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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
I laugh every time I hear this argument. The millennial generation is larger than the baby boomer generation. There are more millennials hitting the market than there are baby boomers leaving the market. The overall labor participation should be rising. The fact that it's not is why we have this overwhelming consensus that we're still in a depression. Young people are strong supporters of Bernie because he's saying everything is shit. Hillbot is saying everything is awesome, which is absolutely true if you're ultra rich like she is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration/

Uhmm, what? If more millennials are joining the labor force than boomers who are leaving it that means that all else equal labor force participation would decline as you would have more people competing for the same number of jobs. Saying 'labor force participation rate should go up because the denominator is increasing!' has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in awhile. In short, you probably shouldn't be laughing, haha.

Mathematical ineptitude aside, people who are of retirement age are increasing as a proportion of the over 16 labor force numbers. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to understand when the labor force is made up of a greater percentage of people who tend not to work, the participation rate goes down.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,583
29,285
136
I laugh every time I hear this argument. The millennial generation is larger than the baby boomer generation. There are more millennials hitting the market than there are baby boomers leaving the market. The overall labor participation should be rising. The fact that it's not is why we have this overwhelming consensus that we're still in a depression. Young people are strong supporters of Bernie because he's saying everything is shit. Hillbot is saying everything is awesome, which is absolutely true if you're ultra rich like she is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration/
Link to "Hillbot" saying everything is awesome?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
But, obviously, not a while before you can make incorrect comments on it. Maybe you should reflect on that point.
But regardless of this particular report, we both know that's the underlying reality. Hell, it's practically the point of the Democrat Party today - all the good jobs are gone so you need government to take care of you.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
The decline in wages and loss of certain high-paying jobs is regardless of trade; since weak wage growth is universally agreed to have started in the late 70's and hasn't stopped since, and since China and India were certainly not nearly big enough trade partners in the late 70's, 80's and much of the 90's, it defies reason to attribute weak wage growth to trade. There's not enough trade statistically for it to have the impact you believe it has had. In fact, for those workers where trade *does* disproportionately hurt their prospects (certain manufacturing positions), the bigger problem for them is actually things like not retraining themselves, or believing they can make substantial enough money with a HS degree or believing 1950's skills will suffice in a 21st century economy. China trade imbalance or WTO violations is the least of their problems.

And besides, most well-paying jobs can't be outsourced by trade, most prominently real estate and construction, healthcare and assisted living and many professional services like investment banking, legal services, etc. Those jobs are FAR more likely to be disrupted by technology like AI than cross-border activity.

Give up the ghost on trade bogeymen, it's weak and false for a vast majority of American workers.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
But regardless of this particular report, we both know that's the underlying reality. Hell, it's practically the point of the Democrat Party today - all the good jobs are gone so you need government to take care of you.

There's a price to be paid for worshipping at the altar of the free market financialized international job creators. They are not benevolent Gods.

The rest of what you offer is the usual false characterization, of course.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Gawd. Nafta was signed by GHWB before he left office, needing only ratification by Congress, not Clinton. Just an inconvenient fact for you, obviously. Manufacturing employment didn't take a nosedive until the GWB years. Manufacturing output has actually gone up as employment fell, indicating that automation is a helluva lot bigger factor than offshoring. It can be no other way.

It wasn't the law that allowed the bankers to blow up the economy but rather preaching the ownership society from the bully pulpit & ridiculously lax regulation by the Bushistas.

Oh, yeh- with Doom!, of course.
Stop spreading bullshit.

In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed]

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
If conservatives are arguing this then they are wrong. You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking under both U5 and U6. As a way to look at relative improvement over time both U5 and U6 have dramatically declined in recent years, indicating significant economic improvement.

This is incorrect. The BLS defines U5 and U6 with the term "Marginally Attached". I think you are confusing what those definitions mean. For someone to be included in U5, U6 they must have looked for a job in the last 12 months, but not the prior 4 weeks before the survey.

