By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 04 May 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
thranx said:
theprof00 said:
so howbout that jobs report
220k+ per month jan, feb, march
160k+ per month oct, nov, dec


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/keeping-up-not-getting-ahead/?hp

 

 

"

This lack of progress has been obscured by the steady decline of the high-profile unemployment rate, which continued in April. But the unemployment rate is easily misunderstood. The government counts as unemployed only those who are actively looking for new jobs. As people have given up, the unemployment rate has declined – not because more people are working, but because more people have stopped looking for work.

The share of adults looking for work peaked at 6.4 percent of the population in 2010. It fell to 4.7 percent in April. But recall that over the same period, the share of adults with jobs did not change. What grew instead is the share of adults no longer counted as part of the labor force.  

(The unemployment rate also uses a different denominator than the employment rate: Workers plus searchers, rather than the entire population. For the sake of consistency and clarity, the figures in the previous paragraph show “unemployment” as a share of the entire population.)"

Thranx, and don't take this the wrong way, but in what way is it possible to prove that employment is going up, or unemployment down, and do you have data for it?

 


Particpation rate is generally what you are looking for.

 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

In general... What you aren't accounting for is new workers, along with people who have given up looking for work.

 

The US population is still growing... therefore even with increasing jobs and numbers.  In reality we are falling behind.

The only problem with your graph, is that it does not prove what thranx is saying.

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=labor+force+participation+rate

"When economists are concerned with full employment of the economy's resources they generally focus on the natural unemployment rate and the civilian labor force. However, the labor force participation rate is also important to the notion of production capabilities. While about 30 percent of the total noninstitutionalized civilian population (in the range of 60 million people) is either unwilling or unable to engage in productive activities, this group has the potential to enter the labor force."

In general, the labor force participation rate shows trends in society, not really a good measure of the actual labor force. For instance, it shows social changes, one could be more minorities entering higher education "

"The number of minority students grew 56 percent to 5.8 million"
http://diversity.ucsc.edu/resources/images/ace_report.pdf

and the exclusion of military jobs,

which has climbed since 2001. The labor force participation rate does not include military jobs.

But yes, I am accounting for new population. The problem is, if 250k jobs are required every month, and the 3 months before last were 160k, and the recent 3 were 220k, then 250k is right around the corner.

 

EDIT: Furthermore, how could economists all take the recent labor report as good and send stocks up over 1% total in all sectors, if the news was actually bad. I've looked at every chart on the BLS website, and you only choose to look at that one single chart. Well, you can feel free to address the topics I brought up individually if you'd like.

a) economists don't rely on the chart you use
b) That chart is, by expert opinion, used to identify trends in society (rather than use as a laborforce statistic)
c) Doesn't include growth in military personnel
d) Doesn't factor in higher minority enrollment in higher education