4.7%

[kaz]

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

The Labor Force Participation Rate tells us what percent of the population is doing something about work. But it doesn't tell us anything about why people aren't...whether it's by choice or not.
The Unemployment rate tells us what percent of those doing something about work are successful.

What are you examining that the percent that wants a job is more relevant than the percent that's successful at finding work?

That's why you look at the labor force as a whole, all the various reasons people don't work is cancelled out

Cancelled out? I'm not sure what you mean. And looking at the labor force as a whole, you're not looking at those who aren't trying to work, which I thought you wanted to do.

Yes, people giving up on finding work is the point. Try to keep up

 

[pinqy]

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

The Labor Force Participation Rate tells us what percent of the population is doing something about work. But it doesn't tell us anything about why people aren't...whether it's by choice or not.
The Unemployment rate tells us what percent of those doing something about work are successful.

What are you examining that the percent that wants a job is more relevant than the percent that's successful at finding work?

That's why you look at the labor force as a whole, all the various reasons people don't work is cancelled out

Cancelled out? I'm not sure what you mean. And looking at the labor force as a whole, you're not looking at those who aren't trying to work, which I thought you wanted to do.

Yes, people giving up on finding work is the point. Try to keep up

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work. And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

 

[kaz]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem. That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

 

[Faun]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem. That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Stop kazzing. A low LFPR means nothing in this case. It was lower in the 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's.

 

[pinqy]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

 

[kaz]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

 

[pinqy]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

 

[kaz]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

When you bring up 1953, that was over 60 years ago and labor has changed a lot since then. The comparison is not irrelevant, but going back that far is dubious.

And again, you're going to a recession year. We haven't recovered from that, jobs are not a lot better now than 2009. The point

 

[pinqy]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

When you bring up 1953, that was over 60 years ago and labor has changed a lot since then.

You're proving my point then. A change in labor demographics affects the LFPR, but does NOT affect the unemployment rate. In 1953, few women were in the labor force, making the participation rate lower. Now, we have a larger percent of elderly, disabled, and students.

You cannot tell from changes in the participation rate if the change is due primarily to economic or non-economic factors.

 

[Faun]

But there is no way to tell from the LFPR how many, if any, people gave up on finding work

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

And I'm still not sure what you mean by "cancelled out."

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

When you bring up 1953, that was over 60 years ago and labor has changed a lot since then. The comparison is not irrelevant, but going back that far is dubious.

And again, you're going to a recession year. We haven't recovered from that, jobs are not a lot better now than 2009. The point

Poor kazzing kaz. The LFPR was lower in every year prior to 1978 than it is now. According to idiots like you, the economy is better now than at any time before 1978.

 

[kaz]

No single number is intended to answer all questions. But when LFPR is low, that shows there's a problem.

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

That factor is also demonstrated by other factors including underemployment and discouraged workers which are also high

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

When you're dealing with large numbers, specific circumstances like a wife quitting her job to care for her elderly mother are cancelled out. It happens at certain rates across the workforce. You don't want one person skewing the numbers. They don't

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

When you bring up 1953, that was over 60 years ago and labor has changed a lot since then.

You're proving my point then. A change in labor demographics affects the LFPR, but does NOT affect the unemployment rate. In 1953, few women were in the labor force, making the participation rate lower. Now, we have a larger percent of elderly, disabled, and students.

You cannot tell from changes in the participation rate if the change is due primarily to economic or non-economic factors.

I pointed out you were going back over 60 years for a reason.

I also pointed out that you kept picking recession years for a reason.

As for demographic changes, they have somewhat of a shift, but my point was not that you can't compare this year to 1953 but that it's better to compare it over the last few decades. Changing demographics over just a few decades are minor. Sixty five years is a long time though.

Also, in 1953, few women worked and there were not institutional welfare systems in place like there are now.

