The unemployment rate is meaningless

[otto105]

...You're claiming to be a CEO, but... ...I'm guessing the...

--and while you're claiming to be guessing whatever it was you're posting, I'm still directing my CFO to buy into other corporations that make us money, regardless of how much money the other CEO makes.

This something that's always amazed me, the fact that we're all taught that coveting is a sin and we can see how coveting makes a person bitter, poisoned, and broke. Yet, people still do it.

Man if I had a penny for every Internet CEO...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Some CEOs make 1,000 times more than their workers

They are worth 1000 times more than their workers.

Nope, not really.

That is not for you to decide, dumbass!

 

[AntonToo]

The title of this thread is "The unemployment rate is meaningless!" The graph below is the "unemployment rate" vs. the employment population ratio. Notice that they mirror each other up to the crash of 2008. Then the unemployment rate falls, but the employment population ratio creeps up begrudgingly!

View attachment 191923 The answer to what is happening is found in the people who give up looking for a job. This lowers the unemployment rate - artificially! In the employment population ratio, if you quit looking for a job, you are still unemployed.

wrong, that's not the answer.

The answer is that due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring and younger people spend more time in school.

This was well forecasted in early 2000s:

 

[frigidweirdo]

the income/expenses squeeze today means that families have cut their savings by two-thirds while their debt has multiplied a shocking 15 times.

when something goes wrong, they have no savings to fall back on and they are already loaded up with debt.

when anything goes wrong, all these good, hardworking, solidly middle-class families are tumbling over a cliff.

The income inequality gap gets wider and wider. The US has the worst income inequality gap for First World nations.

 

[AntonToo]

...You start a thread with the title “The unemployment rate is meaningless, but none of your posts mention unemployment at all. Could you please explain...

That was bugging me too, a number of times I had my hopes up that maybe we could get hot'n'heavy about employment w/o that tire old 'headline unemployment rate' ---then the coy switch. Seems Basquebro's got great advertising but nothing to sell, reminds me of a girl I once dated...

Here's an idea--

There, now at least we got the left wingers dropping the U6.

Here is an idea - stop peddling bullshit.

Obama inherited Great Recession with 800k jobs lost a month, and he oversaw that turn into near full employment.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

The title of this thread is "The unemployment rate is meaningless!" The graph below is the "unemployment rate" vs. the employment population ratio. Notice that they mirror each other up to the crash of 2008. Then the unemployment rate falls, but the employment population ratio creeps up begrudgingly!

View attachment 191923 The answer to what is happening is found in the people who give up looking for a job. This lowers the unemployment rate - artificially! In the employment population ratio, if you quit looking for a job, you are still unemployed.

wrong, that's not the answer.

The answer is that due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring and younger people spend more time in school.

This was well forecasted in early 2000s:

Setting aside that the dissymmetry in my graph starts after the 2008 crash and your graph shows a decline should have started in 2000, demographics do play a part! However, if you go to the Economic Policy Institute's web site (epi.com) you find this.

(Quote)

In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of “missing workers”–potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. In other words, these are people who would be either working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger. Because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, these “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rate.

As part of its ongoing effort to create the metrics needed to assess how well the economy is working for America’s broad middle class, EPI tracks “missing worker” estimates, updated on this page on the first Friday of every month immediately after the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its jobs numbers. The “missing worker” estimates provide policymakers with a key gauge of the health of the labor market.

(End quote)

For more information, go to:

Missing Workers: The Missing Part of the Unemployment Story

And, of course, if you subscribe to the Hysteresis Effect of unemployment, we are shooting ourselves in the foot! Nor does either of these metrics tell us about the quality of the employment in America. To say this is a booming economy from the view of workers is simply not true.

 

[expat_panama]

Some CEOs make 1,000 times more than their workers

They are worth 1000 times more than their workers.

Nope, not really.

That is not for you to decide, dumbass!

It is when Marxists like those guys take over. In a state run economy they get to say how much everyone gets paid and how much stores can charge. It works so poorly that the only way the masses can survive is to flee to places like the U.S. that sill have inequality.

 

[expat_panama]

... stop peddling bullshit...

...Man if I had a penny for every Internet CEO...

--and if only I had a thousand dollars for every time I pegged econ condx so well it drove the Marxists' to cussing me out --wait a sec, I think I did!

You get your penny yet?

 

[expat_panama]

...what is happening is found in the people who give up looking for a job. This lowers the unemployment rate - artificially! In the employment population ratio, if you quit looking for a job, you are still unemployed.

wrong, that's not the answer. The answer is that due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring...

We hear that 'demographics' story a lot from leftists wanting to excuse their way out of a mess, but it doesn't wash. Let's look together at the actual employment/population numbers:

There simply no way a sane person could believe that in 2009 seven million American workers all turned 65 at the same time and retired, and then 5 or 6 years later suddenly got younger and "un-retired".

Demographic trends are over decades & generations --vs econ trends which are yearly or faster. Also, 2009 minus 65 means that big block retiring were Silent Generation, not Baby Boomers.

 

[Faun]

...what is happening is found in the people who give up looking for a job. This lowers the unemployment rate - artificially! In the employment population ratio, if you quit looking for a job, you are still unemployed.

wrong, that's not the answer. The answer is that due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring...

We hear that 'demographics' story a lot from leftists wanting to excuse their way out of a mess, but it doesn't wash. Let's look together at the actual employment/population numbers:

There simply no way a sane person could believe that in 2009 seven million American workers all turned 65 at the same time and retired, and then 5 or 6 years later suddenly got younger and "un-retired".

Demographic trends are over decades & generations --vs econ trends which are yearly or faster. Also, 2009 minus 65 means that big block retiring were Silent Generation, not Baby Boomers.

What your chart shows is there were three recessions ... all starting under Republican presidencies. Followed by a drop in employment. 2 of those 3, followed by a Democrat cleaning up the mess.

 

[expat_panama]

... due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring...

... no way a sane person could believe that in 2009 seven million American workers all turned 65 at the same time and retired, and then 5 or 6 years later suddenly got younger and "un-retired"...

...a drop in employment. 2 of those 3, followed by a Democrat....

Great, we're finally together two ways!

First with demographics not explaining the recessions' consequences, and second that the dot.com bust recession got cleaned up in a year (even w/ 9/11) vs the 2009 recession which dragged on for years and years.

 

[Faun]

... due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring...

... no way a sane person could believe that in 2009 seven million American workers all turned 65 at the same time and retired, and then 5 or 6 years later suddenly got younger and "un-retired"...

...a drop in employment. 2 of those 3, followed by a Democrat....

Great, we're finally together two ways!

First with demographics not explaining the recessions' consequences, and second that the dot.com bust recession got cleaned up in a year (even w/ 9/11) vs the 2009 recession which dragged on for years and years.

Umm, if not for 9/11, there would have been no recession in 2001. Kind of hard to blame the dot com bubble on that.

And demographics did indeed account for much of the decline starting in 2008/2009 as baby boomers began retiring at roughly twice the rate as prior to 2008.

But again, thanks for showing the last 3 recessions all began under Republican presidents.

 

[otto105]

...what is happening is found in the people who give up looking for a job. This lowers the unemployment rate - artificially! In the employment population ratio, if you quit looking for a job, you are still unemployed.

wrong, that's not the answer. The answer is that due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring...

We hear that 'demographics' story a lot from leftists wanting to excuse their way out of a mess, but it doesn't wash. Let's look together at the actual employment/population numbers:

There simply no way a sane person could believe that in 2009 seven million American workers all turned 65 at the same time and retired, and then 5 or 6 years later suddenly got younger and "un-retired".

Demographic trends are over decades & generations --vs econ trends which are yearly or faster. Also, 2009 minus 65 means that big block retiring were Silent Generation, not Baby Boomers.

What you have there is the republic gwb imposing conservative economic influences on an economy.

 

[AntonToo]

... due to basic demographic shifts LFPR will decline through 2030s. Our population is aging, baby boomers are retiring...

... no way a sane person could believe that in 2009 seven million American workers all turned 65 at the same time and retired, and then 5 or 6 years later suddenly got younger and "un-retired"...

...a drop in employment. 2 of those 3, followed by a Democrat....

Great, we're finally together two ways!

First with demographics not explaining the recessions' consequences, and second that the dot.com bust recession got cleaned up in a year (even w/ 9/11) vs the 2009 recession which dragged on for years and years.

Dummies it’s not that complicated

1. Recessions ARE NOT THE SAME. They happen for different reasons and are of varying severity. GREAT RECESSION should indicate a lot of economic damage and correspondingly longer recovery.

2. LFPR doesn’t linearly decline under demographic pressure, it drops like a rock during bad economy and stays flat during good times.

All the jobs lost in recession were recovered by 2014 and since then we have been growing jobs at a solid ~200k/month rate, only demographic factor can explain LFPR still not improving since then.