Do you believe the...

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force. 120,000 jobs were added in November, the number of "discouraged workers"(people who have given up on looking) dropped 186,000 when compared to the same time last year.

I'm not so sure that a large swing is less reliable. The unemployment rate dropped 4 tenths for two months a year ago and it's stayed under (for the most part) since. My guess is that it'll drop about .1% each month in the first quarter in 2012. Start your emotional preparation for Obama to get re-elected after that.

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause".

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

This line about the "exiting the labor force" may be one of the dumbest lines I've responded to on here. First, did you even read the report? Here it is for your reference:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

You said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force"? Really? So, let me ask you genius... what's the labor force participation rate measure? hmmm... think about it for a bit. Then after you look up the definition, read the report. Particularly focus on the part where they say the labor force declined. Then be sure you come back on here and type a response explaining this quote of yours "There's nothing in the numbers to suggest that a bunch of people exited the labor force". Looking forward to it.

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause".

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Hey, now at least we're both laughing. Not only do you misquote me, you then proceed to sound like a tool in the process. Check my post, I said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". True that people left the labor force, but the numbers don't suggest that that number of people who left is unusual for the past several years. So it's continuing a normal pattern. The number of discouraged workers is much lower than a year ago. What you're doing is confusing terms, either knowingly or unknowingly, and swapping out discouraged workers and those who left the work force. You didn't prove me wrong when you misquote me.

You also said this:"the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later", but then said you're aware that the data is adjusted for seasonal employment. And I'm being ridiculous?

I guess we'll see how stubborn you are with your response.

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I call your genius and raise you one pseudo-intellectual. My saying people exiting the labor force was in response to you saying you don't want the numbers to drop because of "people deciding jobs are a lost cause".

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Hey, now at least we're both laughing. Not only do you misquote me, you then proceed to sound like a tool in the process. Check my post, I said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". True that people left the labor force, but the numbers don't suggest that that number of people who left is unusual for the past several years. So it's continuing a normal pattern. The number of discouraged workers is much lower than a year ago. What you're doing is confusing terms, either knowingly or unknowingly, and swapping out discouraged workers and those who left the work force. You didn't prove me wrong when you misquote me.

You also said this:"the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later", but then said you're aware that the data is adjusted for seasonal employment. And I'm being ridiculous?

I guess we'll see how stubborn you are with your response.

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

pandora · December 2011

Ok 'discouraged workers who have given up looking' ....does this mean what?
I too heard 300,000 had done this on the news the other night

Does this mean then,
not on unemployment anymore... it ran out
living on savings or one income?
Moved into their car or on the street?
Welfare?

How can one just give up on looking for a job?

I don't get this

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You were wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the report to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the report". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

Hey, now at least we're both laughing. Not only do you misquote me, you then proceed to sound like a tool in the process. Check my post, I said "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". True that people left the labor force, but the numbers don't suggest that that number of people who left is unusual for the past several years. So it's continuing a normal pattern. The number of discouraged workers is much lower than a year ago. What you're doing is confusing terms, either knowingly or unknowingly, and swapping out discouraged workers and those who left the work force. You didn't prove me wrong when you misquote me.

You also said this:"the improvement was only in seasonal positions (retail/leisure) that are easily let-go later", but then said you're aware that the data is adjusted for seasonal employment. And I'm being ridiculous?

I guess we'll see how stubborn you are with your response.

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No rational whatsoever in responding to me can make this sentence true: "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". It was a 100% factually false statement. You still can't admit that, and are/have been trying to change the subject. I know you enjoy playing word games, but I won't move on until you say, "I was wrong" without any caveats, because truth be told, you were wrong and there were no caveats to make the sentence above true.

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Sad,...

The numbers come from the report, genius. I admit that since we've been trading quotes for a while now, I mis-stated "numbers" for "report". But, we get the "numbers" from the "report" anyway so it meant the same thing. But, since you're trying to play semantics in a discussion on facts, I'll restate my previous statement with a one word correction:

Ha ha ha ha.... you're ridiculous, man. You are wrong and you can't admit it. Once again, you said... "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". This is flat out factually incorrect. You can't pretend like that 100% false statement was in response to me. You said "there's nothing in the numbers". That is very, very wrong and I proved it to you, but you are still too stubborn to admit you were wrong. I find that pathetic.

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No rational whatsoever in responding to me can make this sentence true: "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". It was a 100% factually false statement. You still can't admit that, and are/have been trying to change the subject. I know you enjoy playing word games, but I won't move on until you say, "I was wrong" without any caveats, because truth be told, you were wrong and there were no caveats to make the sentence above true.

