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

[Trajan]

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.

you are doing it again Ed.

I will not let you drag this away from the topic- unless you admit you cannot sppt. your supposition.... Oh and I have no doubt that there are lots of folks who are retiring, I have never said different, but not to the extent you have vociferously driven;

(like the exchange below)

here, one more time:

Ed;

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.

Trajan;

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.

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$.

you are getting personal Ed, this CON$ nonsesne has got to go, I noticed you started using it again as your theory became more unwound or unsupportable. I am asking you to stop, please, at least when you respond to me or, I will take it as the uncivil tail twisting it is and respond in kind.






Oh and just as a friendly proviso,you do realize that it is most certainly in the AARP's interest to flog high retiree numbers....

also some reading if you wish to indulge-

introdcution;

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/pension34.pdf

You do realize it is in your interest to marginalize any data that contradicts the CON$ claim that everyone who leaves the workforce is discouraged and has quit looking for work.

Your own attachment actually supports the AARP study and then some. AARP said that 54% were retired by age 65 and your attachment has 67% of men and 75% of women no longer working by age 65!!!! So if it was in AARP's interest to "flog high retiree numbers," something you merely pontificate but have not proven BTW, then why are AARP's study numbers lower than the census bureau numbers you cite in your attachment????? Is it more in the interest of the census bureau to flog high retirement numbers than AARP???????

a) it was a suggestion, as AARP is a political org. or least say they have a heavy interest in seeing many more retired folks than may actually exist. you can take the advice or not,I certainly would not post Heritage data becasue it could be questioned along the same lines.However, I will refrain from offering any suggestions, as you exaggerate them, and trying to build a rapport with you, it appears to be useless.

Oh and its 2012 ed, thats a 2009 study.

And I love how you demand proof from me but you just accept without question the CON$erviNutzi assertion that the LFPR is declining because of an increased number of workers who are discouraged even though I posted links that showed that the number of discouraged workers is declining!!!

for the second time, there was an assertion made, you answered, I didn't force you to.

You have confessed that you have been guessing on some issues to sppt. your cause, in addition, cannot provide the backup necessary and in addition forwarded a postulationi n that unemployed people, who then accept employment to work in a postion that was held by a now retired peson is somehow proof of some replacement going on under the radar that benefits the country via lowering unemployment but is not collated in the overall rate and which you cannot support. Thats when you began to inject other issues outside the LFPR etc. into the discussion.

Retirees are increasing and discouraged workers are declining so by CON$erviNutzi "logic" the LFPR must be going down because of discouraged workers leaving the workforce not retirees leaving the workforce. That you have no problem with! You only seem to have a problem with the number of retirees leaving the workforce, not the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce.
Brilliant.

speaking to both times you have said this in this post; sure, I agree. There is churn on both fronts, and add in too, retirees are or that is prospective retirees are working longer ( thats what that 2009 report was intended to convey btw) and, I already spoke to this when you brought it up several posts ago, no need to back track.


CON$erviNutzi ?? CON$??..... dude cut the crap please, I am taking you seriously, I expect same in return.

 

[edthecynic]

you are doing it again Ed.

I will not let you drag this away from the topic- unless you admit you cannot sppt. your supposition.... Oh and I have no doubt that there are lots of folks who are retiring, I have never said different, but not to the extent you have vociferously driven;

(like the exchange below)

here, one more time:

Ed;

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.

Trajan;

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.




you are getting personal Ed, this CON$ nonsesne has got to go, I noticed you started using it again as your theory became more unwound or unsupportable. I am asking you to stop, please, at least when you respond to me or, I will take it as the uncivil tail twisting it is and respond in kind.






Oh and just as a friendly proviso,you do realize that it is most certainly in the AARP's interest to flog high retiree numbers....

also some reading if you wish to indulge-

introdcution;

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/pension34.pdf

You do realize it is in your interest to marginalize any data that contradicts the CON$ claim that everyone who leaves the workforce is discouraged and has quit looking for work.

