US Economy adds over 200,000 jobs in October

[Rozman]

We had a partial government shut down for what 2 weeks...
Those that were affected were paid for that time...

We survived...

Move along folks...

 

[SteadyMercury]

The facts are inarguable... there are more people out of the workforce not looking for work than there have been for decades.

Wouldn't this be expected with a population that is both growing and aging?

 

[Meathead]

The facts are inarguable... there are more people out of the workforce not looking for work than there have been for decades.

Wouldn't this be expected with a population that is both growing and aging?

It would be indicative of a failing economy in which there is little hope of finding jobs, and even less incentive given a bloated welfare state.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Part time workers don't buy houses and this is rapidly becoming a part time economy because of Obamacare,

You sure?

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Part time for economic reasons
Oct 2012 = 8286
Oct 2013 = 8050

Could only find part-time work
Oct 2012 = 2618
Oct 2013 = 2599

I've seen anecdotal headlines of companies switching people to part-time because of ACA, but I would think those numbers would be lower year over year if there was a significant trend of forcing people to work part time.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The facts are inarguable... there are more people out of the workforce not looking for work than there have been for decades.

Wouldn't this be expected with a population that is both growing and aging?

It would be indicative of a failing economy in which there is little hope of finding jobs, and even less incentive given a bloated welfare state.

That wasn't my question.

What I'm asking = if a country has a population that is growing in size, and demographically shifting to where more people are of retirement age, wouldn't one expect there to be more people out of the workforce not looking for work as a correlated trend?

The issue I'm skeptical of is using absolute numbers to make a statement on economic conditions, if we had a shrinking population and people started claiming there were less poor people I'd be equally skeptical.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I suspect that most of these jobs are part-time but so far I haven't found a link.

There is quite a turn over in retail and the food industry and bulk of these jobs were low paying..

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wasn't Obamacare supposed to have turned America into one huge vacant lot by now?

Lowest labor participation

Most unemployed

Most food stamps

Most debt and deficits

it certainly is working to that end

since day one

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWIkeCD7Jaw&feature=watch_response]Barackalypse Now: Inauguration Aftermath - YouTube[/ame]

 

[depotoo]

But it's nit where we take the Employment data from. While narrower, the payroll numbers are far more accurate. Table B-1 in you link shows a seasonally adjusted increase in payroll jobs of 204,000 (unadjusted was +940,000)
The main difference this month is that due to the different reference periods, furloughed workers were counted as employed in the payroll survey but unemployed in the household survey (though many were unclassified due to misunderstanding the question.)

Educate yourself. Yes, it is where the unemployment rate comes from.

The B-1 is used in media when it looks better.

14 years at BLS teaching this stuff? I did educate myself. The unemployment rate comes from the Current Population Survey. Those are the A tables. The official jobs numbers come from the Current Employment Survey. Those are the B tables
Show me any time when CPS employment was cited as gain or loss of jobs instead of the CES. You can't.

The employment data from the CPS is not as accurate and not revised (except for the December recalculation of seasonal adjustment). The CES numbers are benchmarked to tax records.

RealClearMarkets - Is There Actual Bias In the BLS's Unemployment Reports?
Econoday Economic Report: Employment Situation*July*5,*2013

 

[expat_panama]

The facts are inarguable... there are more people out of the workforce not looking for work than there have been for decades.

Wouldn't this be expected with a population that is both growing and aging?

That's a funny thing about nonsense. When people hear it and repeat it over and over and over they actually start to think it's true. OK, how about we take a break from the 2+2=5 chant and revisit reality. Look, there's no way a population can avoid growing and aging for years, and then suddenly in 2009--

16 million all 'grow and age' at once and then go back to not 'growing and aging' again.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yup, there was a recession in 2009, good job. So which part is nonsense about the assumption that an aging and growing population will have a greater number of total unemployed not seeking employment?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Lets put this another way for those of you desperate to support an argument at the expense of acknowledging common sense.

See the bands above the light blue bar near the top? Those represent percentage of people in the United States that are in the ages we commonly associate with retirement age. Now as their percentage grows, and as the population as a whole grows, we would expect their total number to increase, yes?

 

[expat_panama]

...people in the United States that are in the ages we commonly associate with retirement age. Now as their percentage grows...

Whoa, neat graph!

Please let me know where they got their data from --sure it's believable but scaling off it for me was kind of dicey. Like, I'm reading the 65+ age group is expected to change from 82% to 88% gradually over a 20-year span from 2010 to 2030. Sounds about right. That comes out to about almost a million per year. Contrast that to 16+ million jobless in a year or two. Puts paid to the demographics scam for excusing crappy econ policy.

 

[SteadyMercury]

So again, would you expect the number of people of retirement age to grow?

 

[pinqy]

Educate yourself. Yes, it is where the unemployment rate comes from.

