April Jobs report looks dismal, March numbers to be revised????

[bigrebnc1775]

The 54% is of the number of Boomers that reach age 65. If you are figuring by day it is 54% of 10,000. If you are figuring by month it is 54% of 300,000. And if you are figuring by year it is 54% of 3.65 million.

And page 2 from my source did not say that 31% of retiring Boomers went back to work. It said 1/3 of 31% of WORKING Boomers age 65 switched careers, retiring from one to start another. I know percents are difficult for you, but 1/3 of 31% is about 10%,

Here is the quote from page 2 for the 5th time. Try actually reading it this time.

Stupid here is your source

I always do, but CON$ always pretend to be blind deaf and dumb.

And I linked to an AARP study that showed that 54% of Boomers had already retired by age 65. Here it is for the third time for you to ignore.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/approaching-65.pdf
Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or unemployed and looking for work.

Page two second too last paragraph.

I posted it 5 times already and you have yet to read it once!

You can post it a thousand time it's not saying what you are saying.

 

[edthecynic]

Stupid here is your source



Page two second too last paragraph.

I posted it 5 times already and you have yet to read it once!

You can post it a thousand time it's not saying what you are saying.

I know, and you still won't read it!

Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves
retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or
unemployed and looking for work. Of the 31% who are employed full or part time, over one-third say
they have retired from a previous career and are still working.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I posted it 5 times already and you have yet to read it once!

You can post it a thousand time it's not saying what you are saying.

I know, and you still won't read it!

Our new survey of boomers turning 65 indicates that as the moment of truth arrives and
boomers are faced with the decision about retirement, about half (54%) already consider themselves
retired, while 46% are employed full or part time, not in the labor force for other reasons, or
unemployed and looking for work. Of the 31% who are employed full or part time, over one-third say
they have retired from a previous career and are still working.

And I'm still waiting on you too show that 100,000 a month retiring. All you have shown is a percentage but no real numbers.
Still waiting on that.

 

[Annie]

So now we have 10,000 retiring daily? thats even more than the 100,000 ed trying to push off as truth. Are baby boomers retiring? Yes some are but not as many as we think.

No, we have 10,000 reaching retirement AGE daily. Only 54% of them are retiring.
Pay attention!

Take it up with annie dumb ass that's what she said. But you can't show the actual numbers no source nothing from you.

Right now there are about 10k boomers retiring every day

Annie 'dumbass' here, nice response. I made a mistake, but the point still stands, which is your favor, argumentatively. Genius. Not.

 

[Trajan]

There is no "baseline," and i'm not sure what you mean by labor pool.
the labor force participation rate is: Labor Force as a percent of the population.
The labor force is employed + unemployed
The population is everyone 16 and older not in prison, an institution, or the military.
So the Numerator is everyone willing able and either working or looking for work
The denominator is everyone.

so how does that square when someone says, that retirees are causing the LFPR to drop? Not 'discouraged workers'?

It's simple math, more retirees makes the denominator bigger making the ratio smaller. Discouraged workers also affects the denominator but the number of discouraged workers went down from 2010 to 2011 and appears to be going down in 2012 as well.

Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

where does it say that?

and that doesn't really answer my question, if you have say 100 people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military, then thats your labor pool.

 

[itfitzme]

Actually the unadjusted number is 6.041 million, so the other 82 million are not discouraged workers who have given up looking for work as CON$ would have us believe.

Absolute values, like 6.3 or 6.1 million, are meaningless. Population grows. Just as well, it says nothing about what the natural rate is. For all we know, the natural rate is 4.0 million people, even under the lowest unemployment levels.

The lowest level that WAJN has ever achieved, closer to the natural level, is 4 million. So, even including the "Not available to work now" and "Reasons other than discouragement", that puts the excess at 2.3 million.

Meaningless?
Even CBS dis agrees with you, this stuff is really simple

he drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October. It would be far preferable for the unemployment rate to drop because the economy is creating over 200,000 per month consistently, rather than due to would-be employees leaving the work force, either because they're retiring or they're simply too discouraged to keep looking for a job. If some of those people resume their job searches, we could see the unemployment rate tick up next month.

November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News

The civilian labor force dropped another 300,000 this month while the not-in force grew 500,000

These numbers have everything to do with the UE rate changing, in fact there having more of an impact than actual job growth is, twice as much latley
If 50% of the numbers had went into the labor force sense November than has we would have had huge swing in UE% rate the wrong way
Changing Demographics cannot explain all if this in my opinion

Nothing in the article disagrees with my saying that absolute numbers don't mean much. Every value in the article is referenced to something, even "Total Number of Unemployed: 13.3 million (from 13.9 million)" That is a comparison of one level to another. It has some traction, though it is still not quite as meaningful because it doesn't reference how a .6 mil drop compares to the typical change.

I didn't say that the unemployment rate doesn't go down because the labor force decreases. I just said that 6.1 million, as an absolute level, doesn't mean much. That is why I went after a lower boundary, 4 million, so that it is comparable to something. And I see that, oddly enough, it was as high back in the beginning when they started collecting WAJN data. I have no clue what it means, but at least it's a reference point.

So yes, as an absolute number, it's meaningless. As I quoted the entire post, I didn't leave out any comparison value. And none was given. I don't recall it being compared to anything as I scanned the thread.

A drop has some meaning because it's not an absolute number. Even then, it may not be very meaning full for a number of reasons.

It would be preferable "for the unemployment rate to drop because the economy is creating over 200,000 per month consistently". Unfortunately, the economy is not consistent. That is why we can only look at trends, not absolute months or data points.

Have you looked at the month to month or quarter to quarter GDP data? The month to month CPI data? The day to day stock market prices? Why would we expect employment data to have any less variability in it? (That's not a rhetorical question. Some things have physical limitations, some things don't. What, one might ask, is reasonably less constrained by actual physics and what is purely psychological?)

BTW, the CBS articles point is meaningless because she was discussing November and the first consideration coming into the winter is seasonal variability. It usually falls coming into the winter. That the author didn't mention this obvious fact doesn't speak well of her. But then, she's not a statistician and probably hasn't studies statistics, sampling, or surveys in her financial education.

And, her point is well taken, but she really didn't address why it dropped. She made a good point in general, but wasn't exactly committal to addressing why the labor force dropped. It would be a much better point if she was making it in May.

You're making a better point applying her comment to April then she was in December. It generally goes up coming into the summer, so a drop coming into the summer is a bit more questionable.

Yeah, if "some of those people resume their job searches, we could see the unemployment rate tick up next month." Absolutely.

But, a single month change doesn't mean much. The labor force and employment varies from month to month, up and down. Since 1979, the March to April change in the labor force has fallen by as much as -.44% and risen by as much as -0.36%. There is random variability. This March to April change was -0.27%. That is well within the range of March to April changes.



WAJN does attempt to gauge the reason that they aren't looking. But, in further examination, it includes things that we really aren't considering for our interest, like "Reasons other than discouragement". It is reasonable to take those out first.

And it doesn't include a category for "I retired" or "I retired but am still looking for work." Unless the CPS surveyed those people that left the workforce and asked them if they retired, there is no way to conclude that they left the workforce because they retired. We really can't use the number of people retiring with the CPS data, not in any direct sense. Not without very detailed understanding of the two survey methods.

I sure would like it if the CPS included a category for retired and not working. I saw some mention that the labor force is 16 to retirement age of 65, but I haven't confirmed that and it is in conflict with other information. That the CBS author put "discouraged" and "retired" into the same sentence makes her suspect.

In general, estimates from one survey cannot be reliably subtracted from estimates of another survey. The general trends can be compared. But the estimates, like how many people have retired and how many people have are in the labor force, cannot be subtracted.

They are estimates, they have sampling error. Combining them combines the sampling error. The data and estimates within a survey are internally consistent. They can be subtracted and added because they are tied together in each questionnaire, each data point. Estimates between different surveys are not guaranteed to be consistent.

And the groups that are being counted in two separate surveys are not necessary mutually exclusive. I think that was someone's point earlier, that "retired" doesn't mean not working. I would expect quite a few people that had expected to retire are not and that there are others that lost a job and decided to just go ahead and retire. There is just no way to know what the retirement numbers mean in terms of the CPS.

We get a lot more traction out of looking at the subcategories under WAJN then we do trying to compare the numbers from completely separate surveys. At the very least, seeing as the WAJN data is part of the CPS, that is where we should start.

Even then, we need something to gauge it against, like an average and the variability.

Personally, I don't put much stock in a single month's unemployment rate. It just doesn't mean much, up or down. It's the trend that is important.

Look, it's like having a crappy speedometer that bounces all over the place. A snapshot doesn't tell us if we are doing 45, 50, or 55 mph.

