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

[Trajan]

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?

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

 

[Trajan]

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.

uhm no, that won't work, you are defending this and saying that such and such is so. telling me to go ask the bls is not honest if you are going to defend this. and then you make a declarative statement right after telling me to go ask the bls and that I am dishonest becasue I don't buy this yet...


the blurb on the decreasing number of discouraged workers has no bearing btw. you have not yet proved your point and so what? at some point you hit a wall, just like the severe drop in the 100 of thousands of jobs that were being lost on 08 and 09 eventually abated.

 

[JRK]

The baby boomer, changing demographic, not in column is full of people who have no where else to be counted
It has to be

Its booming. You cannot explain 1/2 million people going into that column in 4.3 weeks with changing demographics
It cannot be explained by just people leaving the work force either

That number has went close to 2 million in 6 months
Its the only true thing in this equation that can be said, this location to put these people is on fire and for reasons one can debate honestly

 

[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?

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

Thatr's not what I'm saying at all, and I don't see how you could possibly have missed what I said!

I was guesstimating that conservatively about 2 out of 3 of the jobs retiring Boomers leave will be filled by replacements and these replacement workers are not filling NEW jobs, the point being that NEW jobs is incomplete as a measurement of the employment situation in the decades of Boomers retiring. I also predict that as soon as a Republican becomes president, the same people having a fit about the decreasing LFPR, because of discouraged workers giving up, will suddenly discover that Boomers are retiring.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

You have yet to show how many baby boomers have retired and are no longer in the work force. Showing a source that only gives a percentage is not showing how many have retired.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

Trajan ed is making shit up as he goes. One time he said 10,000 a month then he said 100,000 a month now he's saying 300,000 a month. I don't care how many times he denies it he has said.

 

[Trajan]

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?

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

Thatr's not what I'm saying at all, and I don't see how you could possibly have missed what I said!

I was guesstimating that conservatively about 2 out of 3 of the jobs retiring Boomers leave will be filled by replacements and these replacement workers are not filling NEW jobs, the point being that NEW jobs is incomplete as a measurement of the employment situation in the decades of Boomers retiring.

relax. ok, so let me re-phrase- at 160k a month, 100k or 60% or so will be filled, that are not advertised or used in the monthly number as 'created'...?so when someone says hey, I am retiring, and the co. hires a replacement this is not counted as a created job?

and why are you guessing? where is that data please?

I also predict that as soon as a Republican becomes president, the same people having a fit about the decreasing LFPR, because of discouraged workers giving up, will suddenly discover that Boomers are retiring.

lets not go there, I can easily predict that if the jobs machine takes off and the UE number goes up as workers flood back into the active 'looking pool' obama will say hey thats a good thing too.....lets just talk what we can prove, supposition like this gets us nowhere.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

relax. ok, so let me re-phrase- at 160k a month, 100k or 60% or so will be filled, that are not advertised or used in the monthly number as 'created'...?so when someone says hey, I am retiring, and the co. hires a replacement this is not counted as a created job?

and why are you guessing? where is that data please?

I also predict that as soon as a Republican becomes president, the same people having a fit about the decreasing LFPR, because of discouraged workers giving up, will suddenly discover that Boomers are retiring.

lets not go there, I can easily predict that if the jobs machine takes off and the UE number goes up as workers flood back into the active 'looking pool' obama will say hey thats a good thing too.....lets just talk what we can prove, supposition like this gets us nowhere.

His guesstimations are facts to him at least in his mind.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

Trajan ed is making shit up as he goes. One time he said 10,000 a month then he said 100,000 a month now he's saying 300,000 a month. I don't care how many times he denies it he has said.

You're a pathological liar!!!

 

[edthecynic]

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

relax. ok, so let me re-phrase- at 160k a month, 100k or 60% or so will be filled, that are not advertised or used in the monthly number as 'created'...?so when someone says hey, I am retiring, and the co. hires a replacement this is not counted as a created job?

and why are you guessing? where is that data please?