And you're trying to tell me I'm stubborn? When someone references the "numbers" in a report, they are putting their own analysis on the data, rather than what the author's analysis is in the report. I figured someone at your level could figure this out. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to everything you're saying (unless changing the subject is trying to get back on task).

Is this just a tactic to avoid backing up your points when I showed evidence to the contrary?

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

You're still pretty fixated on this, so maybe since you're equal to my genius, you'll be able to figure this out. My first response to you was using your terminology where you created confusion by using the terms 'exiting the work force' and people 'deciding jobs are a lost cause' interchangeably. The actual report separates those two groups out. Yes, the numbers are from the actual report, but if you look at the context I'm talking about after getting through your confusion of terms, you'll see that I discuss the "numbers" in the report connected to the historical decline of the number of people in the work force. Therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect a bunch of people exiting the work force. Now, to make it more clear, I could have written that last sentence: therefore, based on history, the 'numbers' in the report don't reflect an increase in discouraged workers.

What I've been doing is playing semantics because you've initiated that game. I'm actually presenting facts, you're trying to present opinion as fact.

Now that the hair splitting is resolved, feel free to respond to any of my points.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. No rational whatsoever in responding to me can make this sentence true: "there's nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force". It was a 100% factually false statement. You still can't admit that, and are/have been trying to change the subject. I know you enjoy playing word games, but I won't move on until you say, "I was wrong" without any caveats, because truth be told, you were wrong and there were no caveats to make the sentence above true.

And you're trying to tell me I'm stubborn? When someone references the "numbers" in a report, they are putting their own analysis on the data, rather than what the author's analysis is in the report. I figured someone at your level could figure this out. I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to everything you're saying (unless changing the subject is trying to get back on task).

Is this just a tactic to avoid backing up your points when I showed evidence to the contrary?

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

polaris_x · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

satansbed · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

i think what he was trying to say is that the numbers who left the labor force aren't unusual compared to other months and so shouldn't have a statistical impact

inlet13 · December 2011

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

Why's that funny?

inlet13 · December 2011

satansbed wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No, I'm trying to tell you that you were wrong. The numbers did suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force. That's what the labor force participation rate measures. Yet, you continue to dance around that. As I said previously, I'll be happy to discuss other issues, once you admit you were wrong about that.

i think what he was trying to say is that the numbers who left the labor force aren't unusual compared to other months and so shouldn't have a statistical impact

Well, that’s not what he said originally, but yes I’m quite sure that’s where he’s trying to sway the conversation to get out of admitting he was incorrect with his original assessment that there was “nothing in the numbers to suggest a bunch of people exited the labor force”. Like I said, the labor force participation is a number that says that. Which proves that's factually dishonest. But, I digress…

For your point, pretty much every major periodical in the U.S. is saying that the alteration in the labor force was abnormal enough to alter the unemployment rate, and therefore, did have a statistical impact. In fact, it has to have a statistical impact…

Unemployment rate = Unemployed / Labor force
Labor force = unemployed + employed
Labor force participation rate = Labor force / total non -institutionalized population

…if the labor force participation rate changes at all it alters all equations above through the labor force variable. Because of this, sources of news (including NPR, which I would think is on your side of the aisle here) agree with what I’ve stated in this thread and went on to put that info up on their site:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... c=fb&cc=fp

…In fact, even Austan Goolsbee, the President Obama’s Chairman of Economic Advisors, sides with what I’ve been saying here. To quote him “one month is never a trend and everybody should admit that” later on he says something about how growth is too low to keep this trend going, echoing my former boss’, statement. Then to close it out on labor participation he says “we’ve been at record lows, there has been some trend with the aging population, but we want to see the participation rate get back up. That’s definitely NOT a positive.” Here’s that video:

http://www.economy.com/dismal/blog/blog.asp?cid=226737

That’s been my point all along. Anyone saying the labor force component is meaningless is incorrect. The decline in the unemployment rate is good under most circumstances, but not necessarily good if it’s caused by a decline in the labor force. You want a strong labor for participation rate to get your falling unemployment rate. That’s not what’s happening here and lead’s to concerns that the unemployment rate will go back up once the labor force increases again. We’ll see what happens next month, but this is a long-term non-partisan problem and reflects why the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator.

polaris_x · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Why's that funny?

i found it funny because you continue to berate a guy over semantics even tho he's explained himself multiple times ... i give him credit for responding to your insults too ... the fact you continue to harp on something like that is sad but funny at the same time ...

inlet13 · December 2011

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Why's that funny?

i found it funny because you continue to berate a guy over semantics even tho he's explained himself multiple times ... i give him credit for responding to your insults too ... the fact you continue to harp on something like that is sad but funny at the same time ...

