US lost 304,000 'jobs' over last two months (Household Survey)

[sealybobo]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

This economy reminds me of Bush's economy. It seemed like things kept getting gradually worse for the middle class but the entire time the GOP kept pointing to the stock market, corporate profits, etc. And anyone struggling they told them to go back to school or start a company.

But they didn't care about the stock market when Obama was president. And they didn't believe the unemployment numbers. Today they believe them.

And with Trump's tariffs and his war with Iran, the cost of living is going up and up. It's going to eat up any tax break us middle class people got from Trump.

 

[McRocket]

Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.

The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.


And you ducked the question again:

So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?

True or False, please?

Do you have Tourettes?

And you ducked the question again:

So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?

True or False, please?

Asked and answered.

At this point, I must conclude that you are well advanced on the Autism Spectrum.

To quote Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.

I never said they were irrelevant. I said that looking at them out of context with the other stats is bogus. And then I showed how the logic of your presentation of one stat was disingenuous when the Civilian Labor Force and LFRP were included in the assessment of the situation.

You are babbling again...the CLF and LFPR have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with job gains or losses.


So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant as the number of employed are part of the unemployment rate tabulation?

True or False, please?

So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant?

True or False, please?

 

[sealybobo]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

Isn't this what you did to Obama?

 

[sealybobo]

I even remember when it was obvious Obama had a good economy and the jobs numbers were good and the unemployment rate was down, Republicans would come back and say, "have you seen the national debt lately?

So no matter what Trump does it's not enough because the debt is still huge.

 

[Meathead]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

This economy reminds me of Bush's economy. It seemed like things kept getting gradually worse for the middle class but the entire time the GOP kept pointing to the stock market, corporate profits, etc. And anyone struggling they told them to go back to school or start a company.

But they didn't care about the stock market when Obama was president. And they didn't believe the unemployment numbers. Today they believe them.

And with Trump's tariffs and his war with Iran, the cost of living is going up and up. It's going to eat up any tax break us middle class people got from Trump.

Pe malaka, war with Iran?

 

[sealybobo]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

This economy reminds me of Bush's economy. It seemed like things kept getting gradually worse for the middle class but the entire time the GOP kept pointing to the stock market, corporate profits, etc. And anyone struggling they told them to go back to school or start a company.

But they didn't care about the stock market when Obama was president. And they didn't believe the unemployment numbers. Today they believe them.

And with Trump's tariffs and his war with Iran, the cost of living is going up and up. It's going to eat up any tax break us middle class people got from Trump.

Pe malaka, war with Iran?

Pentagon asking Trump to send several thousand more troops to Mideast as Iran tensions grow

 

[Third Party]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

I like your tag at the bottom. And, I do believe the Democrats will torpedo the economy just before the elections. Remember when the market tanked just before the mid terms for no apparent reason? Every Democrat in the world sold the market short to drive prices down till the new year. Sell what yo got before October 2020.

 

[McRocket]

Baloney...it's obvious you do not have a clue what you are posting OR talking about.

The fact you keep avoiding my INCREDIBLY simple question proves this further.


And you ducked the question again:

So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?

True or False, please?

Do you have Tourettes?

And you ducked the question again:

So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?

True or False, please?

Asked and answered.

At this point, I must conclude that you are well advanced on the Autism Spectrum.

To quote Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.

I never said they were irrelevant. I said that looking at them out of context with the other stats is bogus. And then I showed how the logic of your presentation of one stat was disingenuous when the Civilian Labor Force and LFRP were included in the assessment of the situation.

You are babbling again...the CLF and LFPR have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with job gains or losses.


So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant as the number of employed are part of the unemployment rate tabulation?

True or False, please?

Yup...once again, folks...he dodges an INCREDIBLY simple question of mine.

You are such a turpentine head. You come with these TOTALLY RIDICULOUS theories, OFFER ZERO links to back them up, simply refuse to answer almost any question I pose straight up, have some childish nonsense about not answering questions that are 'loud', you are posting blank posts, offer up charts that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the topic, have no idea the difference between the Household and Establishment Survey's, knock stats that are Seasonally Adjusted...but then embrace the unemployment rate (which is ALSO Seasonally Adjusted).
You are the DUMBEST/most ignorant dufus I have had to deal with in these type of threads in a LONG time...maybe ever.