I also predict that as soon as a Republican becomes president, the same people having a fit about the decreasing LFPR, because of discouraged workers giving up, will suddenly discover that Boomers are retiring.

lets not go there, I can easily predict that if the jobs machine takes off and the UE number goes up as workers flood back into the active 'looking pool' obama will say hey thats a good thing too.....lets just talk what we can prove, supposition like this gets us nowhere.

If there was data I wouldn't be guessing, obviously, but at least I admit when I'm guessing.

And you don't want to discuss my prediction because you know it's true. CON$ made that very point, that Boomers would be retiring in greater numbers than the workforce would grow, when they were pushing the privatization of SS during the Bush Regime. In fact CON$ are STILL making that very same claim today!

Money Matters | When doing the Social Security math, the numbers just don’t add up - KansasCity.com
The Social Security benefits math illustrates the price of failing to address the long anticipated retirement of the baby boom generation. The eldest of those 77 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964 became eligible for Social Security four years ago. The number of retirees in this generation is growing much faster than the people are entering the work force to replace them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

Trajan ed is making shit up as he goes. One time he said 10,000 a month then he said 100,000 a month now he's saying 300,000 a month. I don't care how many times he denies it he has said.

You're a pathological liar!!!

Hey horse's ass what the fuck is this?

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

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?

 

[edthecynic]

Trajan ed is making shit up as he goes. One time he said 10,000 a month then he said 100,000 a month now he's saying 300,000 a month. I don't care how many times he denies it he has said.

You're a pathological liar!!!

Hey horse's ass what the fuck is this?

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?

Learn to read, I said 10,000 Boomers reach RETIREMENT AGE every day, 300,000 reach RETIREMENT AGE a month and I said according to the AARP study 54% of Boomers that reach retirement AGE retire by age 65.

To YOU that means 10,000 Boomers retire a day and 300,000 retire every month because YOU don't do percentages. But YOU are an illiterate

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a pathological liar!!!

Hey horse's ass what the fuck is this?

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?

Learn to read, I said 10,000 Boomers reach RETIREMENT AGE every day, 300,000 reach RETIREMENT AGE a month and I said according to the AARP study 54% of Boomers that reach retirement AGE retire by age 65.

To YOU that means 10,000 Boomers retire a day and 300,000 retire every month because YOU don't do percentages. But YOU are an illiterate

And this reply that you deleted from my last post?

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

You have said 10,000 a month you have said 100,000 a month you have said 160,000 a month and you have said 300,000 a month baby boomers are retiring.
But have never shown a supporting source.
You have said 10,000 a month retiring baby boomers retiring in other threads and no I'm not chasing those down These two replies show that you lie

 

[edthecynic]

Hey horse's ass what the fuck is this?

Learn to read, I said 10,000 Boomers reach RETIREMENT AGE every day, 300,000 reach RETIREMENT AGE a month and I said according to the AARP study 54% of Boomers that reach retirement AGE retire by age 65.

To YOU that means 10,000 Boomers retire a day and 300,000 retire every month because YOU don't do percentages. But YOU are an illiterate

And this reply that you deleted from my last post?

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

You have said 10,000 a month you have said 100,000 a month you have said 160,000 a month and you have said 300,000 a month baby boomers are retiring.
But have never shown a supporting source.
You have said 10,000 a month retiring baby boomers retiring in other threads and no I'm not chasing those down These two replies show that you lie

No matter how many times you repeat your lies they will still be lies and you will still be a liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Learn to read, I said 10,000 Boomers reach RETIREMENT AGE every day, 300,000 reach RETIREMENT AGE a month and I said according to the AARP study 54% of Boomers that reach retirement AGE retire by age 65.

To YOU that means 10,000 Boomers retire a day and 300,000 retire every month because YOU don't do percentages. But YOU are an illiterate

And this reply that you deleted from my last post?

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

You have said 10,000 a month you have said 100,000 a month you have said 160,000 a month and you have said 300,000 a month baby boomers are retiring.
But have never shown a supporting source.
You have said 10,000 a month retiring baby boomers retiring in other threads and no I'm not chasing those down These two replies show that you lie

No matter how many times you repeat your lies they will still be lies and you will still be a liar.

Say no more end the liar say no more.

 

[itfitzme]

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

Except CBS didn't explain it. All they did was suggest it. I saw no hard facts that demonstrated that this was the case in November.