Your own attachment actually supports the AARP study and then some. AARP said that 54% were retired by age 65 and your attachment has 67% of men and 75% of women no longer working by age 65!!!! So if it was in AARP's interest to "flog high retiree numbers," something you merely pontificate but have not proven BTW, then why are AARP's study numbers lower than the census bureau numbers you cite in your attachment????? Is it more in the interest of the census bureau to flog high retirement numbers than AARP???????

a) it was a suggestion, as AARP is a political org. or least say they have a heavy interest in seeing many more retired folks than may actually exist. you can take the advice or not,I certainly would not post Heritage data becasue it could be questioned along the same lines.However, I will refrain from offering any suggestions, as you exaggerate them, and trying to build a rapport with you, it appears to be useless.

Oh and its 2012 ed, thats a 2009 study.

And I love how you demand proof from me but you just accept without question the CON$erviNutzi assertion that the LFPR is declining because of an increased number of workers who are discouraged even though I posted links that showed that the number of discouraged workers is declining!!!

for the second time, there was an assertion made, you answered, I didn't force you to.

You have confessed that you have been guessing on some issues to sppt. your cause, in addition, cannot provide the backup necessary and in addition forwarded a postulationi n that unemployed people, who then accept employment to work in a postion that was held by a now retired peson is somehow proof of some replacement going on under the radar that benefits the country via lowering unemployment but is not collated in the overall rate and which you cannot support. Thats when you began to inject other issues outside the LFPR etc. into the discussion.

Retirees are increasing and discouraged workers are declining so by CON$erviNutzi "logic" the LFPR must be going down because of discouraged workers leaving the workforce not retirees leaving the workforce. That you have no problem with! You only seem to have a problem with the number of retirees leaving the workforce, not the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce.
Brilliant.

speaking to both times you have said this in this post; sure, I agree. There is churn on both fronts, and add in too, retirees are or that is prospective retirees are working longer ( thats what that 2009 report was intended to convey btw) and, I already spoke to this when you brought it up several posts ago, no need to back track.


CON$erviNutzi ?? CON$??..... dude cut the crap please, I am taking you seriously, I expect same in return.

While your attachment intended to convey that prospective retirees are working longer it also revealed that 67% of men and 75% of women were no longer working by age 65. So even though they are working longer they are still retiring in large numbers. Working longer does not equate to only a small number are retiring, as some would have us believe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do realize it is in your interest to marginalize any data that contradicts the CON$ claim that everyone who leaves the workforce is discouraged and has quit looking for work.

Your own attachment actually supports the AARP study and then some. AARP said that 54% were retired by age 65 and your attachment has 67% of men and 75% of women no longer working by age 65!!!! So if it was in AARP's interest to "flog high retiree numbers," something you merely pontificate but have not proven BTW, then why are AARP's study numbers lower than the census bureau numbers you cite in your attachment????? Is it more in the interest of the census bureau to flog high retirement numbers than AARP???????

a) it was a suggestion, as AARP is a political org. or least say they have a heavy interest in seeing many more retired folks than may actually exist. you can take the advice or not,I certainly would not post Heritage data becasue it could be questioned along the same lines.However, I will refrain from offering any suggestions, as you exaggerate them, and trying to build a rapport with you, it appears to be useless.

Oh and its 2012 ed, thats a 2009 study.







for the second time, there was an assertion made, you answered, I didn't force you to.

You have confessed that you have been guessing on some issues to sppt. your cause, in addition, cannot provide the backup necessary and in addition forwarded a postulationi n that unemployed people, who then accept employment to work in a postion that was held by a now retired peson is somehow proof of some replacement going on under the radar that benefits the country via lowering unemployment but is not collated in the overall rate and which you cannot support. Thats when you began to inject other issues outside the LFPR etc. into the discussion.

Retirees are increasing and discouraged workers are declining so by CON$erviNutzi "logic" the LFPR must be going down because of discouraged workers leaving the workforce not retirees leaving the workforce. That you have no problem with! You only seem to have a problem with the number of retirees leaving the workforce, not the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce.
Brilliant.

speaking to both times you have said this in this post; sure, I agree. There is churn on both fronts, and add in too, retirees are or that is prospective retirees are working longer ( thats what that 2009 report was intended to convey btw) and, I already spoke to this when you brought it up several posts ago, no need to back track.


