More economic good news......unemployment rate drops to 4.9%

[Fueri]

we need to add somewhere in the range of 180,000 just to keep up with population growth, retirements etc., so 150,000 is nothing to be happy about.

The libs need a labor economics class. Badly.

Cons need to know when they have been fed a bunch of lies. Badly.

All it takes is 114,740 jobs per month to keep up with population growth at a 4.9% UE rate

Jobs Calculator

your calculator assumes we continue with the same labor force participation rate of ~63%.

in other words it tosses ~37% of the eligible labor force over the side to come up with this number.

Wanna guess what we end up with when we take that 114,740 and divide by .63, which actually accounts for all of the people?

I'll save you the trouble- 182,126

 

[rightwinger]

The DOW didn't fall for Hussein's smoke and mirrors ploy, it ended down 150 points for the day. Apparently there are 6 different unemployment statistics and Barry's propaganda minister dug up the one most favorable to the administration. Real unemployment including people who gave up looking for work is around 19%. It's surprising that the true believers who are quick to play the race card are afraid to quote the unemployed number for young Black men. It's around 25% but the first half black president doesn't seem to care.

Unemployment was ALWAYS reported as U3 before Obama

 

[edthecynic]

your calculator assumes we continue with the same labor force participation rate of ~63%.
in other words it tosses ~37% of the eligible labor force over the side to come up with this number.

Wanna guess what we end up with when we take that 114,740 and divide by .63, which actually accounts for all of the people?
I'll save you the trouble- 182,126

And when has the LPR ever been 100%?

I'll save you the trouble. NEVER!

 

[leftwinger]

t was always U3 when Republucans were President

I can't say I disagree with you RW. I had thought the same. Prior they always used U3. But so many are out of the workforce since the housing bust.......maybe before they never went 2-5 years w/o working? This is new territory maybe? I don't know. Things are semi-good, so-so, meh, not great.

 

[edthecynic]

t was always U3 when Republucans were President

I can't say I disagree with you RW. I had thought the same. Prior they always used U3. But so many are out of the workforce since the housing bust.......maybe before they never went 2-5 years w/o working? This is new territory maybe? I don't know. Things are semi-good, so-so, meh, not great.

Mostly for noneconomic reasons.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Job "growth" is 35,000 below what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Come on, you have to know that is not true!

151k is actually 36k over what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Jobs Calculator

Baloney, one of the first things taught in any economic class is at least 180,000 jobs are needed each month to keep up with population growth. The ideal number is around 240,000 per month

 

[westwall]

Job "growth" is 35,000 below what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Come on, you have to know that is not true!

151k is actually 36k over what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Jobs Calculator

What the hell have you been smoking?


"Market Realist – Job creation isn’t matching population growth.
The graph above shows the annual population growth rate in the US. The population growth has been dipping over the last two decades. Currently, it’s 0.7% per year.

In contrast, non-farm payrolls have been increasing every month since late 2010. However, in the long term, they haven’t kept up with the increase in population—mainly due to the severe layoffs during the Great Recession."


Job Creation Isn't Matching Population Growth - Market Realist

 

[Flopper]

Cue republican outrage over labor participation rate and U6

Unemployment falls to 4.9%, lowest in 8 years

In 2012, Romney vowed to lower unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term.

 

[rightwinger]

Cue republican outrage over labor participation rate and U6

Unemployment falls to 4.9%, lowest in 8 years

In 2012, Romney vowed to lower unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term.

Keep in mind...he was a Republican

 

[Fueri]

your calculator assumes we continue with the same labor force participation rate of ~63%.
in other words it tosses ~37% of the eligible labor force over the side to come up with this number.

Wanna guess what we end up with when we take that 114,740 and divide by .63, which actually accounts for all of the people?
I'll save you the trouble- 182,126

And when has the LPR ever been 100%?

I'll save you the trouble. NEVER!

Never said it was. When was the last time it was this low?

What I pointed out is that your data assumes this historically anemic labor force participation rate.

Is this the new normal you'd like us to accept- as it would have to be in order for your number to be representative of what's needed to sustain a healthy job market.

Nice emoticon, BTW. It does a great deal to offset actual math.

 

[edthecynic]

Job "growth" is 35,000 below what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Come on, you have to know that is not true!

151k is actually 36k over what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Jobs Calculator

Baloney, one of the first things taught in any economic class is at least 180,000 jobs are needed each month to keep up with population growth. The ideal number is around 240,000 per month

Maybe back in the 1950s but not now. I gave you the link.
180,000 jobs per month would bring us to a 4.4% UE rate in 12 months.
240,000 jobs per month would bring us to a 3.9% UE rate in 12 months.

 

[pinqy]

Job "growth" is 35,000 below what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Come on, you have to know that is not true!

151k is actually 36k over what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Jobs Calculator

Baloney, one of the first things taught in any economic class is at least 180,000 jobs are needed each month to keep up with population growth. The ideal number is around 240,000 per month

That's baloney. Certainly not in any econ class I took, nor any labor economist I ever met.

Please show the math you're using to get that number.

 

[pinqy]

The report is for FIRST TIME unemployment.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? The survey doesn't ask how many times someone has been unemployed, and it doesn't matter how long they've been without work or even if they never had a job.

He got that bullshit from his MessiahRushie.

Obama's Unemployment Sleight of Hand
February 05, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have an audio sound bite here from Obama, the press conference I mentioned an hour ago. He went out there and he was praising his economy. He was heralding first-time unemployment rate as being under 5% for the first time in seven years. That's essentially since he took office. The first time. When have you ever heard that referred to: "The first-time unemployment rate is now at 4.9%"? What's that? Does anybody have any memory of hearing the unemployment rate referred to as "the first-time unemployment rate"?

