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.
I don't think either one is meaningful for making comparisons with the past, the meaningful comparison would be LABOR FORCE (calculated on a constant basis) / EMPLOYED (calculated on a constant basis). If you use total population then you don't take into account things like a huge generation of people retiring (baby boomers) or variations in birth rates or variations in # of immigrants.Ummmm why do you think (Employed plus Unemployed)/population is more meaningful than employed/population? There are no differing factors.IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.Actually, if you look at the number of unemployed against the actual number of able bodied people of working age in the U.S., it's around 42%. This is the worst economy of my lifetime.
That's not unemployed, that's not working, completely and totally different.
Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....
Yes, just using Only those facts is special pleading.Special pleading?Sounds like special pleading, to me.care to cite how you reached your conclusion? wages outpaced inflation during the lowest unemployment in thirty years, during a previous democrat administration.Wages have been outpaced by inflation for at least the past 30 years.I believe the capital gains distinction should end for capitalists whenever wages don't outpace inflation for labor.
Not even the top one percent have kept up.
Top one percent income in 1986: $232,581
Those peaks you see on the chart are stock market bubbles. The top one percent own 50 percent of the stock market and bonds. If you follow the trend line, you see their income reverted to the trend in 2009 when the last bubble burst.
Top one percent income in 2009: $343,927.
Here is an inflation calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator
You will find that $232,581 in 1986 dollars is equal to $455,266.70 in 2009 dollars.
So it is as I said, not even the top one percent have kept up with inflation. They are more than $100,000 away from where they should be just to keep up with inflation. Put another way, they are 25 percent poorer than they were 30 years ago.
Those are the facts he presented.
Whoa....what do you mean by "calculated on a constant basis?"I don't think either one is meaningful for making comparisons with the past, the meaningful comparison would be LABOR FORCE (calculated on a constant basis) / EMPLOYED (calculated on a constant basis). If you use total population then you don't take into account things like a huge generation of people retiring (baby boomers) or variations in birth rates or variations in # of immigrants.Ummmm why do you think (Employed plus Unemployed)/population is more meaningful than employed/population? There are no differing factors.IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.That's not unemployed, that's not working, completely and totally different.
Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....
Calculated on a constant basis = you use the same input variables to calculate it for all time periods.Whoa....what do you mean by "calculated on a constant basis?"I don't think either one is meaningful for making comparisons with the past, the meaningful comparison would be LABOR FORCE (calculated on a constant basis) / EMPLOYED (calculated on a constant basis). If you use total population then you don't take into account things like a huge generation of people retiring (baby boomers) or variations in birth rates or variations in # of immigrants.Ummmm why do you think (Employed plus Unemployed)/population is more meaningful than employed/population? There are no differing factors.IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.Uhm, whatever... how can we sustain a society where 42% don't work? Tomato tomato....
That's how it's done. What variable do you think are changed???Calculated on a constant basis = you use the same input variables to calculate it for all time periods.Whoa....what do you mean by "calculated on a constant basis?"I don't think either one is meaningful for making comparisons with the past, the meaningful comparison would be LABOR FORCE (calculated on a constant basis) / EMPLOYED (calculated on a constant basis). If you use total population then you don't take into account things like a huge generation of people retiring (baby boomers) or variations in birth rates or variations in # of immigrants.Ummmm why do you think (Employed plus Unemployed)/population is more meaningful than employed/population? There are no differing factors.IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.We did just fine in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The current Employed to Population ratio (59.2%) is higher than anytime before 1978.
this HTML class. Value is http://dailycaller.c
Liberals finally can't declare Conervatives & GOP are making up or manipulating the unemployment numbers! Bernie Sanders, one of the 2 DNC nominees/candidates for President, is tired of the Obama administration lies and Obama Spin machine, and he presents Americans with the current FACTS:
94,610,000 Americans are out of work.
10 % Unemployment
Black teen unemployment rate 30%, 6 times higher than Obama's false claim of 5.1%
Illegal job employment rate higher than rate for Americans...