 

[edthecynic]

so how does that square when someone says, that retirees are causing the LFPR to drop? Not 'discouraged workers'?

It's simple math, more retirees makes the denominator bigger making the ratio smaller. Discouraged workers also affects the denominator but the number of discouraged workers went down from 2010 to 2011 and appears to be going down in 2012 as well.

Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

where does it say that?

and that doesn't really answer my question, if you have say 100 people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military, then thats your labor pool.

Wrong again.
The labor pool is made up of the employed and unemployed workers. It is the numerator of the LPR.
The people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military are the civilian noninstitutional population. The denominator of the LPR.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

Civilian Noninstitutional Population and Associated Rate and Ratio Measures for Model-Based Areas

The civilian noninstitutional population consists of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities and homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, we have 10,000 reaching retirement AGE daily. Only 54% of them are retiring.
Pay attention!

Take it up with annie dumb ass that's what she said. But you can't show the actual numbers no source nothing from you.

Right now there are about 10k boomers retiring every day

Annie 'dumbass' here, nice response. I made a mistake, but the point still stands, which is your favor, argumentatively. Genius. Not.

Annie sweetie I wasn't calling you dumb ass ed is the dumb ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right now there are about 10k boomers retiring every day, however they are the oldest of the boomers and they just started hitting 65 last year. They had the time to save and they had the economy booming for most of their lives, with a few glitches. Their children were raised well before the last 5 years.

That's not true for the top of the bell curve of the boomers, not by a long shot. They got hit before they'd moved out of more risky investments, many have kids that have just graduated college, some of their kids are even still in high school today. Jobs are not there and they are still helping out them and their parents. Many have lost their jobs in late 40's and early 50's-not a good combination at all, some will never fully retire.

So now we have 10,000 retiring daily? thats even more than the 100,000 ed trying to push off as truth. Are baby boomers retiring? Yes some are but not as many as we think.

Do you truly not understand the numbers? You would fail this problem in the most conservative economics class in America, bigrebnc. You would fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Right now there are about 10k boomers retiring every day, however they are the oldest of the boomers and they just started hitting 65 last year. They had the time to save and they had the economy booming for most of their lives, with a few glitches. Their children were raised well before the last 5 years.

That's not true for the top of the bell curve of the boomers, not by a long shot. They got hit before they'd moved out of more risky investments, many have kids that have just graduated college, some of their kids are even still in high school today. Jobs are not there and they are still helping out them and their parents. Many have lost their jobs in late 40's and early 50's-not a good combination at all, some will never fully retire.

So now we have 10,000 retiring daily? thats even more than the 100,000 ed trying to push off as truth. Are baby boomers retiring? Yes some are but not as many as we think.

Do you truly not understand the numbers? You would fail this problem in the most conservative economics class in America, bigrebnc. You would fail.

Why ask me? Because you're showing you don't know anything about the numbers. Dumb ass, annie is saying 10,000 baby boomers are retiring daily Eds saying 100,000 a month do the month both can't be right. Stupid walk away.
You have failed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The numbers are clear, the comments are cogent and accurate, and you are wrong.

Nothing you say changes that. You may have the last word, so we can all chuckle at you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The numbers are clear, the comments are cogent and accurate, and you are wrong.

Nothing you say changes that. You may have the last word, so we can all chuckle at you.

Dumb ass
Annie is saying 10,000 a day is retiring eds saying 100,000 a month. I know you aren't that bright but there are only 30 to 31 days in each month excluding Feb.
Go back to school and take a few math courses

 

[JRK]

Absolute values, like 6.3 or 6.1 million, are meaningless. Population grows. Just as well, it says nothing about what the natural rate is. For all we know, the natural rate is 4.0 million people, even under the lowest unemployment levels.

The lowest level that WAJN has ever achieved, closer to the natural level, is 4 million. So, even including the "Not available to work now" and "Reasons other than discouragement", that puts the excess at 2.3 million.

Meaningless?
Even CBS dis agrees with you, this stuff is really simple

he drop in the unemployment rate comes with an asterisk: while there was a 278,000 gain in employment, there was a concurrent labor force decline of 315,000 from October. It would be far preferable for the unemployment rate to drop because the economy is creating over 200,000 per month consistently, rather than due to would-be employees leaving the work force, either because they're retiring or they're simply too discouraged to keep looking for a job. If some of those people resume their job searches, we could see the unemployment rate tick up next month.

