Jobs Report GREAT NEWS (unless you're a republican)

[fskimospy]

How is my definition the pedantic one? You are the one literally saying that actually, some people who are not employed/unemployed are counted in the other metrics. There is unemployed and under underutilized which I combined to make it simple.

Wait, this is the opposite of what happened. I combined the two to make it simple and you came back and complained about that.

Again, this started with my comment that unemployment does not capture those not working and not looking for work. You are the one who is trying to say that, actually, there are some that can be captured in U5 and 6 because it expands the amount of time they have not been looking to 12 months. U5 and U6 do not capture all people not working who are not things like students or retired, so you are the one splitting hairs here.

You have unemployed which are people not working and not looking. The BLS expanded its metrics and now captures people not working, but who have looked in the past 12 months. There is still a very large group that falls outside of the 12 month window.

Of course it does not capture all of them, it's designed not to capture all of them. What it IS trying to capture is all people who aren't working but might plausibly want to work at some point in the near future. It does in fact capture the vast, vast majority of those. There is not in fact a very large group that falls outside of that window that is genuinely looking to return to work soon. This is a common misconception among conservatives.

In 2000, the Participation rate was around 67%. Today we are at 62.8 for the avg of 2016. From that same time period, unemployment went from 4% to 4.9%.

The fact is that U5 and U6 do not capture anywhere close to the majority of the group labeled as either unemployed or underutilized.

You're mixing up your terms. U3 is 4.9%. U6 in December of 2000 was 6.9%. U6 as of July 2016 is 9.7%.

So if we're looking to figure out how much of the difference between labor participation rate in 2000 (67%) and today (62.8%) we're starting with a 4.2% gap. Let's look at the easy ones:

1. The increase in U6: 2.8%
2. Percentage of Americans 65 and over in 2000 vs 2016: 12.4% in 2000 (census) and 14.5% in 2016 (this is an estimate based off numbers in this link). http://www.prb.org/Publications/Media-Guides/2016/aging-unitedstates-fact-sheet.aspx
3. Percentage of 18-24 in college has increased about 4.5% since 2000. When accounting for their proportion of the population that gives us another half a percent labor force participation decline.

Are these very blunt metrics? Of course, they don't account for all the changes in US participation. The fact remains that when just looking at those 3 very simple things we've already overshot the difference in labor force participation that you mentioned as being indicative of changes in US unemployment not capturing these increases. With that in mind would you consider revising your opinion?

Even with what I have said, I am not on this doom and gloom side that the right is. They clearly have a political motive in everything they say. This report is good and the US is doing better than any other relevant country. Obama has not hurt the economy and I doubt we could have grown much more in the current global situation.

None of that changes that your comment saying that people not working and not looking are captured in U5 and 6 when the majority are not. The only way you can get there is to split hairs, which is ironic.

Simply counting people over 16 in either high school or college and those over the age of 65 you get somewhere around 22% of the US population. Then you have parents staying home to look after the kids, people who are sick or disabled, etc. etc. No rational person wants to count students, retired people, people taking care of their children full time, or disabled people as unemployed and they are not included in U6 with good reason. I'm explicitly asking you to stop trying to split hairs to justify a view that has become a common ignorant conspiracy theory on the right.

 

[realibrad]

Wait, this is the opposite of what happened. I combined the two to make it simple and you came back and complained about that.

No. I simply started this by saying that unemployment does not capture people not working and not looking for work. That is true. You then said U5 and U6 does capture those people. At that point, you were combing unemployed and underutilized. The only problem I had with that, is that your comment made it seem that U5 and U6 were capturing all of the group I said was not being captured, which they do not. U5 and U6 only capture people that have looked in the past 12 months. It is a line drawn in the sand because many do not understand the BLS definition. It also gives a better picture of the labor market. Perfectly fine set of metrics in my opinion.

You did not jump in to clarify that U5 and U6 capture some of the people U3 does not capture, you tried to correct me. That is to imply that I was wrong and I was not. I made a general comment by saying that the issue is participation, and looking at unemployment/underutilization will not capture that issue.

Of course it does not capture all of them, it's designed not to capture all of them. What it IS trying to capture is all people who aren't working but might plausibly want to work at some point in the near future. It does in fact capture the vast, vast majority of those. There is not in fact a very large group that falls outside of that window that is genuinely looking to return to work soon. This is a common misconception among conservatives.

I know. The issue is that participation rate has gown down from where it used to be. They are correct in that. The implications they draw from that is the debate, which I think they are wrong about. The issue they are raising is that people have not been working, and have not been looking to go back for over 12 months. U5 and U6 are an attempt to capture people that are not working, and are not looking, but are likely to start looking and reenter the labor force "soon". They are not made to do anything other than that.

