- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 12 hours until December unemployment and jobs reports - guesses?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:43 am to UncleFestersLegs
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:43 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
The "picture" clearly shows that the entire drop in the unemployment % is completely due to the number of people who have given up looking for a job.
Which was the point that you tried and failed to disparage.
And this tactic has been used in the past and no one seemed to give a shite
Now that it's Obama everyone is freaking out
6
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:51 am to Powerman
quote:
Now that it's Obama everyone is freaking out
And everyone knows Obama's black. Boom! Bob's your uncle.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:51 am to Powerman
Looking at the chart, its like Jimmy Carter, without the interest rates...The Fed is playing a big part here.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:00 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
The "picture" clearly shows that the entire drop in the unemployment % is completely due to the number of people who have given up looking for a job.
actually it doesn't.
It would if the workplace participants was staying static, but the number of works adding to the workplace currently exceeds the number leaving the workplace.
What we can infer is that we are not creating enough jobs to satisfy new entrants to the workplace and those out of work. The employment situation is improving though as we are catching up to account for new entrants, but not enough and not fast enough.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:01 pm to Powerman
quote:At what point in recent history has labor participation tumbled as precipitously as it has under Obama?
Now that it's Obama everyone is freaking out
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:01 pm to BugAC
"Manufacturing added 77,000 jobs in 2013, compared with an increase of 154,000 jobs in 2012."
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:01 pm to Powerman
Your doing percent difference of percent I get that. But comparing U3 percent difference isn't exactly apples to apples holding it to labor participation percent difference.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:06 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
It would if the workplace participants was staying static, but the number of works adding to the workplace currently exceeds the number leaving the workplace.
quote:
The December jobs report was rotten. The economy created only 74,000 jobs, and 347,000 people left the workforce,
LINK
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:07 pm to Powerman
quote:
And this tactic has been used in the past and no one seemed to give a shite
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:11 pm to UncleFestersLegs
Damn, what happened in 2008?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:13 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
Damn, what happened in 2008?
Bunch of racists got mad at who was president.
Duh.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:14 pm to Powerman
If you want a relationship between unemployment and participation rate I think this is it:
unemployment rate = (1 - employed/participating)*100
Where:
unemployed = people without a job but looking for a job
employed = people working with a job
participating = unemployed + employed (not including the people who have dropped out)
Let do an example:
employed = 90
participants = 100
unemployment rate = (1 - 90/100) x 100 = 10%
Now lets keep the employed static (no one loses a job) but two people give up on looking for a job:
employed = 90
participants = 98
unemployment rate = (1 - 90/98) = 8.2%
So the unemployment rate magically went down but there were no new hires. You might say on the surface that this is a good trend until you dig deeper and see that the federal government actually has 2 less participants (tax payers) and the economy has 2 less producers.
unemployment rate = (1 - employed/participating)*100
Where:
unemployed = people without a job but looking for a job
employed = people working with a job
participating = unemployed + employed (not including the people who have dropped out)
Let do an example:
employed = 90
participants = 100
unemployment rate = (1 - 90/100) x 100 = 10%
Now lets keep the employed static (no one loses a job) but two people give up on looking for a job:
employed = 90
participants = 98
unemployment rate = (1 - 90/98) = 8.2%
So the unemployment rate magically went down but there were no new hires. You might say on the surface that this is a good trend until you dig deeper and see that the federal government actually has 2 less participants (tax payers) and the economy has 2 less producers.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:16 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
It would if the workplace participants was staying static, but the number of works adding to the workplace currently exceeds the number leaving the workplace.
quote:
The December jobs report was rotten. The economy created only 74,000 jobs, and 347,000 people left the workforce,
LINK
Yes, people are getting disappointed and leaving the work place. But we still have a huge number of people entering the workplace. I believe that is roughly 150k per month. This is people graduating from HS, college, etc.
I should have said "retiring" vs leaving.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:16 pm to GumboPot
Yah but the unemployment dropped 20% and the LPR only dropped 2%!!!
...or something
...or something
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:21 pm to UncleFestersLegs
Ha.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:26 pm to Powerman
quote:
And this tactic has been used in the past and no one seemed to give a shite
Yeah, I'm sure you posted this stupidity and tried to explain it away to us and fail just to "teach us a lesson".
The only lesson you taught is that you are retarded in the math department, and you are reinforcing your stupidity with attempted deflection.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:29 pm to Hawkeye95
If we are going to use employment numbers to gauge the economy then any jobs added below ~125K is a contracting economy. We need a minimum of 125K jobs per month just to keep pace with the positive birth/death rate in this country.
I also note that we are entering a bit of a different time were the high job participation during the '80s and '90s likely cannot be sustained simply because the baby boomer generation is retiring (leaving the work force). So not only do you have Obama's policies putting huge pressure on job creation you also have our largest generation (population wise) retiring. That is a double whammy on participation numbers.
I also note that we are entering a bit of a different time were the high job participation during the '80s and '90s likely cannot be sustained simply because the baby boomer generation is retiring (leaving the work force). So not only do you have Obama's policies putting huge pressure on job creation you also have our largest generation (population wise) retiring. That is a double whammy on participation numbers.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:31 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
UncleFestersLegs
Funny
I heard someone say earlier that labor participation rate is at a 36 year low.
According to your chart they appear to be pretty much in line with historical averages.
So again, why is everyone freaking out?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:33 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Bunch of racists got mad at who was president.
Duh.
Bush was president in 2008
Posted on 1/10/14 at 12:35 pm to Powerman
quote:
I heard someone say earlier that labor participation rate is at a 36 year low.
According to your chart they appear to be pretty much in line with historical averages.
So again, why is everyone freaking out?
You need to look at the magnitude of the numbers on the y-axis on the right. Left y-axis is unemployment and right y-axis is participation rate.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News