You can see the definition of U5 and U6 as explained by the BLS here.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

You can find the definition of "Marginally Attached" here.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#unemployed_persons

U5 and U6 are attempts to capture Discouraged workers that would normally be lost. You would only be included in those if you had looked for work in the past 4 weeks

Discouraged workers -
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.

This would not include people that are not looking because they feel like its a bad time to enter the market. It will only capture those who think there are not jobs open for them, or that they would not qualify for the ones open. It will not include many for different reasons.

Marginally attached workers -
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.

Will not include those who are outside of the 4 week window. Not sure where you got your definitions from, but this is from the BLS.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Uhmm, what? If more millennials are joining the labor force than boomers who are leaving it that means that all else equal labor force participation would decline as you would have more people competing for the same number of jobs. Saying 'labor force participation rate should go up because the denominator is increasing!' has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in awhile. In short, you probably shouldn't be laughing, haha.
After seeing that you are wrong, you've decided to move the goalposts. Initially, democrats like yourself claimed that jobs are plentiful, there's a job for every young person who wants one (unemployment rate around 5%), and the labor participation is falling because more people are retiring than coming of age. As it turns out, the exact opposite is true. There are more millennials than boomers. The number of people entering the labor force is greater than the number of people voluntarily leaving the labor force (retiring). If there is 1 boomer leaving the labor force and being replaced by 2 millennials who both get jobs because the economy is doing great, that means the number of jobs divided by the number of people is increasing. By your own claim about boomers retiring, the labor participation should be rising. It's not. It's going down because Obama's economy is dog shit. Boomers are retiring and they are being replaced with nothing. We have an entire generation of people who either don't have jobs or they only have part time jobs, and they can't afford to live on their own. All of the data is pointing in the direction of us being in a depression.
-Falling labor participation among working age adults because there are no entry level jobs.
-Rising labor participation among retirement age adults because they can no longer afford to retire.
-Drastically reduced household formation.
-Home ownership at its lowest in 40 years.
-Rise of extreme political candidates.
-Growing hatred of capitalism.
-Exploding child poverty.

While you were moving the goalposts, you accidentally admitted the economy is god awfu.
fskimospy said:
more people competing for the same number of jobs.
So you're saying there's no job growth? Thanks for agreeing with me.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
This is incorrect. The BLS defines U5 and U6 with the term "Marginally Attached". I think you are confusing what those definitions mean. For someone to be included in U5, U6 they must have looked for a job in the last 12 months, but not the prior 4 weeks before the survey.

You can see the definition of U5 and U6 as explained by the BLS here.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

You can find the definition of "Marginally Attached" here.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#unemployed_persons

U5 and U6 are attempts to capture Discouraged workers that would normally be lost. You would only be included in those if you had looked for work in the past 4 weeks

Discouraged workers -
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify.

This would not include people that are not looking because they feel like its a bad time to enter the market. It will only capture those who think there are not jobs open for them, or that they would not qualify for the ones open. It will not include many for different reasons.

Marginally attached workers -
Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.

Will not include those who are outside of the 4 week window. Not sure where you got your definitions from, but this is from the BLS.

I'm sorry but this is badly wrong.

My definitions are from BLS and you are actually proving me correct. I only use definitions from the BLS when we talk about unemployment, by the way. That's what I was doing in my original response to you.

If you read the definitions the BLS is giving you more closely you'll see what I mean. The defining difference between U4 and U5 (and then U6) is the inclusion of marginally attached workers. In the description of 'marginally attached workers' the part that you bolded said that they would not be counted as unemployed because they had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks. It does not mean you would not be counted in U5 and U6 if you had not looked in the last 4 weeks, but that you would not be counted in the BLS definition of unemployed which is this:

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Now if you go back and look at table A-15 that you linked you'll see that 'unemployed' is actually one of the subsets that is included in U1-U6. It is a specific classification of a type of person lacking full time employment, it is not a description of all the people in the table. You are most certainly included in U5 and U6 if you have not searched for work in the past 4 weeks, in fact that's the entire point. It even says so in the definitions you linked. It's talking about what EXTRA is being included.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
After seeing that you are wrong, you've decided to move the goalposts. Initially, democrats like yourself claimed that jobs are plentiful, there's a job for every young person who wants one (unemployment rate around 5%), and the labor participation is falling because more people are retiring than coming of age. As it turns out, the exact opposite is true. There are more millennials than boomers.