CON$erviNutzi ?? CON$??..... dude cut the crap please, I am taking you seriously, I expect same in return.

While your attachment intended to convey that prospective retirees are working longer it also revealed that 67% of men and 75% of women were no longer working by age 65. So even though they are working longer they are still retiring in large numbers. Working longer does not equate to only a small number are retiring, as some would have us believe.

Baby Boomers are becoming aware that they are experiencing a different type of retirement than the previous generation.
Compared to other generations, these confident and independent Baby Boomers admit that:

+ They need more money than their parents' generation to live comfortably.

+ Their generation is more self-indulgent than their parents'.

+ They will be healthier and live longer.

Most Baby Boomers (the cohort of Americans born between 1946 and 1964) believe that they will still be working during their retirement years. The oldest, born in 1946, will reach 62 in 2008 as they begin retirement age over the next 20 years.
Baby Boomer Retirement Tips

“There is a wide range of individual, economic and societal benefits for the Baby Boomers to start new businesses,” says William Zinke, 85, founder and president of CPL. “People are living longer, yet often retiring earlier, and recent AARP studies confirm that 80 percent of Baby Boomers indicate their intent to continue working after leaving regular career jobs.”

So Baby Boomer: Life Tips: Phased Retirement

 

[JRK]

My mother is 71
She has been the office manager at a large FM radio station for 30 years
I think as many baby boomers are doing this as are retiring
the huge # of people leaving the work-force are in no way at the level of 500,000 people per month (baby boomers) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
This changing demographic argument is a very powerful tool for the left of left
Center left knows better
No matter how you spin this, someone you know has lost every-thing
Someone you know has no job and has had no job over 12 months
this is what people will vote on
Debating the baby boomer number cannot get any of us away from here

 

[edthecynic]

Baby Boomers are becoming aware that they are experiencing a different type of retirement than the previous generation.
Compared to other generations, these confident and independent Baby Boomers admit that:

+ They need more money than their parents' generation to live comfortably.

+ Their generation is more self-indulgent than their parents'.

+ They will be healthier and live longer.

Most Baby Boomers (the cohort of Americans born between 1946 and 1964) believe that they will still be working during their retirement years. The oldest, born in 1946, will reach 62 in 2008 as they begin retirement age over the next 20 years.
Baby Boomer Retirement Tips

“There is a wide range of individual, economic and societal benefits for the Baby Boomers to start new businesses,” says William Zinke, 85, founder and president of CPL. “People are living longer, yet often retiring earlier, and recent AARP studies confirm that 80 percent of Baby Boomers indicate their intent to continue working after leaving regular career jobs.”

So Baby Boomer: Life Tips: Phased Retirement

Of course the AARP study says more than just what you cite!!

Surveys of baby boomers conducted by AARP in 2002, 2003, and 2007, as well as a survey of adults
aged 25 and over conducted by Merrill Lynch in 2006, all suggest that the concept of retirement has
changed considerably.2 In these studies, 7 in 10 baby boomers project that they intend to work past
traditional retirement age. While financial need is often mentioned as the reason for remaining in the
workforce, these studies also show that the non-financial benefits of work often influence the decision
to remain in the labor force. The AARP studies found that among boomers the top non-monetary
motivations to remain in the workforce include enjoyment, to have something interesting to do, and to
stay physically active. In the Merrill Lynch study, among respondents aged 60 to 70, staying mentally
and physically active, and connected with others outranked money as important reasons to continue
working.
All of these surveys of baby boomers have predicted that members of this generation will continue to
work in what their parents called retirement. Yet the reality is that despite the desire and need to work,
many may not be able to do so because of health considerations, age discrimination, or a declining
economy. 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]

Baby Boomers are becoming aware that they are experiencing a different type of retirement than the previous generation.
Compared to other generations, these confident and independent Baby Boomers admit that:

+ They need more money than their parents' generation to live comfortably.

+ Their generation is more self-indulgent than their parents'.

+ They will be healthier and live longer.