Your argument didn't really establish anything

 

[pinqy]

So, would you then say that because in October 2009, the participation rate was 65% and in August 1953, it was 58.6%, then the bigger problem was in 1953?
Because looking at the UE rates, it was10% in October 2009 and 2.7% in August 1953. And bringing in context, October 2009 was when a recession had just ended (and unemployment is a lagging indicator), while in August 1953, a recession had just started (so there would be no effect on jobs yet.

There are 426,000 discouraged. That's hardly high (max was 1.3 million in Dec 2010). And Part time for economic reasons is at 5.6 million compared to 9.2 million in Sep 2010

Cancelled out by what? It is true that one person can't really skew the numbers but that's because it's a large enough sample and the categories are designed to be as objective as possible. As for your particular example...in December there were about 235,000 people who stopped looking for work due to "family responsibilities" (such as taking care of sick mother) and who are now available to look again.

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

When you bring up 1953, that was over 60 years ago and labor has changed a lot since then.

You're proving my point then. A change in labor demographics affects the LFPR, but does NOT affect the unemployment rate. In 1953, few women were in the labor force, making the participation rate lower. Now, we have a larger percent of elderly, disabled, and students.

You cannot tell from changes in the participation rate if the change is due primarily to economic or non-economic factors.

I pointed out you were going back over 60 years for a reason.

Of course. To show that the LFPR is not good at historical comparisons. You tend to agree with that.

I also pointed out that you kept picking recession years for a reason.

What reason is that? I didn't have a reason.

As for demographic changes, they have somewhat of a shift, but my point was not that you can't compare this year to 1953 but that it's better to compare it over the last few decades. Changing demographics over just a few decades are minor.

Oh? the height of the LFPR was 67.3% in April 2000. It's now 62.7%. Please show, using facts and math, what were the contributions to the drop? (I've already calculated it for age groups 16-24, 25-54, and 55+) I can specify school attendance for age 16-24 if you want, but I can't add in disabled for before 2008, Stay home parents I can do from 1975-2014.

However, in 1953, few women worked and there were not institutional welfare systems in place like there are now.

And? the question is whether or not the LFPR gives a better picture of the labor market than the UE rate. NON-labor market reasons, such as women's participation and available welfare affect the LFPR, but NOT the UE rate. The UE rate is ONLY affected by labor market conditions.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[TheDude]

$100 says the OP doesn't know how the unemployment rate works, nor how it doesn't represent actual employment.

 

[kaz]

1953? Seriously? BTW, in 1953 we were in a recession

As I mentioned. But why does the year matter? If you want more current, would you say the job situation was better in October 2009 than now? The participation rate was higher.

When you bring up 1953, that was over 60 years ago and labor has changed a lot since then.

You're proving my point then. A change in labor demographics affects the LFPR, but does NOT affect the unemployment rate. In 1953, few women were in the labor force, making the participation rate lower. Now, we have a larger percent of elderly, disabled, and students.

You cannot tell from changes in the participation rate if the change is due primarily to economic or non-economic factors.

I pointed out you were going back over 60 years for a reason.

Of course. To show that the LFPR is not good at historical comparisons. You tend to agree with that.

I also pointed out that you kept picking recession years for a reason.

What reason is that? I didn't have a reason.

As for demographic changes, they have somewhat of a shift, but my point was not that you can't compare this year to 1953 but that it's better to compare it over the last few decades. Changing demographics over just a few decades are minor.

Oh? the height of the LFPR was 67.3% in April 2000. It's now 62.7%. Please show, using facts and math, what were the contributions to the drop? (I've already calculated it for age groups 16-24, 25-54, and 55+) I can specify school attendance for age 16-24 if you want, but I can't add in disabled for before 2008, Stay home parents I can do from 1975-2014.

However, in 1953, few women worked and there were not institutional welfare systems in place like there are now.

And? the question is whether or not the LFPR gives a better picture of the labor market than the UE rate. NON-labor market reasons, such as women's participation and available welfare affect the LFPR, but NOT the UE rate. The UE rate is ONLY affected by labor market conditions.