Uhmm, after embarrassing yourself with math that a third grader could understand you're going to double down? Who ever said there was a job for every young person who wants one? Regardless, that's an entirely separate issue from you not understanding fractions.

Regardless, no one ever said that more people are retiring than are coming of age, that would be an entirely separate issue and one that is totally irrelevant. Do you understand how labor force participation works? The important part is that there are a greater proportion of people of retirement age in the cohort of all people 16 and over today than there was a year ago or 10 years ago or whatever. That is what is driving a declining labor force participation rate, not more people retiring than people coming into the work force. (that in fact would increase the participation rate. Again, fractions.)

The number of people entering the labor force is greater than the number of people voluntarily leaving the labor force (retiring). If there is 1 boomer leaving the labor force and being replaced by 2 millennials who both get jobs because the economy is doing great, that means the number of jobs divided by the number of people is increasing.

This is a nonsensical statement. The number of jobs available does not depend on the number of people in the labor force (at least not directly).

By your own claim about boomers retiring, the labor participation should be rising. It's not. It's going down because Obama's economy is dog shit. Boomers are retiring and they are being replaced with nothing. We have an entire generation of people who either don't have jobs or they only have part time jobs, and they can't afford to live on their own. All of the data is pointing in the direction of us being in a depression.
-Falling labor participation among working age adults because there are no entry level jobs.
-Rising labor participation among retirement age adults because they can no longer afford to retire.
-Drastically reduced household formation.
-Home ownership at its lowest in 40 years.
-Rise of extreme political candidates.
-Growing hatred of capitalism.
-Exploding child poverty.

Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the straw man that people who think the economy is performing decently well means that literally any person who wants a job can get one. This is a stupid argument that no one has ever made. There has been a great deal of job growth since 2009, but not enough to entirely offset the effects of the financial crash.

All that aside, you've basically countered with about a dozen different random accusations to avoid admitting you said something stupid. All I said to you was to point out the basic mathematical failure of your other post. You said that because the millennial generation was larger than the boomer generation that labor force participation should increase. This is a facially stupid thing to say. Basic math: increase the denominator, decrease the proportion. Don't try to argue otherwise in the future.

While you were moving the goalposts, you accidentally admitted the economy is god awfu.

So you're saying there's no job growth? Thanks for agreeing with me.

Of course not, any sane person with access to the internet knows there has been significant job growth over the past 8 years. If you're disputing that then you're a BLS truther which means you're either stupid or nuts. Either way there's no point in arguing with you. We should all expect declining labor force participation in the mid term. If you disagree, please write letters to the BLS, CBO, and a host of other agencies filled with exceptionally qualified economic analysts and tell them why they are wrong. lol.
 

openwheel

Platinum Member
Apr 30, 2012
2,044
17
81
After seeing that you are wrong, you've decided to move the goalposts. Initially, democrats like yourself claimed that jobs are plentiful, there's a job for every young person who wants one (unemployment rate around 5%), and the labor participation is falling because more people are retiring than coming ............

wow, someone needs to go back to Econ 101, or retake high school math. WTF are you smoking here?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I'm sorry but this is badly wrong.

My definitions are from BLS and you are actually proving me correct. I only use definitions from the BLS when we talk about unemployment, by the way. That's what I was doing in my original response to you.

