4.7%

[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.

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

I don't know where you're getting "recently worked" from. And why do you consider those who are no longer looking for work to be relevant? What exactly are you trying to measure?

The UE rate is meant to look at how short the economy is in jobs. That someone not trying to get a job isn't working is hardly useful information. The percent of people trying and failing is what's relevant. But if you want to include discouraged, that's the U-4 measurement, currently at 5%

LFPR encompasses everything and tells you what percentage of working age people are working.

No it doesn't. That would be the Employment-Population ratio. The LFPR tells you what percent of the adult civilian noninstitutional population is employed OR unemployed. The LFPR can go up because of more people failing to find jobs.

When it is long term down, that means there are a lot of discouraged workers and ones that have given up completely.

Where on earth did you get that idea? That's easily proven wrong:

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.

That can be true, but it's hardly a strong correlation.

Neither is suffient alone to diagnose the labor market. I keep saying there is no silver bullet.

Now that is true. But the question is what is better?

But LFPR being as historically low is very bad. The unemployment being low now is because of all the workers out of the force.

You do realize that the Labor Force level has been going up, right? But it's not going up as fast as the population, so the LFPR is going down. But the labor force is going up and unemployed is going down (or not going up as fast) and that's why the UE rate is low.

 

[edthecynic]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

 

[kaz]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

 

[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

I don't know where you're getting "recently worked" from. And why do you consider those who are no longer looking for work to be relevant? What exactly are you trying to measure?

The UE rate is meant to look at how short the economy is in jobs. That someone not trying to get a job isn't working is hardly useful information. The percent of people trying and failing is what's relevant. But if you want to include discouraged, that's the U-4 measurement, currently at 5%

LFPR encompasses everything and tells you what percentage of working age people are working.

No it doesn't. That would be the Employment-Population ratio. The LFPR tells you what percent of the adult civilian noninstitutional population is employed OR unemployed. The LFPR can go up because of more people failing to find jobs.

When it is long term down, that means there are a lot of discouraged workers and ones that have given up completely.

Where on earth did you get that idea? That's easily proven wrong:

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.

That can be true, but it's hardly a strong correlation.

Neither is suffient alone to diagnose the labor market. I keep saying there is no silver bullet.

Now that is true. But the question is what is better?

But LFPR being as historically low is very bad. The unemployment being low now is because of all the workers out of the force.

You do realize that the Labor Force level has been going up, right? But it's not going up as fast as the population, so the LFPR is going down. But the labor force is going up and unemployed is going down (or not going up as fast) and that's why the UE rate is low.

OK, so LFPR is E + UE/working age not E/working age, doesn't change the point.

Look man, it's not that complicated. You can parse BLS terms all day long. The LFPR is low and there are a lot of discouraged workers because employment is weak. Again, if you followed the business news, you'd be used to unemployment going up every time hiring goes up for that exact reason

 

[pinqy]

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.

that's not true. About a third of those who are unemployed are receiving benefits. For the week of December 11-17 (the reference week for the unemployment rate), there were 7.2 million unemployed, and 2.2 million receiving UI benefits (state and federal programs).

When people start actively sending out resumes from not working, it's hard to count them.

Why? That would make absolutely no difference. There's only one method of counting unemployed.

Most "unemployed" as measured recently worked.

Well, yeah, but that's because most people aren't unemployed for very long. The median duration is 10.5 weeks unemployed. The mean is 27.1 weeks.

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

That's what Discouraged means!
"Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify."

 

[kaz]

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

That's what Discouraged means!
"Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify."

I like how you say "that's what discouraged means" but then you show the definition that isn't what discouraged means. There is only an overlap

 

[edthecynic]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

 

[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.

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

I don't know where you're getting "recently worked" from. And why do you consider those who are no longer looking for work to be relevant? What exactly are you trying to measure?

The UE rate is meant to look at how short the economy is in jobs. That someone not trying to get a job isn't working is hardly useful information. The percent of people trying and failing is what's relevant. But if you want to include discouraged, that's the U-4 measurement, currently at 5%

LFPR encompasses everything and tells you what percentage of working age people are working.

No it doesn't. That would be the Employment-Population ratio. The LFPR tells you what percent of the adult civilian noninstitutional population is employed OR unemployed. The LFPR can go up because of more people failing to find jobs.

When it is long term down, that means there are a lot of discouraged workers and ones that have given up completely.

Where on earth did you get that idea? That's easily proven wrong:

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.

That can be true, but it's hardly a strong correlation.

Neither is suffient alone to diagnose the labor market. I keep saying there is no silver bullet.

Now that is true. But the question is what is better?

But LFPR being as historically low is very bad. The unemployment being low now is because of all the workers out of the force.