You're mixing up your terms. U3 is 4.9%. U6 in December of 2000 was 6.9%. U6 as of July 2016 is 9.7%.

So if we're looking to figure out how much of the difference between labor participation rate in 2000 (67%) and today (62.8%) we're starting with a 4.2% gap. Let's look at the easy ones:

1. The increase in U6: 2.8%
2. Percentage of Americans 65 and over in 2000 vs 2016: 12.4% in 2000 (census) and 14.5% in 2016 (this is an estimate based off numbers in this link). http://www.prb.org/Publications/Media-Guides/2016/aging-unitedstates-fact-sheet.aspx
3. Percentage of 18-24 in college has increased about 4.5% since 2000. When accounting for their proportion of the population that gives us another half a percent labor force participation decline.

Are these very blunt metrics? Of course, they don't account for all the changes in US participation. The fact remains that when just looking at those 3 very simple things we've already overshot the difference in labor force participation that you mentioned as being indicative of changes in US unemployment not capturing these increases. With that in mind would you consider revising your opinion?

This is why I disagree with the implications. People are leaving for perfectly good reasons. If someone is at retirement age, and their employer says that they have to be paid less for the same work because things are slow, they may decide to just retire. Some may decide to get their masters. Some may decide to say home because working just pays for babysitting. There is not a reasonable way of capturing that.

Now, do your data. I am not mixing anything. The original point that I raised was that people not working, even if they are working toward their future, are not helping the economy grow. A kid going to college to get his masters because the labor market sucks is not adding to the economy yet. When he does, its likely that he will do more in the long run, but right now he is not helping.

MomentsofSanity asked the concern, and that is the argument. I think forging growth now for greater future growth seems pretty reasonable, but there is an argument there to be had. MomentsofSanity questioning the issue was his way of signaling that there was not a debate, and there sure is. I gave him the gist of the situation.

Simply counting people over 16 in either high school or college and those over the age of 65 you get somewhere around 22% of the US population. Then you have parents staying home to look after the kids, people who are sick or disabled, etc. etc. No rational person wants to count students, retired people, people taking care of their children full time, or disabled people as unemployed and they are not included in U6 with good reason. I'm explicitly asking you to stop trying to split hairs to justify a view that has become a common ignorant conspiracy theory on the right.

I feel like this part was answered, so I wont add more. You just misunderstand what I was saying in my fist post.

 

[fskimospy]

If you mention how unemployment has gone from 4% to 4.9% while labor force utilization has declined ~4% and then say that U5 and U6 do not capture people not looking you're pretty clearly mixing up your metrics. U5 and U6 have nothing to do with the 4.9% number. You've said repeatedly that U5 and U6 aren't catching these people and I think I've shown pretty clearly that they are. If you have any data to provide that says otherwise I'm open to hearing it.

 

[realibrad]

If you mention how unemployment has gone from 4% to 4.9% while labor force utilization has declined ~4% and then say that U5 and U6 do not capture people not looking you're pretty clearly mixing up your metrics. U5 and U6 have nothing to do with the 4.9% number. You've said repeatedly that U5 and U6 aren't catching these people and I think I've shown pretty clearly that they are. If you have any data to provide that says otherwise I'm open to hearing it.

U5 and U6 are captured in the denominator that gives you U3. So they very much are related. If you are comparing U5 and U6 then you are double dipping.

 

[Jhhnn]

No. I simply started this by saying that unemployment does not capture people not working and not looking for work. That is true. You then said U5 and U6 does capture those people. At that point, you were combing unemployed and underutilized. The only problem I had with that, is that your comment made it seem that U5 and U6 were capturing all of the group I said was not being captured, which they do not. U5 and U6 only capture people that have looked in the past 12 months. It is a line drawn in the sand because many do not understand the BLS definition. It also gives a better picture of the labor market. Perfectly fine set of metrics in my opinion.

You did not jump in to clarify that U5 and U6 capture some of the people U3 does not capture, you tried to correct me. That is to imply that I was wrong and I was not. I made a general comment by saying that the issue is participation, and looking at unemployment/underutilization will not capture that issue.



I know. The issue is that participation rate has gown down from where it used to be. They are correct in that. The implications they draw from that is the debate, which I think they are wrong about. The issue they are raising is that people have not been working, and have not been looking to go back for over 12 months. U5 and U6 are an attempt to capture people that are not working, and are not looking, but are likely to start looking and reenter the labor force "soon". They are not made to do anything other than that.