And, in examination of the past four months, April is the only month that LF dropped. Suddenly, the reason for the increase in UE is because retirees have left the LF in droves in April?

To be clear, the convo is convoluted and difficult to follow as it runs through pages of thread as it bounces back and forth about this "how many people are retiring" thing and if it can be used. It's hard enough to keep track of when you're in the convo. I am not willing to study the entire thing, being sure I know who is on what side of it all. Rather, I will capture the general sense of the idea then just address them objectively, as a concept as a whole.

Still, we are not talking "apples and oranges". I see the convo talking about an apple while I am talking about the entire crate of apples. If, after two years of collecting apples, the last apple happens to be green and not red, it doesn't make the entire box of apples green. I haven't examined every apple, to see how many are green, but in the over view, the color of the crate of apples is basically red, not green.

If there is a question as to whether a particular number is confounded by some underlying issue, the way to address it is to go back to the original CPS levels, not try and cram in some estimate of the number of retired folk from a totally unrelated survey. All that does is take one survey and estimates, that has inherent error, and add another survey with inherent error. Going that route when a similar answer can be obtained by looking more closely at all the CPS data is, frankly, just dumb.

Here is the basic levels for the past four months. CPOPNSA is Civilian Non-institutionalized Population, not seasonally adjusted. LF is labor force. EmpLevel is employment level.

Date CPOPNSA LFNSA. EmpLevelNSA
4/1. 242784. 153905. 141995
3/1. 242604. 154316. 141412
2/1. 242435. 154114. 140684
1/1. 242269. 153485. 139944

The entire concept is a bit of a mute point.

The employment level has gone up. It may be that it isn't great, but it went up. Still, we expect that it will, we are coming into summer. And it isn't all that great of an increase In the overview, I'd consider it to be just flat until it shows a real trend.

The problem with the other direction is it assumes that the only change in the numbers is due to those that left (or entered). The fact of the matter is, it could be ten million people left and another ten million entered. It could be that 20 mill left and 20 mill entered.

Just as well, there is natural variability and seasonal variability. Unless the change is significantly greater then the variability, it doesn't men much.

The only meaning that these numbers have is if the change is particularly large from one month to the next, or in terms of the general trend.

The reason you see "apples and oranges" is because I am going back to the basics, so that there is some reasonable and correct footing as opposed to jumping into some questionable method without examining the underlying issues.

And in doing so, I find that the basic numbers don't support the premise that it's all about retirees. The level of employment increased. Right there, it suddenly isn't so simple as just subtracting some estimate of the number of retirees that decided to not take jobs.

Unemployment is just one of dozens of statistics. And under normal circumstances, it's okay.

Here is a more complete set of statistic. (date sorted differently, sorry).

Date.......LFtoCPOP...EmpToLF.... UnempToLF.... EmpToCpop.... UnempToCpop
1/1/2012... 63.35%.... 91.18%.... 8.82%......... 57.76%....... 5.59%
2/1/2012... 63.57%.... 91.29%.... 8.71%......... 58.03%....... 5.54%
3/1/2012... 63.61%.... 91.64%.... 8.36%......... 58.29%....... 5.32%
4/1/2012... 63.39%.... 92.26%.... 7.74%......... 58.49%....... 4.91%

LF to CPOP went down. Emp to LF went up. Unemp to LF went down. Emp to CPOP went up. Unemp to CPOP went down. LF Level went down. CPOP went up. Emp went up.

Sure, LF went down. But just because one way that it might transpire is this retiree concept doesn't mean it did. That is a big "if". And the fact that other statistics went in the "right" direction, along with just employment, kills the retiree concept as being a singular and simple explanation. Maybe it's part of it. So what, it's always part of it. April isn't some how different.

So people left the labor force for permanent retirement. That's going to affect employment to labor force as much as it affects unemployment to labor force. And in the same manner. And they both didn't move in the same direction.

(I'm still trying to figure out how LF going down is suppose to simply decrease unemployment. I don't care to reread the ten pages of posts. But, in simple terms, a lower denominator makes a bigger number. Retirees would have to be all unemployed and leave LF and Unemployed at the same time so that unemployed level fell more then LF level to get the effect. Right?)