Most Baby Boomers (the cohort of Americans born between 1946 and 1964) believe that they will still be working during their retirement years. The oldest, born in 1946, will reach 62 in 2008 as they begin retirement age over the next 20 years.
Baby Boomer Retirement Tips

“There is a wide range of individual, economic and societal benefits for the Baby Boomers to start new businesses,” says William Zinke, 85, founder and president of CPL. “People are living longer, yet often retiring earlier, and recent AARP studies confirm that 80 percent of Baby Boomers indicate their intent to continue working after leaving regular career jobs.”

So Baby Boomer: Life Tips: Phased Retirement

Of course the AARP study says more than just what you cite!!

Surveys of baby boomers conducted by AARP in 2002, 2003, and 2007, as well as a survey of adults
aged 25 and over conducted by Merrill Lynch in 2006, all suggest that the concept of retirement has
changed considerably.2 In these studies, 7 in 10 baby boomers project that they intend to work past
traditional retirement age. While financial need is often mentioned as the reason for remaining in the
workforce, these studies also show that the non-financial benefits of work often influence the decision
to remain in the labor force. The AARP studies found that among boomers the top non-monetary
motivations to remain in the workforce include enjoyment, to have something interesting to do, and to
stay physically active. In the Merrill Lynch study, among respondents aged 60 to 70, staying mentally
and physically active, and connected with others outranked money as important reasons to continue
working.
All of these surveys of baby boomers have predicted that members of this generation will continue to
work in what their parents called retirement. Yet the reality is that despite the desire and need to work,
many may not be able to do so because of health considerations, age discrimination, or a declining
economy. 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.

What year is it?

 

[edthecynic]

Baby Boomers are becoming aware that they are experiencing a different type of retirement than the previous generation.
Compared to other generations, these confident and independent Baby Boomers admit that:

+ They need more money than their parents' generation to live comfortably.

+ Their generation is more self-indulgent than their parents'.

+ They will be healthier and live longer.

Most Baby Boomers (the cohort of Americans born between 1946 and 1964) believe that they will still be working during their retirement years. The oldest, born in 1946, will reach 62 in 2008 as they begin retirement age over the next 20 years.
Baby Boomer Retirement Tips



So Baby Boomer: Life Tips: Phased Retirement

Of course the AARP study says more than just what you cite!!

Surveys of baby boomers conducted by AARP in 2002, 2003, and 2007, as well as a survey of adults
aged 25 and over conducted by Merrill Lynch in 2006, all suggest that the concept of retirement has
changed considerably.2 In these studies, 7 in 10 baby boomers project that they intend to work past
traditional retirement age. While financial need is often mentioned as the reason for remaining in the
workforce, these studies also show that the non-financial benefits of work often influence the decision
to remain in the labor force. The AARP studies found that among boomers the top non-monetary
motivations to remain in the workforce include enjoyment, to have something interesting to do, and to
stay physically active. In the Merrill Lynch study, among respondents aged 60 to 70, staying mentally
and physically active, and connected with others outranked money as important reasons to continue
working.
All of these surveys of baby boomers have predicted that members of this generation will continue to
work in what their parents called retirement. Yet the reality is that despite the desire and need to work,
many may not be able to do so because of health considerations, age discrimination, or a declining
economy. 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.

What year is it?

The study quoted above was published Dec 2010. The sampling was done Nov 2010.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course the AARP study says more than just what you cite!!

What year is it?

The study quoted above was published Dec 2010. The sampling was done Nov 2010.

But what year is it now?

 

[itfitzme]

There are 243 million working age Americans.
There are 142 million employed Americans.
Only 101 million of the employed Americans are working more than 35 hours per week. This means that only 41.6% of all working age Americans have a full-time job.
According to the government drones at the BLS, 88 million Americans have “chosen” to not be in the labor force – the highest level in U.S. history.
The percentage of Americans in the workforce at 63.8% is the lowest since 1980 and down from a peak of 67.1% in 2000. The difference between these two percentages is 8 million Americans.
The BLS reports there are only 12.7 million unemployed Americans in the country, down from 15.3 million in 2009.
The BLS reports the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% in late 2009 to 8.3% today. Over this time frame the working age population grew by 5.7 million, while the number of employed Americans grew by 3.6 million. Only a government drone could interpret this data and report a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate.
Food stamps « The Burning Platform

That's pretty good...Nice numbers.

