 (34.7% of pop)

Yes, the 37.2% excludes people unemployed yet looking for work. It includes everyone that doesn't want work, not looking, not wanting, wouldn't take it if it was offered.

Marrota's number is exactly 100% - Labor Force Participation Rate.

By Marrota's concept, that number has never been less than 37.2% (in 2000).

So, what I am saying is that, even by Marrota's own concept, he completely muddles the calculation because he assuming that the labor force participation rate can ever be 100%.

It never has been 100%. The absolute highest the participation rate has ever been was in 2000. The only reasonable reference point for saying that the labor force participation rate could be higher is the absolute max it has ever been. That means the absolute lowest the "Marrota's calculation" can be expected to be is 32.7% which was achieved in 2000. The spread between the 2000 Labor Force Participation Rate and the current rate is 4.5%. We can do either 37.2-32.7 or (100-32.7)-(100-37.2) which is the 2000 LFPR minus the current LFPR.

I think the problem here (and you know that I consider you the BLS expert) is in my using the term "the "real" number". Quote aroung "real". The only REAL number is the one published by the BLS. Marotta's number isn't even right by Marotta's own bs methodology. At best, he should get 4.5% and it still is bs because those people don't want to work. They are not really unemployed. They are the percentage of the population that no longer wants a job on top of the year 2000 %. His method not only counts the wrong people, it ends up lower than the REAL unemployment rate. He has demonstrated the he has no business talking about unemployment because he clearly doesn't know what he is doing. He is assuming that everyone in the labor force would ever want a job all at once. He is assuming that the labor force participation rate could possibly get to 100%. It can't, it never will.

The REAL unemployment rate is 6.7%.

Ok, I see what you did, now. Not sure I agree with the method, but not sure I disagree.

Oh and the REAL UE rate is 6.5%…the not seasonally adjusted number.
But then throw in the margin of error and it's so.where between 6.3% and 6.7%

 

[SteadyMercury]

Oh and the REAL UE rate is 6.5%…the not seasonally adjusted number.

Nah from my observations the REAL UE rate depends on two things:
1. Which political team one identifies themselves with
2. Whether said political team is currently in office

Those same two factors are also consistently the basis for the validity of a myriad of other economic measurements.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...many jobs are being eliminated:

Ohhh...but...but... but expat the reason is baby boomers retiring...and...and...people not wanting to work...and...

LOL! For a second I got mad thinking you were serious --you know there really are posters on these threads that talk that way and actually mean it!

And Obamacare will save money and create jobs too....it's a wonderful life.