It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: peskyhumans
originally posted by: Flatfish
All of us are currently classified as "unemployed," none of us are old enough to collect Social Security and none of us are on public assistance of any kind.
That's the thing about unemployment. If you aren't collecting an unemployment check you aren't classified as unemployed by the unemployment office. Your family isn't even being counted by the system.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Indigo5
Put bluntly...Either yourself or the media you are relying on is being dishonest.
They do in fact track people who can't find a job and stop looking...and most every other category.
They're tracked but not usually part of the numbers quotes for unemployment. The unemployment rate usually quotes one rate (U2 I think it is? Not sure on the name) while a more complete picture is one of the other rates.
originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Indigo5
You totally danced around that one. The reason its brought up is you are trying to say that the numbers of unemployed are conflated by a larger older age population. I am saying that is not the case due to the fact that people do not automatically become unemployed or retired upon hitting 55. So what does that say about your numbers of unemployed?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
originally posted by: dogstar23
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.
I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.
The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)
originally posted by: Abysha
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.
Let me guess, you look around your town to determine if climate change is a hoax, as well?
You can't just simply ignore all data, facts, and numbers and opt, instead, to look out your window and go with your gut feeling.
originally posted by: peck420
How the Government Measures Unemployment
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
Call me when labour force participation rate is going up and unemployment rate is going down.
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
originally posted by: dogstar23
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.
I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.
The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)
I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.
originally posted by: blargo
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
originally posted by: dogstar23
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.
I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.
The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)
I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.
Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.
originally posted by: Flatfish
As long as " baby boomers" who retire early are counted as part of the "eligible labor force," your "participation rates" won't be setting any records any time soon.
It's not like we didn't know this huge influx of retirees was coming.
Shouldn't the fact that we don't want to work have any bearing whatsoever?
originally posted by: peck420
How the Government Measures Unemployment
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
Call me when labour force participation rate is going up
Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.
Among the reasons cited for the trend:
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”
Millions of "baby boomers" — a generation typically defined as those born during the post-war baby boom that took place between 1946 and 1964 — have retired from the workforce over the past six years.
This is putting massive downward pressure on the total labor force participation rate, which currently stands at 63.0%
Among the marginally attached, there were 665,000 discouraged workers in October, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in October had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
originally posted by: blargo
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
originally posted by: dogstar23
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.
I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.
The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)
I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.
Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.
originally posted by: Indigo5
You mean when we start whacking the elderly in nursing homes? Or when it becomes impossible for people to retire?
If the GOP eliminates healthcare and SS, Medicare etc. you might get your wish?
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
Who is not in the labor force?
As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job.
According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.”
Millions of "baby boomers" — a generation typically defined as those born during the post-war baby boom that took place between 1946 and 1964 — have retired from the workforce over the past six years.
This is putting massive downward pressure on the total labor force participation rate, which currently stands at 63.0%
Now...what you are inferring is that the 92 Million not participating are discouraged workers? Not retirees or disabled etc.?
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
originally posted by: blargo
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
originally posted by: dogstar23
originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh yeah, I am going to have to call bullsh*t on this. Look around your town and tell me if this is true. Federal reserve as the source? Come on now, don't be naive.
I'm sure these numbers are fudged, just like all of them always are, but, if I'm going to "look around my town", I can tell you they're patently false.
The numbers since Obama took office should be much better. Lots of people in my neighborhood were seeking jobs for a long time, but now, i don't know anyone who is looking - in fact, most have gotten promotions or better jobs. So i guess the picture over the last few years is actually much rosier (based on my small, personal sample size.)
I think part of what you are seeing is that there have been a lot of needless government jobs "created", which of course have a net negative impact on the economy if you know the first thing about economics. The private sector is still shedding jobs like crazy. Not good.
Wow that is not what the data said in the OP at all. In fact it said the opposite. The number of Private sector jobs have increased dramatically since the initial decrease as part of the Great Recession and the number of Government jobs has decreased. There is no shedding of private jobs at this time.
And I am saying that this data is a steaming pile of bullsh*t. Clear enough? I don't believe it because EVERY other economic indicator out there contradicts it. The real unemployment rate is well over 20%.
Explain to me why Target is closing stores. Explain why Heinz is laying off 2,500 people.. it is happening all over. A "healthy economy" does not shed private sector jobs like that. Take a freaking class or something.
originally posted by: peck420
originally posted by: Flatfish
As long as " baby boomers" who retire early are counted as part of the "eligible labor force," your "participation rates" won't be setting any records any time soon.
Retirees aren't counted in the labour force. Only employed and unemployed. A key criteria in unemployed is the requirement of seeking employment. Something a person fully retired is not doing, regardless of age.
It's not like we didn't know this huge influx of retirees was coming.
Correct. And, if all things remained equal, that should have translated to an increased wage due to labour shortages. But, all things did not remain equal...like they ever do.
Shouldn't the fact that we don't want to work have any bearing whatsoever?
If you don't want to work, I doubt you care about unemployment rates, labour force, labour force participation rates, or how those refelct the health of the economy. So, no, in this regard, it has no bearing.