Just a couple of points.

I am pretty sure that the BLS doesn't take the position that anyone has "chosen" to be unemployed unless they answer the survey questions that ask if they have "chosen" to be unemployed. There are a few categories that might be interpreted as having "chose" or not "chosen".

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Part Time, Not at Work,
(unadj) Not in labor force - Want a job now, With no disability
(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now, Family Responsibilities
(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now, in School Or Training

Trust me, I can assure you as I know how these guys are trained, they don't really care about "chosen" or "not chosen" unless it's a data point. I'd sure be interested in knowing how you get to "According to the ... BLS, ...Americans have “chosen” to not be in the labor force – the highest level in U.S. history.", except that it is on the questionnaire.

On the "Only a government drone could interpret this data and report a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate.", my initial impression is they interpret it based on "the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% in late 2009 to 8.3% today"

Personally, I prefer employment to population ratio. It lacks the normalizing out of structural changes that the unemployment rate does. But that's the thing, isn't it, neither are perfect. Really, both should be considered.

The employment to pop ratio peaked at about 68% and is now down to 58%. That 68% is interesting because it hit that number twice time since 1995, almost got there in 2007, and seems to be an upper limit.


I'm just saying...

 

[JRK]

There are 243 million working age Americans.
There are 142 million employed Americans.
Only 101 million of the employed Americans are working more than 35 hours per week. This means that only 41.6% of all working age Americans have a full-time job.
According to the government drones at the BLS, 88 million Americans have “chosen” to not be in the labor force – the highest level in U.S. history.
The percentage of Americans in the workforce at 63.8% is the lowest since 1980 and down from a peak of 67.1% in 2000. The difference between these two percentages is 8 million Americans.
The BLS reports there are only 12.7 million unemployed Americans in the country, down from 15.3 million in 2009.
The BLS reports the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% in late 2009 to 8.3% today. Over this time frame the working age population grew by 5.7 million, while the number of employed Americans grew by 3.6 million. Only a government drone could interpret this data and report a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate.
Food stamps « The Burning Platform

That's pretty good...Nice numbers.

Just a couple of points.

I am pretty sure that the BLS doesn't take the position that anyone has "chosen" to be unemployed unless they answer the survey questions that ask if they have "chosen" to be unemployed. There are a few categories that might be interpreted as having "chose" or not "chosen".

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Part Time, Not at Work,
(unadj) Not in labor force - Want a job now, With no disability
(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now, Family Responsibilities
(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now, in School Or Training

Trust me, I can assure you as I know how these guys are trained, they don't really care about "chosen" or "not chosen" unless it's a data point. I'd sure be interested in knowing how you get to "According to the ... BLS, ...Americans have “chosen” to not be in the labor force – the highest level in U.S. history.", except that it is on the questionnaire.

On the "Only a government drone could interpret this data and report a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate.", my initial impression is they interpret it based on "the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% in late 2009 to 8.3% today"

Personally, I prefer employment to population ratio. It lacks the normalizing out of structural changes that the unemployment rate does. But that's the thing, isn't it, neither are perfect. Really, both should be considered.

The employment to pop ratio peaked at about 68% and is now down to 58%. That 68% is interesting because it hit that number twice time since 1995, almost got there in 2007, and seems to be an upper limit.


I'm just saying...

Not in includes all of those who have some sort of govt subsidy. That number is close to 20 million below the subsidy level, with 6.366 million wanting a job who should in my opinion be counted against the UE rate
Not sure why there not

The not in number is sky rocketing, up close to 3 million in 12 months while the labor force went up 900k.
That means the not in number is going up 3 times faster than the in work force number

This debate has turned into the changing demographics is why
SS/SSI dis agrees with that as that number is 39 million today and was
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, March 2012

2010 that number was 38 million

we had 500k added in 4.3 weeks to the not-in column
the over 65 group grew by 50% that much from the December 2010 data to the 4/2012 data and would have added to the not in column
It is obvious there is an issue with this data
https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/fast_facts/2011/fast_facts11.html#oasdiandssi