But I will try again to get through your cowardly self. And I don't give a fuck about your stupid 'loud' bullshit. You won't answer them anyway...so why should I give a shit?


So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant?

True or False, please?

 

[pinqy]

Do you have Tourettes?

And you ducked the question again:

So that means that the official unemployment rate and the headline jobs numbers are irrelevant (because they are Seasonally Adjusted)?

True or False, please?

Asked and answered.

At this point, I must conclude that you are well advanced on the Autism Spectrum.

To quote Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.

I never said they were irrelevant. I said that looking at them out of context with the other stats is bogus. And then I showed how the logic of your presentation of one stat was disingenuous when the Civilian Labor Force and LFRP were included in the assessment of the situation.

You are babbling again...the CLF and LFPR have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with job gains or losses.


So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant as the number of employed are part of the unemployment rate tabulation?

True or False, please?

So if the unemployment rate is relevant - then the job losses from the survey it is based on must also be relevant?

True or False, please?

False. Due to margins of error. The large margins of error for employed and unemployed mostly cancel each other out when calculated as a ratio.

 

[Faun]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

This economy reminds me of Bush's economy. It seemed like things kept getting gradually worse for the middle class but the entire time the GOP kept pointing to the stock market, corporate profits, etc. And anyone struggling they told them to go back to school or start a company.

But they didn't care about the stock market when Obama was president. And they didn't believe the unemployment numbers. Today they believe them.

And with Trump's tariffs and his war with Iran, the cost of living is going up and up. It's going to eat up any tax break us middle class people got from Trump.

That's how rightards role. Perfect example.....

When did you ever hear of them speaking about the "real unemployment rate" before Obama was president?

When didn't you hear them speaking about the "real unemployment rate" while Obama was president?

When have you heard them speaking about the "real unemployment rate" since trump has been president?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

i was reading a chicken little article on beer sales ....because aluminum! and ORANGE MAN BAD !......people are getting laid off !
UNTIL youre in halfway then ya read well not really !beer sales are off and have been in decline for the last few years.
as someone who always has yuengling in the fridge
i never buy beer in cans anyway
i leave that to the teenagers and pabst blue ribbon broke ass leftarded conformist hipsters

 

[Likkmee]

Nextweek.
IN 2019 under Trump hundreds and hundreds have lost their homes this spring !

No mention of why

 

[edthecynic]

It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

that is because over the last 2 months more than 1 MILLION workers gave up trying to find a job and dropped out of the labor force. So according to Tramp HIS 96+ million not in the labor force means HIS "real" unemployment rate is pushing 40%.

"96 million really wanting a job and they can't get. You know that story. That’s the real number."
A longtime skeptic of the official jobs figures, Trump claimed the "real number" is 96 million people without jobs, which would correspond to an unemployment rate of 37.8 percent

 

[pinqy]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

 

[boedicca]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

 

[pinqy]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

But you weren’t considering the change in population, which affects the LFPR, or the change in unemployed, which affects labor force. And since the LF is a dependent variable and employed and unemployed are independent, you can’t use LF to say what employed should be.

I gave the equations: walk me through what you’re doing. No one at BLS or Census has ever done anything like what you’re doing.as far as I can tell. But it’s not quite clear what math you’re doing. Please use the equations to be clear.

 

[boedicca]

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

But you weren’t considering the change in population, which affects the LFPR, or the change in unemployed, which affects labor force. And since the LF is a dependent variable and employed and unemployed are independent, you can’t use LF to say what employed should be.

I gave the equations: walk me through what you’re doing. No one at BLS or Census has ever done anything like what you’re doing.as far as I can tell. But it’s not quite clear what math you’re doing. Please use the equations to be clear.

I've already done that in this thread - and frankly you are overanalyzing a quick test of logic to see if the number the OP was manipulating was actually high or low.