There is simply no way to determine what retirees did to the numbers unless the CPS included those questions in the survey.

It would be great to figure out exactly how much of what did what. I love the idea.

Complaining that the unemployment number, as reported, is a 1/2 truth then picking just the LF level to prove it is a 1/5th truth.

And the fact of the matter is that if all you have time for, like a typical manager, then the unemployment rate is "good enough". Every manner of engineer and statistician has found that managers and the general public want one number. And they have been continuously frustrated by the fact that they tried to explain it earlier, then been berated later when the "complication" became important.

I cannot count the number of times I have examined some statistics or rule of thumb, only to find out that it is a bit more complicated then I otherwise believed.

It would be great if there was one single number that could capture it all. That is what professionals do, attempt to find some singular number that will explain it all, all of the time. Sometimes there is, but it is so complicated that no one wants to use it. Sometimes there simply isn't. I've been looking for one that takes out the underlying issues. I haven't found it. And I suspect that there isn't one. That is why the BSL publishes so many. It all depends on what we want to know.

The fact of the matter is that there is an average increase, variance both general and seasonal. The fact of the matter is that each of them suffers from some underlying use if, not understood, may lead to a mis-interpretation.

I cannot count the number of times I have thought some statistic always meant something, only to discover that it wasn't exactly that. It was close, but not always under all conditions. This is why, especially of late, I have gone back to the fundamentals. But that I have to doesn't mean someone is "lying". That I discovered that the number doesn't mean exactly what I thought doesn't mean someone is "lying". It means I have learned something.

Of the five statistics and three levels that I posted above, the only one that is at odds is LF and LF to CPOP. Those are the basic stats. I am not surprised that some stats are a bit off, given the conditions. I am sure that there are busy little beavers at the BLS taking a few moments out of the day to revisit the issue.

But I see no reason to go after some other marginally related survey, itself an estimate, without examining the full set of CPS data and statistics first. If there is something to be had, it's more likely going to be in the data that is already consistent as a whole. If it's not, then it's worth going after something more complicated.

And the retiree concept is not "just that simple". If it was, I wouldn't have to be reading ten pages of posts. If it was "just that simple", I'd have already posted proof that it is the retirees that account for the change in LF. I may yet, if I find it or someone presents something that gets close enough to actually being provable. We may even find that, should the structure of the economy change and become apparent, the BLS will start asking that very question.

Until then, unfortunately, it isn't 'just that simple'. It's "intuitive", it's "possible", but it isn't, "just that simple."

 

[Trajan]

so, what it appears you're saying is there is a number of jobs , 100k to 160k being created to replace the retirees? on a one for one basis? .... how do they know that? where is that indicated? you're saying basically if I understand what you said, that every single co. /employer etc. who loses 1employee who retires, replaces them, period.

if that is so, then that the lfpr would be a wash and all of those 342k that dropped put last are month are ALL discouraged workers....

relax. ok, so let me re-phrase- at 160k a month, 100k or 60% or so will be filled, that are not advertised or used in the monthly number as 'created'...?so when someone says hey, I am retiring, and the co. hires a replacement this is not counted as a created job?

and why are you guessing? where is that data please?

I also predict that as soon as a Republican becomes president, the same people having a fit about the decreasing LFPR, because of discouraged workers giving up, will suddenly discover that Boomers are retiring.

lets not go there, I can easily predict that if the jobs machine takes off and the UE number goes up as workers flood back into the active 'looking pool' obama will say hey thats a good thing too.....lets just talk what we can prove, supposition like this gets us nowhere.

If there was data I wouldn't be guessing, obviously, but at least I admit when I'm guessing.

*shrugs* so you really don't know, you've been guessing..... ok.

and as far as my last blurb, I believe I asked you a question that you most certainly can answer absent admitting wither those figures of 100/160 are accurate or not;


here, again;

trajan asked;

so when someone says hey, I am retiring, and the co. hires a replacement this is not counted as a created job?