Job creation rate in SEPT lowest since 1977, only 44% when 50% neeed to sustain level of critically needed yet dwindling Middle Class
There are different rates for different things. The unemployment rate is generally those able to claim benefits. We all know this, and it's important. However there's the rate of people out of work who should be working, ie, not rich retired people etc.
Are you saying that only a little over 5% claim benefits? If what you say is true, the unemployment rate is 33% since just shy of 110 million people in the country receive some form of means tested handouts.
No, that isn't what I'm saying.
I'll be a little clearer. There are part time people who can also collect benefits. But they're not collecting benefits for being unemployed. They're collecting for being under employed.
The unemployment rate of 5.3% or whatever it is right now is the number of people looking for work and available to work.
10.5% includes people who are underemployed, part time workers. They're clearly not unemployed as they do actually have a job, even if it isn't a full time job. This rate is 10.5%.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf
"Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information."
"There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state."
So the percentage figure is taken from a cross section of society to give a relative idea.
This is based on:
"People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force."
That's how it's done. What variable do you think are changed???Calculated on a constant basis = you use the same input variables to calculate it for all time periods.Whoa....what do you mean by "calculated on a constant basis?"I don't think either one is meaningful for making comparisons with the past, the meaningful comparison would be LABOR FORCE (calculated on a constant basis) / EMPLOYED (calculated on a constant basis). If you use total population then you don't take into account things like a huge generation of people retiring (baby boomers) or variations in birth rates or variations in # of immigrants.Ummmm why do you think (Employed plus Unemployed)/population is more meaningful than employed/population? There are no differing factors.IMHO That's a meaningless statistic since all factors affecting the size of the population are not equal (retirement of the Baby Boomers, birthrates, immigration, etc..,), you need to look at labor force participation calculated using constant means if you want to make any meaningful comparison to past decades.
Not sure why you'd want labor force divided by employed, though. The Participation rate is Labor Force/Population, the Employment Popylation ratio is Employment/Population, and the Unemployment rate is Unemployed/Labor Force.
Why? What are you trying to measure that that's a useful definition? The question the UE rate is meant to answer is "How much available labor is not being used?" If someone is not trying to work, they can't be hired.this HTML class. Value is http://dailycaller.c
Liberals finally can't declare Conervatives & GOP are making up or manipulating the unemployment numbers! Bernie Sanders, one of the 2 DNC nominees/candidates for President, is tired of the Obama administration lies and Obama Spin machine, and he presents Americans with the current FACTS:
94,610,000 Americans are out of work.
10 % Unemployment
Black teen unemployment rate 30%, 6 times higher than Obama's false claim of 5.1%
Illegal job employment rate higher than rate for Americans...
Job creation rate in SEPT lowest since 1977, only 44% when 50% neeed to sustain level of critically needed yet dwindling Middle Class
There are different rates for different things. The unemployment rate is generally those able to claim benefits. We all know this, and it's important. However there's the rate of people out of work who should be working, ie, not rich retired people etc.
Are you saying that only a little over 5% claim benefits? If what you say is true, the unemployment rate is 33% since just shy of 110 million people in the country receive some form of means tested handouts.
No, that isn't what I'm saying.
I'll be a little clearer. There are part time people who can also collect benefits. But they're not collecting benefits for being unemployed. They're collecting for being under employed.
The unemployment rate of 5.3% or whatever it is right now is the number of people looking for work and available to work.
10.5% includes people who are underemployed, part time workers. They're clearly not unemployed as they do actually have a job, even if it isn't a full time job. This rate is 10.5%.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf
"Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information."
"There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state."
So the percentage figure is taken from a cross section of society to give a relative idea.
This is based on:
"People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force."
You said the unemployment rate is calculated by the number looking for work and available for work. If they can work and aren't looking for work, they're unemployed.