 

[pinqy]

Not in includes all of those who have some sort of govt subsidy. That number is close to 20 million below the subsidy level, with 6.366 million wanting a job who should in my opinion be counted against the UE rate
Not sure why there not

the reason they're not classified as unemployed is because they either were not trying to work or could not have accepted a job if offered. In other words they weren't available for work that month. The UE rate is designed to measure how much absolve labor isn't being used...how many people could have found work and didn't. The special groups of marginally attached and it's subgroup of discouraged are tracked because these are people likely to start looking.

The not in number is sky rocketing, up close to 3 million in 12 months while the labor force went up 900k.
That means the not in number is going up 3 times faster than the in work force number

About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not in includes all of those who have some sort of govt subsidy. That number is close to 20 million below the subsidy level, with 6.366 million wanting a job who should in my opinion be counted against the UE rate
Not sure why there not

the reason they're not classified as unemployed is because they either were not trying to work or could not have accepted a job if offered. In other words they weren't available for work that month. The UE rate is designed to measure how much absolve labor isn't being used...how many people could have found work and didn't. The special groups of marginally attached and it's subgroup of discouraged are tracked because these are people likely to start looking.

The not in number is sky rocketing, up close to 3 million in 12 months while the labor force went up 900k.
That means the not in number is going up 3 times faster than the in work force number

About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

Great let's kill all jobs and we will have 0 unemployment

 

[JRK]

Not in includes all of those who have some sort of govt subsidy. That number is close to 20 million below the subsidy level, with 6.366 million wanting a job who should in my opinion be counted against the UE rate
Not sure why there not

the reason they're not classified as unemployed is because they either were not trying to work or could not have accepted a job if offered. In other words they weren't available for work that month. The UE rate is designed to measure how much absolve labor isn't being used...how many people could have found work and didn't. The special groups of marginally attached and it's subgroup of discouraged are tracked because these are people likely to start looking.

The not in number is sky rocketing, up close to 3 million in 12 months while the labor force went up 900k.
That means the not in number is going up 3 times faster than the in work force number

About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

Good response
Except for a person who is waiting for dis ability I am having trouble figuring out the rest of those who would want a job but could not accept, even then I am not sure how they could come up with that number because they would have not seen the judge for dis ability, well I guess they would have filed
Any-way there is still a large un explained gap from the not in group as I asses it. When we went from 9% UE to 8.6 I went and found out why
The 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

 

[itfitzme]

The argument that ensued was whether people retiring has been a major contributor to the increase in the "not in labor force".

The BLS CPS provides an overwhelming number of categories including categories grouped every five years of age, from 16 to over 75.

Finding the best way to deal with decades of data for a dozen categories took some trial and error. I finally settled on simply the percentage change in total numbers from April 2007 to April 2012.

The reason for choosing April is that seasonal variation makes it prudent to use the same month. And, as the last data is for April 2012, then April makes sense.

Because the recession began Dec '07, I bracketed it an present the change from both '07 and '08.

Here are the total percent changes;

The changes in the Civilian Non-institutionalized Population, Total Not In Labor Force, and Civilian Labor Force are shown for reference.

Here is how this works. All other things being perfectly stable and normal, then all age categories would increase exactly the same as the CNIP, the NILF, and the CLF. Everything would increase the same.

If the category is more then CNIP, it has increased excessively. If it is less then CNIP, it has decreased compared to what is expected.

That NILF has increased more then CNIP, indicates that it has increased more then it would had things been normal.

The comparison between an age category and the total NILF is significant. If the age category change is higher, then there has been a significant net increase over what would be expected.

Looking at the 65 to 70 year increase, it is larger then the NILF. It is also the largest of all contributors to the increase in the NILF.This supports the contention that retirees have substantially increased the NILF.

The second largest contributor has been the 20 to 24 year old category. This supports a contention that high school graduates are finding a job market that is hiring experienced workers.

Another factor is simply resources. Workers of retirement age have the opportunity, lacking the availability of a job, to draw on retirement. High school graduates, lacking the availability of a job, are in the position to remain at home.

 

[JRK]

The argument that ensued was whether people retiring has been a major contributor to the increase in the "not in labor force".

The BLS CPS provides an overwhelming number of categories including categories grouped every five years of age, from 16 to over 75.

Finding the best way to deal with decades of data for a dozen categories took some trial and error. I finally settled on simply the percentage change in total numbers from April 2007 to April 2012.

The reason for choosing April is that seasonal variation makes it prudent to use the same month. And, as the last data is for April 2012, then April makes sense.

Because the recession began Dec '07, I bracketed it an present the change from both '07 and '08.

Here are the total percent changes;

The changes in the Civilian Non-institutionalized Population, Total Not In Labor Force, and Civilian Labor Force are shown for reference.

Here is how this works. All other things being perfectly stable and normal, then all age categories would increase exactly the same as the CNIP, the NILF, and the CLF. Everything would increase the same.

If the category is more then CNIP, it has increased excessively. If it is less then CNIP, it has decreased compared to what is expected.

That NILF has increased more then CNIP, indicates that it has increased more then it would had things been normal.

The comparison between an age category and the total NILF is significant. If the age category change is higher, then there has been a significant net increase over what would be expected.

Looking at the 65 to 70 year increase, it is larger then the NILF. It is also the largest of all contributors to the increase in the NILF.This supports the contention that retirees have substantially increased the NILF.

The second largest contributor has been the 20 to 24 year old category. This supports a contention that high school graduates are finding a job market that is hiring experienced workers.

Another factor is simply resources. Workers of retirement age have the opportunity, lacking the availability of a job, to draw on retirement. High school graduates, lacking the availability of a job, are in the position to remain at home.

from Dec of 2011 to April of 2012 the not in number has grown all most 2 million people with 500k from march to April
during the same time the civilian labor force has grown 400,000
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Those graphs will not reflect that explosion in which during the same time (from Nov 11) we have went from a 9% UE rate to a 8.1
All of your research will not reflect that. This has been my question from the start

How can the number of UE drop 500,000 in the same time period but the UE rate drop a full 1%
Employment-population ratio
58.4 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.4
there is your answer
that rate has not dropped in a full year
only the not in rate has made the UE rate drop

 

[itfitzme]

Not in includes all of those who have some sort of govt subsidy. That number is close to 20 million below the subsidy level, with 6.366 million wanting a job who should in my opinion be counted against the UE rate
Not sure why there not

the reason they're not classified as unemployed is because they either were not trying to work or could not have accepted a job if offered. In other words they weren't available for work that month. The UE rate is designed to measure how much absolve labor isn't being used...how many people could have found work and didn't. The special groups of marginally attached and it's subgroup of discouraged are tracked because these are people likely to start looking.

The not in number is sky rocketing, up close to 3 million in 12 months while the labor force went up 900k.
That means the not in number is going up 3 times faster than the in work force number

About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

Good response
Except for a person who is waiting for dis ability I am having trouble figuring out the rest of those who would want a job but could not accept, even then I am not sure how they could come up with that number because they would have not seen the judge for dis ability, well I guess they would have filed
Any-way there is still a large un explained gap from the not in group as I asses it. When we went from 9% UE to 8.6 I went and found out why
The 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

You keep presenting the November article as if it is indicative of all months and the entire period . It isn't.

It isn't for two reasons, seasonal and random variation. November numbers will generally be down from October, December from November, and January from December because of seasonal variation. Any particular month may be higher or lower simply because of random variation. Any particular month may happen to have a declining labor force for no other reason then simple random variation.

The article makes a point as to what to look for, but it isn't an over-riding general effect. Picking any specific month doesn't mean anything because the next month, the while thing is just as likely to flip upside down.

"I went and found out why"... Yes, you found out why for October. That is great.

It is now April. What happened in November, December, January, February, And March? Did it do the exact same thing or was October an anomaly?

The circumstances are so odd, compared to what the statistics were designed for, that a single stat doesn't mean much.

 

[itfitzme]

About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

You're peak categories of over 65 and 16-24 is consistent with my peaks at 20 to 24 and 65 to 69.

