Jobs report is not good: it may be as low as 140,000 although

[Dad2three]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 10:06 PM PDT

Seattle Raises its Minimum Wage, Jobless Rate Drops--Fox Scrambles for a Ladder to Pick Cherries

 

[pinqy]

demograpics; a higher number of WORKING-AGE AND ABLE-BODIED AMERICANS arent working under this President..

Numbers? Sure. What about percentages, though?

So the percent of able-bodied working age men has gone up under Obama (75.7% to 78.2%) while the percent of able-bodied working age women has gone slightly down (66.9% to 55.5%)

So it doesn't look like you've made your point.

um yes i have made my point because the number of workers overall that are able-bodied but not participating in the labor market has gone up under obama

And the number of workers overall that are able-bodied and participating in the labor force has ALSO gone up. And by more.

See, the far right have trouble with facts and numbers and other uncomfortable information.

see; i already refuted this WITH FACTS. the overall number of ABLE-BODIED WORKERS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LABOR MARKET HAS RISEN UNDER OBAMA

there ARE a few here that cant handle inconveniant facts; but they arent on the Right, leftard.

idiots and hypocrites

Do you really want facts? The site you're citing is devoid of them.Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics Let's start with "Able-bodied Americans who quit looking and voluntarily depart the workforce are accounted in a separate category called Not-in-Labor-Force." That is not true. Not in the Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is neither working nor looking for work. 25 million are disabled. 25 million are not disabled but age 65 and older. Many of those Not in the Labor Force, particularly teenagers, have never had a job. If you are 15 years old, your information is collected but not included in the survey. When you turn 16 it is, so you are now part of the population and an addition to Not in the Labor Force.

Next whackiness: Their chart of entries and departures calls the NET change in non-farm payroll jobs as "entered the labor force" and the net change in Not in the Labor Force as departures. So they're subtracting the net change of those not in the Labor Force (many of whom entered the population as not in the labor force) which comes from a survey of households from the net change in jobs from a completely different survey that excludes agriculture, the self employed and has a different time frame.

This is exceedingly dishonest because the actual gross entries and departures are available at BLS: Labor force status flows by sex, current month
Keeping in mind that Labor Force equals Employed plus Uempoyed, from August to September, 6,247,000 people entered the Labor Force and 6,598,000 left, for a net change of -350,000. Not in the Labor Force changed by +579,000


Even their definitions of employed and unemployed etc are wrong. See Employment Situation Technical Note

 

[rightwinger]

policies of THIS president have deepened and/or worsened demographic shifts affecting Labor force Participation..

what is so hard to understand? oh it's because nothing is ever the fault of Progressives no matter how long the've been the majority. it always has to be someone elses fault, or something that cant be helped.

Obama is forcing Baby Boomers to retire?

The Bastard!

 

[Dad2three]

Obama Blows Republicans Out Of The Water With Fastest Job Growth Pace Since Clinton

President Obama, the alleged “socialist” president, has presided over the longest uninterrupted stretch of private sector job growth on record. Private sector.

 

[bedowin62]

Numbers? Sure. What about percentages, though?

So the percent of able-bodied working age men has gone up under Obama (75.7% to 78.2%) while the percent of able-bodied working age women has gone slightly down (66.9% to 55.5%)

So it doesn't look like you've made your point.

um yes i have made my point because the number of workers overall that are able-bodied but not participating in the labor market has gone up under obama

And the number of workers overall that are able-bodied and participating in the labor force has ALSO gone up. And by more.

See, the far right have trouble with facts and numbers and other uncomfortable information.

see; i already refuted this WITH FACTS. the overall number of ABLE-BODIED WORKERS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LABOR MARKET HAS RISEN UNDER OBAMA

there ARE a few here that cant handle inconveniant facts; but they arent on the Right, leftard.

idiots and hypocrites

Do you really want facts? The site you're citing is devoid of them.Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics Let's start with "Able-bodied Americans who quit looking and voluntarily depart the workforce are accounted in a separate category called Not-in-Labor-Force." That is not true. Not in the Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is neither working nor looking for work. 25 million are disabled. 25 million are not disabled but age 65 and older. Many of those Not in the Labor Force, particularly teenagers, have never had a job. If you are 15 years old, your information is collected but not included in the survey. When you turn 16 it is, so you are now part of the population and an addition to Not in the Labor Force.

