Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Kid~Brady, Dec 7, 2012.
Unemployment rate drops to 7.7% as economy shrugs off Hurricane Sandy - The Washington Post
This is BAD! Verrrrrrrrrry Baaaaaaad!
WHAT? Whaddaya mean I don't have a say in anything anymore? I'm the President!
As predicted the nattering nabobs of negativity all contributed their fair share.. ain't it awful..
Only the right can successfully hijack good news and turn it into something really bad...
Remember all those who claimed that the numbers were played with before the election, and right after the election the numbers would go way, way, way up??????
If you were wicked smaht like some of us, you'd realize this isn't really good news at all.
So, tell us again what the good news is?
Let's talk labor force participation rates and whole numbers, rates first. The rates count the ratio of people participating in the labor force over the age of 16. There is no maximum age for labor force participation.
Participation rates have been decreasing since the outset of the ahem recent unpleasantness. I have no argument with you about that. Now then: Social Security has found a huge increase in early filing (62 year olds). Obviously that's caused by discouraged worker effects overwhelming the well-established increasing retirement age behaviors also documented since the mid-80s.
Participation rate, November to November, year over year:
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So, the delta between '11 and '12 is .4; the delta between '08 and '09 was .8. Prior to '08, the rates were fairly stagnant. They bounced around, but went from 66.4 in '02 to 66.0 in '07.
Well, then, there certainly could have been no relevant change in employment. It must all be accounted for in the stepped down workforce participation rate.
Unless, of course, age cohorts -- people in the workforce by year of birth -- change in any way from year to year. It would have to be a big change, of course, between the size of age cohorts.
I wonder if there's one of them around?
Well, let's see. For this age cohort, full social security retirement age is 65, and early social security retirement is 62. So if there were a significant effect from this group retiring and therefore leaving the workforce, you'd have to posit a large increase in birthrates from about the mid-40s onward. That would mean a disproportionate impact in the labor participation rates independent of current occurences, although magnified by said occurences. You would need that disproportionate increase so that the proportionate change would be larger than if stable generational cohorts were simply providing a straight-line retirement -- in other words, no change to the rate, just a change to the number.
It so happens that that describes exactly what happened to age cohorts born in the mid 40s in reality. Our present labor-rate participation corresponds exactly to what we would expect to happen regardless of the health of the economy.
Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year — Infoplease.com
Birth cohorts prior to 1945 -- Cohorts retiring in 2005 and 2000, using 65 as retirement age -- were 2.36 million and 2.15 million, respectively. The cohort retiring in 1946 -- the leading edge of the boom, retiring in 2011 -- was 3.47 million. By 1947 (the ones retiring at normal age in 2012) the number was 3.9 million. We're talking about a change of a million normal retirees per year in 2011, and a change of a million and a half by 2012, from expected retirements in previously "normal" years.
Now, let's go to your "raw number of unemployed" delta of 13.7M in 2009 vs. 12M in 2012. Looks pretty stagnant. Wonder what the raw number in the labor force was?
2009 153.8 M
2012 155.3 M
So your unemployed number decreased by 1.7M. Your number of in the workforce increased by 1.5 M, also pretty stagnant. What does employment look like?
Graph: Total nonfarm payroll employment (seasonally adjusted)
2009 129.9 M
2012 133.9 M
That is to say that from November 2009 to November 2012, we've gained 4 million jobs.
So in comparative terms:
- You have a fairly stagnant unemployment number compared to 2009.
- You have a fairly stagnant workforce number compared to 2009.
- You have nearly three times the number of jobs created as increase in the labor force (we've identified one source of slow growth of the labor force, because we're bleeding off members of that baby boom cohort.)
- You have more than twice the increase in "newly employed" than you have decrease in unemployment -- again, talking about raw numbers.
So read the data over and think it over. I've gotten you the raw #s to work with. Sometimes we talk in general terms and forget that getting the right number has to be data driven, and the data to identify a 4-year trend have to span 4 years.
The head of the "ain't it awful crowd" weighs in with a familiar refrain... remember the predictions of a huge increase after the elections.. guess you forgot about that.
130,000 new jobs, despite a superstorm that wiped out a good chunk of the east coast, maybe?
The number of employed grew, despite the presence of the same number of unemployed. Do that ad infinitum, and one day 12 million is 4% unemployment. Obviously that's not the way you're trying to get there, but if you're looking at economic growth, a two-point drop per month in the unemployment numbers puts you at 2.4% over a year.
What are you going to complain about once unemployment is beneath the historical average? Still going to be ignoring a million or two more consumers who you can sell to... because the number you can't sell to decreased at a lower rate than you like?
Quit moving the goalposts.
If you want to be such a detail guy, then go find the data that shows jobs added by type. Heck, if you really want to go all the way on this, let's see if the jobs added are REAL jobs or are many of them part time.
BTW....Obama's adminstration recently changed the definition of full time jobs to be around 29 hours when in the past it had to be a miniumum of 32 hours/week.
How many of the jobs added are crappy jobs that require many to remain on gov't assistance vs full time jobs with good pay and benefits?
We know for a fact we aren't adding jobs in manufacturing or construction. Nor is the financial industry adding jobs. So where are these jobs being added? I wonder if many businesses have cut down hours of former full time employees so they all have less than 29 hours so they don't have to provide health insurance and just added more part time help.
Also, you need to factor in population growth into your break down below.
Here are some other facts a guy I know emailed to me.
Hours and Wages are down, lots of 29 hr per week $10 jobs whopee:
Job Quality Vs Quantity: Number Of Jobs vs Average Hourly Earnings | ZeroHedge
Number of employed people 25-54 back at 97 levels:
Number Of Workers Aged 25-54 Back To April 1997 Levels | ZeroHedge
People working instead of retiring 'working age' employment down millions from pre recession:
Chart Of The Day: Jobs "Additions" By Age Group Reveals The Scariest Picture | ZeroHedge
And yes, all the above are cold, hard FACTS. My point was that that not only is the unemployment rate going down MAINLY due to people leaving the workforce, but that the facts behind the total picture certainly is not "Good News".
Finally, our gov't had already forecasted the rate of baby boomers leaving the workforce long ago but they keep moving the goal posts and changing the formula to fit their agenda.
Yeahhhhhhh when people will take any job you offer, surprise surprise, the market's not paying top dollar.
However, if you examine the match of the workforce to the skillset we need, you'd rapidly adopt a preference for job retraining and more money in STEM education. You'd also advocate more lax immigration policies, and a general personal reevaluation by Americans of our xenophobic attitudes. Lots of jobs in the US are going begging because we don't have the technical skills to fill them.
Keep looking for that dark lining to the silver lining in the dark cloud. The sky, no doubt, is falling. Despite the fact that all the numbers say otherwise.
PS, I love how "Tyler Durden" in your little blog link posts an increase in the number of workers 55-69 with the title "people working instead of retiring."
The actual data I could find on this say the reverse: The discouraged worker effect was causing early social security claiming, pretty much a proxy for retirement.
What Ol' Tyler has done there is noticed that people aged 55-69 in general are increasing, reflected in an increase in the workforce size, measured against previous years. The pig moving through the python, old chap.
Tyler Durden has discovered that there was, in fact, a baby boom.
Bet he searched for ages 65-69 and realized that the numbers were the opposite of the scare chart he wanted.
Went to your Zero Hedge site and then googled this "fact" you posted without qualification, and damned if I can find it..
Perhaps you need to qualify what you state... facts help in a coherent, intelligent discussion..
Ain't it awful...
We're all living in historic times old chap! This is just like what parents told me about the Great Depression. But you gotta look at the bright side...how many people get to live through a depression?
I know, it really is awful...I agree!
Regarding the change in definition of part time workers....
Here ya go....take your pick!
Here's the good news on the employment picture in America.
â€˘Age 55 and up employment at the start of the recovery was 27,105,000
â€˘Age 55 and up employment is now 31,119,000
Gotta love those baby-boomers!
The bad news....
â€˘Employment in age group 25-54 was 94,167,000 in April 1997
â€˘Age 25-54 employment at the start of the recovery was 95,264,000
â€˘Age 25-54 employment is now 94,063,000
So workers younger than 55 aren't doing so well
Godda love those right wing blogs.
Right. We've established that there are, in fact, more baby boomers than Gen Xers. Something we've known for ooooh about what, 40 years now?
Now: there's an infamous problem with kids who've graduated during and just after the great recession -- for them, it still is a recession. Same's true for African Americans, for completely different reasons.
Your idiot blogger "Tyler Durden" has missed, however, that a pre-existing trend toward later retirement was derailed by a discouraged worker effect.
Who Claimed Social Security Early Due to the Great Recession? | Center for Retirement Research
From the key findings page:
If you'd dive into data rather than spin machines and think for yourself, you'd find that while the long-term trend in fact exists, the assumption by "Tyler Durden" is absolutely wrong. In the Great Recession, people weren't hanging on in the workforce longer. They were retiring in droves.
As to the more interesting and more long-term trend (later retirement):
As we destroy the infrastructure for a middle-class, independent cohort of retirees (e.g., slashing medicare or social security, or the continuing dismantlement of public and private defined benefit pensions,) we necessitate that baby boomers attempt to hang on in the workforce as long as possible.
Oh bully! Yay! Everybody has to work longer that'll teach 'em to pull their weight! Shoulda happened long ago!
Righhhhht. Well, those are jobs young people won't be getting, once the historical trend toward working longer reestablishes itself.
So that's a headwind we will have to face -- but it's not operative in what "Tyler Durden" claims is happening.
Rather, a very large cohort continues to move into the 55-and-older set.
You're following an idiot.
Ain't it awful, but your sources pertain to coverage for the Affordable Care Act, not for statistics related to BLS...
That is why I could not find it..
BTW 9 of the 10 hits from Google are all right wing partisan blogs...
I hate right wing blogs brah....mainly because I'm not a rightie....like you.
I don't identify with any chumly on the right or the left. Because they're all chumly's broh.
Thanks for playin' though....
Why do think businesses everywhere are cutting their employee's hours to under 30?
Separate names with a comma.