November Unemployment: Why the big drop? - CBS News

The civilian labor force dropped another 300,000 this month while the not-in force grew 500,000

These numbers have everything to do with the UE rate changing, in fact there having more of an impact than actual job growth is, twice as much latley
If 50% of the numbers had went into the labor force sense November than has we would have had huge swing in UE% rate the wrong way
Changing Demographics cannot explain all if this in my opinion

Nothing in the article disagrees with my saying that absolute numbers don't mean much. Every value in the article is referenced to something, even "Total Number of Unemployed: 13.3 million (from 13.9 million)" That is a comparison of one level to another. It has some traction, though it is still not quite as meaningful because it doesn't reference how a .6 mil drop compares to the typical change.

I didn't say that the unemployment rate doesn't go down because the labor force decreases. I just said that 6.1 million, as an absolute level, doesn't mean much. That is why I went after a lower boundary, 4 million, so that it is comparable to something. And I see that, oddly enough, it was as high back in the beginning when they started collecting WAJN data. I have no clue what it means, but at least it's a reference point.

So yes, as an absolute number, it's meaningless. As I quoted the entire post, I didn't leave out any comparison value. And none was given. I don't recall it being compared to anything as I scanned the thread.

A drop has some meaning because it's not an absolute number. Even then, it may not be very meaning full for a number of reasons.

It would be preferable "for the unemployment rate to drop because the economy is creating over 200,000 per month consistently". Unfortunately, the economy is not consistent. That is why we can only look at trends, not absolute months or data points.

Have you looked at the month to month or quarter to quarter GDP data? The month to month CPI data? The day to day stock market prices? Why would we expect employment data to have any less variability in it? (That's not a rhetorical question. Some things have physical limitations, some things don't. What, one might ask, is reasonably less constrained by actual physics and what is purely psychological?)

BTW, the CBS articles point is meaningless because she was discussing November and the first consideration coming into the winter is seasonal variability. It usually falls coming into the winter. That the author didn't mention this obvious fact doesn't speak well of her. But then, she's not a statistician and probably hasn't studies statistics, sampling, or surveys in her financial education.

And, her point is well taken, but she really didn't address why it dropped. She made a good point in general, but wasn't exactly committal to addressing why the labor force dropped. It would be a much better point if she was making it in May.

You're making a better point applying her comment to April then she was in December. It generally goes up coming into the summer, so a drop coming into the summer is a bit more questionable.

Yeah, if "some of those people resume their job searches, we could see the unemployment rate tick up next month." Absolutely.

But, a single month change doesn't mean much. The labor force and employment varies from month to month, up and down. Since 1979, the March to April change in the labor force has fallen by as much as -.44% and risen by as much as -0.36%. There is random variability. This March to April change was -0.27%. That is well within the range of March to April changes.



WAJN does attempt to gauge the reason that they aren't looking. But, in further examination, it includes things that we really aren't considering for our interest, like "Reasons other than discouragement". It is reasonable to take those out first.

And it doesn't include a category for "I retired" or "I retired but am still looking for work." Unless the CPS surveyed those people that left the workforce and asked them if they retired, there is no way to conclude that they left the workforce because they retired. We really can't use the number of people retiring with the CPS data, not in any direct sense. Not without very detailed understanding of the two survey methods.

I sure would like it if the CPS included a category for retired and not working. I saw some mention that the labor force is 16 to retirement age of 65, but I haven't confirmed that and it is in conflict with other information. That the CBS author put "discouraged" and "retired" into the same sentence makes her suspect.

In general, estimates from one survey cannot be reliably subtracted from estimates of another survey. The general trends can be compared. But the estimates, like how many people have retired and how many people have are in the labor force, cannot be subtracted.

They are estimates, they have sampling error. Combining them combines the sampling error. The data and estimates within a survey are internally consistent. They can be subtracted and added because they are tied together in each questionnaire, each data point. Estimates between different surveys are not guaranteed to be consistent.

And the groups that are being counted in two separate surveys are not necessary mutually exclusive. I think that was someone's point earlier, that "retired" doesn't mean not working. I would expect quite a few people that had expected to retire are not and that there are others that lost a job and decided to just go ahead and retire. There is just no way to know what the retirement numbers mean in terms of the CPS.

We get a lot more traction out of looking at the subcategories under WAJN then we do trying to compare the numbers from completely separate surveys. At the very least, seeing as the WAJN data is part of the CPS, that is where we should start.

Even then, we need something to gauge it against, like an average and the variability.

Personally, I don't put much stock in a single month's unemployment rate. It just doesn't mean much, up or down. It's the trend that is important.

Look, it's like having a crappy speedometer that bounces all over the place. A snapshot doesn't tell us if we are doing 45, 50, or 55 mph.

You and I are talking apples and oranges
Job creation and the UE rate at this time are 2 different things
I mean no dis respect to your effort. The reason the UE is going down has allot more to do with people leaving the work force than jobs being created

This is what CBS was saying even thought there spin (or not) made it seen retirement and not people giving up is the reason
The not-in column is growing by this month 5 times what the job creation numbers did
(+-)

This has everything to do with the UE going from 9% to 8% as we find it will below in November

Not directed at you, but if one keeps repeating a 1/2 truth it will become the truth
Saying there is job creation is true (although it is anemic), saying the UE rate is falling is not even a 1/2 truth

People in general only care about that 5-6-7-8-9-10% number

Kudos to CBS at least explaining the why once any-way

 

[edthecynic]

The numbers are clear, the comments are cogent and accurate, and you are wrong.

Nothing you say changes that. You may have the last word, so we can all chuckle at you.

Dumb ass
Annie is saying 10,000 a day is retiring eds saying 100,000 a month. I know you aren't that bright but there are only 30 to 31 days in each month excluding Feb.
Go back to school and take a few math courses

Said the hypocrite who is stumped by percentages!

Again, 10,000 Boomers are reaching retirement AGE every day. Using 30 days to a month that's 300,000 per month. According to the AARP study, 54% of that 300,000 are retired by age 65, that equals a little over 160,000 Boomers retiring each month.

What I said is that conservatively 100,000 of the 160,000 jobs the retiring Boomers left will be filled by replacements without creating a single NEW job so you need to add that 100,000 to the number of NEW jobs created to get a more accurate picture of the monthly jobs picture. IOW, this month 115,000 NEW jobs were created so the number of unemployed will go down by a greater amount than 115,000 due to filling jobs left by retiring Boomers.
Get it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The numbers are clear, the comments are cogent and accurate, and you are wrong.

Nothing you say changes that. You may have the last word, so we can all chuckle at you.

Dumb ass
Annie is saying 10,000 a day is retiring eds saying 100,000 a month. I know you aren't that bright but there are only 30 to 31 days in each month excluding Feb.
Go back to school and take a few math courses

Said the hypocrite who is stumped by percentages!

Again, 10,000 Boomers are reaching retirement AGE every day. Using 30 days to a month that's 300,000 per month. According to the AARP study, 54% of that 300,000 are retired by age 65, that equals a little over 160,000 Boomers retiring each month.

What I said is that conservatively 100,000 of the 160,000 jobs the retiring Boomers left will be filled by replacements without creating a single NEW job so you need to add that 100,000 to the number of NEW jobs created to get a more accurate picture of the monthly jobs picture. IOW, this month 115,000 NEW jobs were created so the number of unemployed will go down by a greater amount than 115,000 due to filling jobs left by retiring Boomers.
Get it?

I don't think you understand what the difference is between percentages and the actual number
You have said 100,000 baby boomers retire each month and if you now change that you are a fucking liar. You have yet to provide any proof that 100,000 baby boomers retire each month. What you have done is given a percentage which is not show how many have retire. Where is your fucking proof?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The numbers are clear, the comments are cogent and accurate, and you are wrong.

Nothing you say changes that. You may have the last word, so we can all chuckle at you.

Dumb ass
Annie is saying 10,000 a day is retiring eds saying 100,000 a month. I know you aren't that bright but there are only 30 to 31 days in each month excluding Feb.
Go back to school and take a few math courses

Said the hypocrite who is stumped by percentages!

Again, 10,000 Boomers are reaching retirement AGE every day. Using 30 days to a month that's 300,000 per month. According to the AARP study, 54% of that 300,000 are retired by age 65, that equals a little over 160,000 Boomers retiring each month.

What I said is that conservatively 100,000 of the 160,000 jobs the retiring Boomers left will be filled by replacements without creating a single NEW job so you need to add that 100,000 to the number of NEW jobs created to get a more accurate picture of the monthly jobs picture. IOW, this month 115,000 NEW jobs were created so the number of unemployed will go down by a greater amount than 115,000 due to filling jobs left by retiring Boomers.
Get it?

bigrebnc just does not understand numbers, etc. Sad.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ir we lose a million jobs a month for a couple of months, the Obama Administration will "discover" that the unemployment figures have dropped to under 4%

only in obamaland can people stop looking for work and it be a benefit to the country. Following obamalogic, if everyone stopped looking for work we could get to a 0% unemployment.

 

[Trajan]

It's simple math, more retirees makes the denominator bigger making the ratio smaller. Discouraged workers also affects the denominator but the number of discouraged workers went down from 2010 to 2011 and appears to be going down in 2012 as well.

Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

where does it say that?

and that doesn't really answer my question, if you have say 100 people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military, then thats your labor pool.

Wrong again.
The labor pool is made up of the employed and unemployed workers. It is the numerator of the LPR.
The people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military are the civilian noninstitutional population. The denominator of the LPR.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

Civilian Noninstitutional Population and Associated Rate and Ratio Measures for Model-Based Areas

The civilian noninstitutional population consists of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities and homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

it wasn't intended as a declarative statement. go back and read my previous 3 questions; why even consider people who have taken themselves voluntarily out of the pool, if they retire and are not looking for work, then why does that have any bearing at all, they are not discouraged workers......I am trying to determine what of any your position that the low lfpr, that is the % they derive is due to retirees.


further how is it that (as every econ. agrees) using numbers between 125k and 140K , that those are jobs that have to be created just to equalize new entrants to the workforce, yet we didn't reach that number last month, and presto, the unemployment rate drops.

 

[edthecynic]

Dumb ass
Annie is saying 10,000 a day is retiring eds saying 100,000 a month. I know you aren't that bright but there are only 30 to 31 days in each month excluding Feb.
Go back to school and take a few math courses

Said the hypocrite who is stumped by percentages!

Again, 10,000 Boomers are reaching retirement AGE every day. Using 30 days to a month that's 300,000 per month. According to the AARP study, 54% of that 300,000 are retired by age 65, that equals a little over 160,000 Boomers retiring each month.

What I said is that conservatively 100,000 of the 160,000 jobs the retiring Boomers left will be filled by replacements without creating a single NEW job so you need to add that 100,000 to the number of NEW jobs created to get a more accurate picture of the monthly jobs picture. IOW, this month 115,000 NEW jobs were created so the number of unemployed will go down by a greater amount than 115,000 due to filling jobs left by retiring Boomers.
Get it?

I don't think you understand what the difference is between percentages and the actual number
You have said 100,000 baby boomers retire each month and if you now change that you are a fucking liar. You have yet to provide any proof that 100,000 baby boomers retire each month. What you have done is given a percentage which is not show how many have retire. Where is your fucking proof?

Yeah, a percentage of the number that retire by age 65 and the number that reach age 65 every day. Only someone playing dumb can't put the two together.

And again, I said that of the 160,000 Boomers that retire every month, at a conservative minimum, 100,000 of those jobs get filled by workers taking the retiring Boomer's place without creating a single NEW job. The point I'm making is that the number of NEW jobs does not give an accurate picture of the monthly job situation. More workers leave the ranks of the unemployed than the number of NEW jobs created.
Get it yet?

 

[edthecynic]

where does it say that?

and that doesn't really answer my question, if you have say 100 people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military, then thats your labor pool.

Wrong again.
The labor pool is made up of the employed and unemployed workers. It is the numerator of the LPR.
The people who are 16 and above not in prison or the military are the civilian noninstitutional population. The denominator of the LPR.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Labor force
The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

Civilian Noninstitutional Population and Associated Rate and Ratio Measures for Model-Based Areas

The civilian noninstitutional population consists of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities and homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

it wasn't intended as a declarative statement. go back and read my previous 3 questions; why even consider people who have taken themselves voluntarily out of the pool, if they retire and are not looking for work, then why does that have any bearing at all, they are not discouraged workers......I am trying to determine what of any your position that the low lfpr, that is the % they derive is due to retirees.

That is a question for the BLS, but the way they calculate the LFPR as the number of retirees increases the denominator of the LFPR increases and the LFPR% decreases.

So anyone who is claiming that the LFPR is decreasing because of discouraged workers increasing is being dishonest. First of all the number of discouraged workers is decreasing, as my previous links showed, which would cause the LFPR to increase and the LFPR is decreasing mainly because of the increasing number of Boomers retiring.