Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand

[EconChick]

As has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.

It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.

Here is a visual:


View attachment 33535

So what you're telling us is that we shouldn't have been fooled by the sub 5% UE rates we saw under Bush in 2006 and 2007,

because they were really just a Bush sleight of hand, since the participation rate was falling.

Deflect all you want. I've pummeled you in economic thread after economic thread.

AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH YOUR LIES AS WELL.

 

[EconChick]

"Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand"

Yes, let's ignore the facts and just go with how we 'feel.'

Well don't forget, she let us know that Jesus was a capitalist...

You libs wreak of desperation. I have no idea what you're talking about.

But by all means, keep making shit up. The electorate has had it with you liars. Like your lies about jobs.

See the thread about how angry voters are? You libs will be missing parts of your asses after the election.

More of that college degree oozing...

Most Americans agree with me, DUMMY.

Obama's polls in the 30's for the economy.

Wake up, little boy.

 

[mudwhistle]

"Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand"

Yes, let's ignore the facts and just go with how we 'feel.'

There's a saying; Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Well, in this case the Whitehouse is entitled to both, because they decide which statistics to use to draw their conclusions from.

 

[Moonglow]

"Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand"

Yes, let's ignore the facts and just go with how we 'feel.'

Well don't forget, she let us know that Jesus was a capitalist...

You libs wreak of desperation. I have no idea what you're talking about.

But by all means, keep making shit up. The electorate has had it with you liars. Like your lies about jobs.

See the thread about how angry voters are? You libs will be missing parts of your asses after the election.

More of that college degree oozing...

Most Americans agree with me, DUMMY.

Obama's polls in the 30's for the economy.

Wake up, little boy.

You have a zero rating in public, and you have no position..So evidently, you are nothing but mouth..

 

[EconChick]

Here's an interesting graph....using BLS data through the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tool, I compared the percent of the population in the labor force with the percent of the population Not in the labor force that does not want to work. (there is a small percent of the population that say they want a job but are not in the labor force because either they are not currently looking for work or they are currently unavailable to work, or both)

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
In other words, the drop in the Labor Force Participation has been all voluntary....the percent of those "not counted" hasn't changed. CORRECTION: Looking at the data to the first decimal place, those Not in the Labor Force, want a job now, has gone from 2% of the Population in Dec 2009 to 2.6% in Sep 2014. So, "Mostly voluntary" I will correct myself.

THE ST.LOUIS FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE BIGGEST LIBERAL, BIG SPENDING KEYNESIAN FED OF ALL!!

But by all means, keep throwing THEIR stats out there.

 

[mudwhistle]

As has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.

It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.

Here is a visual:


View attachment 33535

Why do you call it Obama's sleight of hand?

Because the old way of counting the number of unemployed is inaccurate. It allows Obama to skate by with a bad economy and claim it is improving. It's dishonest.

 

[pinqy]

Only if you completely redefine unemployed to include people who have jobs...including some with full time jobs...as "unemployed."

How did you arrive at that?

The U6 measure of Under-utilization is at 11.8%, which is what I'm presuming was the basis of the claim that UE is "near 12%."
The U6 is defined as Unemployed plus Marginally Attached workers plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the Labor Force plus the Marginally Attached.
Part time for Economic reasons are those who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but who worked under 35 hours during the survey reference week due to slow/slack business or inability to find a full time job.
Looking at the breakdown of those who worked less than 35 hours during the September survey due to economic reasons, we see that there were 1,249,000 people who usually work full time (in the previous 6 months they usually worked 35+ hours/week) who worked less than 35 because of "slack work or business conditions."

Marginally Attached are those who say they want a job, could have started a job during the reference week, looked for work in the previous 12 months but not the previous 4 weeks (and therefore are not classified as unemployed)

 

[pinqy]

If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.

And discouraged workers have been dropping, while the number, and percent of the population, that don't want a job has been going up.

Baloney. You've proven in thread after thread you don't know how to accurately capture "discouraged worker" data.

Ummm it's pretty straight forward: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

There's no "capturing," you just go to the table.