If you read the definitions the BLS is giving you more closely you'll see what I mean. The defining difference between U4 and U5 (and then U6) is the inclusion of marginally attached workers. In the description of 'marginally attached workers' the part that you bolded said that they would not be counted as unemployed because they had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks. It does not mean you would not be counted in U5 and U6 if you had not looked in the last 4 weeks, but that you would not be counted in the BLS definition of unemployed which is this:



Now if you go back and look at table A-15 that you linked you'll see that 'unemployed' is actually one of the subsets that is included in U1-U6. It is a specific classification of a type of person lacking full time employment, it is not a description of all the people in the table. You are most certainly included in U5 and U6 if you have not searched for work in the past 4 weeks, in fact that's the entire point. It even says so in the definitions you linked. It's talking about what EXTRA is being included.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

"The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks. This concept has been thoroughly reviewed and validated since the inception of the CPS in 1940. The other measures are provided to data users and analysts who want more narrowly (U-1 and U-2) or broadly (U-4 through U-6) defined measure."

"Definitions for the economic characteristics underlying the three broader measures of labor underutilization are worth mentioning here. Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers."

In no way is what you are saying correct. The BLS is explicit about their definition. The difference that U4, 5, and 6 capture are Discouraged and marginally attached. They must have looked for work in the past 12 months to fall into these categories. The difference is just the reasons given, but they must have looked for work in the past 12 months. They are not considered unemployed, but fall in the underutilization.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

"The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks. This concept has been thoroughly reviewed and validated since the inception of the CPS in 1940. The other measures are provided to data users and analysts who want more narrowly (U-1 and U-2) or broadly (U-4 through U-6) defined measure."

"Definitions for the economic characteristics underlying the three broader measures of labor underutilization are worth mentioning here. Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers."

In no way is what you are saying correct. The BLS is explicit about their definition. The difference that U4, 5, and 6 capture are Discouraged and marginally attached. They must have looked for work in the past 12 months to fall into these categories. The difference is just the reasons given, but they must have looked for work in the past 12 months. They are not considered unemployed, but fall in the underutilization.

I'm genuinely confused here because this is the second time you have confirmed what I said and it's entirely correct. I use BLS data frequently so I'm very familiar with how the terms work.

Are you trying to make the argument that you don't consider U4-U6 to be measures of unemployment but instead measures of labor underutilization? If so that's an incredibly pedantic argument as U1 through U6 are routinely referred to as the different unemployment rates. Why would you waste both of our time with that?

More importantly it bears no relationship to what conservatives actually argue, which is that the true state of US unemployment is understated by the government. If U5 and U6 account for this and are explicitly released every month it's not being understated, it's being flat out stated. If the argument is that those individuals should be reclassified as 'unemployed' then you're simply destroying the nuance that the BLS is trying to capture and making the reports less informative, which would be stupid.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I'm genuinely confused here because this is the second time you have confirmed what I said and it's entirely correct. I use BLS data frequently so I'm very familiar with how the terms work.

Are you trying to make the argument that you don't consider U4-U6 to be measures of unemployment but instead measures of labor underutilization? If so that's an incredibly pedantic argument as U1 through U6 are routinely referred to as the different unemployment rates. Why would you waste both of our time with that?

More importantly it bears no relationship to what conservatives actually argue, which is that the true state of US unemployment is understated by the government. If U5 and U6 account for this and are explicitly released every month it's not being understated, it's being flat out stated. If the argument is that those individuals should be reclassified as 'unemployed' then you're simply destroying the nuance that the BLS is trying to capture and making the reports less informative, which would be stupid.

You said this...

"If conservatives are arguing this then they are wrong. You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking under both U5 and U6."

That is not true. In U5 and 6 you would only be counted if you had looked in the last 12 months instead of the standard 4 weeks. Its just an extension of the time frame. My point is that there are many people who have not been looking for long enough to not be counted even with the 12 month extension. The argument that is being made by those on the right is that there are a bunch of people that are not looking and have not been looking for more than 12 months, so looking at unemployment and or underutilization would not capture the true situation. That is why they reference the labor participation rate, which is everyone that is either employed or unemployed. If a large section is not in either of those groups, that could be a problem.

