5% unemployment rate----Yeah, right.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Moonstruck

Moonstruck

Guru
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
8,276
Location
USA
Vessel Name
Moonstruck
Vessel Make
Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
The Participation rate went from 62.4 to 62.5 in November. The stock market celebrated. However, when you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics below, you see that it is worse than all prior Novembers. Novembers are always better than October because of the hiring for the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. Can you trust the market makers??? ]
Data extracted on: December 4, 2015 (1:56:22 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey



Download: Download as an Excel File
Series Id: LNS11300000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1990 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.6 66.4 66.5 66.5 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4
1991 66.2 66.2 66.3 66.4 66.2 66.2 66.1 66.0 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0
1992 66.3 66.2 66.4 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.2 66.3 66.3
1993 66.2 66.2 66.2 66.1 66.4 66.5 66.4 66.4 66.2 66.3 66.3 66.4
1994 66.6 66.6 66.5 66.5 66.6 66.4 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.7
1995 66.8 66.8 66.7 66.9 66.5 66.5 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.5 66.4
1996 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.9 66.7 66.9 67.0 67.0 67.0
1997 67.0 66.9 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2
1998 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.2
1999 67.2 67.2 67.0 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.1 67.1
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0 63.0 63.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7
2015 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.4 62.4 62.5
 
Don-you have posted this before and I have responded to it before. But t reiterate:

As your chart shows pretty clearly, the participation rate has dropped steadily from mid-1999 to now. If you bother to read the BLS analysis, the analysis of a multitude of labor economists, you would find that the rate has been steadily dropping primarily for demographic, not economic, reasons. Quite simply, boomers are retiring, all us old guys who are now out enjoying life on the water. From more than a few analyses I have come across some 80% of the decrease comes from that simple demographic fact. Agan from those analyses, some 7% of the drop is people leaving the workforce and some 11% can be attributed to underemployment. So, your implication that the unemployment rate is misstated, and that misstatement is shown by the participation rate is incorrect. The rate is calculated in the same manner each and every time is it calculated. There is no "manipulation of the numbers", no "misstatement" of the numbers. There is no legitimate argument to be made that the unemployment rate has not decreased steadily for the last 6-7 years. Whatever labor stat you look at, it shows a tightening of the job market. The one stat that lagged for several years, an outlier from previous recoveries, was the average hourly wage. That now has been increasing as well. I can't think of any stat more indicative of a tightening job market than employers having to pay more to get employees.
 
THD- Pardon my ignorance, but as I understand it the participation rate does not consider those above a certain age? So the boomer demographic beyond retirement is not included??
 
boatpoker said:
I have only met one person who voted for that pretty boy and she is an illiterate idiot.
Click to expand...

Time to tighten the belt to counter all the new taxes on the horizon. :mad:
Does Ontario have a carbon tax yet? ... just wait
 
Last edited:
West said:
Our unemployment rate has gone up to 7.1%, our government has responded by pledging Billions to 3rd world countries to combat climate change :blush:

Canada sheds 35,700 jobs in November, unemployment rate up to 7.1% - Business - CBC News

Government announces $2.65B to help developing countries fight climate change - Politics - CBC News
Click to expand...


I worked with a former employee (fairly high up) of employment Canada a
few years ago. He said that after adjustments for seasonal, quit listing with
employment Canada,etc., etc., the actual unemployment figures are always
about FOUR times the published number. :nonono::nonono:

Ted
 
"I have only met one person who voted for that pretty boy and she is an illiterate idiot." Go figure...

Emperor.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ski-not true. There is no upper age limit, only a lower limit (Age 16). The base calculation includes all those over 16 that are working or actively seeking work. The rate over the last ten years or so actually has two demographic factors that affected it. The high point was actually during the early part of the recession. Again from analyses I have read, during the recession fewer older people retired when eligible, they continued working during the recession, for obvious reasons. This raised the rate in the late 90's into 2000-01. As the economy has recovered, those people have subsequently retired and left the workforce lowering the rate. In the late 90's something like 60% of those over 63 were choosing to remain in the workforce. Now, that is down to about 40%. I guess better times lead to earlier retreats to the boat? The second factor is that women are increasingly leaving the workforce, primarily for family reasons. There was a huge influx of women into the workforce during the 70's and 80's. Again, with the improvement in the economy, more women are choosing the hoe over work. At the risk of being a non-PC lib, Not a bad thing, IMHO.
 
