Economic BAD News.....more people LEFT the job market than jobs created in April

[edthecynic]

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

There were many on the Right who used to say that Stay-At-Home Moms were a good thing, and they used to encourage students over 16 to stay in school. When did those things become bad??? And what is wrong with retiring?

EdTheLemming, wow. Seriously, you think jobs are down because women are staying home and kids are staying in school? Democrats are always good for a laugh. Sure it's at you not with you, but still, a good laugh.

Jobs are down because Bush crashed the economy, but are up from the bottom that Bush sent them to.

But that is not what we are discussing. The LPR is down because the Boomers are retiring at a rate of 3 million a year.

 

[HenryBHough]

Look on the brighter side:

Despite Regime Obama's best efforts there still IS a job market.....of sorts.....

 

[gipper]

Look on the brighter side:

Despite Regime Obama's best efforts there still IS a job market.....of sorts.....

Yes...I guess we should be thankful for that.

The greatest economy, in all of world history, and Big Ears is doing all he can to destroy it...and the MSM and his followers are too partisan to acknowledge the truth.

 

[HenryBHough]

Look on the brighter side:

Despite Regime Obama's best efforts there still IS a job market.....of sorts.....

Yes...I guess we should be thankful for that.

The greatest economy, in all of world history, and Big Ears is doing all he can to destroy it...and the MSM and his followers are too partisan to acknowledge the truth.

Again, the brighter side: He has demonstrated to the world that He is good at something!

 

[gipper]

Look on the brighter side:

Despite Regime Obama's best efforts there still IS a job market.....of sorts.....

Yes...I guess we should be thankful for that.

The greatest economy, in all of world history, and Big Ears is doing all he can to destroy it...and the MSM and his followers are too partisan to acknowledge the truth.

Again, the brighter side: He has demonstrated to the world that He is good at something!

If the truth be told, the Left does not give two shits about the economy.

This explains the Left's position...

Why the Left Doesn’t Care about Bad Economic News
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals.
This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left.
Take economic indicators. Most conservatives talk and act as if bad economic news disturbs the left as much as it disturbs them. It doesn’t.
Almost everywhere the left is in control — in California, for example — the economic news is awful. But this has no effect on the ruling Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or others on the left.
snip

They don’t care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat.
Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn’t. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions.

Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

 

[ron4342]

The jobs report released Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor revealed that 288,000 jobs were created in April, the biggest gain in more than two years, and that the headline unemployment rate dropped 0.4 percentage points to 6.3%, the lowest level in 5½ years.

Great news, right? Not necessarily.

The unemployment rate tumbled in April not because of all the new jobs created last month but rather because more than 800,000 people either stopped looking for a job or left the job market for other reasons (retirement, for example).

Big Downside to April Jobs Report

fox News is right up there with breitbart. You know, studies have shown that people who watch fox know LESS about the news than people who watch no news programs at all.

 

[ron4342]

Yes...I guess we should be thankful for that.

The greatest economy, in all of world history, and Big Ears is doing all he can to destroy it...and the MSM and his followers are too partisan to acknowledge the truth.

Again, the brighter side: He has demonstrated to the world that He is good at something!

If the truth be told, the Left does not give two shits about the economy.

This explains the Left's position...

Why the Left Doesn’t Care about Bad Economic News
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals.
This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left.
Take economic indicators. Most conservatives talk and act as if bad economic news disturbs the left as much as it disturbs them. It doesn’t.
Almost everywhere the left is in control — in California, for example — the economic news is awful. But this has no effect on the ruling Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or others on the left.
snip

They don’t care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat.
Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn’t. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions.

Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

I care about the economy. I just don't believe in anything the right posts. It's called "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome."

 

[bedowin62]

Again, the brighter side: He has demonstrated to the world that He is good at something!

If the truth be told, the Left does not give two shits about the economy.

This explains the Left's position...

Why the Left Doesn’t Care about Bad Economic News
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals.
This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left.
Take economic indicators. Most conservatives talk and act as if bad economic news disturbs the left as much as it disturbs them. It doesn’t.
Almost everywhere the left is in control — in California, for example — the economic news is awful. But this has no effect on the ruling Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or others on the left.
snip

They don’t care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat.
Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn’t. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions.

Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

I care about the economy. I just don't believe in anything the right posts. It's called "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome."

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!1 i dont believe anything that doesnt fit my narrative!!

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1 i cant accept the RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS under obama so i'm just going to pretend it doesnt exist!!

what a Loser!!

 

[edthecynic]

Yes...I guess we should be thankful for that.

The greatest economy, in all of world history, and Big Ears is doing all he can to destroy it...and the MSM and his followers are too partisan to acknowledge the truth.

Again, the brighter side: He has demonstrated to the world that He is good at something!

If the truth be told, the Left does not give two shits about the economy.

This explains the Left's position...

Why the Left Doesn’t Care about Bad Economic News
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals.
This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left.
Take economic indicators. Most conservatives talk and act as if bad economic news disturbs the left as much as it disturbs them. It doesn’t.
Almost everywhere the left is in control — in California, for example — the economic news is awful. But this has no effect on the ruling Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or others on the left.
snip

They don’t care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat.
Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn’t. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions.B]

Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

Using Dumbass Priger's moronic "logic" the Right doesn't care about the economy because they care about guns and gays!

And the Left might not be troubled by "bad economic news" because what is bad economic news to the Right, like creating 280,000 jobs, is not bad news to the Left!!!!!

 

[KissMy]

Government Cut Massive Jobs

Economy Created Far More Jobs Than Government Cut.

 

[gipper]

If the truth be told, the Left does not give two shits about the economy.

This explains the Left's position...

I care about the economy. I just don't believe in anything the right posts. It's called "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome."

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!1 i dont believe anything that doesnt fit my narrative!!

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1 i cant accept the RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS under obama so i'm just going to pretend it doesnt exist!!

what a Loser!!

ronZERO fails to realize how ignorant his posts are.

It is most unfortunate that so many Americans accept the lies of the Left. It is amazing how easily they can be deceived.

 

[Faun]

So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?

I hold him responsible now.

We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.

Thanks, Obama!

And do you hold him responsible for the weakest GDP recovery since WWII and for labor participation being at record lows? Or does holding him responsible for you just mean cherry picking stats you like?

GDP? Sure. Labor participation? Only partially.

In 3 weeks, Obama is tied with Clinton for the longest streak of job growth in the private sector in BLS history. That's gonna be fun watching the loony right bitch about.

 

[Faun]

yawn

wake me when you're done crying

No worries. That sure was some tantrum you threw just to avoid answering my initial question ... How is that [the drop in the LFPR] bad for the economy?

Think anyone else noticed?

it's laughable really; how comically ignorant you are.

not that it matters to a brainwashed loser like you. but i'll answer your question Captain Obvious

the food stamps program BY ITSELF is approaching a cost of $1 TRILLION for ten years

where is that money coming from?
who will have to repay that back........with interest?

You're clearly too fucking stupid to even realize you didn't actually answer the question I asked. You answered the question your diseased brain translated my question into. Your G-d given limitations aside; while it's laughable to watch the folks of "deficits don't matter" suddenly give a shit about debt, the figure you throw out is still less than we spent to invade Iraq over WMDs that weren't there. Personally, I'd rather feed millions of Americans while pouring that trillion back into the economy than send 5,000 Americans to their death because the president is an imbecile.

 

[Faun]

In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.

that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.


No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.

For many people collecting those benefits, the only reason they stopped is because the benefits stopped. Nothing else changed.

The stopping is the thing that changed. You're listing TWO things that changed but saying that one of them is the only thing that's changed. Look...isolate the variables. Person A wants a job, could take a job, and is looking for work and is receiving benefits. If the next month he loses his benefits but still wants a job, could still take a job and is still looking, he will still be classified as unemployed.
But if instead he still received benefits but no longer wanted a job, he would be not in the labor force.
If he still received benefits but could no longer take a job if offered, he would be not in the labor force.
And if he still received benefits but was no longer looking (presumably lying to the UI claims people and saying he was), then he would be not in the labor force.

And again, since BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, it pays no part in the calculation.