Either way, U5 and 6 do not include people who are not working and are not looking if they are beyond 12 months.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
You said this...

"If conservatives are arguing this then they are wrong. You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking under both U5 and U6."

That is not true. In U5 and 6 you would only be counted if you had looked in the last 12 months instead of the standard 4 weeks. Its just an extension of the time frame. My point is that there are many people who have not been looking for long enough to not be counted even with the 12 month extension. The argument that is being made by those on the right is that there are a bunch of people that are not looking and have not been looking for more than 12 months, so looking at unemployment and or underutilization would not capture the true situation. That is why they reference the labor participation rate, which is everyone that is either employed or unemployed. If a large section is not in either of those groups, that could be a problem.

Okay so you are no longer arguing the pedantic point of whether U5 and U6 are 'unemployed?' Thank you.

As for capturing the 'true situation' with the labor force participation rate, this would be a large mistake. There is no one number to look at to understand the employment situation and to preference the labor force participation rate would mean that you would elect to count people in high school and in nursing homes as opposed to missing someone who hasn't looked for work in five years for the sake of accuracy? That would be even less accurate.

In addition, labor force participation rate is heavily influenced by demographic factors, unlike unemployment rates. Labor force participation can and will change based on demographic trends that have nothing to do with the overall employment situation.

The conservative arguments I have seen have generally been of the conspiracy theorist type where the government is trying to trick people into thinking the economy is better. If you're saying they want to use labor force participation as a preferred metric then they are simply incompetent as it does not directly measure what they want to measure.

Either way, U5 and 6 do not include people who are not working and are not looking if they are beyond 12 months.

No more pedantry, ok?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Okay so you are no longer arguing the pedantic point of whether U5 and U6 are 'unemployed?' Thank you.

As for capturing the 'true situation' with the labor force participation rate, this would be a large mistake. There is no one number to look at to understand the employment situation and to preference the labor force participation rate would mean that you would elect to count people in high school and in nursing homes as opposed to missing someone who hasn't looked for work in five years for the sake of accuracy? That would be even less accurate.

In addition, labor force participation rate is heavily influenced by demographic factors, unlike unemployment rates. Labor force participation can and will change based on demographic trends that have nothing to do with the overall employment situation.

The conservative arguments I have seen have generally been of the conspiracy theorist type where the government is trying to trick people into thinking the economy is better. If you're saying they want to use labor force participation as a preferred metric then they are simply incompetent as it does not directly measure what they want to measure.



No more pedantry, ok?


What are you talking about? Someone asked why labor participation rate going up would be a concern. I explained why. You then jumped in saying "You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking". That statement is not that you might be included, its that you will be included. That is wrong. The argument is that many are not counted because there are many who have stopped looking for more than 12 months, and are not things like students, or people retiring. He asked for the reasoning and I gave it. You jumped in and said something that anyone could see was flawed. It is 100% true that we could have 0% unemployment and have a horrible economy if the labor participation rate was 5%. That is not our situation by any means, but my post was fully accurate. Why did you feel the need to try and correct something that was not correct?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
What are you talking about? Someone asked why labor participation rate going up would be a concern. I explained why. You then jumped in saying "You are most certainly counted as unemployed if you do not have a job and are not looking". That statement is not that you might be included, its that you will be included. That is wrong. The argument is that many are not counted because there are many who have stopped looking for more than 12 months, and are not things like students, or people retiring. He asked for the reasoning and I gave it. You jumped in and said something that anyone could see was flawed. It is 100% true that we could have 0% unemployment and have a horrible economy if the labor participation rate was 5%. That is not our situation by any means, but my post was fully accurate. Why did you feel the need to try and correct something that was not correct?

You said if you don't have a job and are not looking you are not unemployed. Not that you may not be counted, but that you are not counted. This is wrong, and is a considerably worse definition of the term than anything I wrote. It is only accurate under the most pedantic possible definition of unemployed and one that is basically never used in conversation like this. You gave no qualifications like 'more than four weeks but fewer than 12 months', you just said they weren't counted. Then of all things you tried to come back on my correction instead of just saying you got it wrong.