I find the whole exchange full of uninformed nonsense, including your comment.... it's not semantics if you read the origin of the exchange. It began with an ignorant person responding harshly to someone (me), and by post 2 he was claiming my quantifiably true position on the labor force decline was not correct. Numbers don't lie and are not "semantics". I know you may be buddy-buddy because you agree politically and are probably on the same side of most debates on this forum, but there needs to be a line on a debate forum when someone claims something factually incorrect.... particularly when they are doing so in response to someone else. When I said, the equivalent of 1+1=2, he responded saying the equivalent of "there's nothing in the math book to say 1+1=2". I called him out on it and asked for him to admit he was wrong. And there's been an endless loop since.

Regardless of all this, this thread began with civility. A number of people on both sides didn't believe the unemployment rate was 100% reliable at the moment and the purpose of the thread was to discuss that issue. It was not until he came in first fired up touting something about Obama then touting false statements regarding economic data .... that the thread dissolved into a chaotic mess. All I wanted was for him to admit he was wrong about his 1+1=3 statement... and that's all I still want. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss other issues with him after. Until then, to avoid "berating and harping on the subject"... I'll just respond: "1+1 does not equal 3" to him. That will make it easier for everyone.

polaris_x · December 2011

dude ... i'm not gonna get into it with you ... i'm telling it the way i see it ... this thread is 3 pages long and the words are there for everyone to judge ...

i don't blow smoke up people's asses just cuz they may agree with me politically ...

Go Beavers · December 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Regardless of all this, this thread began with civility. A number of people on both sides didn't believe the unemployment rate was 100% reliable at the moment and the purpose of the thread was to discuss that issue. It was not until he came in first fired up touting something about Obama then touting false statements regarding economic data .... that the thread dissolved into a chaotic mess. All I wanted was for him to admit he was wrong about his 1+1=3 statement... and that's all I still want. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss other issues with him after. Until then, to avoid "berating and harping on the subject"... I'll just respond: "1+1 does not equal 3" to him. That will make it easier for everyone.

My first reply in this thread had to do with pointing out your anti-Obama agenda. I was being civil, but just calling you out on it because I've seen you do it in other threads, too. Then you started name calling. Having an agenda or bias is fine, but often your posts come across as condescending, in particular to liberals, as if you're smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore speaking some form of truth. The thing is, your truth reads more like a few facts, mixed with theory, and driven by this bias. Just my impression, though.

inlet13 · December 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Regardless of all this, this thread began with civility. A number of people on both sides didn't believe the unemployment rate was 100% reliable at the moment and the purpose of the thread was to discuss that issue. It was not until he came in first fired up touting something about Obama then touting false statements regarding economic data .... that the thread dissolved into a chaotic mess. All I wanted was for him to admit he was wrong about his 1+1=3 statement... and that's all I still want. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss other issues with him after. Until then, to avoid "berating and harping on the subject"... I'll just respond: "1+1 does not equal 3" to him. That will make it easier for everyone.

My first reply in this thread had to do with pointing out your anti-Obama agenda. I was being civil, but just calling you out on it because I've seen you do it in other threads, too. Then you started name calling. Having an agenda or bias is fine, but often your posts come across as condescending, in particular to liberals, as if you're smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore speaking some form of truth. The thing is, your truth reads more like a few facts, mixed with theory, and driven by this bias. Just my impression, though.

1+1 does not equal 3.

Go Beavers · January 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Regardless of all this, this thread began with civility. A number of people on both sides didn't believe the unemployment rate was 100% reliable at the moment and the purpose of the thread was to discuss that issue. It was not until he came in first fired up touting something about Obama then touting false statements regarding economic data .... that the thread dissolved into a chaotic mess. All I wanted was for him to admit he was wrong about his 1+1=3 statement... and that's all I still want. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss other issues with him after. Until then, to avoid "berating and harping on the subject"... I'll just respond: "1+1 does not equal 3" to him. That will make it easier for everyone.

My first reply in this thread had to do with pointing out your anti-Obama agenda. I was being civil, but just calling you out on it because I've seen you do it in other threads, too. Then you started name calling. Having an agenda or bias is fine, but often your posts come across as condescending, in particular to liberals, as if you're smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore speaking some form of truth. The thing is, your truth reads more like a few facts, mixed with theory, and driven by this bias. Just my impression, though.