I will go ahead and answer it for you; the answer is most certainly YES, a person who was unemployed, is now employed, right? Ergo how could there be some shadow count or indicator that just swaps 60% of retirees with previously unemployed without it being accounted for...*shrugs* there fore your theory on retirees making up a huge proportion of the shrinking LFPR seems/appears to have run out of road.

And you don't want to discuss my prediction because you know it's true. CON$ made that very point, that Boomers would be retiring in greater numbers than the workforce would grow, when they were pushing the privatization of SS during the Bush Regime. In fact CON$ are STILL making that very same claim today!

Money Matters | When doing the Social Security math, the numbers just don’t add up - KansasCity.com
The Social Security benefits math illustrates the price of failing to address the long anticipated retirement of the baby boom generation. The eldest of those 77 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964 became eligible for Social Security four years ago. The number of retirees in this generation is growing much faster than the people are entering the work force to replace them.

No, I don't want to discuss it becasue we are not discussing that, you are off on an unrelated tangent.

I want to discuss what we started on, and have been discussing. These sidelines seem to take up the time you could have spent answering my simple question above. Unless you admit straight away you were wrong?Then we can move on.

 

[edthecynic]

And you don't want to discuss my prediction because you know it's true. CON$ made that very point, that Boomers would be retiring in greater numbers than the workforce would grow, when they were pushing the privatization of SS during the Bush Regime. In fact CON$ are STILL making that very same claim today!

Money Matters | When doing the Social Security math, the numbers just don’t add up - KansasCity.com
The Social Security benefits math illustrates the price of failing to address the long anticipated retirement of the baby boom generation. The eldest of those 77 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964 became eligible for Social Security four years ago. The number of retirees in this generation is growing much faster than the people are entering the work force to replace them.

so when someone says hey, I am retiring, and the co. hires a replacement this is not counted as a created job?

I will go ahead and answer it for you; the answer is most certainly YES, a person who was unemployed, is now employed, right? Ergo how could there be some shadow count or indicator that just swaps 60% of retirees with previously unemployed without it being accounted for...*shrugs* there fore your theory on retirees making up a huge proportion of the shrinking LFPR seems/appears to have run out of road.

No, I don't want to discuss it becasue we are not discussing that, you are off on an unrelated tangent.

I want to discuss what we started on, and have been discussing. These sidelines seem to take up the time you could have spent answering my simple question above. Unless you admit straight away you were wrong?Then we can move on.

Workers who replace retirees on the job is completely different from retirees causing the LFPR to shrink, and you know it which is why you can't afford to admit that retirees are leaving the workforce faster than new workers entering the workforce because you would then have to admit you are wrong, a mortal sin for CON$!

CON$ have always acknowledged this fact that retirees are leaving the workforce faster than new workers entering the workforce when they rationalize privatizing SS. This fact that retirees are leaving the workforce faster than new workers entering the workforce also causes the LFPR to shrink, but suddenly CON$ conveniently forget what they know regarding SS and then say that the LFPR is declining not because retirees are leaving the workforce faster than new workers entering the workforce but because discouraged workers are giving up trying to find a job even though the number of discouraged workers is actually declining. Facts mean nothing to CON$.

 

[JRK]

Hey horse's ass what the fuck is this?

Learn to read, I said 10,000 Boomers reach RETIREMENT AGE every day, 300,000 reach RETIREMENT AGE a month and I said according to the AARP study 54% of Boomers that reach retirement AGE retire by age 65.

To YOU that means 10,000 Boomers retire a day and 300,000 retire every month because YOU don't do percentages. But YOU are an illiterate

And this reply that you deleted from my last post?

My God people
we got people trying to convince us that the available work force number has nothing to do with the not in work force number
MY GOD THE NOT IN WORK FORCE NUMBER GREW 1.6 million in 8 weeks and the available work force number goes down

Yeah, each year you have a million Boomers retire of the over 3 million Boomers who reach retirement in each year. And you know that very well also, so stop deflecting from FOX's obvious lie in the OP!!!!!

So that means that about 100,000 leave the ranks of the unemployed every month to take the place of the retiring Boomers without creating a single NEW job!!!!!