And the worst part is that the fact remains that if conservatives are in fact saying what you described they are either buying into conspiracy theories, being pedants attempting to deceive people, or are committed to preferential treatment of an obviously stupid way to measure unemployment. So are they nuts, liars, or stupid?

Unless you meant that you were describing an opinion that you disagreed with and simply neglected to mention that fact there's no way what you wrote wasn't bad. You're a smart guy but this argument is really stupid.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Of course it wouldn't have always been 10/12 or 12/12. That would be assuming that the size and composition of our labor force is static and it most certainly is not. In fact, that was the whole point of my example, which seems to have escaped you.
Your example was not representative of the real world though, as usual. 16 year olds aren't brought in to replace seasoned workers retiring from senior positions. 16 year olds enter the labor force generally in entry level positions.

The people replacing positions of retiring workers would be qualified workers already in the labor force, or previously unemployed seeking those jobs.

Of course the labor force isn't static, just your example citing just 10 people just didn't make any real sense.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I didn't bother reading this thread because such topics are invariably predictable, but it's worth explaining the situation conservatives currently find themselves in.

They've been predicting doom ever since that communist kenyan muslim took office, and even though it's rather clear that things aren't going anywhere with a centrist in office they've managed to corner themselves into increasing desperate & delusional positions to avoid admitting everything turned out alright.

When clinton wins on a similar status quo platform it'll be more of this stubborn stupidity. For some perspective, this is how some seniors turn increasing crotchety and disconnected from real life.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
wow, someone needs to go back to Econ 101, or retake high school math. WTF are you smoking here?
I'm not sure why you guys are having such a hard time with this.

Let's assume all young people have jobs and all baby boomers are retired. Let's start with 2 humans and see where this goes.
1 millennial turns 16, 1 boomer turns 65 -> 1/2 have jobs = 50% labor participation
2 millennials, 2 boomers -> 2/4 have jobs = 50% labor participation
So far, we see that labor partition remains the same if the size of the young generation reaching maturity matches the size of the retiring generation. What happens if there are more young people than retiring people?
Millennials outnumber baby boomers. There are more people entering the job market and presumably getting jobs (or so democrats claim) than there are baby boomers retiring. This time, we'll add 2 happily employed millennials and 1 retiring boomer to account for this difference.
4 millennials, 3 boomers -> 4/7 have jobs = 57% labor participation
Let's do that again. Add 2 young people with jobs, add 1 boomer retiring.
6 millennials, 4 boomers -> 6/10 have jobs = 60% labor participation

Do you see how that works? Now add in the fact that labor participation among people over 55 is rising steadily, meaning those boomers are not retiring as soon as they hit 65, so their effect on lowering the participation rate is reduced. The falling labor participation must be caused by something else - a horrific job market. It's young people who are dropping out of the labor force at a record pace.

Since math is your not strong point, we can always just ask the BLS for their numbers. What are prime age Americans doing these days?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
From the year 2004 to 2014:
16 to 24: dropped from 61.1% to 55.0% (drop of 610 basis points)
25 to 54: dropped from 82.8% to 80.9% (drop of 190 basis points)