The flaw in your example is where you describe an unemployed individual, receiving benefits, but no longer wanting a job, no longer being in the workforce. While it's accurate to say that a person not seeking a job falls out of the labor force, most states require unemployment beneficiaries to actively seek employment in order to continue collecting their benefits. So even such people no longer interested in working are going to continue looking, even if not seriously, just to maintain their benefits. Meaning that people collecting unemployment benefits are still in the labor force.

 

[Faun]

Government Cut Massive Jobs

Economy Created Far More Jobs Than Government Cut.

Total non-farm employed:

Peak: 138,365,000 (Jan/2008)
Trough: 129,655,000 (Feb/2010)
Jan/2009: 133,976,000
Apr/2014: 138,252,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

From peak to trough, the BLS indicates that we lost almost 9 million jobs. Most of that was due to the Great Recession. While Obama's been president, we've gained 4.3 million jobs; and that's factoring in 4.3 million jobs lost. At 138,252,000 employed currently, we are just 113,000 jobs shy of the all time high we had before the Great Recession. And that's factoring in the almost 9 million jobs lost.

 

[pinqy]

So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?

I hold him responsible now.

We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.

Thanks, Obama!

And do you hold him responsible for the weakest GDP recovery since WWII and for labor participation being at record lows? Or does holding him responsible for you just mean cherry picking stats you like?

You've been mislead. You read or heard that labor force participation is at its lowest since 1978 and thought that since the 70's were rough economically, that it was low historically. Except the current Labor Force Participation Rate is higher than anytime before 1978. So that's hardly record low and not anywhere near the low.

 

[pinqy]

For many people collecting those benefits, the only reason they stopped is because the benefits stopped. Nothing else changed.

The stopping is the thing that changed. You're listing TWO things that changed but saying that one of them is the only thing that's changed. Look...isolate the variables. Person A wants a job, could take a job, and is looking for work and is receiving benefits. If the next month he loses his benefits but still wants a job, could still take a job and is still looking, he will still be classified as unemployed.
But if instead he still received benefits but no longer wanted a job, he would be not in the labor force.
If he still received benefits but could no longer take a job if offered, he would be not in the labor force.
And if he still received benefits but was no longer looking (presumably lying to the UI claims people and saying he was), then he would be not in the labor force.

And again, since BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, it pays no part in the calculation.

The flaw in your example is where you describe an unemployed individual, receiving benefits, but no longer wanting a job, no longer being in the workforce.

ummm if they don't want a job, then by definition they're not unemployed and are not in the laborforce. Rember, to be classified as unemployed you have to meet all three factors of wanting a job, being available for a job, and looking for a job. There's no flaw...a person can be collecting benefits, and looking, but if they don't actually want a job (looking just to meet UI requirements), or if they could not actually start a job at that tiime, then they would not be unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force.

While it's accurate to say that a person not seeking a job falls out of the labor force, most states require unemployment beneficiaries to actively seek employment in order to continue collecting their benefits.

True, but it's not the benefits that determines classification. BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, so the benefits are not a determing factor. And one can look for work but not actually want to work (and BLS cannot report fraudulant benefits claims or any other crime) or not be available to work during the week the survey covers.

So even such people no longer interested in working are going to continue looking, even if not seriously, just to maintain their benefits.

But if, when questioned by the Census worker (Census conducts the survey for BLS) he says he doesn't actually want a job (and there's no reason to lie) then it doesn't matter if he's looking, he's not unemployed and not in the labor force. And if in answer to "last week, could you have started work if offered?" he answers "no," then again not unemployed and not in the labor force even if he wanted a job and was looking.

 

[Faun]

The stopping is the thing that changed. You're listing TWO things that changed but saying that one of them is the only thing that's changed. Look...isolate the variables. Person A wants a job, could take a job, and is looking for work and is receiving benefits. If the next month he loses his benefits but still wants a job, could still take a job and is still looking, he will still be classified as unemployed.
But if instead he still received benefits but no longer wanted a job, he would be not in the labor force.
If he still received benefits but could no longer take a job if offered, he would be not in the labor force.
And if he still received benefits but was no longer looking (presumably lying to the UI claims people and saying he was), then he would be not in the labor force.

And again, since BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, it pays no part in the calculation.