Why? What are you trying to measure that that's a useful definition? The question the UE rate is meant to answer is "How much available labor is not being used?" If someone is not trying to work, they can't be hired.this HTML class. Value is http://dailycaller.c
Liberals finally can't declare Conervatives & GOP are making up or manipulating the unemployment numbers! Bernie Sanders, one of the 2 DNC nominees/candidates for President, is tired of the Obama administration lies and Obama Spin machine, and he presents Americans with the current FACTS:
94,610,000 Americans are out of work.
10 % Unemployment
Black teen unemployment rate 30%, 6 times higher than Obama's false claim of 5.1%
Illegal job employment rate higher than rate for Americans...
Job creation rate in SEPT lowest since 1977, only 44% when 50% neeed to sustain level of critically needed yet dwindling Middle Class
There are different rates for different things. The unemployment rate is generally those able to claim benefits. We all know this, and it's important. However there's the rate of people out of work who should be working, ie, not rich retired people etc.
Are you saying that only a little over 5% claim benefits? If what you say is true, the unemployment rate is 33% since just shy of 110 million people in the country receive some form of means tested handouts.
No, that isn't what I'm saying.
I'll be a little clearer. There are part time people who can also collect benefits. But they're not collecting benefits for being unemployed. They're collecting for being under employed.
The unemployment rate of 5.3% or whatever it is right now is the number of people looking for work and available to work.
10.5% includes people who are underemployed, part time workers. They're clearly not unemployed as they do actually have a job, even if it isn't a full time job. This rate is 10.5%.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf
"Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information."
"There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state."
So the percentage figure is taken from a cross section of society to give a relative idea.
This is based on:
"People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force."
You said the unemployment rate is calculated by the number looking for work and available for work. If they can work and aren't looking for work, they're unemployed.
If someone is not trying to work, then it makes no difference if they can or can't or want or don't want....they're not going to be hired regardless.
so now sanders has credibility with RW's ...
and the wind blows RW opinions ...
same shit different day .... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnn
Right, and that gives the percent of the population that is in the labor force. How is that meaningless?LABOR / POPULATION would yield a meaningless number since you're dividing a subset of the population (the labor force) by the ENTIRE population.
Everyone in the Labor Force is participating in the Labor market...that's the definition of labor force: Employed plus Unemployed.Labor Force participation measures how much of your labor force (in percentage terms) is actively participating in the labor market.
Which is what I said. "Population" in labor force statistics refers to the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population....those age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution. Note that "working age" is not used, because there is no upeer limit to age.That's how it's done. What variable do you think are changed???Calculated on a constant basis = you use the same input variables to calculate it for all time periods.Whoa....what do you mean by "calculated on a constant basis?"I don't think either one is meaningful for making comparisons with the past, the meaningful comparison would be LABOR FORCE (calculated on a constant basis) / EMPLOYED (calculated on a constant basis). If you use total population then you don't take into account things like a huge generation of people retiring (baby boomers) or variations in birth rates or variations in # of immigrants.Ummmm why do you think (Employed plus Unemployed)/population is more meaningful than employed/population? There are no differing factors.
Not sure why you'd want labor force divided by employed, though. The Participation rate is Labor Force/Population, the Employment Popylation ratio is Employment/Population, and the Unemployment rate is Unemployed/Labor Force.
Ummm no it's not ... participation rate is LABOR FORCE / EMPLOYED (which includes those seeking employment) , LABOR / POPULATION would yield a meaningless number since you're dividing a subset of the population (the labor force) by the ENTIRE population. Labor Force participation measures how much of your labor force (in percentage terms) is actively participating in the labor market.
edit correction: it would be LABOR FORCE (employed + seeking employment) / WORKING AGE POPULATION , sorry it's early..
Your population number is wrong, the population of the United States is almost 326,000,000 , you have the right formula but are stating the variables incorrectly, the number 251,325,000 is the WORKING AGE population.Let's take a look. Population is 251,325,000, Labor force is 156,715,000 and employment is 148,800,000 So I say that the participation rate is 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% (the figure givin in Table A-1 You say the participation rate is 156,715,000/148,800,000 = 105.3% How does that make sense?
251,325,000 is the Adult civilian non-institutional population. It is the only population number used by BLS, so it's what is meant by "population" when talking about labor force statistics. and again, it it not accurate to call it "working age population" as millions of working age are excluded and many older than working age are included.Your population number is wrong, the population of the United States is almost 326,000,000 , you have the right formula but are stating the variables incorrectly, the number 251,325,000 is the WORKING AGE population.Let's take a look. Population is 251,325,000, Labor force is 156,715,000 and employment is 148,800,000 So I say that the participation rate is 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% (the figure givin in Table A-1 You say the participation rate is 156,715,000/148,800,000 = 105.3% How does that make sense?
If you look back, yes I did originally flip it around and then corrected it
I think you're missing a verb in that sentance..."we need to.....verb...."I believe we need to simply weights and measures.
I'll agree with that, it's a misleading term but it's also commonly used, my objection to your original post was that you appeared to be using ENTIRE POPULATION which would be distorted by inconsistent variations on both ends of the age scale (i.e. the too old & the too young to be counted) and wouldn't yield meaningful comparisons to the past.251,325,000 is the Adult civilian non-institutional population. It is the only population number used by BLS, so it's what is meant by "population" when talking about labor force statistics. and again, it it not accurate to call it "working age population" as millions of working age are excluded and many older than working age are included.Your population number is wrong, the population of the United States is almost 326,000,000 , you have the right formula but are stating the variables incorrectly, the number 251,325,000 is the WORKING AGE population.Let's take a look. Population is 251,325,000, Labor force is 156,715,000 and employment is 148,800,000 So I say that the participation rate is 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% (the figure givin in Table A-1 You say the participation rate is 156,715,000/148,800,000 = 105.3% How does that make sense?
If you look back, yes I did originally flip it around and then corrected it
Sorry, I'm just so used to "population" meaning "adult civilian non institutional population" that it didn't occur to me that it could be interpreted as total pop.I'll agree with that, it's a misleading term but it's also commonly used, my objection to your original post was that you appeared to be using ENTIRE POPULATION which would be distorted by inconsistent variations on both ends of the age scale (i.e. the too old & the too young to be counted) and wouldn't yield meaningful comparisons to the past.251,325,000 is the Adult civilian non-institutional population. It is the only population number used by BLS, so it's what is meant by "population" when talking about labor force statistics. and again, it it not accurate to call it "working age population" as millions of working age are excluded and many older than working age are included.Your population number is wrong, the population of the United States is almost 326,000,000 , you have the right formula but are stating the variables incorrectly, the number 251,325,000 is the WORKING AGE population.Let's take a look. Population is 251,325,000, Labor force is 156,715,000 and employment is 148,800,000 So I say that the participation rate is 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% (the figure givin in Table A-1 You say the participation rate is 156,715,000/148,800,000 = 105.3% How does that make sense?
If you look back, yes I did originally flip it around and then corrected it
No worries, I understand what you meant now one has to consider that this is an imperfect communication medium.Sorry, I'm just so used to "population" meaning "adult civilian non institutional population" that it didn't occur to me that it could be interpreted as total pop.I'll agree with that, it's a misleading term but it's also commonly used, my objection to your original post was that you appeared to be using ENTIRE POPULATION which would be distorted by inconsistent variations on both ends of the age scale (i.e. the too old & the too young to be counted) and wouldn't yield meaningful comparisons to the past.251,325,000 is the Adult civilian non-institutional population. It is the only population number used by BLS, so it's what is meant by "population" when talking about labor force statistics. and again, it it not accurate to call it "working age population" as millions of working age are excluded and many older than working age are included.Your population number is wrong, the population of the United States is almost 326,000,000 , you have the right formula but are stating the variables incorrectly, the number 251,325,000 is the WORKING AGE population.Let's take a look. Population is 251,325,000, Labor force is 156,715,000 and employment is 148,800,000 So I say that the participation rate is 156,715,000/251,325,000 = 62.4% (the figure givin in Table A-1 You say the participation rate is 156,715,000/148,800,000 = 105.3% How does that make sense?
If you look back, yes I did originally flip it around and then corrected it