So there you have it. You can lie all day about demographics but this is an apples to apples comparison. Working age Americans compared to the same age bracket 10 years later. It's a disaster. This is why young people live in the basement. This is why young people have so much free time to invent 30 different genders and bully NASA scientists until they cry on TV. This is what mass unemployment looks like.
The falling labor participation associated with increased university attendance is also in full agreement with us being in a depression because university is countercyclical. People go to university where there are no other options. Those ads on TV don't target people making 6 figures during a strong economy. They target poor people who are looking for any way out of poverty.
That little fact is something I'll always remember because it's exactly what I did. I went back to university for a second degree because the first career didn't pan out. If my first career was a stunning success, I would have stuck with it.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
The decline in wages and loss of certain high-paying jobs is regardless of trade; since weak wage growth is universally agreed to have started in the late 70's and hasn't stopped since, and since China and India were certainly not nearly big enough trade partners in the late 70's, 80's and much of the 90's, it defies reason to attribute weak wage growth to trade. There's not enough trade statistically for it to have the impact you believe it has had. In fact, for those workers where trade *does* disproportionately hurt their prospects (certain manufacturing positions), the bigger problem for them is actually things like not retraining themselves, or believing they can make substantial enough money with a HS degree or believing 1950's skills will suffice in a 21st century economy. China trade imbalance or WTO violations is the least of their problems.

And besides, most well-paying jobs can't be outsourced by trade, most prominently real estate and construction, healthcare and assisted living and many professional services like investment banking, legal services, etc. Those jobs are FAR more likely to be disrupted by technology like AI than cross-border activity.

Give up the ghost on trade bogeymen, it's weak and false for a vast majority of American workers.

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.

U.S. Corporations Opposing New Rights for Chinese Workers
By The Global Labor Strategies Blog
The New York Times reported on its front page today that US-based corporations are fighting a proposed Chinese law that seeks to protect workers’ rights. The law is “setting off a battle with American and other foreign corporations that have lobbied against it by hinting that they may build fewer factories here.”

The Times reports that Global Labor Strategies, a group that supports labor rights policies, is releasing a report in New York and Boston “denouncing American corporations for opposing legislation that would give Chinese workers stronger rights.”

“‘You have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms,” said Tim Costello, an official of the group and a longtime labor union advocate. “This flies in the face of the idea that globalization and corporations will raise standards around the world.’”

The Times article drew heavily on the Global Labor Strategies report, Beyond the Great Wall: U.S. Corporations Opposing New Rights for Chinese Workers which was released today.

According to the report, US-based global corporations like Wal-Mart, Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel, acting through US business organizations like the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the US-China Business Council, are actively lobbying against the new labor legislation. They are also threatening that foreign corporations will withdraw from China if it is passed.

China’s Draft Labor Contract Law would provide minimal standards that are commonplace in many other countries, such as enforceable labor contracts, severance pay regulations, and negotiations over workplace policies and procedures. The Chinese government is supporting these reforms in part as a response to rising labor discontent.

Corporate opposition to the law is designed to maintain the status quo in Chinese labor relations. This includes low wages, extreme poverty, denial of basic rights and minimum standards, lack of health and safety protections, and an absence of any legal contract for many employees.

According to Beyond the Great Wall, the proposed legislation will not eliminate Chinese labor problems. It will not provide Chinese workers with the right to independent trade unions with leaders of their own choosing and the right to strike. But foreign corporations are attacking the legislation not because it provides workers too little protection, but because it provides them too much. Indeed, the proposed law may well encourage workers to organize to demand the enforcement of the rights it offers.

This corporate campaign contradicts the justifications that have been given for public policies that encourage corporations to invest in China. US based corporations have repeatedly argued that they are raising human and labor rights standards abroad. For example, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong asserts among its “universal principles” that “American business plays an important role as a catalyst for positive social change by promoting human welfare and guaranteeing to uphold the dignity of the worker and set positive examples for their remuneration, treatment, health and safety.” But US based corporations are trying to block legislation designed to improve the remuneration, treatment, health and safety, and other standards of Chinese workers.

At a time when China exerts a growing impact on the global economy, efforts to improve the conditions of Chinese workers are profoundly important for workers everywhere. As U.S. wages stagnate, many Americans worry that low wages and labor standards in China are driving down those in America. Improving labor conditions in China can help workers in the rest of the world resist a “race to the bottom” that threatens to bring wages and conditions worldwide down to the level of the least protected. The opposition of corporations to minimum standards for Chinese workers should be of concern to workers and their political and trade union representatives throughout the world.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
Your example was not representative of the real world though, as usual. 16 year olds aren't brought in to replace seasoned workers retiring from senior positions. 16 year olds enter the labor force generally in entry level positions.

