Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except the BLS showed the labor force GROWING by 500,000 from 153,887 to 154,395This is a game changer for me folks:
If you hold the workforce participation rate constant over the past year, unemployment would be about 8.9 percent instead of 8.3 percent, GOP economist Matt McDonald of Hamilton Place Strategies said Monday on CNBCs Squawk Box. "So it is a weird number that is out there, and I think people have to be looking at that carefully.
The same Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report that showed unemployment dropping to 8.3 percent showed total workforce participation the number of people either working or looking for work declining by 1.2 million people in one month.
The unemployment rate is determined by dividing the number of unemployed job-seekers by the total labor force. By reducing the number of workers in the overall workforce, the Obama administration can show actual unemployment dropping, when, in fact, improvement has been marginal at best.
Many economists feel the official statistics seriously underestimate how bad the unemployment situation really is. They maintain that the key measure is the number of people who would like to have a job, but cant find one.
When people retire from the workforce because of the aging of the nations population or give up looking for work because of prolonged unemployment, the BLS declares the unemployed person a discouraged worker.
At that point, the BLS lists them as marginally attached to the workforce, and they no longer are considered to be part of the nations working population.
Dropping them off the employment calculations keeps the unemployment rate substantially lower than it would be otherwise and has been key to the improvements in the unemployment numbers during the past year.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Unemployment Tricks: Jobs Claim Made by 'Shrinking' Workforce
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
BigReb may have had the source wrong, but the results are the same.
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
That is NOT what the FOX Newsmax crap you cited said, which is probably why YOU edited it out in your reply!!!Except the BLS showed the labor force GROWING by 500,000 from 153,887 to 154,395
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Doesn't matter it is the unemployed we are counting here. As near as I can decipher, the 2010 Census data meant the age groups were modified and as a result 1.2 million people were dropped and a new survey group established. It has been in effect for a while now and the recent decreases in unemployment numbers have been entirely due to a statistical measure change, not real jobs.
But why should the Labor Force Participation Rate be constant? And why for that time? The participation rate changes and anyone anyone picks is purely arbitrary. And using the same math, I could say that if we had the same participation rate now as we did in the early 50's, then the UE rate would be negative. If the math doesn't work both ways, there's a problem with the concept.This is a game changer for me folks:
“If you hold the workforce participation rate constant over the past year, unemployment would be about 8.9 percent instead of 8.3 percent,” GOP economist Matt McDonald of Hamilton Place Strategies said Monday on CNBC’s Squawk Box. "So it is a weird number that is out there, and I think people have to be looking at that carefully.”
Untrue. Look at Table A-1 (seasonally adjusted). Labor Force went up. Not in Labor Force went up 1.2 million, but that's because, due to better data from the 2010 Census, the population used was adjusted up almost 2 million.The same Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report that showed unemployment dropping to 8.3 percent showed total workforce participation — the number of people either working or looking for work — declining by 1.2 million people in one month.
True.The unemployment rate is determined by dividing the number of unemployed job-seekers by the total labor force.
And how do they reduce the number of workers?By reducing the number of workers in the overall workforce, the Obama administration can show actual unemployment dropping, when, in fact, improvement has been marginal at best.
Not many...very few. Looking for work has been used by the US since the beginning and is used as the ILO standard.Many economists feel the official statistics seriously underestimate how bad the unemployment situation really is. They maintain that the key measure is the number of people who would like to have a job, but can’t find one.
Not quite. "Discouraged" means wants to work, available for work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks because of belief that they will not find work (because of discrimination, lack of skills, lack of jo)bs. Retirees don't fall into that category and "prolonged" isn't a factor.When people retire from the workforce because of the aging of the nation’s population or give up looking for work because of prolonged unemployment, the BLS declares the unemployed person a “discouraged worker.”
Nope. Marginally attached means wants to work, available for work, looked for work in the last 12 months but not last 4 weeks for any reason (includes discouraged). Common reasons are child care, elderly care, no transportaion, illness, injury, discouragement.At that point, the BLS lists them as “marginally attached to the workforce,” and they no longer are considered to be part of the nation’s working population.
"Dropping" implies a choice. There isn't one. People are classified by survey response.Dropping them off the employment calculations keeps the unemployment rate substantially lower than it would be otherwise and has been key to the improvements in the unemployment numbers during the past year.
That is NOT what the FOX Newsmax crap you cited said, which is probably why YOU edited it out in your reply!!!
But from the same BLS table I linked to, the unemployed dropped by 339,000 from 13,097 to 12,758, not 1.2 million.
Actually, no. The Census change ended up having zero effect on the rate. It would have been 8.3% without the adjustment. Adding 1.2 million to the Not in the Labor force has no effect on the UE rate, and adversely affects the Labor Force Participation rate and the employment population rate.Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, Obama is the beneficiary of a Census change that allows for a lower unemployment number, with basically the same number of people out of work at a 8.9% rate in 2011, which is the equivalent of 8.3% in 2012.
Actually, no. The Census change ended up having zero effect on the rate. It would have been 8.3% without the adjustment. Adding 1.2 million to the Not in the Labor force has no effect on the UE rate, and adversely affects the Labor Force Participation rate and teh employment population rate.Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, Obama is the beneficiary of a Census change that allows for a lower unemployment number, with basically the same number of people out of work at a 8.9% rate in 2011, which is the equivalent of 8.3% in 2012.
Go to Employment Situation Summary, near the bottom it explains the effects of the adjustments.
In Oct 2011 when the U-3 rate was 8.9% there were 140,297,000 employed and 13,759,000 unemployed, however in Jan 2012 there were 141,637,000 employed and 12,758,000 unemployed. Apparently that fits with what you WANT to see "out there."Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, Obama is the beneficiary of a Census change that allows for a lower unemployment number, with basically the same number of people out of work at a 8.9% rate in 2011, which is the equivalent of 8.3% in 2012.
Saying the unemployment situation is the same as three months ago, seems correct to me. Fits with what I actually see out there.
In Oct 2011 when the U-3 rate was 8.9% there were 140,297,000 employed and 13,759,000 unemployed, however in Jan 2012 there were 141,637,000 employed and 12,758,000 unemployed. Apparently that fits with what you WANT to see "out there."Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, Obama is the beneficiary of a Census change that allows for a lower unemployment number, with basically the same number of people out of work at a 8.9% rate in 2011, which is the equivalent of 8.3% in 2012.
Saying the unemployment situation is the same as three months ago, seems correct to me. Fits with what I actually see out there.
You keep jumping around, are you still comparing the 8.9% Oct 2011 UE rate to the Jan 2012 8.3% UE rate that you said had the same numbers? If so, the employed people increased by 1.3 million for that period.In Oct 2011 when the U-3 rate was 8.9% there were 140,297,000 employed and 13,759,000 unemployed, however in Jan 2012 there were 141,637,000 employed and 12,758,000 unemployed. Apparently that fits with what you WANT to see "out there."Perhaps a more accurate statement might be, Obama is the beneficiary of a Census change that allows for a lower unemployment number, with basically the same number of people out of work at a 8.9% rate in 2011, which is the equivalent of 8.3% in 2012.
Saying the unemployment situation is the same as three months ago, seems correct to me. Fits with what I actually see out there.
The data says about 1.5 million were added due to the Census changes. Also, 1.2 million were now considered out of the unemplyed count. Same reason.
What if all those government graphs numbers and charts were all intentionally misleading? Would you keep using them?
What if all Republicans were just lying pieces of shit?
What if all Republicans were just lying pieces of shit?
They would still have more integrity and smell better than democrats.
Still talking out your ass.
What if all Republicans were just lying pieces of shit?
They would still have more integrity and smell better than democrats.
Still talking out your ass.
As Adlai Stevenson said, "If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans."
They would still have more integrity and smell better than democrats.
Still talking out your ass.
As Adlai Stevenson said, "If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans."
He then turned on the democrats.
Dork.
As Adlai Stevenson said, "If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans."
He then turned on the democrats.
Dork.
Are you 13?
You keep jumping around, are you still comparing the 8.9% Oct 2011 UE rate to the Jan 2012 8.3% UE rate that you said had the same numbers? If so, the employed people increased by 1.3 million for that period.In Oct 2011 when the U-3 rate was 8.9% there were 140,297,000 employed and 13,759,000 unemployed, however in Jan 2012 there were 141,637,000 employed and 12,758,000 unemployed. Apparently that fits with what you WANT to see "out there."
The data says about 1.5 million were added due to the Census changes. Also, 1.2 million were now considered out of the unemplyed count. Same reason.
wow , the plan is to just say ANYTHING GOOD we get credit.
Anytrhing bad is Obamas fault.
they really are dumb
