MSNBC trying to insinuate that cold weather is the reason for low jobs numbers

[bigrebnc1775]

Where do I say anything about retirement age? But that's 23.6 million non-disabled age 65+
Then there are 23.1 million disabled (all ages). 14.3 million students age 16-24.
6 million of those not in the labor force say they want to work, but half haven't done anything to get a job in over a year.

The number I mention was people of working age not students or handie cap.
Are you suggesting that these people are freeloaders? living on government welfare?

The people you mention are those age 16 and older who are not in the military or prison, or in an institution. So yes it includes students and disabled not living in an institution.
All the definitions: nttp://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

"of working age"did you not comprehend that? Don't bother using the link for the cooked numbers.

Anyway the op used MSNBC THEY SOUNDED BITTER ABOUT THE LOW NUMBERS OF NEW JOBS

 

[itfitzme]

I thought this was all settled years ago. The majority increase in NILF are the 16 to 25 age bracket. There is no increase in NILF due to retirees. There is no measure of "decided to not work because economy sucks".

The employment to population ratio has been flat since it bottomed due to the recession. The unemployment rate has steadily declined. And the labor force participation rate has the least meaning because the numerator AND denominator both change as population grows.

And, of all people speaking of the BLS and CPS numbers, pingy is the expert and never wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I thought this was all settled years ago. The majority increase in NILF are the 16 to 25 age bracket. There is no increase in NILF due to retirees. There is no measure of "decided to not work because economy sucks".

The employment to population ratio has been flat since it bottomed due to the recession. The unemployment rate has steadily declined. And the labor force participation rate has the least meaning because the numerator AND denominator both change as population grows.

And, of all people speaking of the BLS and CPS numbers, pingy is the expert and never wrong.

What I see is less number of jobs and unemployment numbers dropping pigy can shit gold for all I care those two numbers do not match reality.

 

[Samson]

If the economy and jobs are doing good why does obama think unemployment benefits need to be extended again?

 

[Sallow]

Nope. That's "progressivism" at work. Liberals care about people. They might not do a good job of helping them but they truly care. Progressives, on the other hand, only care about power and the accumulation of it.

Eyah right.

The Stimulus went a long way in saving and creating a lot of jobs. Since 2010? That's stopped. So the Fed has been using a top down approach with QE. Doesn't work as well, but it's kept UE from totally going through the roof.

And it's been going down steadily.

Conservatives haven't been doing a thing to help. Some 400K federal state and local jobs have been lost. Compare that with the 600K gained during GW Bush..and lets not forget all the public spending done during the time of Reagan.

Conservatives could care less for the middle class and poor.

They said that.

And prove it all that time.

 

[kiwiman127]

We have the worst job participation numbers since 1978. The economy sucks. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack.

Btw...only 22% of Americans think the Country is headed in the right direction. 77% think the economy sucks. If the Democrats want to run on the economy please go for it. You're going to get fucking killed.


RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country

Is cold weather the reason? Yes! I have not seen any lifeguards at any of the Minnesota beaches I have recently visited.
OK, the Labor Force Participation Rate. A couple of things. According to Pew Research;
" As the year 2011 began on Jan. 1, the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation celebrated their 65th birthday. In fact, on that day, today, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65"
Baby Boomers Retire | Pew Research Center

Which leads to;
"When Obama took office in January, 2009, the workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent. So there has certainly been a decline. But the rate had already been on a steady downward track since it hit a high of 67.3 percent in the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
A key reason? The composition of the labor force has been affected by the retirement of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation. (Our colleague Brad Plumer has written extensively on this issue.)
In the first five years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the rate fell 1.2 percentage points. (At the time, Democrats might have tried to claim that under the “Bush economy” the labor participation rate was “the worst in two decades.”) Five years into Obama’s presidency, the rate has fallen 2.7 percentage points.
So clearly the decline has been faster under Obama, though again, demographic factors have played an important role.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2012 concluded that just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Critically, the research showed that the problem is only going to get worse in the rest of the decade, with retirements accounting for two-thirds of the decline of participation rate by 2020. In other words, the rate will keep declining, no matter how well the economy does.
Barclays economists, meanwhile, say that just 15 percent of the drop in the labor force stems from people who want a job and are of prime working age (25-54). "We view the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote,” they wrote."
How much is Obama to blame for the worst labor participation rate in 40 years?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, despite protests, the retiring Baby Boomers are having a profound effect on the participation rate. This has been heavily studied. As matter of fact a study by the BLS in 2005 states; ""The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce
and their movement into older age groups
will lower the overall labor force participation rate,
leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force"Participation Rate."
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

 

[pinqy]

The number I mention was people of working age not students or handie cap.
Are you suggesting that these people are freeloaders? living on government welfare?

The people you mention are those age 16 and older who are not in the military or prison, or in an institution. So yes it includes students and disabled not living in an institution.
All the definitions: nttp://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

"of working age"did you not comprehend that? Don't bother using the link for the cooked numbers.

Anyway the op used MSNBC THEY SOUNDED BITTER ABOUT THE LOW NUMBERS OF NEW JOBS

"Of working age" is defined by BLS as age 16+ (no upper limit)
And why are you quoting the data if it's cooked?

 

[hunarcy]

I'm still waiting for the 48 million Americans that did not have healthcare sign up....
Where are they?....
They should be signed up now... no?
It was the driving force to implement ObamaCare...

I'm still waiting for Republicans to take healthcare away from people

It will make great TV ads

I have cancer and Republicans want to take my insurance

You may want to lay off the cancer/insurance thing. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y352YZTygHI]WFTV-FL: Woman With Cancer Loses Health Plan Due To ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

I hope the Sunday political talk show tomorrow has Debbie Wasserman Shultz on....