You do realize that the Labor Force level has been going up, right? But it's not going up as fast as the population, so the LFPR is going down. But the labor force is going up and unemployed is going down (or not going up as fast) and that's why the UE rate is low.

OK, so LFPR is E + UE/working age not E/working age, doesn't change the point.

age 16 and older....I specify because some people consider "working age" to have an age cap. And yes, it completely changes the point that it measures the percent working.

The LFPR is low and there are a lot of discouraged workers because employment is weak.

But there aren't! There are very few discouraged:

 

[pinqy]

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

That's what Discouraged means!
"Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify."

I like how you say "that's what discouraged means" but then you show the definition that isn't what discouraged means. There is only an overlap

Wait, does it not count people who left "in frustration" as you first claimed, or is there an overlap? You haven't defined "left in frustration" let alone why we would want to measure them.

I have no idea what you think the difference is between leaving the labor force due to discouragement versus due to frustration.

 

[kaz]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

 

[edthecynic]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

 

[kaz]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

 

[pinqy]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh.

How is that different than discouraged?? Or if the person doesn't need a job and doesn't care anymore if he gets one, why should we care in analyzing the labor force?

 

[TheDude]

They measure unemployment based on survey. It doesn't take into account the under-employed nor those who are not actively looking for work.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey
Despite what many people believe, the unemployment rate is not measured by calculating the number of people collecting unemployment insurance. In fact, the government comes up with this much-anticipated number each month by following a process that more closely resembles the U.S. Census. The unemployment rate is measured by a division of the Department of Labor known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS. This government agency conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey that involves 60,000 households. These households are selected using random sampling methods designed to generate as close an approximation as possible to the larger population.

The number of households in the sample may seem small, especially when compared to the greater than 350 million people who live in the U.S., but it is actually quite large compared to most public opinion surveys; usually, these surveys feature 2,000 or so participants, sometimes even fewer. Each month, U.S. Census employees contact the households in the sample and ask specific questions to determine employment status. The first piece of information they want to determine is how many people in the household are actually in the labor force, meaning these people have jobs or are actively looking for jobs. Only citizens who are in the labor force are counted in the unemployment rate. Someone who does not have a job but claims he is not looking for one is considered out of the labor force and is not counted in the unemployment rate.

For example, suppose that during a given month, the BLS gathers information on a total of 100,000 people from the 60,000 survey households. A total of 25,000 of those people claim they do not have a job and are not actively looking for one. These people are classified as not in the labor force. They are not counted toward the unemployment rate. The remaining 75,000 claim to be active members of the labor force, either because they have a job or they are actively looking for one. Of those respondents, 70,000 are gainfully employed, while the other 5,000 are unemployed but looking for work. Therefore, 93.3% of respondents in the labor force are employed; the remaining 6.7% are considered unemployed. The official unemployment rate for that month is 6.7%.

 

[edthecynic]

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right if it stays low under Tramp, just as Tramp's "real" unemployment number, 96 million, will stop being the "real" unemployment number as it increases every year of the Tramp dictatorship.

JAN. 11, 2017 Press Conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

 

[kaz]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh.

How is that different than discouraged?? Or if the person doesn't need a job and doesn't care anymore if he gets one, why should we care in analyzing the labor force?

What is your point?

 

[Indeependent]

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

That is exactly what the U-4 measures as there is no difference between discouraged workers and frustrated workers as the BLS measures it.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 426,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 237,000 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 to them.

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

Trespassers, business visas, spending more to travel to pointless interviews than they can afford.
You're quite apathetic for a Democrat.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say "frustrated workers," I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE in frustration

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right

Stopped reading here. I gave you another chance and you seemed to be taking it. Now you just want to argue with W again. Go to it, there are Republicans everywhere on the board

 

[pinqy]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh.

How is that different than discouraged?? Or if the person doesn't need a job and doesn't care anymore if he gets one, why should we care in analyzing the labor force?

What is your point?[/QUOT
Two points:
That you haven't made it clear what you think "frustrated" means and how it's different from discouraged.
That if someone decides he doesn't actually need a job because it's too much hassle, then he's irrelevant to any analysis of the labor force. We care about people not being able to get jobs, not about people choosing not to work.

 

[kaz]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh.

How is that different than discouraged?? Or if the person doesn't need a job and doesn't care anymore if he gets one, why should we care in analyzing the labor force?

What is your point?

Two points:
That you haven't made it clear what you think "frustrated" means and how it's different from discouraged.
That if someone decides he doesn't actually need a job because it's too much hassle, then he's irrelevant to any analysis of the labor force. We care about people not being able to get jobs, not about people choosing not to work.

Bullshit. Se care very much why the people not in the labor force chose not to work and whether it's economically related