1+1 does not equal 3.

200,000 jobs added in December and unemployment rate at 8.5%. Just saying.

inlet13 · January 2012

Go Beavers wrote:

200,000 jobs added in December and unemployment rate at 8.5%. Just saying.

...and I reply "1+1 does not equal 3". Since time has passed, I'll play along...

Read this link below... even though I don't buy the BLS is doing this on purpose (which the author hints at)... if you read past that and look at the data, this does explain why labor force participation matters:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobl ... ation-rate

What I said last month is repeated again in the most recent report..., the labor force participation rate, once again, dropped in this most recent jobs report . This fact (which you didn't quite understand last go around) matters a lot, which was my original point in this thread. The reason it matters is (if things really are getting better, which we all hope they are), more people will want jobs, including many who dropped out of the labor force, they will enter in again and the labor force will grow. Since the unemployment rate is an equation dependent on the labor force (or is a function of it), this increase in the labor force would constrain any decline in the unemployment rate, even if job growth continued at 200K a month. Therefore, large scale changes in unemployment aren't quite "sturdy" or "believable" right now. Even left leaning economists would agree with me on this if they read my argument in context.

Anyway, according to that article (above), our jobless rate is at 11.4% with a realistic (to history) labor force participation rate. That's not good.

All that said, 200K job gains is good or is certainly moving in the right direction. If we got 200K or more a month and kept the labor force participation rate stable or falling, I think we could maintain the 8.5% rate or continue to improve it until the election, which would be favorable to the President. But, my point is that f the economy is really improving and jobs really are being created (and it's not just the falling labor force), ... the unemployment rate will eventually take a hit because as the economy improves more will enter the labor force, and that will weigh against the unemployment rate. Because of this, I think unemployment will be a bit above 8.5%, maybe even closer to 9% by the election. In all honesty, if things blow up in Europe, it could go even higher. I know you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But, I'm not the only one who thinks this...

This guy from the Financial Times basically agrees...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c917ac0a ... z1itiQpe2L

(google "jobs figures may not rescue Obama" if the link doesn't work)

Go Beavers · January 2012

inlet13 wrote:

...and I reply "1+1 does not equal 3". Since time has passed, I'll play along...

Read this link below... even though I don't buy the BLS is doing this on purpose (which the author hints at)... if you read past that and look at the data, this does explain why labor force participation matters:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobl ... ation-rate

What I said last month is repeated again in the most recent report..., the labor force participation rate, once again, dropped in this most recent jobs report . This fact (which you didn't quite understand last go around) matters a lot, which was my original point in this thread. The reason it matters is (if things really are getting better, which we all hope they are), more people will want jobs, including many who dropped out of the labor force, they will enter in again and the labor force will grow. Since the unemployment rate is an equation dependent on the labor force (or is a function of it), this increase in the labor force would constrain any decline in the unemployment rate, even if job growth continued at 200K a month. Therefore, large scale changes in unemployment aren't quite "sturdy" or "believable" right now. Even left leaning economists would agree with me on this if they read my argument in context.

Anyway, according to that article (above), our jobless rate is at 11.4% with a realistic (to history) labor force participation rate. That's not good.

All that said, 200K job gains is good or is certainly moving in the right direction. If we got 200K or more a month and kept the labor force participation rate stable or falling, I think we could maintain the 8.5% rate or continue to improve it until the election, which would be favorable to the President. But, my point is that f the economy is really improving and jobs really are being created (and it's not just the falling labor force), ... the unemployment rate will eventually take a hit because as the economy improves more will enter the labor force, and that will weigh against the unemployment rate. Because of this, I think unemployment will be a bit above 8.5%, maybe even closer to 9% by the election. In all honesty, if things blow up in Europe, it could go even higher. I know you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But, I'm not the only one who thinks this...

This guy from the Financial Times basically agrees...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c917ac0a ... z1itiQpe2L

(google "jobs figures may not rescue Obama" if the link doesn't work)

In the most recent report, it says the labor force participation rate is unchanged:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I do understand that the participation rate matters, my stance earlier in the thread was that it's decline has been mostly due to natural progression. That's probably why the rate stayed the same this month, as some more re-entered than usually do, and some dropped out due to retirement.

You were predicting that the unemployment rate would jump back up. What if it doesn't and it continues to drop .1% each month? When does what the bls report become valid and reflect a better employment situation? May, August, November? Is it more valid to you if it shows a worsening picture? How do you account for other positive economic reports, such as increased consumer spending?

Do you believe the...

Comments

Categories