The BLS ftp site has the entire data set available in one big flat file. Category descriptors are indexed separately.

How did you calculate your numbers? 30% from when to when? A 30% increase in the NILF?

 

[Trajan]

it is apparent to me, having read and participated in this thread, that no matter your political outlook, whether you believe retirees have driven down the LFPR or not,that the lack of meeting a basic threshold of new entrant job creation on a monthly or quarterly basis means anything overall as to how 180k jobs cuts into the big batch of UE folks ( as they classify them, on a net basis, we take donow the big batch number by olny 50-60K after new job entrants are accounted for in a single month) that the categorization, collation, calculations of the same is, typical of a gov. agency and they both, dem rep. have let it get this far, and even in some cases, imho, worked to allow it to get to such a point. Both sides of the aisle benefit when we, the rubes out here don't know for certain, it helps paralyze us all.


Decision are being made on data they collect, that they cannot even quantify fully, accurately and in plain English, this means we will in all likely-hood never know for another decade till this all shakes out. maybe.

Meanwhile, as I said, as we speak they are making decisions whose effects they are not even fully cognizant of. How did we get here? Step by ugly step.

 

[JRK]

the reason they're not classified as unemployed is because they either were not trying to work or could not have accepted a job if offered. In other words they weren't available for work that month. The UE rate is designed to measure how much absolve labor isn't being used...how many people could have found work and didn't. The special groups of marginally attached and it's subgroup of discouraged are tracked because these are people likely to start looking.


About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

Good response
Except for a person who is waiting for dis ability I am having trouble figuring out the rest of those who would want a job but could not accept, even then I am not sure how they could come up with that number because they would have not seen the judge for dis ability, well I guess they would have filed
Any-way there is still a large un explained gap from the not in group as I asses it. When we went from 9% UE to 8.6 I went and found out why
The 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

You keep presenting the November article as if it is indicative of all months and the entire period . It isn't.

It isn't for two reasons, seasonal and random variation. November numbers will generally be down from October, December from November, and January from December because of seasonal variation. Any particular month may be higher or lower simply because of random variation. Any particular month may happen to have a declining labor force for no other reason then simple random variation.

The article makes a point as to what to look for, but it isn't an over-riding general effect. Picking any specific month doesn't mean anything because the next month, the while thing is just as likely to flip upside down.

"I went and found out why"... Yes, you found out why for October. That is great.

It is now April. What happened in November, December, January, February, And March? Did it do the exact same thing or was October an anomaly?

The circumstances are so odd, compared to what the statistics were designed for, that a single stat doesn't mean much.

We added close to 2 million people to the not in category
That is what occurred
at the same time we added 400k to the civilian labor force
The employed to population ration drooped .10%, from 54.5 to 54.4, while the UE rate dropped a full 1%
The number of UE went down 600k
This would be the same as saying that if we split the not in addition 50-50, then we would have added 400,000 people to the UE, instead of bringing it down 600,000
A full 1 million person swing which would have BHO approval rating at a far different place than it is today

these are just numbers
You have what the BLS gives you, and then you have people like my-self wondering why the not-in number is exploding and the rest are not
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
The tell tell number is the % of people employed vs the total population
Simply put we are not adding 1 job, were taking people out of the system

 

[pinqy]

Not in includes all of those who have some sort of govt subsidy. That number is close to 20 million below the subsidy level, with 6.366 million wanting a job who should in my opinion be counted against the UE rate
Not sure why there not

the reason they're not classified as unemployed is because they either were not trying to work or could not have accepted a job if offered. In other words they weren't available for work that month. The UE rate is designed to measure how much absolve labor isn't being used...how many people could have found work and didn't. The special groups of marginally attached and it's subgroup of discouraged are tracked because these are people likely to start looking.

The not in number is sky rocketing, up close to 3 million in 12 months while the labor force went up 900k.
That means the not in number is going up 3 times faster than the in work force number

About 30% of that increase is over 65s. About 20% are 16-24s and a good chunk is married women. Hard to break things down exactly.

Great let's kill all jobs and we will have 0 unemployment

Nope, you can't divide by zero.