And my method does take into consideration the change in population with the LFRP (which for a two month analysis was relatively flat, so the pop change was immaterial). Civilian Labor Force change and expected change in Employed was all I needed to demonstrate the OP's bogosity.

 

[pinqy]

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

But you weren’t considering the change in population, which affects the LFPR, or the change in unemployed, which affects labor force. And since the LF is a dependent variable and employed and unemployed are independent, you can’t use LF to say what employed should be.

I gave the equations: walk me through what you’re doing. No one at BLS or Census has ever done anything like what you’re doing.as far as I can tell. But it’s not quite clear what math you’re doing. Please use the equations to be clear.

I've already done that in this thread - and frankly you are overanalyzing a quick test of logic to see if the number the OP was manipulating was actually high or low.

And my method does take into consideration the change in population with the LFRP (which for a two month analysis was relatively flat, so the pop change was immaterial). Civilian Labor Force change and expected change in Employed was all I needed to demonstrate the OP's bogosity.

Ok, I can’t find you posting any actual equations. Please repost or link. It is not clear what exact calculations you are doing.
L = E + U
LFPR = L/P = (E + U)/P
Using those equations, what exactly are you doing to derive ‘expected employment?” I don’t see how you can use E to get a different (expected) value of E.

Any change in L is dependent on the change in E and the change in U.

The OP is wrong, and talking out of his ass, but not for anything to do with “expected change in employment.” He’s wrong because the CPS is a small sample and none of the changes in employment are statistically significant, while the changes the UE rate and the changes in employment from the CES are.

 

[McRocket]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

You picked the wrong guy to debate with on this (pinqy).

Pinqy has claimed numerous times on another board - and I have no factual reason to doubt him - that he used to work for the BLS.

He and I have gotten into more then a few scrapes at each other over the BLS.

But one thing is certain - the guy knows the BLS backwards and forwards.

 

[McRocket]

No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...

Did you even read the table? It also shows that the number of unemployed has dropped by 411K and the civilian labor force has dropped by 714K. So how do you explain these, bub?

Well Bub...you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this (if you are trying to use the stats you posted as 'good things' for the economy).

First - use your head. How can less people in the labor force AND less people employed be a good thing when the population is growing? Duh.

Second - the BLS does not count Americans that stop looking for work as part of the labor force. So when an unemployed person in America stops looking for work...he/she is instantly no longer unemployed...even though they have no job (and probably still want one). These are called Discouraged Workers.

'Discouraged workers (Current Population Survey)
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.'

Glossary : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

So, what has, IMO, obviously happened is TONS of Americans have given up looking for work. That is why the number of unemployed has dropped along with the labor force AND the number of employed.

Got it now, Bub?

You sad little math challenged illiterate.

See if you can follow this:

1. The Civilian Labor Force decreases by 714K.
2. The Labor Force Participation Rate is approx. 60%
3. The expected drop in Employed people would therefore be 420K+
4. It is only 304K based on SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA.

It's not the doom and gloom you are trying to spin, sad little hack.

E = Employed
U = Unemployed
L = Labor Force
P = Population

L = E + U
Participation rate is L/P

So for your scenario...
1. L1 - L0 = (E1 + U1) - (E0 + U0) = -714,000
2. L1/P1 = .6
3. ???? How are deriving that?

There is no way to calculate the change in either employed or unemployed given only the labor force and labor force participation rate

I used applying the LFPR ratio to the change in E in order to compare it to the 304K drop the OP was using to claim the sky was falling. It was a test of reasonableness. As the calc is higher than the 304K, it shows he was just spinning. If you can't follow the logic, then so be it.

Here is the OP in it's entirety:

'No one else seems to want to mention it - so I will.

The Household Survey - which is the ONLY survey used to determine the official unemployment rate - says that 304,000 fewer Americans were employed in April vs. February, 2019.

103,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in April and 201,000 Americans 'lost' their jobs in March.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Just sayin'...'


Show me EXACTLY where I claimed that 'the sky is falling'?