She will tll us that the latest job numbers show the president to be an outstanding
leader and these numbers are the best that have ever been reported for any administration...

Or she will blame it all on Bush and the republicans.... lol

Realistically, what would you have to say about this if unemployment suddenly fell to 4.9? Would you really give Obama ANY credit?

Would Rush finally get on his mike and say something like ... "well folks ... I was wrong about Obama after all ... ."

I can see it now ... Obama gets the credit!!!


Right.

They never gave Clinton any credit at all when UE fell to under 4%. There is no unemployment number of any sort good enough to get the rightwing propaganda machine to give any Democrat any credit for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw, MSNBC wasn't 'insinuating' anything. The reference to the weather and how it may have affected jobs was right in the text of the BLS's report.

 

[pinqy]

Oh, and btw, MSNBC wasn't 'insinuating' anything. The reference to the weather and how it may have affected jobs was right in the text of the BLS's report.

The only mention of weather in the BLS report was "Employment in nonresidential specialty trade contractors declined by 13,000 in December, possibly reflecting unusually cold weather in parts of the country" MSNBC went way beyond that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the economy and jobs are doing good why does obama think unemployment benefits need to be extended again?

It's something no one wants to address.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[westwall]

Nope. That's "progressivism" at work. Liberals care about people. They might not do a good job of helping them but they truly care. Progressives, on the other hand, only care about power and the accumulation of it.

Eyah right.

The Stimulus went a long way in saving and creating a lot of jobs. Since 2010? That's stopped. So the Fed has been using a top down approach with QE. Doesn't work as well, but it's kept UE from totally going through the roof.

And it's been going down steadily.

Conservatives haven't been doing a thing to help. Some 400K federal state and local jobs have been lost. Compare that with the 600K gained during GW Bush..and lets not forget all the public spending done during the time of Reagan.

Conservatives could care less for the middle class and poor.

They said that.

And prove it all that time.

800 odd billion in the stimulus, how many jobs were created by that money...which we all have to pay for. Put another way, how many fewer people are working as opposed to when Bush left office and how many more people are on public assistance than when Bush was in office.

Then show how those numbers have changed over the last 5 years. Then get back to us.

 

[Kosh]

The jobs numbers will be adjusted upward

6.7% ??

Can we get the unemployment rate below 6% by the November elections?
Doesn't look good for the Republicans

Only to the low info far left Obama drone voters like yourself.

 

[Kosh]

Oh, and btw, MSNBC wasn't 'insinuating' anything. The reference to the weather and how it may have affected jobs was right in the text of the BLS's report.

Far left propaganda!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have the worst job participation numbers since 1978. The economy sucks. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack.

Btw...only 22% of Americans think the Country is headed in the right direction. 77% think the economy sucks. If the Democrats want to run on the economy please go for it. You're going to get fucking killed.


RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country

Is cold weather the reason? Yes! I have not seen any lifeguards at any of the Minnesota beaches I have recently visited.
OK, the Labor Force Participation Rate. A couple of things. According to Pew Research;
" As the year 2011 began on Jan. 1, the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation celebrated their 65th birthday. In fact, on that day, today, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65"
Baby Boomers Retire | Pew Research Center

Which leads to;
"When Obama took office in January, 2009, the workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent. So there has certainly been a decline. But the rate had already been on a steady downward track since it hit a high of 67.3 percent in the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
A key reason? The composition of the labor force has been affected by the retirement of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation. (Our colleague Brad Plumer has written extensively on this issue.)
In the first five years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the rate fell 1.2 percentage points. (At the time, Democrats might have tried to claim that under the “Bush economy” the labor participation rate was “the worst in two decades.”) Five years into Obama’s presidency, the rate has fallen 2.7 percentage points.
So clearly the decline has been faster under Obama, though again, demographic factors have played an important role.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2012 concluded that just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Critically, the research showed that the problem is only going to get worse in the rest of the decade, with retirements accounting for two-thirds of the decline of participation rate by 2020. In other words, the rate will keep declining, no matter how well the economy does.
Barclays economists, meanwhile, say that just 15 percent of the drop in the labor force stems from people who want a job and are of prime working age (25-54). "We view the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote,” they wrote."
How much is Obama to blame for the worst labor participation rate in 40 years?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, despite protests, the retiring Baby Boomers are having a profound effect on the participation rate. This has been heavily studied. As matter of fact a study by the BLS in 2005 states; ""The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce
and their movement into older age groups
will lower the overall labor force participation rate,
leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force"Participation Rate."
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

Actually more retiring aged are returning to the workforce

Return to Work After Retirement | Monster

More older workers making up labor force - Los Angeles Times

 

[Politico]

I guess global warming only exists when it suits their needs.

 

[Sallow]

If the economy and jobs are doing good why does obama think unemployment benefits need to be extended again?

It's something no one wants to address.

My post addressed it.

The private sector is hiring at a good clip. It's not enough.

The Federal, state and cities need to start hiring again. And it's needed.

 

[kiwiman127]

In December 2000, there was one applicant for every job and the unemployment rate was 4%. Now. the ratio is three applicants for every job which is better than the 8 applicants for every job that we had 3-4 years ago. But it still proves that there are not enough jobs available.l And despite the claim that "W" had "full employment, the ratio of applicants for every job never came close to the 1 for 1 ratio and the labor Participation Rate never got close to the participation rate we had in 2000.
Who can forget all the manufacturing jobs that disappeared after the turn of the century and offshoring jobs created almost as many jobs that were created domestically. The sad part of that was all of this happened after the capital gains and dividends taxes were dramatically reduced. Though manufacturing has made a slight comeback domestically, the jobs lost during the last decade will never come back.
So saying the private sector has done their part isn't quite a truism. And there still aren't enough jobs available to stabilize the job market.