The B-1 is used in media when it looks better.

14 years at BLS teaching this stuff? I did educate myself. The unemployment rate comes from the Current Population Survey. Those are the A tables. The official jobs numbers come from the Current Employment Survey. Those are the B tables
Show me any time when CPS employment was cited as gain or loss of jobs instead of the CES. You can't.

The employment data from the CPS is not as accurate and not revised (except for the December recalculation of seasonal adjustment). The CES numbers are benchmarked to tax records.

RealClearMarkets - Is There Actual Bias In the BLS's Unemployment Reports?
Econoday Economic Report: Employment Situation*July*5,*2013

Are you just being lazy? Neither link contradicts anything I said, so it's not clear what your point was.

 

[expat_panama]

...expect the number of people of retirement age to grow?

3.65 million Boomers turning 65 each year and 82% of then retire by age 65.

Relevant factoids:

Average U.S. retirement age: 61
Average U.S. life expectancy 79
Population U.S. 313.9
Note: "average" means about half before and the rest after.​

Half of the 1946 born boomers retired before 2007. During the two years of the 110th congress the number of jobless grew by 10 million people if we say that number was the 8 million boomers then we have to explain why we're not subtracting the 8 million that died of old age during those 2 years.

In 2009 the number of jobless grew another 5 million. If we say 3.65 million of that growth was boomers then we still need to explain why the annual average four million didn't die that year.

There are lots of ways to estimate the growth due to demographics, but there's no reasonable way to explain the total 17 million increase that we got with just the unsupported 3.65 million boomer retiree number.

 

[edthecynic]

...expect the number of people of retirement age to grow?

Ah, found where you got the graph --some proprietary stuff. Here're the real numbers from the Census Br.--

--and in the real world we've been having about 700K per year turning retirement age. contrast to the actual joblessness increases--

--that go into the tens of millions. Like I said, only a political hack could swallow that demographics scam for excusing crappy econ policy.

Maybe in the "real world" of yesteryear, but now we have 3.65 million Boomers turning 65 each year and 82% of then retire by age 65.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I'm still not even clear if Expat is willing to admit the total number of people of retirement age in this country is getting larger. He appears to be doing anything he can to avoid answering a simple yes/no question, it is pretty funny to watch.

 

[SteadyMercury]

 

[expat_panama]

DANG!

Instead of here, my new post ended up as an edit of my old post # 75. Go there to see my response. fwiw, my old #75 is here.

This is way past my bed time...

 

[edthecynic]

...expect the number of people of retirement age to grow?

3.65 million Boomers turning 65 each year and 82% of then retire by age 65.

Relevant factoids:

Average U.S. retirement age: 61
Average U.S. life expectancy 79
Population U.S. 313.9
Note: "average" means about half before and the rest after.​

Half of the 1946 born boomers retired before 2007. During the two years of the 110th congress the number of jobless grew by 10 million people if we say that number was the 8 million boomers then we have to explain why we're not subtracting the 8 million that died of old age during those 2 years.

In 2009 the number of jobless grew another 5 million. If we say 3.65 million of that growth was boomers then we still need to explain why the annual average four million didn't die that year.

There are lots of ways to estimate the growth due to demographics, but there's no reasonable way to explain the total 17 million increase that we got with just the unsupported 3.65 million boomer retiree number.

So much BS, so little time.

First of all, your chart is not labeled. It appears to be the "not in labor force" plus the "unemployed."

Second, "average" does not mean half before and half after, that is called the "median." The median retirement age is 62.3 years.

Third, half of the 82% of the 3.65 million yearly Boomers retired after 2008, or about 1.5 million per year each year after 2008.

Fourth, the jobless are not just the unemployed and retired, there are 16 year olds who choose to stay in school, stay at home spouses, adults who stay home to care for a sick or aged family member, etc.

Fifth, retirees are part of the "not in labor force" group, not the unemployed group.

Sixth, people die at all ages, not just over the median retirement age.

Seventh, dead people are not counted as jobless.

Eighth, the "not in labor force" grew by 2.5 million during the 110 Congress and "unemployment" grew by 5.4 million, that's less than 8 million, not your 10 million, and obviously more than twice as many became "jobless" as a result of the Bush Depression rather than leaving the work force.

Ninth, in 2009, 2.5 million more were not in the workforce, for whatever reason, and 3.1 million more workers lost their jobs in the continuing Bush Depression. None of them were dead, but the obvious increase of the not in labor force can be attributed to the number of retiring Boomers and workers returning to school to develop new job skills.

Finally, the not in labor force and unemployed are unrelated and it is stupid to combine them. The unemployed have declined by 5.4 million since the peak of the Bush Depression, while the labor force participation rate has been decreasing since long before the Bush Depression and will continue to decrease until all the Boomers leave the work force unless we increase immigration.