Unemployment numbers

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

Oh I know it's creating jobs, no question there, but as far as the chart shows, why would we create so many public sector jobs suddenly, only to start cutting them. (Referncing 2010)

That was the census.

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

That was the census.

Too bad it only comes once every 10 years. That was a huge spike.

[DJA101]

88 million are not working today in America.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by DJA101

88 million are not working today in America.

88,000,001. It's a beautiful day and I see a school of redfish about 400 yards from my window so I'm going fishing and joining the ranks of the lazy, old, young and not working.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by DJA101

88 million are not working today in America.

Sure.
They are kids, stay at home parents, students, retirees, etc etc.

That's the only way I can figure where you pulled that number from.

[DJA101]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

Sure.
They are kids, stay at home parents, students, retirees, etc etc.

That's the only way I can figure where you pulled that number from.

88 million no longer in work force presents dire warning - National Conservative | Examiner.com

http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2...f-labor-force/

[El Caliente]

This current generation doesn't get it. So many of them think: go to college, get a job, be happy, when the current climate doesn't allow it. Rather than go to college start a company mowing lawns. Go to a votech school, the world needs welders, plumbers, and carpenters just as much as they do philosophy majors, doctors, and lawyers.

The rules have changed.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by DJA101

88 million are not working today in America.

I hope you're not counting stay-at-home moms, because the last time that was even slightly insinuated.... BOOM

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by V Chip

I hope you're not counting stay-at-home moms, because the last time that was even slightly insinuated.... BOOM

That's exactly what part of what he's trying to claim.

He is literally counting every man and woman over the age of 18 who is not working.
That number is completely meaningless.

It's counting retirees, stay-at-home parents, students, people who choose not to work.

It even links to a chart showing those numbers back to 1975.
Not in Labor Force (LNS15000000) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

In 1975 around 60 million people were not working. From a population that was only around 210 million people.
In 2012 we have a population of 312 million with 88 million people not working.

That means less people are not working now than 27 years ago has a percentage. That doesn't mean that's a good thing of course, but it does show that 88 million figure to be completely and utterly useless for the discussion.

[JOElittleBIGhorn]

Originally Posted by DJA101

88 million no longer in work force presents dire warning - National Conservative | Examiner.com

Team Obama Cooking Unemployment Numbers

[I]mportant structural and demographic developments appear to have been at work as well. First, the aging of the baby-boom cohort has been raising the share of the population in older age groups, for which participation rates have historically been much lower than for younger groups, and this compositional change has been putting downward pressure on the aggregate participation rate. Second, participation rates for newer cohorts of adult women appear to have flattened out after more than three decades of steady rise, while new cohorts of men continue to be less inclined to participate in the labor market than their predecessors. Third, we find that teenagers and young adults are remaining in school longer and are reducing their labor force attachment whether in or out of school. Finally, and partly offsetting these other influences, older workers are increasingly delaying retirement or reentering the labor force following retirement, a development that seems to reflect better health, longer life spans, and changes to Social Security rules.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...son.pdf#page=4

Labor force participation has fallen significantly over the past decade. At least some of this decline is due to the recent deep recession and lackluster recovery. Additionally, for quite some time, economists have forecasted that shifting demographics, particularly in the age structure of the population, would put downward pressure on labor force activity. We estimate that just under half of the decline in LFPR since 2000 is due to such factors. We expect these demographic patterns to continue for at least the next decade, and likely far beyond, as the large baby boom cohort continues the transition into retirement. Therefore, standard labor market measures used to compute gaps in resource utilization, such as the employment-to-population ratio and the LFPR, should reflect these long-running patterns.

http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets...296.pdf#page=4

Bigger picture.

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by JOElittleBIGhorn

First, the aging of the baby-boom cohort has been raising the share of the population in older age groups, for which participation rates have historically been much lower than for younger groups, and this compositional change has been putting downward pressure on the aggregate participation rate.

Not much of an explanation here, as the participation rate for older groups has actually been rising. In fact, the older age groups are the only groups experiencing a rise in participation rates.

For the age group 55-70, according to the study from the Chicago Fed that you listed:
Assuming a population of 300 mil going from 17.2% of the population to 22.2% means that there were 15 million more people in this category. But going from 48.9% Participation Rate to 54.5% means that on the margin there were 11.065 million more people (out of the total of 15 million that moved into this category) that were employed, meaning that the marginal rate of people employed in the 55-70 group was 73.76%, higher than the overall LFPR, so the shift of people moving into the 55-70 group although their LFPR is lower than the 25-54 group, because the LFPR increased, this older group helped the overall LFPR, it didn't hurt it.

Originally Posted by JOElittleBIGhorn

Second, participation rates for newer cohorts of adult women appear to have flattened out after more than three decades of steady rise, while new cohorts of men continue to be less inclined to participate in the labor market than their predecessors.

Okay, this would explain more of a flat-line in participation rates, but not a decline in the overall participation rate, unless you expect the composition of the participation rate to remain constant over time, which seems rather suspect.

Originally Posted by JOElittleBIGhorn

Third, we find that teenagers and young adults are remaining in school longer and are reducing their labor force attachment whether in or out of school.

Well, yeah, teenagers and young adults are staying in school longer, because they can't find a job if they leave school. If you stay in school you can continue to get student loans and eat.

Or, maybe they could apply for disability and get even more money from the government, which leads to...

There was a little mentioned tangent to last Friday's very disappointing NFP print of +115,000 (driven by a surge in temp jobs offsetting a collapse in full time positions): as David Rosenberg notes, the jobs number was about half of another far more important number - that of Americans applying for disability, which in April was +225,000. He continues: "this is the new stealth stimulus program - so far in 2011, nearly one million Americans have applied for disability and year-to-date, 333k have actually enrolled (covering 539k family members). In total, more than five million people have been added to disability coverage since President Obama took over three years ago." The punchline will make all those who adore (insolvent) welfare states shake with giddy delight: "So look - either safety standards at work have eroded dramatically or the "99%" have found a creative way to milk the system and turn the economy into a quasi welfare state"

Two Charts Exposing America's Record Shadow Welfare State | ZeroHedge

A very simple question that comes to mind now that we're three years into an official recovery: shouldn't the number of people on food stamps be going down the further along we are in a recovery?

[dapperdan]

Originally Posted by dtradin

88,000,001. It's a beautiful day and I see a school of redfish about 400 yards from my window so I'm going fishing and joining the ranks of the lazy, old, young and not working.

I hope today looked something like this for you...I have a buddy from wayyyy back who lives in Destin. I took this from his FB page today, it looks like you two had the same idea.

[tjharris]

What I'd also like to know is how many people are working in jobs they just took because they don't wanna be lazy or unemployment ran out. Many people are working in jobs there extremely over qualified for or in a complete other field.
Ex. I work in a restraunt and 5 out of 20 waitresses have a degree there not using because they can't find jobs in that sector

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by tjharris

What I'd also like to know is how many people are working in jobs they just took because they don't wanna be lazy or unemployment ran out. Many people are working in jobs there extremely over qualified for or in a complete other field.
Ex. I work in a restraunt and 5 out of 20 waitresses have a degree there not using because they can't find jobs in that sector

I think those people are called underemployed, and that is a huge issue that doesn't get much talk because it doesn't look good. I'm sure that will get brought up in the campaign.

[BIG E]

Originally Posted by dtradin

88,000,001. It's a beautiful day and I see a school of redfish about 400 yards from my window so I'm going fishing and joining the ranks of the lazy, old, young and not working.

We need a picture of the fish.