 

[EconChick]

Here's an interesting graph....using BLS data through the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tool, I compared the percent of the population in the labor force with the percent of the population Not in the labor force that does not want to work. (there is a small percent of the population that say they want a job but are not in the labor force because either they are not currently looking for work or they are currently unavailable to work, or both)

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
In other words, the drop in the Labor Force Participation has been all voluntary....the percent of those "not counted" hasn't changed. CORRECTION: Looking at the data to the first decimal place, those Not in the Labor Force, want a job now, has gone from 2% of the Population in Dec 2009 to 2.6% in Sep 2014. So, "Mostly voluntary" I will correct myself.

I want all of you out there who are still undecided about this topic to take a look at the following ridiculous statement made by someone who used work at the BLS (though I like him personally). You know in your gut the following statement is BS:

"In other words, the drop in the Labor Force Participation has been all voluntary..."


Everyone of us knows at least one person who has dropped out of the Labor Force INVOLUNTARILY.

This is what I mean about govt stats being unreliable.

 

[EconChick]

"Don't Be Fooled by the Unemployent Rate - Obama's Slight of Hand"

Yes, let's ignore the facts and just go with how we 'feel.'

Well don't forget, she let us know that Jesus was a capitalist...

You libs wreak of desperation. I have no idea what you're talking about.

But by all means, keep making shit up. The electorate has had it with you liars. Like your lies about jobs.

See the thread about how angry voters are? You libs will be missing parts of your asses after the election.

More of that college degree oozing...

Most Americans agree with me, DUMMY.

Obama's polls in the 30's for the economy.

Wake up, little boy.

You have a zero rating in public, and you have no position..So evidently, you are nothing but mouth..

Talk to the hand.

And get ready to do a lot of crying next week, little boy.

 

[pinqy]

Here's an interesting graph....using BLS data through the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tool, I compared the percent of the population in the labor force with the percent of the population Not in the labor force that does not want to work. (there is a small percent of the population that say they want a job but are not in the labor force because either they are not currently looking for work or they are currently unavailable to work, or both)

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
In other words, the drop in the Labor Force Participation has been all voluntary....the percent of those "not counted" hasn't changed. CORRECTION: Looking at the data to the first decimal place, those Not in the Labor Force, want a job now, has gone from 2% of the Population in Dec 2009 to 2.6% in Sep 2014. So, "Mostly voluntary" I will correct myself.

THE ST.LOUIS FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE BIGGEST LIBERAL, BIG SPENDING KEYNESIAN FED OF ALL!!

But by all means, keep throwing THEIR stats out there.

It's not their stats...it's their TOOL that puts the BLS stats into a nice graph. And I still don't get what you think is "Keynesian" about counting.

 

[pinqy]

If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.

You can find the discouraged workers # at the bottom of the following chart:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data seasonally adjusted

As you can see it is down from a year ago. Not up.

Nobody BUYS the stats the big spending, liberal, Keynesian trained economists that work for the government put out.

Even Loner Loser himself said "most economists are liberals." I got the same major dose of Liberal, Keynesian indoctrination they got. Why? Because over 95% of all colleges and universities have that bias in their economic departments.



That's why I know their stats are messed up.

You keep repeating that, but you never say what bias or what is "Keynesian" about the statistics.
And of course, you fail to present any other data except to say that an average person with no training in economics or statistics can look around their local area and listen to the news and get a more accurate picture of the details.

 

[pinqy]

Here's an interesting graph....using BLS data through the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tool, I compared the percent of the population in the labor force with the percent of the population Not in the labor force that does not want to work. (there is a small percent of the population that say they want a job but are not in the labor force because either they are not currently looking for work or they are currently unavailable to work, or both)

So, when the Recession started, Labor Force Participation was 66%, and 32% of the population did not want a job. As of September 2014, the Labor Force Participation has dropped to 63%, but the % of the population that doesn't want to work has increased to 35%.
In other words, the drop in the Labor Force Participation has been all voluntary....the percent of those "not counted" hasn't changed. CORRECTION: Looking at the data to the first decimal place, those Not in the Labor Force, want a job now, has gone from 2% of the Population in Dec 2009 to 2.6% in Sep 2014. So, "Mostly voluntary" I will correct myself.

I want all of you out there who are still undecided about this topic to take a look at the following ridiculous statement made by someone who used work at the BLS (though I like him personally). You know in your gut the following statement is BS:

"In other words, the drop in the Labor Force Participation has been all voluntary..."


Everyone of us knows at least one person who has dropped out of the Labor Force INVOLUNTARILY.

This is what I mean about govt stats being unreliable.

Oh, good lord....You know damn well I meant the aggregate NET change, AND I corrected myself on closer look.

 

[EconChick]

If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.

And discouraged workers have been dropping, while the number, and percent of the population, that don't want a job has been going up.

Baloney. You've proven in thread after thread you don't know how to accurately capture "discouraged worker" data.

Ummm it's pretty straight forward: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

There's no "capturing," you just go to the table.

So you're still not going to admit all stats have a bias?

 

[Wildman]

Just another NaziConChick carnival trick.

Republican Strategy: Obstruct, Blame Democrats For Obstruction's Damage

==========
no trick here Mr.Fool, even pictures can not get thru libertards skulls, why do you liberidiots hate the truth ? why do you all hate America and patriotic Americans ?

Lackahonker, ............. ... you are so full of

 

[EconChick]

If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.

You can find the discouraged workers # at the bottom of the following chart:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data seasonally adjusted

As you can see it is down from a year ago. Not up.

Nobody BUYS the stats the big spending, liberal, Keynesian trained economists that work for the government put out.

Even Loner Loser himself said "most economists are liberals." I got the same major dose of Liberal, Keynesian indoctrination they got. Why? Because over 95% of all colleges and universities have that bias in their economic departments.



That's why I know their stats are messed up.

You keep repeating that, but you never say what bias or what is "Keynesian" about the statistics.
And of course, you fail to present any other data except to say that an average person with no training in economics or statistics can look around their local area and listen to the news and get a more accurate picture of the details.

This board is drowning in stats that refute you. I started the thread with such a stat.

 

[EconChick]

If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.

You can find the discouraged workers # at the bottom of the following chart:

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data seasonally adjusted

As you can see it is down from a year ago. Not up.

Nobody BUYS the stats the big spending, liberal, Keynesian trained economists that work for the government put out.

Even Loner Loser himself said "most economists are liberals." I got the same major dose of Liberal, Keynesian indoctrination they got. Why? Because over 95% of all colleges and universities have that bias in their economic departments.



That's why I know their stats are messed up.

You keep repeating that, but you never say what bias or what is "Keynesian" about the statistics.
And of course, you fail to present any other data except to say that an average person with no training in economics or statistics can look around their local area and listen to the news and get a more accurate picture of the details.

WHAT'S KEYNESIAN WAS ALL YOUR FUCKING TRAINING.

Good Lord.

 

[EconChick]

As has been explained on this board dozens of times....and as everyone knows..... the reason the Unemployment Rate has been dropping is for the WRONG REASON.

It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.

Here is a visual:


View attachment 33535

Who's fooled? Certainly not me.

UE is actually at around 12%.

Only if you completely redefine unemployed to include people who have jobs...including some with full time jobs...as "unemployed."

We've been over this over and over, Pinqy.

 

[kaz]

It's not dropping because Obama's policies have generated so many jobs....it has dropped because so many people have dropped out of the pool of people COUNTED.

In other words, Obama has used slight of hand. It can be a little complicated to follow but he's basically dropped the number UNEMPLOYED by making the pool of those counted smaller.

The Labor Participation Rate has dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years.

What do you mean the wrong reason? Not working is the liberal objective.

 

[pinqy]

If you retire, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you become a stay at home mom, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

If you go to school, you are no longer counted in the labor force and the participation rate drops accordingly.

The 3 scenarios you point to are constants and to be expected. There is one that you left out: when now stops looking for work due to no jobs. The discouraged worker is an economic term and stat used in tracking health of the job market.

And discouraged workers have been dropping, while the number, and percent of the population, that don't want a job has been going up.

Baloney. You've proven in thread after thread you don't know how to accurately capture "discouraged worker" data.

Ummm it's pretty straight forward: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

There's no "capturing," you just go to the table.

So you're still not going to admit all stats have a bias?

What type of bias do you mean? Statistical bias? of course...you can't escape that. Political bias? Only in interpretation by politicians and others.
But, of course, you'll just continue to claim bias without ever stating what exactly the bias you're claiming is.