That's not what I said. I said it's not a silver bullet where you only look at that

You picked recession years because that's where the data most suited manipulating your argument

I already answered that question

You don't grasp the significance of women working to the LFPR? Seriously? Or lifer welfare recipients? You don't grasp the significance on the LFPR of that either? LOL, you're just not being intellectually honest now

 

[pinqy]

You don't grasp the significance of women working to the LFPR? Seriously? Or lifer welfare recipients? You don't grasp the significance on the LFPR of that either?

Of course I understand the significance. That's my main point AGAINST using the LFPR as "more relevant" than the UE rate. The UE rate is NOT affected by either of those.

I don't get it...you're admitting that the LFPR is affected by non-economic, non-labor market reasons, but still insist it's better for looking at the labor market than the UE rate, which is not affected by non-economic reasons?

The LFPR is just a measure of who wants to work. It doesn't tell us anything about how easy or difficult it is to get a job.

 

[pinqy]

$100 says the OP doesn't know how the unemployment rate works, nor how it doesn't represent actual employment.

ummm why would the unemployment rate represent employment?

 

[kaz]

You don't grasp the significance of women working to the LFPR? Seriously? Or lifer welfare recipients? You don't grasp the significance on the LFPR of that either?

Of course I understand the significance. That's my main point AGAINST using the LFPR as "more relevant" than the UE rate. The UE rate is NOT affected by either of those.

I don't get it...you're admitting that the LFPR is affected by non-economic, non-labor market reasons, but still insist it's better for looking at the labor market than the UE rate, which is not affected by non-economic reasons?

The LFPR is just a measure of who wants to work. It doesn't tell us anything about how easy or difficult it is to get a job.

The only thing you said in that paragraph that made any sense was "I don't get it." That was true, you don't.

Unemployment only tells you who recently worked and is actively looking to get another job. Because of it's narrow look, it tells you nothing about how many workers have given up and quit

LFPR encompasses everything and tells you what percentage of working age people are working. When it is long term down, that means there are a lot of discouraged workers and ones that have given up completely. When it's easy for say housewives or adults living with their parents to get a job and the pay is decent, they tend to work more and increase the labor participation rate. When it's crappy and the pay is low, they don't bother.

Neither is suffient alone to diagnose the labor market. I keep saying there is no silver bullet. But LFPR being as historically low is very bad. The unemployment being low now is because of all the workers out of the force. If you watched the business news, you'd know it's been a long time Obama term thing where every time hiring goes up unemployment goes up because a bunch of people start looking again, and vice versa

 

[kaz]

$100 says the OP doesn't know how the unemployment rate works, nor how it doesn't represent actual employment.

ummm why would the unemployment rate represent employment?

It doesn't. It represents people who were recently employed and are actively looking to get re-employed. That's all

 

[edthecynic]

Unemployment only tells you who recently worked and is actively looking to get another job. Because of it's narrow look, it tells you nothing about how many workers have given up and quit

How recently someone worked has NOTHING to do with the UE rate, someone could have not worked in 10 years or never worked and if they are looking for work now and can't find it then they are unemployed.

The U-4 rate includes workers who have given up, (now less than half a million), which is tracked by the BLS.

 

[kaz]

Unemployment only tells you who recently worked and is actively looking to get another job. Because of it's narrow look, it tells you nothing about how many workers have given up and quit

How recently someone worked has NOTHING to do with the UE rate, someone could have not worked in 10 years or never worked and if they are looking for work now and can't find it then they are unemployed.

The U-4 rate includes workers who have given up, (now less than half a million), which is tracked by the BLS.

OK, recently worked is not part of the definition, but most of the people considered unemployed are getting unemployment insurance, that's what I meant by that. When people start actively sending out resumes from not working, it's hard to count them. Most "unemployed" as measured recently worked.

The U-4 counts discouraged workers but no it does not count people who have left the labor force in frustration