This is why I disagree with the implications. People are leaving for perfectly good reasons. If someone is at retirement age, and their employer says that they have to be paid less for the same work because things are slow, they may decide to just retire. Some may decide to get their masters. Some may decide to say home because working just pays for babysitting. There is not a reasonable way of capturing that.

Now, do your data. I am not mixing anything. The original point that I raised was that people not working, even if they are working toward their future, are not helping the economy grow. A kid going to college to get his masters because the labor market sucks is not adding to the economy yet. When he does, its likely that he will do more in the long run, but right now he is not helping.

MomentsofSanity asked the concern, and that is the argument. I think forging growth now for greater future growth seems pretty reasonable, but there is an argument there to be had. MomentsofSanity questioning the issue was his way of signaling that there was not a debate, and there sure is. I gave him the gist of the situation.



I feel like this part was answered, so I wont add more. You just misunderstand what I was saying in my fist post.

Please. You ignore the principles of supply & demand in the labor market & the greater economy. If there were more demand for labor we'd have a higher participation rate. If there were more real demand for goods & services there would be greater demand for labor.

If taxes on the uber wealthy were higher we'd have more money to spend on jobs, services & infrastructure rather than it disappearing into the swirling overhead cloud of asset inflation.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

MomentsofSanity asked the concern, and that is the argument. I think forging growth now for greater future growth seems pretty reasonable, but there is an argument there to be had. MomentsofSanity questioning the issue was his way of signaling that there was not a debate, and there sure is. I gave him the gist of the situation.

The purpose of my question was to ask why the participation rate being where it was was a bad thing. It gets trotted out every time there's good solid job numbers as a way of saying X number of people aren't working!!! What the people who bring it up ignore is what that number includes. Retired persons, People 16 and over who are still in school. People who are disabled. People who are in situations that do not require them to work (spouse makes enough for the family etc...). Because they are all eligible to participate they are counted.

What people who trot out the participation rate never do is discuss how many of of those people are actually wanting to work. There are over 40 million people in the US over 65. Post secondary enrollment is over 20 million as of 2013. I have no idea what the numbers are for 16+ who are still enrolled in high school, disabled etc... etc... But they all count as not participating.

The particpation rate has been projected to drop year over year to about 60% because of these reasons. It's in line now with where it's always been projected to be for over a decade. And I have yet to see an explanation why it's a problem.

 

[fskimospy]

U5 and U6 are captured in the denominator that gives you U3. So they very much are related. If you are comparing U5 and U6 then you are double dipping.

No, that's very wrong. They are two different measurements and trying to say that U5 and U6 are not accurately capturing labor trends based on what U3 is doing is a basic misunderstanding of how BLS statistics work.

I have specifically showed you how your statement that U5 and U6 are not capturing 'anywhere close to the majority' of the group we are talking about has no evidence to back it up. The evidence you did supply is easily accounted for with demographic trends or misapplication of BLS statistics. I think if you take a step back and look at this objectively you should be able to admit that.

 

[realibrad]

No, that's very wrong. They are two different measurements and trying to say that U5 and U6 are not accurately capturing labor trends based on what U3 is doing is a basic misunderstanding of how BLS statistics work.

I have specifically showed you how your statement that U5 and U6 are not capturing 'anywhere close to the majority' of the group we are talking about has no evidence to back it up. The evidence you did supply is easily accounted for with demographic trends or misapplication of BLS statistics. I think if you take a step back and look at this objectively you should be able to admit that.

No, the argument is that just looking at U3 can be misleading. That is why they invented U5 and U6. U5 and U6 are simply there to fill in the large gap between Employment/Unemployment and everyone else. Many people assume that looking at the unemployment rate is everything. The unemployment rate are people who are actively looking for work in the past 4 weeks. Most people you ask will think that the unemployment rate is anyone not working. It is also true that unemployment could go down, and the economy lose net jobs. U5 and U6 are there to fill in the gap of people who would be dropped in the pure definition of unemployed. To make a flat statement that anyone not working and not looking for a job is captured in U5 and U6 is wrong. Some will be captured, and some will not.

You keep shifting what the original point was. You tried to say I was wrong and I was not. Your statement that everyone is captured that is not looking for work and are not working is captured in U5 and U6 is wrong.

In the short term, here is how you check.

Unemployment rate is down from 2014 to 2016
Underutilization is down from 2014 to 2016
Labor participation is flat from 2014 to 2016

If the first two are going down, and the 3rd is flat or going up, then you have the situation I first brought up. You are correct as to why it might be happening, but in the short run that means the economy is not going to do much because people are not working like they could be. This should be good in the long run, but the argument is that we are foregoing too much.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the argument is that just looking at U3 can be misleading. That is why they invented U5 and U6. U5 and U6 are simply there to fill in the large gap between Employment/Unemployment and everyone else. Many people assume that looking at the unemployment rate is everything. The unemployment rate are people who are actively looking for work in the past 4 weeks. Most people you ask will think that the unemployment rate is anyone not working. It is also true that unemployment could go down, and the economy lose net jobs. U5 and U6 are there to fill in the gap of people who would be dropped in the pure definition of unemployed.

Well I can't speak for 'many people', but I can say that no informed person would look at only one rate. Unless you're saying that the conservatives making the argument that people not looking for work are not included in unemployment are simply ignorant I don't see how that relates.

To make a flat statement that anyone not working and not looking for a job is captured in U5 and U6 is wrong. Some will be captured, and some will not.

Yes, no measure is perfect. U5 and U6 capture the vast majority that have any interest in working however as I've already indicated. Your statement that they did not even capture the majority has no basis in evidence.

You keep shifting what the original point was. You tried to say I was wrong and I was not. Your statement that everyone is captured that is not looking for work and are not working is captured in U5 and U6 is wrong.

Actually your original statement was that people who was not looking for work and not working are not captured in unemployment, which is wrong.

In the short term, here is how you check.

Unemployment rate is down from 2014 to 2016
Underutilization is down from 2014 to 2016
Labor participation is flat from 2014 to 2016

If the first two are going down, and the 3rd is flat or going up, then you have the situation I first brought up. You are correct as to why it might be happening, but in the short run that means the economy is not going to do much because people are not working like they could be. This should be good in the long run, but the argument is that we are foregoing too much.

But if it's due to demographic changes then we aren't forgoing productivity, we're just at the natural level we should be. I personally think there is still some slack to be made up as I mentioned from the beginning, but as I've said flat labor force participation is not a negative long term, it's a positive.

 

[realibrad]

Well I can't speak for 'many people', but I can say that no informed person would look at only one rate. Unless you're saying that the conservatives making the argument that people not looking for work are not included in unemployment are simply ignorant I don't see how that relates.

Lol, the circles you run in are not that of the average person when it comes to economics. Politicians like to twist numbers. Its the same thing for the whole women make 78 cents for every dollar BS. They need to explain why the economy is horrible and how its Obama's fault. Cant do that whit the economy growing and people working now can they?

Yes, no measure is perfect. U5 and U6 capture the vast majority that have any interest in working however as I've already indicated. Your statement that they did not even capture the majority has no basis in evidence.

There is a majority of people not captured for U5 and U6. As you explained before, there are valid reasons why someone older than 16 might not be looking for a job for more than 12 months. You shrink that pool once you start to filter out some logical things. But the original point was how could that be bad, and that is what I answered.

Actually your original statement was that people who was not looking for work and not working are not captured in unemployment, which is wrong.

They are not. See above. A significant amount is not captured, and thus it would be incorrect to say that all are captured.

But if it's due to demographic changes then we aren't forgoing productivity, we're just at the natural level we should be. I personally think there is still some slack to be made up as I mentioned from the beginning, but as I've said flat labor force participation is not a negative long term, it's a positive.

Being at the natural level means measuring in the long run. It simply means that there are some that are forgoing the now for the future, and some who are working now. If a large segment is working on gaining skills that takes more than 1 year, they will be dropped from U3 and U6, but it would likely be a good thing.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess I will give up as I don't know how to crack through this. You originally said 'if you do not have a job and are not looking you are not unemployed'. That is wrong and there's no getting around it. If you can't see that I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[glenn1]

I guess I will give up as I don't know how to crack through this. You originally said 'if you do not have a job and are not looking you are not unemployed'. That is wrong and there's no getting around it. If you can't see that I don't know what else to tell you.

Depends on whether you're using the BLS definitions for U6 or a more common-man definition of unemployed being "anyone out of work who is otherwise able-bodied." If you've been unemployed for a while and haven't officially sought work for over 12 months you're not considered unemployed. To capture those folks an even broader "U7" category would be useful to estimate the number of long-term unemployed who *might* consider returning to the workforce (e.g. taking a couple years off to be a stay-at-home parent, going back to college, etc.) as opposed to those who have no interest whatsoever (e.g. disabled, retired for good, etc.)

 

[Texashiker]

Where are these jobs at?

I would like to apply for one.

 

[Jhhnn]

Where are these jobs at?

I would like to apply for one.

It's become more than obvious that the fabled & benevolent Job Creators have left a lot of people high & dry, 'tis true, right after they beat the cash out of us in the collapse of the ownership society. OTOH, the situation seems to be improving despite their best efforts & those of their Repub lackeys in Congress.

Why, if they just get bigger tax cuts I'm dead certain it will trickle down to the rest of us. Like magic. All we need to do is to believe harder.

 

[Texashiker]

Why, if they just get bigger tax cuts I'm dead certain it will trickle down to the rest of us. Like magic. All we need to do is to believe harder.

It would be nice if all these job reports saying the economy is booming proved real by people being able to find a job.

Jobs are supposed to be booming, economy is supposed to be great, fine, prove it, I want a job.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It would be nice if all these job reports saying the economy is booming proved real by people being able to find a job.

Jobs are supposed to be booming, economy is supposed to be great, fine, prove it, I want a job.

um... don't you have a job tugging on a boat?

 

[dank69]

Where are these jobs at?

I would like to apply for one.

Didn't you recently get your dream job? Thanks Obama!

 

[Texashiker]

um... don't you have a job tugging on a boat?

I quit that job, I got tired of working up to 20 hours a day.

It's ok though. I turned them over the to coast guard with a record of my hours.

 

[agent00f]

Just give them basic income and a living minimum wage, funny how you limousine liberal types want to do that with the welfare and burger flipping crowd whose skills are no more or less than other low end jobs,

but turn all republican on the factory/mining types that were earning that and more by looking down at their occupations as somehow being beneath you and tell them to get retrained educated and that it's their fault because in your fantasy world the economy runs on professional services. (Like the Banksters and Wall street with their financial wizards who brought about the 2008 crash and many before it )


Here is a bit of reality, everything around you is from mining, manufacturing, & agriculture which is the base foundation of a strong country and a robust economy and are the legs that support all those professional white collar services in some office somewhere shuffling papers thinking they are the future not realizing they are standing on a foundation of outsourced sand ready to be knocked down when the next recession hits.

The day is coming soon when your Chinese slave finally decides to throw off their shackles and start dictating the financial terms to you and American corporations won't like it and will be powerless to do anything about it.

From a macro perspective it's beneficial for america that its labor force partakes in careers at the top of the pyramid than the bottom. American prosperity these days is very much built on using intl labor to do the shittier jobs. For example, it's better for an american to be taking a cut of whatever financial service they're selling than milling away making jeans.

It would be nice if all these job reports saying the economy is booming proved real by people being able to find a job.

Jobs are supposed to be booming, economy is supposed to be great, fine, prove it, I want a job.

The long term reality is that americans are going to have to compete globally for their wages. All current policy is designed to soften that landing.

 

[ivwshane]

I quit that job, I got tired of working up to 20 hours a day.

It's ok though. I turned them over the to coast guard with a record of my hours.

I like to think shitty people don't get jobs.

Listening to the right, most people don't have jobs because they are lazy, dumb, or sucking the government teat. Which category do you fall into?

 

[rudder]

Great news for liberals because they have an uncanny ability to ignore all things economic. You know historically slow growth, average household incomes down, food stamp usage ballooning. There is so much more to delve into but liberals have trained themselves to lock this reality out of their minds. Liberals will respond with some angry name calling then retreat to their safe rooms.

 

[fskimospy]

Great news for liberals because they have an uncanny ability to ignore all things economic. You know historically slow growth, average household incomes down, food stamp usage ballooning. There is so much more to delve into but liberals have trained themselves to lock this reality out of their minds. Liberals will respond with some angry name calling then retreat to their safe rooms.

Let's talk economics! What policies or decisions do you attribute this slow growth to? Be as specific as you can and cite sources.

Don't retreat to your safe room, back up what you said.

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah Rudder, I'm making almost twice as much as I was in 2008. Own my home, my retirement is YUUGE, and my wife even got a full time job who couldn't find work for years. Why you conservatives so lazy and sucking off the government teet...

 

[Texashiker]

American prosperity these days is very much built on using intl labor to do the shittier jobs. .

Then be ready to pay higher taxes to support people on welfare.

We need those crappier jobs so the uneducated and unskilled can contribute something to the economy. If someone can use a screwdriver then they can assemble parts.

Would you rather have someone sitting at home on welfare, or putting together iphones?

I like to think shitty people don't get jobs.

Listening to the right, most people don't have jobs because they are lazy, dumb, or sucking the government teat. Which category do you fall into?

I am in none of those categories. I live in a rural area.

 

[ivwshane]

Then be ready to pay higher taxes to support people on welfare.

We need those crappier jobs so the uneducated and unskilled can contribute something to the economy. If someone can use a screwdriver then they can assemble parts.

Would you rather have someone sitting at home on welfare, or putting together iphones?




I am in none of those categories. I live in a rural area.

Then according to the right you don't exist.