Wow, I read the transcript Obama's Unemployment Sleight of Hand - The Rush Limbaugh Show and lost count of the lies.

 

[edthecynic]

your calculator assumes we continue with the same labor force participation rate of ~63%.
in other words it tosses ~37% of the eligible labor force over the side to come up with this number.

Wanna guess what we end up with when we take that 114,740 and divide by .63, which actually accounts for all of the people?
I'll save you the trouble- 182,126

And when has the LPR ever been 100%?

I'll save you the trouble. NEVER!

Never said it was. When was the last time it was this low?

Yes you did and I had even highlighted it for you. You obviously do not understand math, yet you pretend to be a math know-it-all, so I colored it for you this time.

And the LPR was actually lower during the boom years of the 50s and 60s, just before the Feminists started flooding the workforce in the middle 60s. Demographics have always been a bigger influence on the LFPR than economic factors which is why it was NEVER used before as an economic indicator, but the Right are so desperate they are forced to elevate it as the primary economic indicator no matter how worthless it is without the demographic influences factored out of it.

The highest the LPR ever was was during the Clinton years at 67.3%

 

[edthecynic]

The report is for FIRST TIME unemployment.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? The survey doesn't ask how many times someone has been unemployed, and it doesn't matter how long they've been without work or even if they never had a job.

He got that bullshit from his MessiahRushie.

Obama's Unemployment Sleight of Hand
February 05, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We have an audio sound bite here from Obama, the press conference I mentioned an hour ago. He went out there and he was praising his economy. He was heralding first-time unemployment rate as being under 5% for the first time in seven years. That's essentially since he took office. The first time. When have you ever heard that referred to: "The first-time unemployment rate is now at 4.9%"? What's that? Does anybody have any memory of hearing the unemployment rate referred to as "the first-time unemployment rate"?

Wow, I read the transcript Obama's Unemployment Sleight of Hand - The Rush Limbaugh Show and lost count of the lies.

I know, this was my favorite lie, no one has ever gotten UI for 4 years:

February 05, 2016

RUSH: The first-time unemployed. In other words, people applying for unemployment benefits for the first time, 5%. They're added to the 15% who have been getting unemployment for four years and have run out. He's not talking about them. So this is a sleight-of-hand thing.

 

[Faun]

Job "growth" is 35,000 below what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Come on, you have to know that is not true!

151k is actually 36k over what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Jobs Calculator

Baloney, one of the first things taught in any economic class is at least 180,000 jobs are needed each month to keep up with population growth. The ideal number is around 240,000 per month

The BLS is still laughing at you since the employment-population ratio increased with a job gain of 151,000.

 

[Faun]

Job "growth" is 35,000 below what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Come on, you have to know that is not true!

151k is actually 36k over what is needed to keep up with population growth.

Jobs Calculator

Baloney, one of the first things taught in any economic class is at least 180,000 jobs are needed each month to keep up with population growth. The ideal number is around 240,000 per month

That's baloney. Certainly not in any econ class I took, nor any labor economist I ever met.

Please show the math you're using to get that number.

15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct -- challenging a rightwingnut to show their math!

 

[Fueri]

your calculator assumes we continue with the same labor force participation rate of ~63%.
in other words it tosses ~37% of the eligible labor force over the side to come up with this number.

Wanna guess what we end up with when we take that 114,740 and divide by .63, which actually accounts for all of the people?
I'll save you the trouble- 182,126

And when has the LPR ever been 100%?

I'll save you the trouble. NEVER!

Never said it was. When was the last time it was this low?

Yes you did and I had even highlighted it for you. You obviously do not understand math, yet you pretend to be a math know-it-all, so I colored it for you this time.

And the LPR was actually lower during the boom years of the 50s and 60s, just before the Feminists started flooding the workforce in the middle 60s. Demographics have always been a bigger influence on the LFPR than economic factors which is why it was NEVER used before as an economic indicator, but the Right are so desperate they are forced to elevate it as the primary economic indicator no matter how worthless it is without the demographic influences factored out of it.

The highest the LPR ever was was during the Clinton years at 67.3%

Just because I point out the effect of the math does not infer I expect 100% lpr. It does indeed do exactly what I said it did. Nothing more and nothing less. Math is funny that way, regardless of highlighting skills.

Should we say instead then that it throws out an additional x percent relative to pre-recession levels? I could live with that.

And yes lpr was lower before women began participating en mass, which they will undoubtedly continue to do.

If the job market had returned to some semblance of pre-recession normalcy, maybe we wouldn't be seeing the increased use of the lpr or u-6 or underemployed or any of these other things that make up the entire labor market picture and which the libs run from as if they somehow don't exist.

Then again maybe not. Fact is they did exist well prior to this, you cited earlier examples yourself, so just because you seem to think they're only being used now, that is conclusively false. Some of the data on the BLS site for lpr specifically goes back to the 1940's.

The whole package of metrics gives us a more complete picture much to the apparent dismay of the libs.

 

[edthecynic]

And yes lpr was lower before women began participating en mass, which they will undoubtedly continue to do.

Actually that is not true. A steadily increasing % of women are choosing to stay home rather than enter the workforce, stay at home dads are increasing too, though to a lesser extent than women, which is one of the many demographic influences on the LFPR that make it worthless as a useful economic indicator.

 

[Blackrook]

Cue republican outrage over labor participation rate and U6

Unemployment falls to 4.9%, lowest in 8 years

How about this?

Casio workers earning union wages are let go and can't get better than a job as a cashier at Wal-Mart.

These folks aren't even counted as unemployed, and yet, there it is.