- 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 10:02 am to GumboPot
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:02 am to GumboPot
Good lord Powerman 
Seeing that Obama took office in January of 2009, I think it is fair to use that as our start point.
January 2009
Unemployment~7.8%
Participation~65.7%
Today
Unemployment~6.7%
Participation~ 62.7%
So unemployment has went down 1.1% and Participation has went down 3%
If you want to use the percent of what they started at and what they are now, then you're looking at Unemployment 8.5% and Participation 9.5%.
At the end of the day, they are about the same
WAY TO GO OBAMA!!!!
Seeing that Obama took office in January of 2009, I think it is fair to use that as our start point.
January 2009
Unemployment~7.8%
Participation~65.7%
Today
Unemployment~6.7%
Participation~ 62.7%
So unemployment has went down 1.1% and Participation has went down 3%
If you want to use the percent of what they started at and what they are now, then you're looking at Unemployment 8.5% and Participation 9.5%.
At the end of the day, they are about the same
WAY TO GO OBAMA!!!!
2
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:04 am to Powerman
quote:
It's a 30% reduction in the unemployment rate is it not?
It is not.
10%-7% = ???
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:06 am to Tigerstudent08
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 1:13 am
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:11 am to BugAC
3% is what % of 10%?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:12 am to BeaverPRO
What happened in late 2008 to cause the steep decline in the Labor Participation rate?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:12 am to Powerman
I sure hope your job does not require you to make judgement decisions resulting from analyzing numerical data.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:12 am to bigblake
quote:
FWIW, this illustration is terrible.
I was trying to wrap my head around his 30% and that was the best I could come up with
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:13 am to Tigerstudent08
quote:
Tigerstudent08
Why do you think it's relevant to use a simple addition/subraction metric to compare things that are on the ~10% range to things that are on the ~65% range?
If unemployment goes from 8 to 7% and the labor participation rate goes from 65% to 64% is that a simple 1:1 offset?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:16 am to CITWTT
quote:
A large part in the numbers declining in the report is the loss of benefits to 1.3 million people with the new year.
This is incorrect.
The BLS reports are based upon the week of December 8th-14th. The federal unemployment benefits ended on December 28th.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:18 am to Powerman
quote:
% is what % of 10%?
Please let this go on for about ten pages before he figures it out. Please!!
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:20 am to Powerman
quote:
Answer this: which has fallen by a greater % in those 2 charts
1. The unemployment rate
2. The labor participation rate
Is this a math quiz?
We can look at this in several different ways but let use the end of the 2008 recession to now as our timeline:
1.) Absolute percentage: 9.7% - 6.7% = 3% drop in unemployment. 67% - 62.7% = 4.3% drop in participation rate.
2.) Rate of percent: (1-9.7/6.7)*100 = -44% percent rate in unemployment. (1-67/62.7)*100 = -6.9% percent rate in participation.
3.) Slope of percent: (2014-2009.4)/(6.7-9.7) = -1.53. Negative slope is good for unemployment. (2014-2009.4)/(62.7-67) = -1.07. Negative slope is bad for unemployment.
So what point are you trying to make?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:20 am to LSURussian
quote:
I sure hope your job does not require you to make judgement decisions resulting from analyzing numerical data.
I'm just messing with people
But clearly you can't look at it as a simple addition subtraction problem when looking at percentages of different magnitudes.
The most obvious way to analyze this (and if anyone disagrees they are crazy) would be to look at the employment figure and not the unemployment figure.
So you'd go from 90% employment at x participation rate to 93% employment at y participation rate
Multiplying both of those out is the only way to get a true picture
And the picture basically says there isn't anything significant going on one way or the other
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:24 am to Powerman
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 12:50 am
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:25 am to Powerman
quote:
If unemployment goes from 8 to 7% and the labor participation rate goes from 65% to 64% is that a simple 1:1 offset?
Yes they are both a certain percent of 100
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:28 am to Tigerstudent08
quote:Damn you man. Damn you
Yes they are both a certain percent of 100
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:29 am to Powerman
quote:
3% is what % of 10%?
Holy shite.
If the actual number of people counted in the unemployment rate was 100. Then your assertion would be correct. But it is not. It is a really large number. Therefore, it is all taken into percentages. If the number drops from 10% to 7%, then that is a 3% drop, not 30%, tard.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:30 am to bigblake
If the labor participation rate was the same as it was just a year ago, the unemployment rate would be 7.8% right now.
We know that numbers were skewed and manipulated this way a year ago.
The unemployment rate is a completely meaningless number at this point, unless we come to believe that people are becoming independently wealthy and no longer need to work or to live off of the government and that is why they are coming off the rolls. Any other answer means that we continue to head backwards.
Obama may not have caused all of this, but he has proven to be completely incapable of fixing it. Yet, he is not held accountable for his failure.
It is like a new coach who takes over a 2-14 NFL team. The team was in a mess when he inherited it with a bloated payroll and aging players. The first year he goes 4-12, then 5-11, then 4-12, 3-13, and 4-12. Fans start calling for his head and he says, "Hey, we were 2-14 when I got here. It isn't my fault that we had problems. Things have improved since I have been here, haven't they? Re-up my contract!"
Who would give him a passing grade? He might not have caused the problem, but he can't fix it. So, we need to find someone who can.
The stupidity of the American Electorate in 2012 is the stuff of legend and books should be written about it. We had all of the data and chose to ignore it. For what?
We know that numbers were skewed and manipulated this way a year ago.
The unemployment rate is a completely meaningless number at this point, unless we come to believe that people are becoming independently wealthy and no longer need to work or to live off of the government and that is why they are coming off the rolls. Any other answer means that we continue to head backwards.
Obama may not have caused all of this, but he has proven to be completely incapable of fixing it. Yet, he is not held accountable for his failure.
It is like a new coach who takes over a 2-14 NFL team. The team was in a mess when he inherited it with a bloated payroll and aging players. The first year he goes 4-12, then 5-11, then 4-12, 3-13, and 4-12. Fans start calling for his head and he says, "Hey, we were 2-14 when I got here. It isn't my fault that we had problems. Things have improved since I have been here, haven't they? Re-up my contract!"
Who would give him a passing grade? He might not have caused the problem, but he can't fix it. So, we need to find someone who can.
The stupidity of the American Electorate in 2012 is the stuff of legend and books should be written about it. We had all of the data and chose to ignore it. For what?
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:31 am to Powerman
quote:
I'm just messing with people
I'm sure you are.
quote:
The most obvious way to analyze this (and if anyone disagrees they are crazy) would be to look at the employment figure and not the unemployment figure.
So you'd go from 90% employment at x participation rate to 93% employment at y participation rate
Multiplying both of those out is the only way to get a true picture
And the picture basically says there isn't anything significant going on one way or the other
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:33 am to Powerman
quote:
And the picture basically says there isn't anything significant going on one way or the other
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.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:35 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.
Yup
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News