The flaw in your example is where you describe an unemployed individual, receiving benefits, but no longer wanting a job, no longer being in the workforce.

ummm if they don't want a job, then by definition they're not unemployed and are not in the laborforce. Rember, to be classified as unemployed you have to meet all three factors of wanting a job, being available for a job, and looking for a job. There's no flaw...a person can be collecting benefits, and looking, but if they don't actually want a job (looking just to meet UI requirements), or if they could not actually start a job at that tiime, then they would not be unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force.

While it's accurate to say that a person not seeking a job falls out of the labor force, most states require unemployment beneficiaries to actively seek employment in order to continue collecting their benefits.

True, but it's not the benefits that determines classification. BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, so the benefits are not a determing factor. And one can look for work but not actually want to work (and BLS cannot report fraudulant benefits claims or any other crime) or not be available to work during the week the survey covers.

So even such people no longer interested in working are going to continue looking, even if not seriously, just to maintain their benefits.

But if, when questioned by the Census worker (Census conducts the survey for BLS) he says he doesn't actually want a job (and there's no reason to lie) then it doesn't matter if he's looking, he's not unemployed and not in the labor force. And if in answer to "last week, could you have started work if offered?" he answers "no," then again not unemployed and not in the labor force even if he wanted a job and was looking.

I'm pretty sure that "wanting a job" is not a criteria for being "unemployed." Here's the BLS' definition:

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​

It only mentions available and looking for work. And not in the labor force is anyone neither employed nor "unemployed" according to that definition.

I also think we're mostly in agreement. I agree that the actual determination, which stems from being polled, is based on the respondents' reply to whether or not they are looking for work. Where we differ is that I believe many people collecting unemployment benefits (especially after a long period) don't want to work but look anyway to collect the benefit. Once that expires, they no longer look. And we agree that no longer looking is what drops them from the labor force.

 

[kaz]

I hold him responsible now.

We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.

Thanks, Obama!

And do you hold him responsible for the weakest GDP recovery since WWII and for labor participation being at record lows? Or does holding him responsible for you just mean cherry picking stats you like?

GDP? Sure. Labor participation? Only partially.

In 3 weeks, Obama is tied with Clinton for the longest streak of job growth in the private sector in BLS history. That's gonna be fun watching the loony right bitch about.

Enough people quit looking for work or took part time jobs to keep an ultra slow streak of growth going. You must be so proud...

 

[pinqy]

The flaw in your example is where you describe an unemployed individual, receiving benefits, but no longer wanting a job, no longer being in the workforce.

ummm if they don't want a job, then by definition they're not unemployed and are not in the laborforce. Rember, to be classified as unemployed you have to meet all three factors of wanting a job, being available for a job, and looking for a job. There's no flaw...a person can be collecting benefits, and looking, but if they don't actually want a job (looking just to meet UI requirements), or if they could not actually start a job at that tiime, then they would not be unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force.


True, but it's not the benefits that determines classification. BLS has no idea if a person is receiving benefits or not, so the benefits are not a determing factor. And one can look for work but not actually want to work (and BLS cannot report fraudulant benefits claims or any other crime) or not be available to work during the week the survey covers.

So even such people no longer interested in working are going to continue looking, even if not seriously, just to maintain their benefits.

But if, when questioned by the Census worker (Census conducts the survey for BLS) he says he doesn't actually want a job (and there's no reason to lie) then it doesn't matter if he's looking, he's not unemployed and not in the labor force. And if in answer to "last week, could you have started work if offered?" he answers "no," then again not unemployed and not in the labor force even if he wanted a job and was looking.

I'm pretty sure that "wanting a job" is not a criteria for being "unemployed." Here's the BLS' definition:

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​

It only mentions available and looking for work. And not in the labor force is anyone neither employed nor "unemployed" according to that definition.

I also think we're mostly in agreement. I agree that the actual determination, which stems from being polled, is based on the respondents' reply to whether or not they are looking for work. Where we differ is that I believe many people collecting unemployment benefits (especially after a long period) don't want to work but look anyway to collect the benefit. Once that expires, they no longer look. And we agree that no longer looking is what drops them from the labor force.

You are correct. The survey assumes active job search means wants to work. The actual question "do you want a job is only asked for those not looking.