Ski in NC said:
THD- Pardon my ignorance, but as I understand it the participation rate does not consider those above a certain age? So the boomer demographic beyond retirement is not included??
Click to expand...

The participation rate would include those who are still working as long as they are over 16. I think what you are trying to say is those above a certain age are not included in the available labor force. I am unaware of a cut off in available labor force above a certain age. They are cut off if under the age of 16.
 
THD said:
Ski-not true. There is no upper age limit, only a lower limit (Age 16). The base calculation includes all those over 16 that are working or actively seeking work. The rate over the last ten years or so actually has two demographic factors that affected it. The high point was actually during the early part of the recession. Again from analyses I have read, during the recession fewer older people retired when eligible, they continued working during the recession, for obvious reasons. This raised the rate in the late 90's into 2000-01. As the economy has recovered, those people have subsequently retired and left the workforce lowering the rate. In the late 90's something like 60% of those over 63 were choosing to remain in the workforce. Now, that is down to about 40%. I guess better times lead to earlier retreats to the boat? The second factor is that women are increasingly leaving the workforce, primarily for family reasons. There was a huge influx of women into the workforce during the 70's and 80's. Again, with the improvement in the economy, more women are choosing the hoe over work. At the risk of being a non-PC lib, Not a bad thing, IMHO.
Click to expand...


What happens if you are unemployed for greater than 60 days?

You are dropped from the unemployment rolls.

So your participation rate is more than just demographics.

At a true 5% unemployment rate, there should be virtually no one looking for work.
 
Hardly news,

Figures don't lie , but LIARS figure.
 
THD said:
Don-you have posted this before and I have responded to it before. But t reiterate:

As your chart shows pretty clearly, the participation rate has dropped steadily from mid-1999 to now. If you bother to read the BLS analysis, the analysis of a multitude of labor economists, you would find that the rate has been steadily dropping primarily for demographic, not economic, reasons. Quite simply, boomers are retiring, all us old guys who are now out enjoying life on the water. From more than a few analyses I have come across some 80% of the decrease comes from that simple demographic fact. Agan from those analyses, some 7% of the drop is people leaving the workforce and some 11% can be attributed to underemployment. So, your implication that the unemployment rate is misstated, and that misstatement is shown by the participation rate is incorrect. The rate is calculated in the same manner each and every time is it calculated. There is no "manipulation of the numbers", no "misstatement" of the numbers. There is no legitimate argument to be made that the unemployment rate has not decreased steadily for the last 6-7 years. Whatever labor stat you look at, it shows a tightening of the job market. The one stat that lagged for several years, an outlier from previous recoveries, was the average hourly wage. That now has been increasing as well. I can't think of any stat more indicative of a tightening job market than employers having to pay more to get employees.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your analysis. It is spot on. "The rate is calculated in the same manner each and every time is it calculated. There is no "manipulation of the numbers", no "misstatement" of the numbers. There is no legitimate argument to be made that the unemployment rate has not decreased steadily for the last 6-7 years." There are many folks who want to pick and choose other measures to "prove" that the recovery under Mr. Obama is not really a recovery, and while there are some aspects which could be better, wages for example, the fact is the unemployment, which has always been a bedrock indicator, has come down to a point where we are nearly full employment.

Now this concept, full employment that is, is going to raise the hackles on a few folks. You see, our economy will always have some measure of unemployed. Full employment is defined as the rate at which the economy cannot get any better. The full employment point, of course, is matter of opinion. From my vague memory of econ courses in college (1968 - 1973) I recall that the rate was 3%. I think today the consensus among economists is 4%. So, one sees that, with an unemployment rate measured today at 5%, our economy is approaching full employment.

I suspect the naysayers are mostly (I didn't say all) not fans of Mr. Obama. But the facts remains that the calculation of the unemployment has remained the same for decades. It is NOT manipulated. There is no conspiracy. This measure offers a consistent comparison over time of the general health of the economy is among the most valuable indicators to economists. To those who deny its utility and veracity, well, you are just deniers of fact and science. And plenty of those are in Congress at the rate of $180,000/year!
 
You know things are bad when you see welfare bu...recipients, drivin' last year's Escalades.:lol:
 
catalinajack said:
To those who deny its utility and veracity, well, you are just deniers of fact and science. And plenty of those are in Congress at the rate of $180,000/year!
Click to expand...

Seems like there are more than a few deniers of fact and science running for the $400,000/year job as president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom