Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[saveliberty]

I never said a retiree was a discouraged worker, I only said they are not counted in the labor force, which you have just subconsciously admitted.
Thank you for your Freudian Slip.

Not in the work force is for discouraged workers, which you claimed included retirees. I never claimed retirees were in the work force. If you just want to lie about things I can make a point of mentioning that in every post concerning you.

There is no such "discouraged worker" limit to "not in the workforce" as I have already proven. Call me a liar all you want, you only damage YOUR credibility.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Not what you said originally. You said discouraged workers included retirees.

 

[Provocateur]

How do we know the 1 trillion dollar stimulus didn't make it worse.

After all, Obama promised unemployment would not go above 8%. He obviously lied, but do liberals ask themselves if it is possible he made things worse?



Or is it just the liberal thing to pretend things are getting better now - 3 years after the fact, when most economists predicted the economy would recover anyway.


Aren't liberals angry that Obama lied to them?


8.3% is > 8%

And the use of "Falling" in the title is pathetic.

 

[Provocateur]

Dependency on government welfare up 23% in the last two years.

And liberals celebrate Obama's "success".


You should be embarrassed.

 

[Provocateur]

Obama being a post turtle has more to do with those that voted/support him than Obama himself.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The recovery continues....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American employers substantially stepped up their hiring in January, bringing the unemployment rate down for the fifth month in a row.

Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.

Job growth was much stronger than expected. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.

January jobs report: Hiring ramps up, unemployment falls - Feb. 3, 2012

When more people are booted off the program than apply (and receive the program for the first time) unemployment rate will drop...

When 500,000 people are losing benefits every month and 350,000 get them for the first time what the fuck you think will happen??

Not to mention the shrinking of the workforce which has been SHRINKING NOT GROWING which proves my point entirely...

I'm sure I could calculate the correct unemployment rate if I knew the amount of workers losing their benefits. My theory is that it is at least 18%-20%...

Oh and don't be shocked when the S&P is downgraded AGAIN....

You just can't throw able bodied workers into a void just because they maxed their unemployment benefits and pretend they don't exist.

US bonds are dropping for that reason alone - our economy is actually shrinking because of that, hence the bonds...

 

[pinqy]

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally attached workers.)

Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged workers.)

BLS Glossary

I think you need to prove a retired person fits into the "not in the labor force" category. The definition seems to contradict you.

Marginally attached is a SUBSET of "Not in the Labor Force."Not in the Labor Force simply means in the adult civilian non-institutional population but neither employed nor unemployed. SOME NitLF are marginally attached an some of the marginally attached (less than half) are discouraged.

There are 88,878,000 people not in the labor force. There are 2,809,000 marginally attached, and 1,059,000 of them are discouraged.

No, the two BLS definitions are staring you right in the face. Discouraged is a subset of marginally attached.

Yes, it is. And marginally attached is a subset of Not in the Labor Force. I forgot to give the link: Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Note the use of indents to show subsets.

 

[saveliberty]

Marginally attached is a SUBSET of "Not in the Labor Force."Not in the Labor Force simply means in the adult civilian non-institutional population but neither employed nor unemployed. SOME NitLF are marginally attached an some of the marginally attached (less than half) are discouraged.

There are 88,878,000 people not in the labor force. There are 2,809,000 marginally attached, and 1,059,000 of them are discouraged.

No, the two BLS definitions are staring you right in the face. Discouraged is a subset of marginally attached.

Yes, it is. And marginally attached is a subset of Not in the Labor Force. I forgot to give the link: Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Note the use of indents to show subsets.

Thank you, that is a good chart. Not only does the indentations indicate they are subsets, but the numbers also add up to reflect it. It also clearly demonstrates that retirees are not a part, since they are not looking for work.

 

[saveliberty]

There is no such "discouraged worker" limit to "not in the workforce" as I have already proven. Call me a liar all you want, you only damage YOUR credibility.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The recovery continues....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American employers substantially stepped up their hiring in January, bringing the unemployment rate down for the fifth month in a row.

Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported Friday, marking a pick-up in hiring from December, when the economy added 203,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009.

Job growth was much stronger than expected. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 130,000 jobs added in the month, and that the unemployment rate likely ticked up to 8.6%.

January jobs report: Hiring ramps up, unemployment falls - Feb. 3, 2012

When more people are booted off the program than apply (and receive the program for the first time) unemployment rate will drop...

When 500,000 people are losing benefits every month and 350,000 get them for the first time what the fuck you think will happen??

Not to mention the shrinking of the workforce which has been SHRINKING NOT GROWING which proves my point entirely...

I'm sure I could calculate the correct unemployment rate if I knew the amount of workers losing their benefits. My theory is that it is at least 18%-20%...

Oh and don't be shocked when the S&P is downgraded AGAIN....

You just can't throw able bodied workers into a void just because they maxed their unemployment benefits and pretend they don't exist.

US bonds are dropping for that reason alone - our economy is actually shrinking because of that, hence the bonds...

You will not be allowed to figure the numbers up. Because as we get closer to election day they'll just mover the goal post and make adjustment to fit their numbers

 

[jreeves]

The meme about 1.2M people dropping out of the labor force is hilarious. No amount of evidence to the contrary will stop Rush, Tyler Durden, The far right loonies(but I repeat myself) or some jackass on CNBC from repeating it.