Next whackiness: Their chart of entries and departures calls the NET change in non-farm payroll jobs as "entered the labor force" and the net change in Not in the Labor Force as departures. So they're subtracting the net change of those not in the Labor Force (many of whom entered the population as not in the labor force) which comes from a survey of households from the net change in jobs from a completely different survey that excludes agriculture, the self employed and has a different time frame.

This is exceedingly dishonest because the actual gross entries and departures are available at BLS: Labor force status flows by sex, current month
Keeping in mind that Labor Force equals Employed plus Uempoyed, from August to September, 6,247,000 people entered the Labor Force and 6,598,000 left, for a net change of -350,000. Not in the Labor Force changed by +579,000


Even their definitions of employed and unemployed etc are wrong. See Employment Situation Technical Note

YAWN; you're citing propaganda as your "facts"

 

[bedowin62]

The Civilian Labor Force is defined as citizens, who are either employed or unemployed looking for a job, are at least 16 years old, are not serving in the U.S. armed forces and are not institutionalized. The U.S. government and private sector currently employs 141.8 million people. The four major subcategories are: (1) 22 million federal, state and local government employees and an estimated 10 million contractors who work for the government, (2) 68 million full-time private sector employees, (3) 27 million part-time private sector employees, and (4) 15 million self-employed workers. There are 16.5 million unemployed and underemployed people who are looking for work. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[bedowin62]

The Not Looking For Work group includes those Not-in-Labor-Force and All Others in the U.S. population. Not-in-Labor-Force includes people (over 16 years old) such as discouraged workers, citizens who choose not to work, welfare recipients, students, retired, stay-at-home caregivers, etc. There are 93.6 million Not-in-Labor-Force. Remaining citizens who are not included in the previous three categories are classified as All Others by Jobenomics (the BLS does not survey and report on these citizens). Jobenomics calculates that this All Others category includes 69.3 million citizens that cannot work (e.g., children, elderly, disabled), are institutionalized or serving in the U.S. armed forces. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[bedowin62]

Unemployment Rate Categories. Every month, the BLS publishes unemployment and employment statistics. Few policy-makers, opinion-leaders, pundits or citizens truly understand these statistics.
As shown below, six unemployment categories (U1 through U6[3]) are reported monthly by the BLS. Each category requires that an individual must be actively looking for work. These categories are calculated as a percent of the civilian labor force (157,037,000). The BLS also calculates the number of adults (over age 16) that can work but are not looking for work in a category entitled “Not in the Labor Force” (Not-in-Labor-Force).
- See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[g5000]

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bedowin62]

Americans tend to over emphasize one statistic—the U3 rate or “official” unemployment rate (highlighted in yellow). Following the official U3 unemployment rate, the U1 (long-term unemployed) and U6 (total unemployed plus marginally attached and part-time workers) are the rates occasionally mentioned. The Not-in-Labor-Force category is almost never mentioned in the media or used in policy-making, which is wrong headed from both employment and economic perspectives. The Not-in-Labor-Force (93,636,000) is over 10 times the size of officially unemployed (8,951,109) and exerts much greater strain on the U.S. economy. Not-in-Labor-Force people tend to remain unemployed much longer—often for life. The BLS reports[4] that 94% of Not-in-Labor-Force currently wants a job or desires to be in the U.S. workforce anytime soon. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[pinqy]

um yes i have made my point because the number of workers overall that are able-bodied but not participating in the labor market has gone up under obama

And the number of workers overall that are able-bodied and participating in the labor force has ALSO gone up. And by more.

See, the far right have trouble with facts and numbers and other uncomfortable information.

see; i already refuted this WITH FACTS. the overall number of ABLE-BODIED WORKERS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LABOR MARKET HAS RISEN UNDER OBAMA

there ARE a few here that cant handle inconveniant facts; but they arent on the Right, leftard.

idiots and hypocrites

Do you really want facts? The site you're citing is devoid of them.Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics Let's start with "Able-bodied Americans who quit looking and voluntarily depart the workforce are accounted in a separate category called Not-in-Labor-Force." That is not true. Not in the Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is neither working nor looking for work. 25 million are disabled. 25 million are not disabled but age 65 and older. Many of those Not in the Labor Force, particularly teenagers, have never had a job. If you are 15 years old, your information is collected but not included in the survey. When you turn 16 it is, so you are now part of the population and an addition to Not in the Labor Force.

Next whackiness: Their chart of entries and departures calls the NET change in non-farm payroll jobs as "entered the labor force" and the net change in Not in the Labor Force as departures. So they're subtracting the net change of those not in the Labor Force (many of whom entered the population as not in the labor force) which comes from a survey of households from the net change in jobs from a completely different survey that excludes agriculture, the self employed and has a different time frame.