You have said 10,000 a month you have said 100,000 a month you have said 160,000 a month and you have said 300,000 a month baby boomers are retiring.
But have never shown a supporting source.
You have said 10,000 a month retiring baby boomers retiring in other threads and no I'm not chasing those down These two replies show that you lie

All Beneficiaries, December 2010
About 59.2 million people received a payment from Social Security. Most (51.3 million) received OASDI benefits only, about 5.2 million received SSI only, and 2.7 million received payments from both programs.
Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2011
All Beneficiaries, December 2008
About 55.8 million people received a payment from Social Security. Most (48.3 million) received OASDI benefits only, about 4.9 million received SSI only, and 2.6 million received payments from both programs.
Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2009
There was a total addition of 3.4 million in 2 years, which equals 30769 a week, which is no where near 100k nor is it any where near the 500k we added in the not in cat last month

 

[itfitzme]

The concept of why the labor force changes is fine.

This whole concept of taking the AARP survey of baby boomer retirees and trying to force it into the CPS is serious flawed from the outset. It is flawed for so many reasons that every time Ia approach it, I see another.

Without some operational definitions of what the individuals in the AARP data are, with respect to the CPS categories, there is simply no way of knowing whether they are retired on SSI, retired on their own, calling themselves "retired" while still working, if they had answered the CPS questionnaire as looking for work, not looking, or what.

We simply cannot combine the two surveys and expect anything useful. For one thing, the attempt is to take a very general statistic of an average number of retirees per month then try to apply it mathematically so the monthly statistic of the CPS.

Right there it is ridiculously flawed. The CPS data is a survey estimate of the number of people this month, last month, next month. The AARP survey is some average per month. It don't say exactly how many this month, last month, or next month. As a average, it has an unknown error in terms of the actual number.

At the very best, we could take the CPS data, determine an average per month, then apply the AARP average. But what is gained? Nothing because the entire consideration was based on the observation that the absolute number for April was down.

If we take the CPS average per month, we lose the ability to talk about April. And, we cannot take an AAPR average, and subtract it from a CPS estimate for a single month.

Again, the flows into and out of the general categories is a fine idea.

The CPS has 33784 separate data series. The actual categories are fewer because these include monthly, quarterly, adjusted, not adjusted, and something labeled "(orig)".

The BSL CPS data has numbers of people moving in and out of the labor force. The series are

series_id series_description
LNU08200000 (Unadj) Employed to other Marginal Outflows
LNU07000000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Employed
LNU07800000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Not in Labor Force
LNU07400000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Employed to Unemployed
LNU07200000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Not in Labor Force to Employed
LNU08000000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Not in Labor Force to Not in Labor Force
LNU07600000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Not in Labor Force to Unemployed
LNU07100000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Employed
LNU07900000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Not in Labor Force
LNU07500000 (Unadj) Labor Force Flows Unemployed to Unemployed
LNU07300000 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Employed
LNU08100000 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Not in Labor Force
LNU07700000 (Unadj) Marginal Inflows to Unemployed
LNU08400000 (Unadj) Not in Labor Force to other Marginal Outflows
LNU08300000 (Unadj) Unemployed to other Marginal Outflows

There is also a few data series that include "retirees"

series_id series_description
LNU02033206 (Unadj) Employment Level - Persons At Work 1-34 Hours, Noneconomic Reasons - Retired Or Social Security Limit On Earnings, All Industries
LNU02028697 (Unadj) Employment Level - Persons At Work 1-34 Hours, Noneconomic Reasons - Retired Or Social Security Limit On Earnings, All Industries, Usually Work Part Time
LNU02033208 (Unadj) Employment Level - Persons At Work 1-34 Hours, Noneconomic Reasons - Retired Or Social Security Limit On Earnings, Nonagricultural Industries
LNU02033210 (Unadj) Employment Level - Persons At Work 1-34 Hours, Noneconomic Reasons - Retired Or Social Security Limit On Earnings, Nonagricultural Industries, Usually Work Part Time

Figuring out exactly what they all mean then how to properly apply them is something. But it is a lot closer to technically achieving the goal because the AARP estimate simply cannot be applied to the CPS data.

We cannot subtract a monthly average from one survey from a monthly estimate of an other and get anything meaning full.