Sadly, some of the aforementioned people are smart enough to know better. They are simply pimping a lie because to do otherwise would be to admit that the jobs report was good news. We all know that good news for America is bad news for the far right.

Exactly.

When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

When the law is on your side argue the law.

When you have neither, bang on the table.

All the Republican have left is banging on the table.

You are a complete Moron, unemployment is slightly worse than it was when Obama took office. Over 8%. No President since FDR has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.3%. 36 straight months of 8+% unemployment hasn't happened since the Great Depression. Obama has ran a budget deficit over a trillion dollars a year but has a worse unemployment rate than when he first took office. WTF????

 

[Big Fitz]

The meme about 1.2M people dropping out of the labor force is hilarious. No amount of evidence to the contrary will stop Rush, Tyler Durden, The far right loonies(but I repeat myself) or some jackass on CNBC from repeating it.

Sadly, some of the aforementioned people are smart enough to know better. They are simply pimping a lie because to do otherwise would be to admit that the jobs report was good news. We all know that good news for America is bad news for the far right.

Exactly.

When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

When the law is on your side argue the law.

When you have neither, bang on the table.

All the Republican have left is banging on the table.

Actually the way the libs play the last line is:

"When you have nothing on your side, you assassinate your opponent's character."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dependency on government welfare up 23% in the last two years. And liberals celebrate Obama's "success". You should be embarrassed.

You should be ashamed of the dem-pub policies of the last thirty years that put us here. From Reagan's 19 debt ceiling raises and deficit spending and three tax hikes to the excess of the Bush necons that gave us Obama, all of you are at fault.

 

[theunbubba]

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)
Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. (See Marginally attached workers.)

Marginally attached workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. (See Discouraged workers.)

BLS Glossary

I think you need to prove a retired person fits into the "not in the labor force" category. The definition seems to contradict you.

Marginally attached is a SUBSET of "Not in the Labor Force."Not in the Labor Force simply means in the adult civilian non-institutional population but neither employed nor unemployed. SOME NitLF are marginally attached an some of the marginally attached (less than half) are discouraged.

There are 88,878,000 people not in the labor force. There are 2,809,000 marginally attached, and 1,059,000 of them are discouraged.

No, the two BLS definitions are staring you right in the face. Discouraged is a subset of marginally attached.

That's exactly what he just said. Reread the last line.

 

[edthecynic]

There is no such "discouraged worker" limit to "not in the workforce" as I have already proven. Call me a liar all you want, you only damage YOUR credibility.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

Again you admit that retirees are not part of the labor force.
Thank You.
The chart also quite clearly shows that there was not 1.2 million discouraged workers dropped off the workforce in 2011, not even close, a mere 66 thousand.

 

[pinqy]

There is no such "discouraged worker" limit to "not in the workforce" as I have already proven. Call me a liar all you want, you only damage YOUR credibility.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

Where did Ed say otherwise? All I saw was him saying that retirees and disabled were in the not in the labor force category, which is true. Where did he say they were considered marginally attached?

 

[saveliberty]

There is no such "discouraged worker" limit to "not in the workforce" as I have already proven. Call me a liar all you want, you only damage YOUR credibility.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

Again you admit that retirees are not part of the labor force.
Thank You.
The chart also quite clearly shows that there was not 1.2 million discouraged workers dropped off the workforce in 2011, not even close, a mere 66 thousand.

From what is stated in the BLS unemployment number release, it is an adjustment going froward in 2012. Still a bit of a mystery why they say that and the chart shows only a little over a million.

 

[saveliberty]

There is no such "discouraged worker" limit to "not in the workforce" as I have already proven. Call me a liar all you want, you only damage YOUR credibility.

How the Government Measures Unemployment
Who is not in the labor force?

Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces. As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force.

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

Where did Ed say otherwise? All I saw was him saying that retirees and disabled were in the not in the labor force category, which is true. Where did he say they were considered marginally attached?

He states it by including them in the 1.2 million marginally attached on several occassions.

 

[pinqy]

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

Again you admit that retirees are not part of the labor force.
Thank You.
The chart also quite clearly shows that there was not 1.2 million discouraged workers dropped off the workforce in 2011, not even close, a mere 66 thousand.

From what is stated in the BLS unemployment number release, it is an adjustment going froward in 2012. Still a bit of a mystery why they say that and the chart shows only a little over a million.

Not sure what you think the mystery is. The adjustment to the population was approx 1,5 million, with approx 300,000 of that added to the labor force, but most, 1.2 million, were added to the not in the labor force category. Marginally attached increased 269,000 (discouraged went up 114,000)

 

[Chris]

The Republican spin machine is heating up, shaking uncontrollably, and smoking.

It may come apart at any minute.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

 

[pinqy]

Retirees are taken out prior to margianlly attached, see pinqy's chart above.

Where did Ed say otherwise? All I saw was him saying that retirees and disabled were in the not in the labor force category, which is true. Where did he say they were considered marginally attached?

He states it by including them in the 1.2 million marginally attached on several occassions.

What 1.2 million marginally attached? There are 2.8 million MA, with 1.8 million for reasons other than discouragement. He was talking about the 1.2 million added to not in the labor force by the adjustments.