This is exceedingly dishonest because the actual gross entries and departures are available at BLS: Labor force status flows by sex, current month
Keeping in mind that Labor Force equals Employed plus Uempoyed, from August to September, 6,247,000 people entered the Labor Force and 6,598,000 left, for a net change of -350,000. Not in the Labor Force changed by +579,000


Even their definitions of employed and unemployed etc are wrong. See Employment Situation Technical Note

YAWN; you're citing propaganda as your "facts"

What exactly are you claiming is not true in what I've written?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

How about that Bush Herbert Hoover 43 losing 800, 000 jobs a month..what an incompetent fool....

 

[bedowin62]

From a Jobenomics perspective, Not-in-Labor-Force should be classified as Unemployed in the same way that marginalized and underemployed citizens are included in the U4, U5 and U6 categories. The determination whether a person is counted as Unemployed should not depend on subjective, and often whimsical, survey questions that are used to appraise people’s employment intensions. The four survey questions[5] that government interviewers use to record a person as Unemployed include (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers according to the BLS):

• Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
• What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the last 4 weeks?
• Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
• Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?”

If a person answers yes to all four questions, that person is considered Unemployed. If the answer is no to any of these questions, that person is enrolled in the Not-in-Labor-Force category.
- See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[Avorysuds]

Job creation misses big in September

The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


The incredible shrinking labor force

That's nice...now take a risk and come down from your ivory tower and talk to those mere serfs you are so afraid of and find out the real story. I promise they won't hurt you....as long as you don't say something stupid and piss them off.

What's your point? Those "job creators" having the lowest sustained tax "burden" since before Harding/Coolidge's great depression, aren't giving US a good return on investment???

I'm lost....

You keep attacking the rich and republicans on grounds that if Republicans hold office there are no jobs being crated and if there are rich people less jobs are created.

Where I get lost is you post fake images of massive job losses under Bush and incredible job growth under Obama... Despite the rich being far richer and there being a Republican Senate/House. Yes under Bush it was a Democrat Senate and House and under Clinton it was a Republican Senate and house...

You then called the 1930's depression Harding/Coolidge's despite Hoover and FDR being in power. Also Wilson left Harding with a depression before Harding was elected and it took 18 months to get out of a depression and into a booming economy.

My point is you flip back and forth very quickly on what branches of Government are responsible for a recession, depression or low jobs... You always seem to find a way to blame Republicans and not Democrats, every single time.

I'm not a Republican nor do I defend them, simply pointing out that yer a race baiting, clueless, economically ignorant partisan hack.

Even RW (one of the internet dumbest fucking people) blamed having a Republican house/Senate as the problem... Yet I doubt he blames the House/Senate being Democrat for the 2008 crash.

 

[bedowin62]

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Democrats were the majority of the government for 2 YEARS when 800,000jobs/month were being lost

 

[bedowin62]

Sooner or later, the American people will figure out that the current way our government calculates unemployment is seriously flawed. Under the current system, it is theoretically possible for the U.S. to have a zero rate of unemployment while simultaneously having zero people employed in the labor force. Since Not-in-Labor-Force personnel are not counted as Unemployed, the official unemployment rate could theoretically be zero if all current unemployed or underemployed people simply quit looking for work and joined those in the Not-in-Labor-Force. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[bedowin62]

Jobenomics contends that all able-bodied Americans who can work but don’t work, regardless if they are looking or not, should be considered as Functionally Unemployed. Functional is defined as capable of operating or working. An able-bodied adult who is capable of working but chooses not to work should be considered unemployed for the same reason that “discouraged”, “marginally attached” and “part-time workers for economic reasons” are included in the U4, U5 and U6 categories. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Just a Reminder for those who remain attached to Conventional Reality

 

[bedowin62]

If the Not-in-Labor-Force cadre is added to the U6 mix as a percentage of the civilian labor force, the U6 rate would rise to 70%, which is substantially higher than the current U6 rate of 10.5%, or the U3 rate of 5.3%. If calculated against the entire U.S. population[6], the combined rate would be 34%, which is still significantly higher than advertised unemployment rates. Jobenomics contends that all employment and unemployment calculations should be made against the entire U.S. population (321,230,000) as opposed to ambiguous metrics like the Civil Labor Force (157,037,000) or Civilian Noninstitutional Population (250,663,000)[7].
- See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics