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

[EconChick]

If Americans have now figured out what a liar Obama turned out to be, what makes you think they'll now listen to one of his worshippers that doesn't know anything about economics?

 

[EconChick]

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.

LOL.

DING, DING, DING!

 

[kaz]

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%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

 

[pinqy]

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.

Are you claiming that calling the U6 numerator "unemployed" would NOT mean classifying some people with jobs, including some people with full time jobs, as Unemployed? Yes or no?

 

[EconChick]

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.

Pinqy, I'm not retired like a lot of you libs on this board are.....I don't have time to sit and answer every libs question. I have talked to this question a little bit and will prob get to it sometime this week, but for now, what's important is that the job picture is NOT GOOD.

 

[pinqy]

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%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Do not want. The question is "Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?"

 

[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.

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

Well, that was a complete non sequitur. What about the LFPR refutes anything I've said?

 

[pinqy]

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.

Pinqy, I'm not retired like a lot of you libs on this board are.....I don't have time to sit and answer every libs question. I have talked to this question a little bit and will prob get to it sometime this week, but for now, what's important is that the job picture is NOT GOOD.

If you spent more time actually answering questions and giving real analysis instead of insulting and claiming "victory" and claiming your superiority, maybe you would have time.
And I never said the job picture was good.

 

[pinqy]

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%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Because they are employed. But how are you defining underemployed and how are you measuring them?

 

[Moonglow]

If Americans have now figured out what a liar Obama turned out to be, what makes you think they'll now listen to one of his worshippers that doesn't know anything about economics?

So you now are trying to tell us that a nobody like you, has more credence than someone that actually works for the Wall Street Journal?

 

[EconChick]

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.

Pinqy, I'm not retired like a lot of you libs on this board are.....I don't have time to sit and answer every libs question. I have talked to this question a little bit and will prob get to it sometime this week, but for now, what's important is that the job picture is NOT GOOD.

If you spent more time actually answering questions and giving real analysis instead of insulting and claiming "victory" and claiming your superiority, maybe you would have time.
And I never said the job picture was good.

I DON'T SPEND TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS????????

That's all I've fucking done since I started posting on this board is spent hours giving long thought out answers. And since I've said the same thing over and over and over, I'm tired of committing long amounts of time to give my really detailed, long analysis.

I don't have a chalkboard on this site. I only have LIBERAL statistics to be found on the internet to try to make my case.

You silly libs have more control of the search engines and that's an advantage for you.

You also have a bunch of unemployed or retired libs pounding away at the propaganda and lies every day on here so that's an advantage too.

So spare me the "not giving any analysis" bullshit.

Go look up my many threads or the posts done by the many people saying the same thing I am saying. IT'S in this forum in spades.

You are getting the summary of my analysis. You are also getting the critique of your stats. And the people I'm trying to reach GLAZE THE HELL over with your posts.

I'm not here to be monopolized by you, I'm here to reach other people. I may or may not answer each of your questions.

The summary of my analysis is really clear. BLS statistics are faulty. Unemp stats are faulty. The economy is a mess and Americans know it.

Am I going to get in an algorithm writing contest with you on this post? No, no one would understand it anyway.

 

[EconChick]

If Americans have now figured out what a liar Obama turned out to be, what makes you think they'll now listen to one of his worshippers that doesn't know anything about economics?

So you now are trying to tell us that a nobody like you, has more credence than someone that actually works for the Wall Street Journal?

I can run circles around people who work in the press, idiot. I don't care how fancy the publications are.

 

[EconChick]

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%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Because they are employed. But how are you defining underemployed and how are you measuring them?

How many times do you have to be told that your question in this post is at the heart of the problem??

 

[pinqy]

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%.

They do "not want a job" or they gave up looking for a job? Those are not the same thing. Also, while the labor participation rate has dropped 3%, it's worse than that because the underemployed has jumped higher as well and you are counting them as employed.

Because they are employed. But how are you defining underemployed and how are you measuring them?

How many times do you have to be told that your question in this post is at the heart of the problem??

You can say it all you want. Doesn't make it true. Nor does it explain what problem you're referring to or why it's a problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nothing was changed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

 

[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.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate has changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, what have Republicans done to provide jobs? Did they pass the American Jobs Act?

Ahhhh, you're going to make a great tool for me on this thread.



So Obama's policies have nothing to do with the mess, huh?

Name the policies and we'll debate that.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

How are you claiming Obama has done this? Are you claiming that under previous presidential administrations those who have left the labor force would still be counted?

She doesn't know what she's claiming. She's just repeating talking points out of the rightwing propaganda machine.

Notice that she will never debate the actual facts.

How ironic!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nothing was changed.

Nonsense.

The worker-participation rate had changed drastically, and so the old way of counting is obsolete.

So you to change the rate how? And back to when do you want that retroactive to?

Let me guess...