The people replacing positions of retiring workers would be qualified workers already in the labor force, or previously unemployed seeking those jobs.

Of course the labor force isn't static, just your example citing just 10 people just didn't make any real sense.

Oh Jesus. Of course the 16 year olds don't replace retiring workers. Other older workers do though and then the younger ones replace them and so on. So yes, it makes perfect sense.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,431
136
I'm not sure why you guys are having such a hard time with this.

Let's assume all young people have jobs and all baby boomers are retired. Let's start with 2 humans and see where this goes.
1 millennial turns 16, 1 boomer turns 65 -> 1/2 have jobs = 50% labor participation
2 millennials, 2 boomers -> 2/4 have jobs = 50% labor participation
So far, we see that labor partition remains the same if the size of the young generation reaching maturity matches the size of the retiring generation. What happens if there are more young people than retiring people?
Millennials outnumber baby boomers. There are more people entering the job market and presumably getting jobs (or so democrats claim) than there are baby boomers retiring. This time, we'll add 2 happily employed millennials and 1 retiring boomer to account for this difference.
4 millennials, 3 boomers -> 4/7 have jobs = 57% labor participation
Let's do that again. Add 2 young people with jobs, add 1 boomer retiring.
6 millennials, 4 boomers -> 6/10 have jobs = 60% labor participation

Do you see how that works? Now add in the fact that labor participation among people over 55 is rising steadily, meaning those boomers are not retiring as soon as they hit 65, so their effect on lowering the participation rate is reduced. The falling labor participation must be caused by something else - a horrific job market. It's young people who are dropping out of the labor force at a record pace.

Since math is your not strong point, we can always just ask the BLS for their numbers. What are prime age Americans doing these days?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
From the year 2004 to 2014:
16 to 24: dropped from 61.1% to 55.0% (drop of 610 basis points)
25 to 54: dropped from 82.8% to 80.9% (drop of 190 basis points)

So there you have it. You can lie all day about demographics but this is an apples to apples comparison. Working age Americans compared to the same age bracket 10 years later. It's a disaster. This is why young people live in the basement. This is why young people have so much free time to invent 30 different genders and bully NASA scientists until they cry on TV. This is what mass unemployment looks like.
The falling labor participation associated with increased university attendance is also in full agreement with us being in a depression because university is countercyclical. People go to university where there are no other options. Those ads on TV don't target people making 6 figures during a strong economy. They target poor people who are looking for any way out of poverty.
That little fact is something I'll always remember because it's exactly what I did. I went back to university for a second degree because the first career didn't pan out. If my first career was a stunning success, I would have stuck with it.

Again, all predicated on the bullshit idea that anyone has argued that every new entrant to the workforce is able to find a job. Also, nobody said the entirety of the labor force participation rate decline was due to demographics.

Nobody is falling for it. You either don't understand basic math, don't know how to read economics data, or you were trying to lie to people. Your choice!
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You said if you don't have a job and are not looking you are not unemployed. Not that you may not be counted, but that you are not counted. This is wrong, and is a considerably worse definition of the term than anything I wrote. It is only accurate under the most pedantic possible definition of unemployed and one that is basically never used in conversation like this. You gave no qualifications like 'more than four weeks but fewer than 12 months', you just said they weren't counted. Then of all things you tried to come back on my correction instead of just saying you got it wrong.

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.

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.

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.

And the worst part is that the fact remains that if conservatives are in fact saying what you described they are either buying into conspiracy theories, being pedants attempting to deceive people, or are committed to preferential treatment of an obviously stupid way to measure unemployment. So are they nuts, liars, or stupid?

Unless you meant that you were describing an opinion that you disagreed with and simply neglected to mention that fact there's no way what you wrote wasn't bad. You're a smart guy but this argument is really stupid.

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.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |